ZZ (Recognition of Foreign Step-Parent Adoption), Re

Common-law recognition of a foreign adoption ordinarily requires the four Re Valentine’s Settlement criteria: foreign domicile, lawful adoption, substantial equivalence to an English adoption and no public-policy objection. The criteria must be applied compatibly with Article 8. Where established family and private life, identity and the parent-child relationship would be seriously undermined, no alternative legal route exists, and refusal has no sufficient public-policy justification, recognition may be required even though some criteria are unmet. A declaration under the Family Law Act 1986 s57 must be sought by the person whose status as an adopted child is in issue, not the adoptive parent, and requires the prescribed application procedure.

AA applied for common-law recognition of a step-parent adoption made in Thailand in 2013 and sought a declaration under the Family Law Act 1986. The adoption was not a Convention adoption, and the 2013 Order had not come into force when it was made, so it fell outside statutory overseas-adoption recognition. AA and MZZ had separated; ZZ, aged 16, lived with AA, and MZZ supported recognition. AA could not make the s57 application, and ZZ had not yet issued one. The court therefore decided common-law recognition and gave directions for a later s57 application. The central issue was whether failure of the domicile and substantive-equivalence criteria made recognition unavailable, or whether refusal would be disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Recognition. The application for common-law recognition succeeded. The court recognised the Thai step-parent adoption.
2. Common-law criteria. The four criteria in Re Valentine’s Settlement [1965] Ch 831 were applied. The court found that AA had not acquired a domicile of choice in Thailand, although the Thai adoption had been made lawfully. The adoption was also not substantially equivalent to an English adoption because it preserved some legal ties with the birth family and could be revoked, whereas a valid English adoption was final and permanent. There was no public-policy reason for refusing recognition.
3. Article 8. The strict application of the common-law rule had to be compatible with Article 8. ZZ and AA had an established father-son relationship, family life and identity as father and son. Refusal would seriously disrupt that relationship and there was no alternative legal route by which AA could obtain recognition. The adoption had been entered into in good faith, was a step-parent adoption, was supported by MZZ and the guardian, and would cause no material adverse effect on the deceased birth father or his family. Refusal would therefore be disproportionate and unlawful under Human Rights Act 1998 s6. The court adopted the approach in QS v RS and T (No. 3) [2016] EWHC 2470 (Fam) and related first-instance authorities.
4. Declaration under s57. Only ZZ, as the person whose status as an adopted child was in issue, could apply for a declaration under the Family Law Act 1986 s57. No declaration was made in this judgment. ZZ was directed to issue a formal C65 application under FPR Part 19, give the required notice and evidence to the Attorney General, and return the application to the judge. The requirement for an acknowledgement of service was dispensed with.