Case No. UKUT-00197-(IAC)

24. As will have become immediately apparent, the paragraph 297 threshold (‘ serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable ’ ) is lacking and there is, instead, the alternative requirements of the appellant /sponsor establishing (a) the inability of the current carer to care for him, (b) the genuine transfer of parental responsibility to the prospective parent or parents (c) the breaking of ties with his family of origin and (d) the prospective adoption in the United Kingdom in accordance with the law relating to adoption in the United Kingdom, (an adoption of convenience being excluded). 25. The Entry Clearance Officer refused entry clearance to the a ppellant on the grounds that (a) there was no evidence to connect the a ppellant as the son of the deceased DM ; (b) there was no evidence to show that the a ppellant’s grandmother was unable to provide for his care ; (c) t here wa s no evidence to show that the a ppellant’s father consented to his adoption. 26. It is apparent that e a ch of those challenges has been success fully refuted by the appellant . The birth certificates of the a ppellant’s and his mother, DM , as well as that of the sponsor, CM were before the First-tier Tribunal Judge. A medical report was provided in evidence before the First-tier Tribunal Judge. A letter from Jamaica’s Child Development Agency dated 30 January 2013 confirmed that the father consented to the adoption and the police report dated 12 June 2017 confirmed that the father was missing, efforts to locate him were futile and the investigation into his disappearance is continuing. Ms Cronin noted that as the father was not named on the appellant’s birth certificate, he does not have parental responsibility under English family law. His consent to the English adoption is not , therefore, required. 27. The documentary evidence before the First-tier Tribunal Judge established the appellant countered each of the Entry Clearance Officer ’s stated reasons for refusal. 28. CM began the adoption process in 2011 when the appellant was 12 (and , at which time, Jamaica was on the designated list made under the 1973 Adoption Order) ; first in the UK where, after a detailed home study report and adoption agency panel decision, the DfE approved and certified her adoption proposal on 4 March 2014; then in Jamaica where the appellant ’s f ather consented to the adoption on or about 30 January 2013 and , after repeat ed home study investigations , the Spanish Town magistrate’s court made the adoption order on 16 December 2014. According to Jamaican law, CM is the appellant’s parent. In English law she is not his parent as the adoption is not an ‘overseas adoption’ and thus is not recognised. This, as we have pointed out , is the combined effect of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013. 29. The evidence presented was that his grandmother carer was medically unfit and unable to continue his care; the grandmother’s poor health and disability was confirmed by the Chief M edical O fficer at the SM N Medical centre, Dr Nesbeth who stated that the appellant’s 74 year - old grandmother is ‘a known diabetic and hypertensive ’ ; has had a stroke which has left her ‘partially paralysed’; her speech is slurred, her memory ‘very poor’ and ‘she is not cognizant or coherent enough to care, monitor or supervise a teenage boy’. The doctor state d that the grandmother herself requires a carer - ‘ that she can no longer care for anyone, especially a teenage boy who needs guidance and supervision ’. 30. CM was the appellant ’s sole carer; she spoke to him each day; checked on his homework; supported him financially and sent him food and clothes. This is the effect of the answers she gave in interview, prior to the refusal, on 26 June 2015. She gave details concerning her immigration history, her and the appellant ’s family circumstances and the appellant ’s schooling . S he talks to him each day about ‘his homework and things like that’; sends money (£100 or £200) each month for the appellant and food and clothing barrels at least twice a year. This evidence was not contested by the Entry Clearance Officer , Entry Clearance Manager or the Presenting Officer or First-tier Tribunal Judge on appeal. 31. The appellant’s siblings had shown no interest in him and had taken no steps to assume responsibility towards him.