Mr & Mrs T v IM & Ors

For an adoption application involving applicants habitually resident abroad, the statutory requirement that the child be seen with the applicants in their home environment requires a home in England and Wales. The assessment may nevertheless be adapted to the family’s circumstances, including by using online sessions, provided its overall quality and safeguarding purpose are maintained. A procedural mismatch between the assessing agency and the prescribed local authority does not invalidate an otherwise adequate assessment. The statutory restrictions on arranging adoptions apply to overseas as well as domestic adoptions. Where the child was already in institutional care and the applicants proceeded through official channels, the evidence did not establish a breach. Adoption will be ordered where it best serves the child’s welfare throughout life and no lesser order meets the child’s needs.

The applicants, British nationals living in the UAE, sought an adoption order in England concerning D, a child born in Sierra Leone whom they had adopted there and with whom they had lived for over two years. They had been assessed partly online and partly in a home in England where the family stayed during visits. The application raised issues concerning compliance with the three-year residence requirement, the statutory home-environment assessment, the identity of the responsible local authority, possible breaches of restrictions on arranging adoptions, parental consent, and D’s welfare.

The central questions were whether the statutory requirements had been met and whether an English adoption order was in D’s best interests.

1. Assessment requirement. The home environment required by section 42(7)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 had to be in England and Wales. The court relied on Re SL and Re Y, as confirmed by Re A (Adoption: Removal). The requirement protects the quality of the assessment and ensures that responsibility is taken by an identifiable local authority.
2. The assessment was sufficient. D and the applicants had been seen in the English home where they stayed, although that home was outside the area of the authority to which notice had been given. The difference between the assessing agency and the prescribed authority was procedural rather than substantive and did not vitiate the process. The greater use of online sessions was an acceptable adaptation because the assessment remained comprehensive and its quality was not compromised.
3. Restrictions on arranging adoptions. Sections 92 to 97 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 applied to overseas as well as domestic adoptions. The applicants had sought to adopt a child already placed in an orphanage, and the evidence showed that the process was conducted through the courts and relevant authorities in Sierra Leone. No breach of section 92 was established.
4. Welfare. D’s welfare throughout his life was paramount. He was thriving with the applicants, regarded them as his parents, and was receiving a high standard of care. The applicants were able to support his cultural identity, maintain appropriate information-sharing with his birth family, and undertake life-story work. Adoption was in his best interests and no lesser or other order would meet his needs.
5. An adoption order was accordingly made.