Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
April 20, 2009
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
Lord Justice Wall:
Introduction
IA (as I shall call her) was born on 31 August 2006. She is in the care of the London Borough of Haringey (the local authority), as are her two brothers born respectively in 2002 and 2003. Her parents agree that she cannot return to live with them. However, she has a paternal uncle and aunt (Mr and Mrs N) who live in the United States of America, and who are willing to adopt her.
The local authority would like to assess Mr. and Mrs N as prospective adopters for IA. But Mr and Mrs N are unable to come to England for the 10 weeks specified in section 84(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (the 2002 Act). So as a first step, the local authority applied to the judge for his approval of its proposal to arrange for IA to live with Mr and Mrs N on an extended visit pursuant to paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act).
In a reserved judgment handed down on 21 July 2008 (and for specific reasons which he articulated fully and carefully) Charles J sitting in the Family Division of the High Court in London refused the local authority’s application under the 1989 Act. He also declined to make a declaration sought by the local authority to the following effect, namely that:-
“there is no legal bar to the court taking into account any period spent by IA at the home of Mr and Mrs N (her paternal aunt and uncle) in the United States of America when considering whether or not Mr and Mrs N had met the condition laid out in section 84(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 that ‘an application for an order under this section may not be made unless at all times during the preceding ten weeks the child’s home was with the applicant or, in the case of an application by two people, both of them”.
The judge also adjourned generally an application by the local authority for a placement order under section 21 of the 2002 Act in relation to IA and directed that if an application to restore it was not made by 21 July 2009, it should stand dismissed. We are not directly concerned with that part of his order on this appeal. Charles J’s judgment [2008] EWHC 1722 (Fam) is now reported as Haringey London Borough Council v. MA, JN, IA at [2008] 2 FLR 1857 .
The other parties to the proceedings before the judge were IA’s parents (MA and JN) and her guardian (all of whom made common cause with the local authority and none of whom, as a consequence, was represented before us). However, the Department for Children Scho
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal considered whether the statutory ten‑week “home” requirement in section 84(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 must be satisfied within England and Wales or whether it can be met in the prospective adopters’ foreign home. IA, a child in the care of the London Borough of Haringey, could not return to her parents; her paternal uncle and aunt in the United States were willing to adopt her. Haringey proposed a phased plan including a temporary stay in the US for assessment, followed by an application for parental responsibility under section 84 and adoption abroad. Charles J had refused to approve the temporary placement and declined to declare that US time could count toward the ten‑week requirement. Wall L.J., with Moore‑Bick L.J. concurring and Thorpe L.J. agreeing, held that the statute imposes no geographic limitation: the child’s “home” may be with the applicants abroad; assessment under section 42(7) can occur in the foreign home when an adoption agency is involved; and temporary removal under paragraph 19 for assessment does not amount to “placing for adoption.” The appeal was allowed and the proposed arrangements were approved.