X (Recognition of Foreign Adoption)

Recognition of a foreign adoption under the common law requires satisfaction of the Re Valentine’s Settlement criteria. The court must be satisfied that the adopter was domiciled in the foreign country, the child was adopted lawfully under foreign law, the adoption has the essential characteristics of an English adoption, and no public-policy reason prevents recognition.

In deciding whether a foreign statutory residence requirement was met, the English court asks whether the conclusion reached by the foreign court was open to it on the evidence. Residence is fact-sensitive and may exist in more than one place.

X sought recognition of her Nigerian adoption of Z, made by the Nnewi Chief’s Magistrate Court on 28 December 2016. The application was brought under the inherent jurisdiction and opposed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department as intervener.

The adoption was made under the Anambra Child Rights Law 2004. The dispute narrowed to whether the statutory requirement that the adopter and child be resident in the same State was satisfied.

The application for recognition succeeded.

1. The court applied the four Re Valentine’s Settlement criteria: foreign domicile, lawful adoption under foreign law, essential equivalence with an English adoption, and absence of public-policy grounds for refusal.
2. Section 134(1)(b) of the Anambra Child Rights Law 2004 required residence in the same State. Residence was fact-sensitive and could involve permanence, continuity or an expectation of continuity. Family, cultural, residential and practical connections were relevant, and a person could reside in more than one place.
3. The question was whether it was open to the Nigerian court, on the evidence, to conclude that X was resident in Anambra State. It was. X had long-standing connections, a family home, regular planned visits, and continuing responsibilities there. The English court was not entitled to substitute its own view.
4. The omission of section 134(1)(b) and (c) from the summary note did not establish non-compliance. There was no prescribed form or requirement to give reasons. In any event, the order remained subsisting and was unlikely to be set aside.
5. It was unnecessary to determine the Article 8 arguments.