ZC02/25 - [2025] EWHC 1268 (Fam)

The nature of the relationship in this case

Whilst the conjugal aspect of the relationship between the applicant and the mother did not last, I am satisfied they have been joint parents to L for almost the whole of his life and have operated as a family throughout, as is evidenced by the way they have lived their lives as I set out in the background section of this judgment. There is no requirement that the relationship between applicant and the mother has to be an intimate or conjugal one for them to be partners. In my judgement, they clearly are partners in an enduring family relationship because they are a family together. This is also apparent by the consent order in 2016 which gave the applicant parental responsibility.

In those circumstances, the condition in Sections 51(1) and (2) are met.

I am also satisfied that the requirements of Section 42(3) are met, in that the applicant has used the mother’s home as his own in the sense that he spends time there with her and L, and also that L has his own space in the father’s home a few minutes away, which he also uses. He does not spend nights there now but that has more to do with convenience than anything else.

All the other conditions as to domicile, habitual residence, the ages of the applicant and L, and the mother’s consent are met.

Welfare

I therefore turn to the issue of welfare. In coming to a decision in relation to adoption, the child’s welfare throughout his life is the court’s paramount consideration. I must have regard to all the matters set out in the welfare checklist at paragraph 1(4).

In a case involving a 17 year old like L, his wishes and feelings regarding the decision carry the greatest weight. The applicant is the only father he has ever known and he wants that to be recognised in law permanently. That decision is to be afforded the utmost respect, and is obviously in his best interests. I am satisfied from what I have read that L understands what the order will mean, that it is permanent and unchangeable, and relates to his status and that of any children he has, as much as everything else. L has not been joined to these proceedings, nor do I think he needs to be.

His needs, like those of all of us, to have their family relationships to be fully recognised and respected. By this order he is gaining, and not losing, any family. He may wish to find out more about the donor who is his biological father, but this order does not affect that. That is part of his background, just as is the family who know him, brought him up, and love him. I understand from the documents that all of the wider family support the adoption application, most of all L’s mother.

The Annexe A report is entirely positive about this family and the benefits that this order will bring, not only to L, but to everyone (albeit it is L who must be my focus). In addition to all the other reasons for making the order, L may also benefit from gaining German nationality and under inheritance laws.

The welfare arguments in favour of making this order are overwhelming. In all the circumstances I will make the order sought.

Finally, I wish to thank Ms. King KC for the work she has put into the preparation of her skeleton argument which has been of the greatest assistance to me. I also want to thank those who instruct her, and Ms. Blair, who represents the adoption agency, for the help she has given too. Adoption cases can be very complex and, unsurprisingly, applicant, parents, and social workers can find the process difficult to navigate. That, in turn, can make the court’s task very difficult and time consuming. The instruction of lawyers in these cases brings with it great benefits for all concerned.