Andrew v Beatrice & Ors
[2023] EWFC 114
X v X & Anor (Time Barred Adoption)
20 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 364 (Fam)
High Court
A man wanted to adopt his stepson. He gave slightly too little notice to the council about his plans. The judge allowed the adoption because it was in the best interests of the child and the short notice caused no problems.
Key Facts
- •Mr. X applied to adopt his 17-year-old stepson, Z, two days before Z turned 18.
- •Notice to the local authority (YCC) was given outside the timeframe stipulated by section 44(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
- •Z had been adopted by Mr. X in Ukraine in 2015, but this adoption was not valid in England and Wales.
- •YCC supported the adoption application.
- •Mr. X, Mrs. X (Z's mother), and Z all supported the adoption.
Legal Principles
Section 44(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 requires notice of intention to adopt to be given to the local authority not more than two years, or less than three months, before the adoption application.
Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 44(3)
Courts can apply a purposive construction to statutory time limits, considering the purpose of the requirement and the potential impact of non-compliance.
Re A (A Child) (Fam D) [2021] 1WLR 1381; In re X (A Child) (Parental Order: Time Limit) [2015] Fam 186
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Human Rights Act 1998, section 3
Outcomes
Adoption order granted.
The court held that the breach of the three-month timeframe in section 44(3) was technical and did not prejudice any party. A purposive construction was applied, and the court also considered the application of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to ensure compatibility with Article 8 rights.