A (Foreign Adoption Recognition)

Recognition of a foreign adoption under Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 66(1)(e), requires satisfaction of four matters: the adopters’ domicile in the foreign country; lawful adoption under foreign law; essential characteristics equivalent to an English adoption; and absence of a public policy reason to refuse recognition.

Public policy operates narrowly. Recognition should be refused only in exceptional circumstances, such as an immoral or mercenary purpose, or an abuse of process. Differences between foreign and English adoption procedures do not ordinarily justify refusing recognition of the status itself.

The applicants, grandparents of B, sought recognition of an adoption order made in the Philippines in 2006. B’s birth parents had consented, and the Philippine court had made the order following a social work assessment and other statutory procedures.

The application was made when B was aged 17. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was notified and maintained that recognition required rigorous scrutiny, particularly on public policy grounds and the alleged purpose of enabling B to live in the United Kingdom. The central issue was whether the requirements for recognition of a foreign adoption were satisfied.

1. The application for a declaration recognising the Philippine adoption was granted. The court applied the four requirements identified in Re N (Recognition of Foreign Adoption) [2016] EWHC 3085.
2. The applicants remained domiciled in the Philippines when the adoption was made. Mrs A’s employment in the United Kingdom did not establish a change of domicile because she retained strong connections with the Philippines and intended to return there permanently.
3. The adoption was obtained in accordance with Philippine law. The process was structured and rigorous, included social work assessment and legal procedures, and the expert evidence established compliance with the relevant statutory requirements.
4. The adoption had the essential characteristics of an English adoption. It was full, final and irrevocable, and terminated the rights of the biological parents.
5. There was no public policy reason to refuse recognition. The adoption was made for welfare-based reasons and there was no impermissible or ulterior purpose amounting to an abuse of process. The court accepted that the disputed reference to support in Mrs A’s statement concerned financial support and found no bad faith or intention to deceive.
6. The requirements for recognition were therefore met and the declaration sought should be made.