H (Step-Parent Adoption: Human Rights), Re

Section 51(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 may be read under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so that a step-parent who was the partner of the child’s parent until that parent’s death can apply for a step-parent adoption order.

That interpretation is permissible where it accords with the underlying purpose of section 51(2): conferring parental status on a step-parent without severing the child’s legal relationship with the deceased parent and that parent’s family. Article 8 requires the court to protect the practical and effective reality of established family and private life. A sole adoption under section 51(1), which would extinguish that relationship, may be disproportionate where the section 51(2) route can achieve the proper outcome.

The applicant was the step-father of a 17-year-old young person, H, whom he had helped raise from the age of two. H’s mother died suddenly in 2020. The applicant therefore no longer satisfied the ordinary wording of section 51(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which required him to be the partner of a parent.

The parties supported the application. The issue was whether section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 permitted the court to read the provision as including a person who was the partner of the parent until the parent’s death, while preserving H’s legal relationship with his mother and maternal family.

1. Application granted. The court read into section 51(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 the words “or was the partner until the time of the parent’s death”.
2. Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 imposes a mandatory interpretive duty. The court must adopt a Convention-compatible meaning whenever that is possible within the structure, essential principles and scope of the legislation.
3. Following the guidance in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza, section 3 is not confined to resolving ambiguity. It may require an expansive or modified interpretation, including reading in words, provided the result goes with the grain of the legislation and does not contradict a fundamental feature of the statutory scheme.
4. The purpose of section 51(2) was to allow a step-parent to obtain equal parental status without requiring the natural parent to adopt their own child or severing the child’s legal relationship with that parent. Reading the provision to include a former partner whose partner had died was consistent with that purpose. The related provisions, including sections 46(3)(b) and 67(2)(b), required no additional modification.
5. Article 8 protected the established family and private life of H and his step-father, including the legal recognition of their lifelong parental relationship. A section 51(1) adoption would extinguish H’s legal relationship with his mother and maternal family. That interference was unnecessary and disproportionate when section 51(2), read compatibly, could preserve those relationships while recognising the lived reality of the family.
6. The court considered Article 14 unnecessary to determine the application because the Article 8 analysis was decisive. The approach in A v P, Re X (Surrogacy: Time Limit) and Re X (Parental Order: Death of Intended Parent Prior to Birth) provided persuasive support for reading statutory conditions down where necessary to protect practical and effective Convention rights.

The judgment was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Family Division). Before the application, the Family Court made a child arrangements order under section 8 and a guardianship order under section 5 of the Children Act 1989 on 24 April 2023.