Re "J"

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtFamily Division
JudgeMr. Justice Moor
Judgment Date21 June 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] EWHC 3353 (Fam)
Docket NumberCase No: FD 11 P 01782
Date21 June 2012
Re "J"

[2012] EWHC 3353 (Fam)


Mr. Justice Moor

Case No: FD 11 P 01782



Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

MR. Dafydd Griffiths (instructed by Messrs. Rollingsons Solicitors) for the Applicants

MR. Michael Hinchcliffe, Principal Lawyer with CAFCASS, for the Guardian ad Litem

Mr. Justice Moor

This is an application pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction that I grant a declaration recognising the validity of the foreign adoption order in this case.


The facts can be set out very straightforwardly. The applicants are SJ and DV. They were both born in India but have been residing in this jurisdiction. In the case of DV, this has been since 1994. In the case of SJ, he was briefly here in 2005 and has resided here again since 2007. They, unfortunately, had difficulties in conceiving. SJ's brother, Mr SJ and his wife, Mrs DJ, already have a child, KJ who, I believe, is now aged six. They live in India. In or around 2010 Mrs DJ became pregnant again with the child with whom I am concerned, AJ. Mr SJ and Mrs DJ decided that they were really not in a position to care for their new baby and an agreement was reached between the applicants in this case and Mr SJ and Mrs DJ that the applicants would take over the care of the yet to be born baby. AJ was born on [a date in] 2010 in India and is therefore now approximately 18 months of age.


The applicants returned to India in early February of 2011 and on 5 th February undertook a religious adoption ceremony known as a Datta Homan. They participated fully in that ceremony as did Mr SJ and Mrs DJ. Four days later, on 9 thFebruary 2011, this religious adoption ceremony was registered by deed by the Registrar in their local court. It was consented to and signed by all four relevant parties.


In March 2011 AJ came to this jurisdiction with her birth parents on a visitor's visa. The birth parents returned to India on 10 th April 2011. Since March 2011 AJ has been cared for by the applicants at their home address. On 15 th August 2011 the applicants applied for a declaration as to the validity and recognition of the Indian adoption deed. They accept that, assuming I grant that declaration, they will then have to apply for indefinite leave for AJ to remain in this country with them although my understanding is that all parties hope and expect that that will be achieved without difficulty. On 20 th August 2011 the birth parents acknowledged service and indicated that they had no intention to oppose the order sought.


On 1 st September 2011 Hogg J made J a ward of this court, appointed a High Court Guardian to represent her, joined her to the proceedings and directed various provisions for expert evidence and safeguarding assessments. On 12 th October 2011 the Local Authority filed their safeguarding assessment. The assessment was very positive. It indicated that the applicants were able to meet AJ's overall needs; that AJ was a healthy baby developing and meeting her milestones; that she was provided with appropriate stimulation; that the family was very caring and loving; and the baby was contented. She noted that the couple need to be open and honest with AJ about her birth history when AJ is of a sufficient age to understand and comprehend properly but, in general, the safeguarding assessment was very positive and recommended that AJ remain permanently with the applicants.


On 10 th November 2011 expert evidence was filed as to the validity of the adoption in India. The said report confirmed the relevant Indian statute was the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. The report indicated that the provisions of that Act were in line with the practice in other countries; that there had been consent in this case; there had been a ceremony in a public place; the adoption had been properly registered in the District Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • GS v SS and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 30 November 2016
    ...Officer, New Delhi [2004] EWCA Civ 1075, [2005] QB 608, and, more recently, in Re J (Recognition of Foreign Adoption Order) [2012] EWHC 3353 (Fam), [2013] 2 FLR 298, and in Re R (Recognition of Indian Adoption) [2012] EWHC 2956 (Fam), [2013] 1 FLR 1487. I need not repeat the detailed anal......
  • M. O'C. and Another v Udaras Uchtála Na Héireann
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 30 May 2014
    ...IN RE 2008 EWHC 403 (FAM) 2008 1 FLR 1475 2008 FAM LAW 501 2008 AER (D) 398 (JUN) J (RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN ADOPTION ORDER), IN RE 2012 EWHC 3353 (FAM) 2013 2 FLR 298 2013 FAM LAW 670 2013 AER (D) 108 (MAR) R (A CHILD) (RECOGNITION OF INDIAN ADOPTION), IN RE 2012 EWHC 2956 (FAM) 2013 1 FLR ......
  • S v S
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • Invalid date
    ...EWHC 2605 (Fam); [2015] 1 FLR 1402Goodman’s Trusts, In re (1881) 17 Ch D 266, CAJ (Recognition of Foreign Adoption Order), In re [2012] EWHC 3353 (Fam); [2013] 2 FLR 298N (Recognition of Foreign Adoption Order), In re [2010] 1 FLR 1102Negrepontis-Giannisis v Greece CE:ECHR:2013:1205JUD00567......
  • The Adoption Act, 2010, Section 49 (2), and JB (A Minor) and KB (A Minor)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 12 July 2018
    ...the facts he so found. 57 The second case referred to was the decision of Moor J. in Re J. (A child) (Foreign Adoption Order) [2012] EWHC 3353 (Fam), again a case concerning the adoption of an Indian child, but with the recognition application being based solely on the court's inherent juri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT