- Recognising adoption orders made in the Philippines (FX and MJX v Cafcass Legal)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Private Client analysis: In a careful and interesting judgment, Judd J analyses the use of the inherent jurisdiction to recognise foreign adoption orders (here, adoption orders made in the Philippines), as well as the functioning of section 57 of the Family Law Act 1986 (FLA 1986) for a statutory declaration of the children’s status as the adopted children of the parents, before concluding that, while the Philippine adoption orders could be recognised, the statutory declaration could not be made. Helpfully, her Ladyship addresses, in digestible form, a number of tricky issues—the role of the inherent jurisdiction in making declarations to recognise an adoption that otherwise falls outside of section 66 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) and the relevant case-law including the seminal case of Re Valentine’s Settlement; as well as the distinct law applicable to statutory declarations under FLA 1986, s 57 including the importance of the (often-misunderstood) concept of domicile. Written by Alex Laing, barrister, at Coram Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial