Re X (A Child: Adoption No 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs. Justice Theis |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 4813 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 06 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. FD14Z00143 |
[2014] EWHC 4813 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Mrs. Justice Theis
(In Private)
Case No. FD14Z00143
Miss K. Cronin (instructed by Goodman Ray LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Miss L. Cavanagh (instructed by FDR Law) appeared on behalf of the Guardian.
JUDGMENT (As approved by the Judge)
Introduction
This is an ex tempore judgment given today because I am conscious that a number of people have travelled great distances to be here for this hearing and it is important that a decision is given today. I will direct that there will be a transcript because I consider it is important that the outcome of this application should be in the public domain, suitably anonymised, bearing in mind a previous application to adopt was reported last year Re X (A Child) [2013] EWHC 689 (Fam)).
This is AB's second application dated 3 rd March 2014 in respect of his step-daughter, X who is now 17 years old. She was born in June 1997. X's mother, now AB's wife is CD.
As I have indicated there was a previous adoption application made which was withdrawn as a result of the determination of this court regarding one of the gateway requirements set out under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). That decision is reported as Re X (A child) (ibid). The court did not refuse the application, so that this second application is not restricted by operation of s 48 ACA 2002.
The application is dated 3 rd March 2014. AB gave notice to A Local Authority (the relevant local authority) of his intention to adopt on or about 20 th September 2013. This application has come before the court on two previous occasions for directions, on 8 th April and 22 nd July 2014 where relevant directions were made leading up to this hearing. The result of those two orders was that a number of practical arrangements were agreed and issues identified.
First, it was indicated in one of the orders that as a result of the practical arrangements made for X and AB and CD to be in this jurisdiction (together with a schedule of Local Authority visits and contact with AB and the family), this Local Authority had sufficient opportunity to see AB and X in their home environment for the purposes of completing their investigation pursuant to section 42(7) of the 2002 Act.
Secondly, and importantly, X was joined as a party and the court has had the enormous benefit of her Guardian, Miss Day, who has been appointed to act on her behalf. In addition, CD was made a party, as was her father, DE. Directions were also made for the filing of the necessary reports and evidential statements to underpin the applicant's application.
Finally, in relation to the arrangements, the court notified the Secretary of State of this application via the Home Office Liaison Team, and they responded on 12 th August of this year, indicating not only that they did not want to intervene but, importantly, in the context of this case, that they had no objection to the order being made.
The issues that were identified for the court to consider today were: (1) whether X's father has parental responsibility, and if so, what role if any he should play in the application; (2) whether the consent he has given complies with s 52 ACA 2002 and, (3) whether X has had her home with the applicant for the six months immediately preceding the application in the context of the requirements of s 42(3) ACA 2002.
The position of the parties is as follows. X's mother, CD, supports the application and consents to the order being made. X's father has been contacted, in particular by Mr. Metcalfe, who has undertaken the Local Authority assessment. He consents to the order being made. His consent in the appropriate form A104 dated 3 rd March 2014 is before the court. Mr. Metcalfe has made contact with DE to ensure that he is aware of this hearing, which he is. He has not attended or taken any active part.
The application is also supported by the assessment undertaken by Mr Metcalfe on behalf of the Local Authority, and by the inquiries and analysis undertaken by the Children's Guardian, Miss Day.
The court has had the enormous benefit in this case of a number of particular features. Firstly, the experienced representation that has been before the court, both in relation to the applicant and the children's Guardian. Miss Cronin and Miss Cavanagh have filed skeleton arguments that have been of the highest quality. They have been of enormous assistance to the court, and the thoroughness of those documents has enabled the court to give a relatively full ex tempore judgment today.
The second feature of this case that has been of great benefit to the court and the parties is the continuity of professionals. Miss Day was X's guardian in the previous proceedings; that continuity and wider viewpoint to these proceedings has been extremely helpful. That has been borne out by the perceptive analysis that she has included in her report.
