This case reflects the judiciary's willingness to interpret existing legislation sufficiently flexibly to align with the diverse realities of modern family life and, more crucially, prioritise the established welfare and psychological well-being of children.
Background:
L was born in 2007 via artificial insemination. The applicant (J) and the mother (K) had a romantic relationship from 2005 to 2006. They rekindled their romantic relationship in 2008 after L's birth and became engaged, although their romantic relationship ended in 2009.
When the applicant and the mother met again in 2008, the applicant took on the role of a father to L, who was six months old at the time, and they have co-parented L ever since. They live close to one another (about 10 minutes apart), and neither has had another partner since their separation. J has consistently acted as L's father, with L calling him "dad" from a very young age. This co-parenting involved J spending regular time with L, participating in daily activities, school matters, and family outings, including most weekends and holidays. J even moved house to maintain the proximity for co-parenting. L has a bedroom at J's house, although more recently, he has primarily stayed overnight at his mother's.
In 2016, J obtained a child arrangements order by consent, formally recognising his parental responsibility for L. At that time, he was advised he could not apply for an adoption order, although more recently he was advised to do so, leading to his application on 23rd December 2024. K strongly supports the application, and most important of all, L supports the application too.
Decision:
The Family Court granted the adoption order. The core legal hurdle for J's application was fitting into the definition of "partner of a parent" under Sections 51(1) and (2) of the Adoption and Children Act (ACA) 2002. This hinged on whether J and K, despite no longer being in a romantic relationship, could be considered a "couple" living in an "enduring family relationship" as defined by Section 144(4)(b) ACA.
Mrs. Justice Judd explicitly stated that "There is no requirement that the relationship between applicant and the mother has to be an intimate or conjugal one for them to be partners. In my judgement, they clearly are partners in an enduring family relationship because they are a family together." This is a crucial finding that moves beyond traditional notions of partnership.
Regarding Section 42(3) ACA, the Court was satisfied the requirement were met “in that the applicant has used the mother's home as his own in the sense that he spends time there with her and L, and also that L has his own space in the father's home a few minutes away, which he also uses.” The Judge also interpreted ‘home’ as not being merely a physical but also an emotional entity.
The Judge heavily relied on a line of recent case law that has progressively interpreted "enduring family relationship" broadly. For instance, the Court noted that cohabitation is not essential, as found in Re T and M. The focus is on the intention to create and maintain family life and a factual matrix consistent with that intention. A child can have a "home" with separated parents living in different houses, in Re X. The Judge found the extensive factual background unequivocally demonstrated that J and K were indeed operating as a family.
The Court unequivocally applied the paramountcy principle, stating that L's welfare throughout his life was the Court's paramount consideration. Given L's age (nearly 18), his "wishes and feelings regarding the decision carry the greatest weight". The order was viewed as confirming and strengthening L's existing family identity rather than replacing it.
Implications:
This decision explicitly states that a romantic, intimate, or cohabiting relationship between the applicant and the child's parent is not a prerequisite for being considered "partners in an enduring family relationship" under Section 144(4)(b) ACA 2002 for the purpose of adoption. This significantly liberalises the interpretation, moving beyond traditional notions of a "couple". Instead, this judgement takes into consideration the functional reality of a family unit by looking at whether the adults "are a family together" through their joint parenting, shared responsibilities, mutual support in raising the child, and the child's established emotional connection with and recognition of the applicant as a parent.
This case opens the door for step-parent adoptions, or indeed adoptions by other non-biological, non-romantic co-parents, where the parents are separated but co-parent genuinely and effectively.
For a child nearing adulthood, this judgement strongly reaffirms that his or her wishes and feelings carry "the greatest weight" and are to be afforded "the utmost respect". Such an adoption order should also mean that a child is “gaining, and not losing, any family”, broadening the pathways to legal recognition of parental roles for those demonstrably functioning as parents, even outside of traditional romantic or cohabiting partnerships.
