In DD v AF & Ors, Kathy Walker, director in the Child Care team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, represented the child through the Children’s Guardian in the proceedings. Here, she breaks down the facts of the case and explains why the decision reinforces the principle that the court will always prioritise the welfare of the child.
The High Court has dismissed an application for a domestic adoption order in a case involving a child originally from Nigeria, a country subject to special international adoption restrictions. The decision was handed down in DD v AF & Ors [2026] EWHC 247 (Fam).
The case concerned an application for a domestic adoption order under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in respect of a 17-year-old child born in Nigeria. The applicant claimed the child had previously been adopted in Nigeria before being brought to the United Kingdom.
Nigeria is listed as a restricted country under the Children and Adoption Act 2006, meaning additional safeguards apply where children are brought into the UK for adoption.
The local authority opposed the application, raising concerns about the reliability of documentation relating to the alleged Nigerian adoption and the circumstances in which the child entered the UK. The Secretary of State for Educationintervened to address the statutory framework governing adoptions involving restricted countries.
The High Court determined that the child had been brought to the UK “for the purposes of adoption”, meaning section 83 of the 2002 Act applied and the additional statutory restrictions were engaged. The court found the documentation said to evidence the Nigerian adoption was “manifestly unreliable” and identified a number of inconsistencies consistent with the risks that led to Nigeria’s inclusion on the Restricted List.
In considering the child’s welfare, the court also identified safeguarding concerns, including exposure to domestic abuse, unsuitable living arrangements and concerns about the applicant’s understanding of the child’s emotional needs. Balancing public policy considerations and the child’s welfare, the court concluded that an adoption order should not be made and dismissed the application.
The judgment clarifies that there is no separate legal test of “most exceptional circumstances” in cases involving non-compliance with section 83. Instead, the court must undertake a careful balancing exercise between public policy considerations and the child’s lifelong welfare.
This case involved complex and sensitive issues surrounding international adoption, immigration considerations, and significant safeguarding concerns. The High Court made clear that there is no distinct test of ‘most exceptional circumstances’ in cases of this nature; rather, the court must undertake a careful and structured balancing exercise between public policy considerations and the child’s lifelong welfare.
Where a child originates from a country on the Restricted List, the statutory safeguards are in place for important reasons. The court’s detailed scrutiny of the reliability of documentation, and the circumstances in which the child came to the United Kingdom, highlights the need to protect children from potential risks of trafficking and exploitation.
Although adoption can provide stability, security and permanence, it must only be approved where the court is satisfied that it serves the child’s best interests throughout their life. In this case, the court concluded that the required threshold had not been met.
The decision reinforces the principle that safeguarding and the child’s welfare will always remain the court’s paramount consideration.
About the author
Kathy Walker is a director at Duncan Lewis Solicitors and a specialist in public law children matters, with over 20 years’ experience in complex care proceedings. She is a longstanding member of the Law Society Children’s Panel and is recognised for her expertise in cases involving serious welfare and safeguarding issues.
