C (A Child) (Recognition of Nigerian Adoption), Re

Recognition of a post-2014 Nigerian adoption depends on the common-law criteria for recognising a foreign adoption. Those criteria include domicile of the adoptive parents at the time of adoption, lawful adoption under the foreign law, substantial equivalence with an English adoption, and absence of a public-policy reason for refusal.

The domicile criterion was not satisfied. Nevertheless, refusing recognition would disproportionately interfere with the family life protected by Article 8 of the ECHR where the adoption was lawful, the applicants had substantial connections with Nigeria, the adoption was not contrived to secure immigration status, and a genuine parent-child relationship existed. Recognition was therefore granted.

The applicants, a married couple living in England, sought recognition of their 2018 Nigerian adoption of C, born in Nigeria in 2017. Nigeria was not within the statutory list of recognised overseas adoptions, so recognition could arise only at common law.

C’s application for entry clearance had been refused. The First-tier Tribunal allowed her appeal, but the Upper Tribunal set that decision aside for failing to give sufficient weight to the unrecognised Nigerian adoption. The recognition application was determined while C’s remitted immigration appeal awaited rehearing. The central issues were whether the common-law criteria were met and whether refusal would be compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR.

1. Recognition granted. The Nigerian adoption was recognised notwithstanding that the domicile criterion was not met.
2. Following Re N (A Child), the relevant common-law criteria were: the adoptive parents’ domicile in the foreign country when the adoption was made; lawful adoption under foreign law; substantial equivalence between the foreign and English adoptions; and no public-policy reason for refusing recognition.
3. The court accepted expert evidence that the Nigerian order remained valid and that Nigerian and English adoptions had the same essential characteristics. The public-policy exception was confined to egregious cases, and this was not such a case.
4. The mother had acquired a domicile of choice in England by 2014. The father acquired one relatively soon after moving to England in October 2016, probably in early 2017. He was domiciled in Nigeria when the adoption application was made but not when the adoption order was made. The first criterion therefore failed.
5. The court accepted that the applicants had substantial and continuing Nigerian connections, had not engaged in adoption tourism, and had not pursued an adoption of convenience. They had retained overall parental responsibility and maintained a genuine and established family relationship with C.
6. Applying the reasoning in QS v RS and T (No 3), strict application of the domicile rule would interfere with the Article 8 family life of the applicants and C. In the circumstances, that interference was neither necessary nor proportionate. Refusal would deny C the status of the only parents she had known.

• Upper Tribunal: On 2 August 2024, Deputy Judge Farrelly allowed the SSHD’s appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision concerning C for material error of law, and directed a de novo hearing.
• High Court (Family Division): The court recognised the Nigerian adoption.