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

Recognition at common law of a foreign adoption requires satisfaction of the four Re Valentine’s criteria: domicile, valid creation of the adopted status under foreign law, substantial similarity of essential characteristics, and absence of public-policy objection.

The court’s primary focus under the second criterion is whether the adoption status was validly created by the foreign order. It should not ordinarily investigate the procedure behind that order. Departure is justified only exceptionally, including fraud, breach of natural justice, or breach of a fundamental adoption requirement. A residence defect that is not fundamental does not invalidate recognition.

Recognition should not be granted where it would conflict with the child’s welfare. Foreign adoptions from restricted jurisdictions require rigorous scrutiny, but no materially different legal test applies.

X, a child born in Nigeria, was adopted there in January 2020 by W and H, a married couple who were British and Nigerian citizens. The applicants sought recognition in England and Wales so that X could join them in the United Kingdom.

The evidence raised concerns about residence in Imo State, the applicants’ limited physical involvement in the fostering period, and the extent of H’s participation in the adoption assessment. Nigeria was not a party to the 1993 Hague Adoption Convention and was subject to special restrictions on adoptions from abroad.

The central issues were whether the Nigerian order satisfied the common-law criteria for recognition, whether the English court should scrutinise the foreign adoption process, and whether recognition was consistent with X’s welfare and Article 8 rights.

1. Recognition granted. The court recognised the Nigerian adoption at common law.
2. The four criteria identified in Re N (A Child) [2016] EWHC 3085 (Fam), derived from In re Valentine’s Settlement [1965] Ch 831, were satisfied: both applicants were domiciled in Nigeria when the order was made; the Nigerian adoption had the essential characteristics of an English adoption; and no public-policy objection was established.
3. Under the second criterion, the primary question is whether the status of adoption was validly created under the law of the foreign state. In a normal case the court should not look behind the foreign order except to determine whether it changed the child’s status and made the applicants the child’s legal parents. Procedural defects may justify non-recognition only exceptionally, including fraud, breach of natural justice, or breach of a requirement fundamental to adoption. Re A (A Child) (Recognition of Nigerian Adoption: Common Law Test) [2024] EWHC 2888 (Fam) was approved and followed on this point.
4. The possible failure to satisfy Imo State’s five-year residence requirement was not sufficiently fundamental. The court also had to approach the Nigerian court’s interpretation of its own law with caution. The evidence did not establish that H had not been assessed. His unchallenged evidence, supported by Nigerian documents and the adoption order, established sufficient involvement.
5. The restricted-list status of Nigeria required rigorous scrutiny but did not require a materially different test. The approach in D v London Borough of Bromley and Ors [2025] EWHC 247 (Fam) was applied by parity of reasoning.
6. Although the court questioned whether child welfare should be treated merely as an aspect of public policy, it found that recognition was in X’s best interests. The alternative Article 8 analysis was unnecessary, but the court stated that refusal would have been disproportionate if a criterion had failed.

First-instance decision. No earlier decision in the same proceedings was stated.