Z (Recognition of Foreign Adoption: Refusal)

Recognition of a foreign adoption at common law depends on the four criteria in Re Valentine's Settlement: domicile of the adopter in the foreign country, lawful adoption under foreign law, the same essential characteristics as an English adoption, and no public-policy reason for refusal. The comparison concerns concept and substance, rather than process or safeguards. Best interests and similarity of process are not additional criteria, although they may arise under public policy. Recognition may also engage Article 8, but refusal is justified where the foreign order materially differs from an English adoption and an alternative domestic or immigration route is available.

The applicant sought recognition in England of an adoption order made in Iran concerning a child who had thrived in the placement. The Secretary of State for the Home Department opposed recognition, submitting that the Iranian order did not have the same essential characteristics as an English adoption because it did not extinguish the child’s legal relationship with the biological father and was more readily revocable. The child’s Guardian was neutral. The central issue was whether the Iranian order satisfied the common-law recognition criteria and, if not, whether refusal unjustifiably interfered with the Article 8 rights of the applicant and child.

1. The application was refused. The common-law framework remained the four criteria identified in Re Valentine's Settlement, which were binding and had to be applied without an additional best-interests or substantial-process requirement.

2. The domicile and foreign-law requirements were satisfied. The applicant’s domicile of origin remained in Iran when the adoption was made, and expert evidence established that the Iranian adoption had been lawfully completed.

3. The essential-characteristics requirement was not satisfied. An English adoption severs the legal relationship between the child and the biological parents and treats the child as if born to the adopters under ss 46(2) and 67(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The Iranian order did not extinguish the legal relationship with the biological father.

4. The Iranian revocation regime also materially differed. Under Article 25, revocation could follow matters such as breach of eligibility conditions or an application by biological relatives who established the legal requirements to care for the child. That was materially lower than the highly exceptional threshold applicable to revocation of an English adoption order.

5. Article 8 family life was established and refusal interfered with the applicant’s and child’s rights. The interference was nevertheless justified. Unlike QS v RS, an alternative remedy existed: the applicant could establish the required habitual residence and apply for a domestic adoption, while immigration proceedings would permit consideration of Article 8.

6. The court declined to recognise an Iranian order as having the effect of an English adoption where that would sever legal rights which remained intact in Iran and substantially alter the order’s intended legal effect.