Case No. ZC20C00330

1. This is an application within conjoined public and private law proceedings for a declaration as to the habitual residence of a five year old child who I shall call T. T is represented by her Guardian. The other parties to the proceedings are the London Borough of Enfield, and the first respondent (K) who is hoping to be able to adopt T. The first respondent is not directly related to the mother, but they grew up together in the same household for about six years and saw each other as sisters. K lives in the United States of America. 2. Until she was three years old, T was cared for by her mother. T did not have a relationship with her birth father, and he does not have parental responsibility. Very sadly, T’s mother died in 2018. For a number of months after the mother’s death, T was cared for by a close friend of the mother, financially supported by K. In March 2019 K made an application for a child arrangements order. A section 7 report prepared on behalf of the local authority supported T’s placement with K and on 5 th November 2019 the court made a s. 8 order together with an order under s. 13 that K be permitted to take T to the US for a period of six months. In the meantime, K was to file and serve counsel’s advice in the UK in relation to permanently adopting T. On the making of the order the court expressed concern (which is set out on the face of the order) as to why the local authority had not made an application for care proceedings to protect T’s welfare. An order was made requiring the local authority to file a statement as to why this had not happened. 3. The order permitting K to retain T in the US has been extended a number of times whilst the investigation as to her adoption in the US has continued. T has been brought over to the UK on some occasions but this has not been possible since the start of the Covid pandemic. Legal advice has been sought from a US expert, Dr. Steffas who has recommended that the local authority should apply for a placement order to enable the making of a Convention adoption order. 4. In order for this court to make a Convention adoption order, T must be habitually resident in this jurisdiction (Adoptions with a Foreign Element Regulations (“AFER”) 2005, Regulation 50) , and K must be habitually resident in the receiving state (the US). There is no question as to K’s habitual residence but an issue has been raised as to T’s. 5. The local authority submits that T is no longer habitually resident in England and Wales. T’s Guardian, supported by K, submits that she is.