B & Anor v A Local Authority & Ors

In an application for an English adoption order following an overseas adoption, the court must scrutinise the circumstances of the children’s placement and adoption carefully, particularly where poverty and international placement create a risk of child trading. The child’s welfare throughout life remains the paramount consideration. Fully informed parental consent is fundamental, but consent may be dispensed with where a parent cannot be found. An adoption order may be made where the statutory formalities are satisfied and no lesser order meets the child’s welfare and private and family life needs.

The applicants, British nationals domiciled in the United Kingdom but living in the United Arab Emirates, had adopted two unrelated children from Sierra Leone. Because the Sierra Leonean orders were not automatically recognised in England, they applied for English adoption orders. One application required leave under section 42(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The issues included statutory formalities, the birth parents’ consent, and whether adoption was in each child’s lifelong welfare interests. The mother of one child could not be traced; the other birth parents supported the applications.

1. The court was satisfied that the statutory formalities had been met. The applicants were over 18, married and domiciled in the United Kingdom, and the local authority had sufficient opportunity to see the family in the home environment as required by section 42(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
2. The consent of the birth parents of one child was established through more recent dated and witnessed consent forms and their communication with the Children’s Guardian. The original defects in witnessing and dating did not prevent the court being satisfied that consent was genuine and informed.
3. In relation to the other child, the birth mother could not be found despite considerable efforts. Although she had consented to the Sierra Leonean adoption, the court could not assume that her consent had been fully informed because she did not read or write and appeared not to have received independent legal advice. Her consent was therefore dispensed with under section 52(1)(a) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The unknown father had no parental responsibility.
4. The court emphasised the need for careful scrutiny in international adoption cases involving children from significant poverty and disadvantage, since the making of English orders may encourage child trading if it exists. That concern did not displace the welfare decision on the evidence in these applications.
5. Welfare throughout each child’s life was the paramount consideration. Each child regarded the applicants as their parents and the other child as a sibling, had strong bonds with the adoptive family, and needed loving security and permanence. The applicants supported the children’s cultural identity and appropriate contact with birth family members. No lesser order would meet the children’s needs or their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
6. Adoption orders were made for both children.