The Prospective Adopters (AA AND BB) v CC

In an adoption application concerning an adult who reached 18 during the proceedings, the statutory welfare test continued to apply, but it had to be adapted to the applicant’s adult status. The court must assess welfare and proportionality in the context of the particular adoption. The stringent language used for opposed stranger adoptions does not automatically govern an adoption which formalises an established de facto family relationship, is supported by the adult and the birth parent, and leaves practical family life substantially unchanged. The adult’s informed wishes and feelings are entitled to very great weight, but remain part of the statutory welfare assessment rather than being independently determinative.

AA and BB applied for an adoption order in respect of DD, who had lived with them since 2011 and had been subject to their special guardianship order since 2013. DD was 18 when the application was issued and would turn 19 shortly after the hearing. Her birth mother, CC, consented. DD supported the application and wished the legal relationship with AA and BB to reflect her established family life.

The local authority took a neutral position. The Children’s Guardian opposed the application, relying on concerns about AA’s estrangement from his adult children, DD’s mental health, the quality of the assessment and the permanent effect of adoption. The central issues were how the statutory welfare test applied to an adult adoption, the relevance of the stringent principles in Re B and Re B-S (children), and the weight to be given to DD’s autonomous wishes.

1. Statutory framework. By virtue of sections 49(4), 49(5) and 47(9) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court could make an adoption order before DD’s 19th birthday notwithstanding that she had attained 18. The welfare requirements in section 1 remained applicable. The court’s paramount consideration was DD’s welfare throughout her adult life, and it had to consider the welfare checklist and whether making the order would be better for her than making no order.
2. Context and proportionality. The principles in Re B and Re B-S (children) were directed principally to opposed stranger adoptions involving the most severe interference with family life. Following the general approach explained in Re P (A Child), welfare and proportionality had to be assessed according to the particular context and the position occupied by the application on the spectrum of adoption interventions. The present application was materially different: DD was an adult, supported the order, CC consented, and AA and BB were her established psychological and de facto parents.
3. Wishes and feelings. DD’s wishes were consistent, informed and firmly held. They were not independently determinative, and the court was still required to consider the statutory checklist and countervailing welfare concerns. However, because DD was an autonomous adult capable of understanding the permanent legal consequences, her wishes and feelings were entitled to very great weight.
4. Application. The court gave limited weight to concerns founded on untested hearsay and inadequately explained opinions. There was no positive evidence that AA and BB had emotionally abused DD or caused her eating disorder. The existing family relationships, DD’s need for legal belonging and identity, the continuing support provided by AA and BB, and DD’s informed wishes outweighed the concerns raised.
5. Disposition. The adoption was a proportionate measure which would harmonise DD’s legal and de facto family relationships. The application was allowed and the adoption order was made.