A High Court judge has refused a domestic adoption order application, citing significant procedural and safeguarding issues.
In D v London Borough of Bromley and Ors (Special Restrictions – Refusal of Adoption Order) the application was heard by Mr Justice McDonald in December 2025, with the decision handed down in February.
The application was brought by D, who sought an adoption order under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in respect of F, a 17-year-old girl born in Nigeria. D asserted there was no familial relationship with F, and claimed a Nigerian adoption process had taken place in 2019.
The application was opposed by the London Borough of Bromley. The Secretary of State for Education had also intervened due to Nigeria being on the Restricted List under the Children and Adoption Act 2006, which requires extra scrutiny due to documented concerns including corruption, unreliable paperwork and trafficking risks.
As set out by McDonald J:
“…procedurally and legally, the domestic adoption process comprises two key stages. First, the legal and administrative requirements contained within the relevant primary and secondary legislation must be met. Subject to the dispute over whether the case comes within s.83 of the 2002 Act, the parties are agreed this court has jurisdiction to make an adoption order. Second, an adoption order must be in the best interests of the subject child throughout her life, having regard to the matters set out in s.1 of the 2002 Act.”
Section 83 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 was engaged, as the court determined that F was brought into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption without compliance with the prescribed statutory requirements.
The court heard there were numerous documentary discrepancies and inconsistencies in relation to key dates including births and deaths, as well as evidentiary problems.
The judge found welfare factors weighed strongly against adoption, citing examples including D appearing uncertain whether she genuinely wanted to adopt F and struggling to recall basic information. A history of domestic violence in the household was also identified, which had not been addressed.
The judge was also concerned that despite being nearly 18, F still shared a bed with the applicant.
While the judge did not conclude that F had been trafficked in this case, the court emphasised that foreign national children must have the same protection as UK-born children. Courts will not overlook serious documentary or trafficking concerns, he said, simply because a child is already living with the applicant. Adoption in these circumstances cannot proceed just because it might otherwise be “convenient”.
“I am satisfied that the local authority was right to examine the possibility of trafficking in this case and to bring it to the attention of the court. It is a matter of significant concern to the court that the Children’s Guardian did not do so. Whilst the matters set out above do not permit a finding on the balance of probabilities that F has been trafficked to this jurisdiction, in my judgement, in the context of the manifest difficulties with the evidence relied on by D from Nigeria, they further militate against a conclusion that it is in F’s best interests to be made the subject of an adoption order in favour of D.”
The court also had concerns about the Children’s Guardian, requiring “Cafcass to consider whether steps need to be taken to ensure that, where a Children’s Guardian is appointed in proceedings involving the Restricted List, the approach of Cafcass is suitably rigorous”.
Refusing the application as it did not best serve F’s interests, particularly in light of concerns around providing a secure environment, domestic abuse and uncertain commitments to the adoption process, McDonald J concluded:
“I am satisfied that there exist strong public policy reasons for refusing to make an adoption order in favour of D, unless F’s welfare points in the opposite direction. Having regard to the matters set in s.1 of the 2002 Act, and holding F’s welfare throughout her life as my paramount consideration, I am satisfied that it does not.”
File image: Bromley
