Case No. ZC96-22

(Adoption: Foreign Adoption) [2000] 2 FLR 431 Cazalet J decided that a foreign guardian (in this case an orphanage), invested with rights under a foreign order recognised under English law was capable of being a guardian whose agreement to an adoption order needed either to be given or dispensed with pursuant to s16 of the Adoption Act 1976. In his judgment, Cazalet J referred to the dicta of Salmon LJ in Re Valentine’s Settlement; Valentine and others v Valentine and others [1965] Ch 831, “Whilst it is, of course, a principle of English law that it will not recognise the right of a foreign court to impose a change of status on anyone not domiciled in its jurisdiction, it is equally a principle of English law generally to recognise the right of a foreign court to make an order changing the status of anyone over who it has jurisdiction. What happens, as here, when these two principles conflict? When the adopted child and its natural parents are domiciled within the jurisdiction of the foreign court and the adoptive father is not domiciled within its jurisdiction? There is no escape from the necessity of choosing between the two principles for no compromise is possible”.18.The significance of the decision in Re AGN is that the definition of guardian as provided by the foreign court was accepted even though there was no corresponding provision within domestic law for a body such as an orphanage to perform that function. In coming to this decision it should be noted that Cazalet J disagreed with the decision of Holman J in the case of