Under Section 42(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, an adoption order may not be made unless the court is satisfied that sufficient opportunities to see the child with the adoptive parents in the home environment have been given to the adoption agency, where the child was placed for adoption by an adoption agency, or in other cases to the local authority within whose area the home is. The High Court recently refused to make an adoption order on the grounds that this requirement had not been met.
A couple had adopted a child in Sierra Leone. They had lived with the child in the United Arab Emirates for five years, but planned to move to England. As adoption orders made in Sierra Leone are not automatically recognised in England and Wales, they applied for a British adoption order.
The Court noted that in adoption decisions, its paramount consideration must be the child’s welfare. The child was a much loved and cherished member of the family, was doing well at school and has lots of friends. A report by a CAFCASS officer was wholly positive and recommended that an adoption order should be made.
The Court was satisfied that the couple met a number of the statutory requirements under the Act: one of them was domiciled in the UK, they were both over the age of 21 and the child had lived with them for at least three of the last five years. However, it was not clear that the requirements of Section 42(7) had been met.
Part of the assessment had been conducted via video link at the couple’s home in Dubai, and part of it at a hotel where the family had been staying in the UK. The Court found that it was established by case law that the home referred to in Section 42(7) must be in this country, and in its view the fact that the family had only been seen in the home environment over a video link was a significant omission in the overall assessment. The Court observed that adoption was a very important step for a child, with lifelong consequences. It also noted that a refusal to make an adoption order at the present time did not mean that one could not be made at all.
The Court concluded that the requirements of Section 42(7) had not been met, and was not prepared to read down the provisions so that an adoption order could nonetheless be made. Noting that the child would continue to live with the couple at their home in the United Arab Emirates, the court was content to adjourn the application so that an assessment in accordance with Section 42(7) could be arranged.