In addition the court has had the enormous benefit of Mr. Metcalfe's continued involvement in this case. He is an enormously experienced social worker. His level of expertise is unique in my experience. He has been a field social worker for 37 years, with 6 years on top of that wealth of experience in undertaking assessment reports of this nature. The court is truly fortunate to have been the recipient of that wealth of expertise. His inquiries in both the previous and in these proceedings have displayed perceptive and sensitive insight as to the issues in the case. His report, if I may say so, is a model of its kind. It is detailed, well-evidenced, well-structured, fair and balanced and I have absolutely no hesitation in accepting the evidential conclusions that he reaches in that report.
I will be making an adoption order and now need to explain my reasons
Relevant Background
With those preliminary observations, I will turn to consider the relevant background. Much of that is set out in my previous judgment at paragraphs 5 to 8 ( Re X (A Child)(ibid)). For the purposes of this case I will use the summary in Miss Cronin's skeleton argument in relation to the background. X's parents were married in country C in 1996. X was born in June. DE's name is entered on X's birth certificate. The parties have pragmatically worked on the basis that under country C's law DE has parental responsibility for X, and we should treat him as such within these proceedings.
DE and CD separated in about 1999 when X was about two years of age. They were living apart at the time of their separation, as DE was then working abroad. Their marriage was dissolved under country C law in August 2010.
Prior to their separation DE relocated to Saudi Arabia and has subsequently moved to Qatar, where he currently resides. He has remarried and lives there with his second wife and their two children, aged 10 and 7. When DE left, X's mother became solely responsible for X's physical, emotional and financial requirements and needs. DE did not provide any financial support; this was provided by the mother together with X's maternal grandmother, who has been a significant feature in X's life. Although X has had occasional contact with DE, via electronic mail, she has not physically seen him since 2008. Notwithstanding that, from then until now both AB and her mother have encouraged her to maintain contact with him, and have offered to pay for him to either visit X in country A or for X to visit him with his family. The reality is that for a very significant period of time DE has had no role in X's care and development, and has certainly had no parental role during that period of time.
AB is British-born. He is now aged 60. Whilst he has been a long-term resident abroad for business purposes and for employment, he has retained his domicile of origin in England. That is an issue that I accepted in my previous judgment. He retains a home in the local authority area and the family plan is to retire back to this jurisdiction when that time comes.
AB has three adult children. His first son M (from whom he is currently estranged) and his two adopted children from his second marriage, Dr. SW and Mrs. SC. He adopted them in 1986 and he has retained, since then, and continues to retain, a close and supportive relationship with each of his adopted children.
AB and X's mother met in country A where they were both working in March 2008. CD works as an accountant, she had moved there in May 2007 in order to help provide for X and her family. X at that time remained living with her maternal grandparents in country C.
AB and CD began living together in country A in June 2009. They travelled to country C to meet X in April and December 2009 so that AB could meet X and establish his relationship with her. By the end of 2009 AB had assumed responsibility for X's financial support. In September 2010 X sat and passed the entrance exam for the country B English curriculum boarding school (the International School) which coincidentally was the school where AB's adopted children had attended and enjoyed their education. X has attended that school since January 2011 and following her successful GCSE examination results recently, she is still there studying for her A Level International Baccalaureate.
In June 2013 AB and BC got married in Cyprus. This was attended by AB's sister. In 2013 there were difficulties with AB's employment and business interests. Characteristically, he has been able to dust himself down following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re TY (preliminaries to intercountry adoption)
...INLR 836. Wagner & JMWL v Luxembourg (App no 76240/01) [2007] ECHR 1213 (28 September 2007, unreported). X (a child: adoption no 2),Re[2014] EWHC 4813 (Fam) (6 November 2014, X (surrogacy: time limit),Re[2014] EWHC 3135 (Fam), [2015] Fam 186, [2015] 2 WLR 745, [2015] 1 FLR 349. Z (foreign s......