In an insightful judgement, the High Court has prioritised the reality of established family life over rigid procedural technicalities to ensure a “sensible result” for a stepfather and his stepdaughter.
Facts:
EB is a British citizen who divides his time between the UK and Country X. YB is the biological daughter of RB and SM, who died when YB was 4 years old. YB has a younger half-brother, QB, aged 12, who is the biological child of RB and whose father is also deceased. EB and RB were married on 24 November 2022, following a 7-year relationship.
Following their marriage, EB applied for, and successfully obtained, an adoption order for YB in the High Court of Country X in July 2024. At the time the foreign adoption was finalised, the family planned for YB to move to the UK to pursue her education. EB and YB travelled to the UK in September 2024, approximately two months after the adoption order was granted. Upon arrival, however, the family discovered that the UK did not recognise adoptions from Country X because it was not a designated country under the Adoption (Designation of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013 (SI 2013/1801). In effect, this meant that YB was not entitled to British citizenship or a British passport through EB.
In response to this legal hurdle, EB gave notice to the London Borough of Havering in October 2024 of his intention to adopt YB domestically as her stepfather. He officially filed the application for an English adoption order in January 2025, just before YB turned eighteen. During the proceedings, YB had to return to Country X in March 2025 to avoid overstaying her six-month visitor’s visa. The case, however, presented a significant legal challenge, as Section 83 of the Adoption and Children Act (ACA) 2002 generally makes it a criminal offence for a British resident to bring a child into the UK within twelve months of a foreign adoption without following specific domestic procedures.
Decision:
Mr. Justice MacDonald granted the domestic adoption order in favour of EB, officially making him YB’s legal father under English law. The Judge first ruled that EB had not breached the law regarding his intent upon entry. He found that, when EB brought YB to the UK, he did not do so “for the purpose of adoption” in the legal sense, because he genuinely believed the adoption from Country X was already valid and recognised. His actual primary purpose for bringing her to the country was for her education.
Furthermore, the Court decided that the strict 12-month travel restriction and the associated criminal provisions found in Section 83 of the ACA 2002 should not apply to this specific case. He concluded that Parliament intended these regulations to prevent the exploitative “trade” of children between strangers, rather than to penalise established step-parents. He also noted that, because the government had failed to create the specific exemptions for step-parents allowed for under Section 86 of ACA 2002, it would be a “disproportionate interference” with the family’s human rights to deny the adoption based on a technicality.
In his final welfare analysis, the Judge determined that YB’s best interests were clearly served by the adoption. He emphasised her strong personal wish to have EB as her “official father” and noted that the order would provide her with the necessary legal and emotional stability to live with her family in the UK. By granting the order, the Court ensured that YB’s legal status in the UK finally matched her lived reality and her legal status in Country X.
Implications:
This judgement is significant because it addresses a longstanding “legislative gap” in international step-parent adoptions. Moreover, it provides a more compassionate, human rights-focused pathway for families who find themselves in legal limbo due to unrecognised foreign adoptions. The case refines the interpretation of Section 83(1)(a) to offer protection to those families who make honest mistakes about the UK’s complex list of recognised countries.
By “disapplying” the restrictive regulations, the Court sent a clear message: the ‘Right to Family Life (Article 8) outweighs procedural technicalities when the relationship is longstanding’ and where the “evil” that the law was meant to prevent (child trafficking/exploitation) is clearly absent.
