G (Recognition of a Nigerian Adoption), Re

An adoption made abroad may be recognised at common law where the adoptive parent was domiciled in the foreign country, the adoption was lawful under that country’s law, it has the essential characteristics of an English adoption, and recognition is not contrary to public policy. Incomplete foreign adoption records do not necessarily prevent recognition if the court can draw reliable inferences from the available evidence. Where de facto family life exists, strict application of the common-law requirements must be compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. Refusal of recognition may be disproportionate if it disregards the established parent-child relationship and the child’s actual family circumstances.

The applicant adopted an abandoned child in Nigeria in June 2016 and later moved to England. The child remained in Nigeria with relatives. The applicant sought recognition of the Nigerian adoption under common law so that the child could join her in England.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervened and raised concerns about the applicant’s domicile and whether the adoption complied with Nigerian law, particularly the requirements concerning care, suitability, welfare and notice. The central issues were whether the common-law recognition criteria were satisfied and, if not, whether refusal would be compatible with the parties’ Article 8 rights.

1. Application granted. The Nigerian adoption was recognised at common law pursuant to section 66(1)(e) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
2. The governing criteria remained those identified in Re Valentine’s Settlement and summarised in Re N (A Child) [2016] EWHC 3085 (Fam): the adoptive parents must have been domiciled in the foreign country at the time of adoption; the child must have been lawfully adopted under foreign law; the adoption must have the essential characteristics of an English adoption; and recognition must not be contrary to public policy.
3. The domicile requirement was satisfied. The applicant had acquired a domicile of choice in Italy, but her domicile of origin in Nigeria was tenacious. Her return to Nigeria, family and community ties, adoption application and conduct before the adoption showed that she had resumed Nigerian domicile by June 2016. Her later move to England for financial reasons did not alter that conclusion.
4. The court accepted that the adoption was lawful under Nigerian law despite missing documents and inadequate evidence of the assessments. The available reports, the applicant’s evidence, the presence of the probation officer and expert evidence supported inferences that suitability and welfare had been considered. The applicant remained responsible for the child’s care during a temporary absence from Nigeria, satisfying the care requirement. The 12-month notice requirement had not been met, but the court inferred that the Nigerian court had disapplied it in the child’s best interests.
5. In any event, there was de facto family life for Article 8 purposes. Following the approach discussed in QS v RS and T (No 3) [2016] EWHC 2470 (Fam) and KN & Anor v RN and Ors [2023] EWHC 712 (Fam), refusal based on strict application of the common-law rules would be neither necessary nor proportionate. The court could not disregard the actual parent-child relationship.
6. The restrictions on Nigerian adoptions were not a blanket prohibition. An exception could be sought under the relevant statutory regime. The immigration consequences remained for the Secretary of State.