Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
Printer Friendly Version
In Re E (Scottish Adopters: English Adoption Proceedings)  EWFC 9, Cobb J was concerned (at a case management hearing) with a preliminary question for determination – namely whether an adoption application in respect of a child placed for adoption in Scotland with Scottish adopters can be determined in England. The application for adoption was made under section 50 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002).
In reaching his conclusion that, in the circumstances of this case, the Scottish adopters would have the option of pursuing their application in either Scotland or England, particular points of note are:
That position is supported by the decision in Re N (Children: Adoption: Jurisdiction)  EWCA Civ 1112,  1 FLR 621, where Munby P (as he then was) said (at para ):
‘…if the sole basis of the court's jurisdiction is by reference to the domicile or habitual residence of the adoptive parent(s), it must follow that it has jurisdiction to make an adoption order in relation to a child irrespective of the child's nationality, domicile or habitual residence, and likewise has jurisdiction to dispense with the consent of the natural parent(s) irrespective of their nationality, domicile or habitual residence.’
The position was also summarised by Black LJ in Re N (Children: Adoption: Jurisdiction) (at para ) as follows:
‘…an application can only be made by a prospective adopter who fulfils one of the conditions as to domicile/habitual residence in the British Islands.’
It should be noted that the Court of Appeal decision in Re N (Children: Adoption: Jurisdiction)  EWCA Civ 1112,  1 FLR 621 was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in Re N (Adoption: Jurisdiction)  UKSC 15,  1 FLR 1082, but not on that point.
Cobb J concluded by summarising the position as follows (at para ):
Cobb J also annexed a useful table to his judgment comparing the statutory provisions of the ACA 2002 and AC(S)A 2007, relevant to the issue before him, from which it can be seen that the provisions effectively mirror each other.
The judgment can be accessed here.
Geraldine Morris is a solicitor and head of LexisPSL Family.
For practical guidance on adoption and international family law, see LexisPSL Family. Click here to request a free one week trial.
0330 161 1234