X v X & Anor (Time Barred Adoption)
[2024] EWHC 364 (Fam)
Andrew v Beatrice & Ors
12 July 2023
[2023] EWFC 114
Family Court
A stepfather wanted to adopt his 18-year-old stepson but missed a paperwork deadline. The judge decided the deadline wasn't super important because nobody was hurt by the mistake, so the adoption can still happen.
Key Facts
- •Charlie, aged 18 1/2, is the subject of an adoption application by Andrew (his stepfather).
- •Andrew applied to adopt Charlie two days before his 18th birthday, failing to comply with the three-month notice requirement in Section 44(2) and (3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
- •The application is supported by Beatrice (Charlie's mother) and Charlie himself.
- •David (Charlie's father) initially opposed but withdrew his opposition.
- •The issue is whether the non-compliance with the notice requirement vitiates the adoption application.
Legal Principles
Whether a statutory requirement is 'imperative' (strict compliance required) or 'directory' (non-compliance doesn't automatically invalidate the action) is determined by considering the subject matter, importance of the provision, and its relation to the Act's general object.
Howard v Bodington (1877) 2 PD 203
Courts will readily find time limits to be directory and allow relief if non-compliance wasn't in bad faith.
Re A (A Child: Adoption Time Limits S44(3)) [2020] EWHC 3296 (Fam)
Section 49(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 states an adoption application can only be made if the child is under 18; Section 47(9) states an adoption order may not be made for someone over 19.
Adoption and Children Act 2002
Outcomes
The notice requirement in s.44(2) and (3) is directory, not imperative.
Non-compliance did not prejudice any party or the court; the local authority was not impeded in preparing the necessary reports; the non-compliance was accidental and not in bad faith.
The adoption application is allowed to proceed to a final hearing.
The court exercised its discretion based on the finding that the notice requirement was directory and that non-compliance did not cause prejudice.