Background
AA applied for common-law recognition of his 2013 adoption in Thailand of ZZ, his wife MZZ’s son. AA had raised ZZ as his son from birth, and ZZ and AA’s biological son, YY, had grown up as brothers. The family moved to England in July 2013. After AA and MZZ separated in 2025, both children lived with AA, and recognition became important to AA’s parental status in related Children Act proceedings.
The adoption was neither a Hague Convention adoption nor an “overseas adoption” automatically recognised under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 because it predated the relevant 2013 Order’s commencement. Recognition therefore depended on common law. The court found that the adoption was valid under Thai law and that no public-policy reason required refusal, but two criteria derived from Re Valentine’s Settlement were unmet: AA was not domiciled in Thailand when the adoption occurred, and the Thai adoption differed materially from an English adoption because it retained some legal ties to the biological family and could be revoked in specified circumstances.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court nevertheless recognised the Thai adoption at common law. Applying the approach endorsed in prior Family Division decisions, Mr Justice Poole held that strict application of the Re Valentine’s Settlement criteria would disproportionately interfere with AA’s and ZZ’s rights to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and would therefore be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
The court stressed the exceptional facts: AA had acted as ZZ’s father throughout ZZ’s life; the lawful adoption was entered into in good faith; ZZ’s biological father had never played a parental role and was deceased; ZZ, MZZ, AA, and the Children’s Guardian all supported recognition; and no alternative route existed by which AA could now adopt ZZ. Recognition also aligned ZZ’s legal identity with his established relationships as AA’s son and YY’s brother.
The court did not make the separate declaration contemplated by section 57 of the Family Law Act 1986 because only ZZ could apply and no application had yet been issued. It required ZZ to follow the statutory procedure, including giving the Attorney General one month’s notice, while dispensing with AA’s acknowledgment of service and directing that any issued application be referred back to Mr Justice Poole for determination on the papers.
Key Takeaways
- A foreign adoption falling outside the Convention and statutory overseas-adoption regimes may still be recognised under English common law.
- Failure to satisfy every Re Valentine’s Settlement criterion may not be decisive where refusing recognition would disproportionately interfere with established Article 8 family and private life.
- Recognition of an adoption and a declaration under section 57 of the Family Law Act 1986 are distinct remedies; only the person whose adopted status is at issue may seek the statutory declaration.
Why It Matters
The decision shows that the Family Division may depart from strict application of the traditional common-law recognition criteria in exceptional cases where an established parent-child relationship would otherwise be denied legal effect and no alternative remedy exists. The judgment is fact-specific and notes that this Article 8 approach has not yet received appellate endorsement.
It also underscores the practical importance of procedural distinctions: common-law recognition did not itself permit AA to obtain a section 57 declaration, although it created the foundation on which ZZ could apply for one.