AMDK v NA

The common law permits recognition of a foreign adoption made outside applicable international conventions and statutory schemes. Recognition requires satisfaction of four criteria: the adopter was domiciled in the foreign country when the adoption was made; the adoption was legally valid under that country’s law; it has substantially the same essential characteristics as an English adoption; and no public-policy reason requires refusal. The court retains a residual discretion, but recognition should be granted where the criteria are satisfied and no sufficient reason for refusal exists. Recognition determines the status of the adoption in England and Wales; it does not determine whether immigration permission or entry to the United Kingdom must be granted.

The applicant, a British citizen and adoptive mother, sought recognition at common law of an adoption order made by the High Court of Uganda on 2 August 2018. The child had been abandoned in Uganda and her genetic parents had not been identified. The application was made so that the applicant could seek to bring the child to the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had notice but was neither present nor represented. The central issue was whether the Ugandan adoption satisfied the established criteria for recognition.

1. The court proceeded in the absence of the Secretary of State because she had received ample notice of the application and hearing. No inference was drawn from her non-engagement as to her position.
2. At common law the court has jurisdiction to recognise foreign adoptions, including adoptions made in countries outside the relevant conventions and statutory schemes. That jurisdiction is also implicit in Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 66(1)(e).
3. Following Re Valentine’s Settlement [1965] 1 Ch 831, and applying the summary in W v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1733 (Fam), recognition requires four criteria: domicile of the adopter in the foreign country at the time of adoption; legal adoption under the foreign law; substantially the same essential characteristics as an English adoption; and no public-policy reason for refusal.
4. The applicant was domiciled in Uganda when the adoption order was made. Her long residence, home, business, tax status, Ugandan citizenship and continuing intention to live there established a domicile of choice.
5. The Ugandan adoption complied with Ugandan law. The Ugandan judgment and expert evidence established that the relevant legal requirements had been satisfied. The adoption also had, in substance, the same essential characteristics as an English adoption.
6. No public-policy reason justified refusing recognition. Although the court had a residual discretion, there was no reason to exercise it against recognition.
7. The court declared that the Ugandan adoption of the child by the applicant, made on 2 August 2018, was recognised in England and Wales at common law with immediate effect. The declaration did not determine whether the child could enter or settle in the United Kingdom, which remained a matter for the Secretary of State.