Court Allows Adoption Despite Time Bar Breach: Human Rights and Best Interests Considered

Citation: [2024] EWHC 364 (Fam)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of X v X & Anor (Time Barred Adoption) [2024] EWHC 364 (Fam) presents a unique scenario that centers on the application of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, particularly the stipulations of section 44(3) regarding the timing of notice for the intention to apply for an adoption order. The judgment by Mrs Justice Arbuthnot assessed whether an adoption order could be made when the applicant failed to comply with the statutory time limit for giving notice to the local authority. The court’s approach to statutory interpretation and the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 offer substantial jurisprudential insights.

Key Facts

In this case, Mr X sought to adopt Z, his stepson, who was nearly 18 years old. The application was made two days before Z’s 18th birthday, but notice of the intention to adopt to the local authority, Y County Council (“YCC”), was given two and a half months prior, not fulfilling the requirement of at least three months as mandated by the Act. Despite the non-compliance with section 44(3), all parties involved were in agreement that it was in Z’s best interests for the adoption order to proceed. Prior to this application, Z had been adopted by Mr X in Ukraine, but this was not recognized as valid in England and Wales.

The judgment explored several pivotal legal principles:

  1. Statutory Interpretation: The timing of notice as required by section 44(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was a significant focal point. The court considered whether the statutory time limit is an absolute bar to adoption or if there could be flexibility in its application.

  2. Best Interests of the Child: Central to the case was the consideration of what would serve Z’s best interests, guiding the court’s decision-making process.

  3. International Adoption Recognition: The issue of an adoption order from another jurisdiction not being recognized in England and Wales necessitated the court to scrutinize the process for local adoption.

  4. Human Rights Considerations: The ruling discussed the interplay between domestic statutory provisions and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life).

  5. Purposive Construction: The court considered the principle of giving a purposive construction to the subsection, following the approach taken in prior case law such as In re X (A Child) (Parental Order: Time Limit) [2015] Fam 186 and Re A (A Child) (Fam D) [2021] 1WLR 1381, whereby statutory time limits have previously been interpreted flexibly to facilitate the making of an order.

Outcomes

The court determined that the breach of the statutory time limit did not cause disadvantage or prejudice to any party and therefore was not a barrier to the adoption order being made. It held that the failure to comply with Section 44(3) was a “technical matter”, and that insisting on strict compliance in this case would not be in Z’s best interests or serve the public policy. The court applied a purposive construction to Section 44(3), allowing the adoption application to proceed despite the technical breach. Furthermore, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot opined that a refusal to make the adoption order would have breached the Article 8 human rights of the parties involved.

Conclusion

The ruling in X v X & Anor exemplifies the flexibility of the English legal system in applying statutory provisions when strict compliance would not serve justice or the best interests of a child. The court underscored the significance of purposive construction and the need to ensure decisions are congruent with human rights principles. This judgment not only reinforces the paramountcy principle but also offers guidance for practitioners on the application of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in circumstances where non-compliance with procedural requirements arises. Mrs Justice Arbuthnot’s decision represents a pragmatic approach that aligns the law’s technicalities with a focus on family unity and the well-being of the child.