Adoption

Re G (an infant) (Adoption: Placement outside jurisdiction) CA [2008] All ER (D) 302 (Feb)

The parents of the child, who were not living together, accepted that neither was in a position to care for the child and it was in her best interest to be adopted. The father’s sister and her American husband applied to adopt the child and move her to their home in Illinois. The father supported their application, but the mother wished the child to be adopted within the UK. In order to remove the child, the applicants had to obtain an order under s8(4) of The Adoption and Children Act 2002. Under s85 (one of the act), the child could not be removed from the UK unless the applicants have parental responsibility under order s84. Section 84(4) provides that an application for an order cannot be made unless ‘at all times during the preceding 10 weeks, the child’s home was with the applicant or, in the case of an application by two people, both of them’. Paragraph 10(b)(iv) of the regulations provides that the relevant foreign authority has to confirm in writing to the relevant adoption agency that the child was or would be authorised to enter and reside permanently in that foreign country. The US Embassy had refused to issue a visa for the child unless and until the applicants could produce an order under s84 demonstrating that they have parental responsibility. On the first requirement, the judge had held that although the husband had returned to the US on business at various points during the relevant 10-week period, the requirement was nevertheless satisfied and he resolved the dilemma under para 10(b)(iv) by invoking s3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and not imposing the requirement. The mother appealed on both points.