KK v FYC

For the purposes of dispensing with parental consent under section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the question whether a parent “cannot be found” must be approached proportionately. The court is not required to deploy unlimited resources or prolonged detective work where a parent has disappeared. The relevant question is whether reasonable and sufficiently thorough enquiries establish that the parent cannot now be traced. Where that condition is met, the court may dispense with consent and proceed to consider whether adoption is appropriate having regard to the child’s welfare and circumstances.

The applicants, a married couple, sought an adoption order in respect of a child who had lived exclusively with them since infancy. The child’s mother had left him in their care and returned to Pakistan. Extensive enquiries failed to locate either the mother or an identifiable father. The child was settled, thriving and wished to be adopted. The court had to determine whether parental consent could be dispensed with under section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and, if so, whether an adoption order should be made.

1. The statutory declaration made by the mother in 2005 did not constitute consent satisfying the requirements of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The court therefore had to decide whether consent should be dispensed with under section 52.
2. The phrase “cannot be found” in section 52(1) requires a proportionate approach. Even in the serious and final context of adoption, Parliament cannot have intended applicants or the court to pursue unlimited investigations, resources or detective work to locate a birth parent who has disappeared.
3. Thorough enquiries had been undertaken in Pakistan and elsewhere. The alleged father had denied paternity, and DNA testing excluded him as the child’s genetic father. The court was judicially satisfied, within section 52(1), that neither parent could be found. Consent could therefore be dispensed with.
4. On the merits, the child had been continuously and exclusively cared for by the applicants, was securely attached to them, was thriving in their care and clearly wished to be adopted. The reports of the social worker and guardian supported adoption.
5. The court accordingly made an adoption order in favour of the applicants.

First-instance decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.