Case No. UKUT-00197-(IAC)

44. We note that the requirement in paragraph 316 A (vii) that the child ‘ has lost or broken or intends to lose or break his ties with his family of origin ’ will be most readily apparent when it is intended that his family of origin cease to have contact with him. However, we would not construe this as requiring a complete cessation of contact. In a case such as this, where the grandmother is incapable of looking after her teenage grandson, it is inconceivable that this should require her to have no further contact. Similarly, whilst the child’s adult siblings are not participating in his up-bringing, we do not regard it as necessary to establish that the ties of kinship must be broken completely before entry clearance will be permitted. The words of paragraph 316A(vii) must therefore be read as envisaging the breaking-off of the existing arrangements for the child’s care. The expression ‘ has lost or broken or intends to lose or break his ties with his family of origin ’ contemplates a fundamental change in the arrangements for the child’s care so as to exclude a situation where the existing arrangements will continue in practice as before but with only a nominal alteration effected by the adoption. However, it must be construed purposively so as not to defeat the aim of the law relating to adoption and the Immigration Rules which contemplate the grant of entry clearance for the purpose of adoption. 45. The above is consistent with, and derived from, the decision of the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal in VB v Entry Clearance Officer, Ghana [2002] UKIAT 1323, a decision of its then President, Collins J, paras. 13 to 15.