J v K & Anor

For adoption purposes, former partners may remain partners in an enduring family relationship where they have continued to function as a family and jointly parent the child. An intimate or conjugal relationship, or cohabitation, is not essential. Whether the statutory condition is satisfied is a question of fact and degree.

The requirement that the child has had his home with the applicant or the applicant’s partner may be met through an emotional and family connection, rather than continuous physical residence in one property. In an adoption application by a person acting as the child’s psychological parent, the child’s welfare throughout life remains paramount. The wishes and feelings of an older child, particularly a nearly adult child who understands the permanence and consequences of adoption, may carry the greatest weight.

J applied for an adoption order in respect of L, who was nearly 18. J and L’s mother, K, had separated after their romantic relationship ended, but had jointly parented L throughout his life and continued to operate as a family. J had parental responsibility under a consent order made in 2016.

K and the adoption agency supported the application, as did L. The issues were whether J was the partner of L’s parent in an enduring family relationship, whether L had had his home with J or K for the preceding six months, and whether making the adoption order was consistent with L’s welfare.

1. Statutory status. The court held that J and K were partners in an enduring family relationship for the purposes of sections 51(1) and (2) and section 144 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The fact that their conjugal relationship had ended did not prevent them from remaining partners. They had jointly parented L for almost all his life and had continued to function as a family. The statutory question was one of fact and degree.
2. Home requirement. The requirement in section 42(3) was satisfied. L had used K’s home, where J regularly spent time with him, as part of the family arrangement. L also had his own space at J’s nearby home, which he used, although he no longer stayed overnight there. Continuous overnight residence or exclusive physical occupation of one home was not required.
3. Welfare. L’s welfare throughout his life was the paramount consideration, and the court had regard to the welfare checklist in paragraph 1(4). Given L’s age, his wishes and feelings carried the greatest weight. He understood that adoption was permanent and unchangeable and wished J, the only father he had known, to be recognised in law. The order would add to, rather than remove, his family relationships.
4. The positive assessment, the support of L and both respondents, and the wider benefits of legal recognition made the welfare arguments overwhelming. The court made the adoption order sought.