High Court Refuses Adoption Application Involving Nigerian Restricted Country (2 March 2026)

Kathy Walker, Child Care Director at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, represented the child through the Children’s Guardian in the High Court decision of DD v AF & Ors [2026] EWHC 247 (Fam), in which the court dismissed an application for a domestic adoption order in respect of a 17-year-old child.

The case raised complex issues concerning international adoption restrictions, public policy, safeguarding and the interaction between immigration, adoption law and child welfare where a child originates from a country on the Secretary of State’s Restricted List.

Background

The applicant sought a domestic adoption order under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in respect of FD, born in Nigeria in May 2008. The applicant asserted that the child had already been adopted in Nigeria in 2019 and later brought to the United Kingdom.

Nigeria is subject to special restrictions under the Children and Adoption Act 2006. The local authority opposed the application, raising serious concerns about the reliability of Nigerian documentation and the circumstances in which the child entered the UK. The Secretary of State for Education intervened to address the statutory framework applicable to restricted countries.

FD was represented by a Children’s Guardian, who instructed Kathy Walker on her behalf. The court heard oral evidence from the applicant, the allocated social worker and the Children’s Guardian before reserving judgment.

Legal framework

The court was required to determine whether section 83 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 applied — namely whether FD had been brought into the UK “for the purposes of adoption”. If engaged, the court had to consider the impact of the special restrictions applicable to Nigeria and balance public policy considerations against the child’s welfare, which remained the paramount consideration under section 1 of the 2002 Act.

The court also considered whether a heightened “most exceptional circumstances” test applied in cases of non-compliance with section 83, and the extent to which concerns underlying a country’s inclusion on the Restricted List must inform the welfare analysis.

The parties’ positions

The applicant contended that section 83 was not engaged and that, in any event, the child’s welfare and Article 8 rights justified the making of an adoption order. The father supported the application.

The local authority opposed the application, citing inconsistent and unreliable documentation, concerns about potential child trafficking, safeguarding risks within the applicant’s household and the applicant’s limited insight into the child’s emotional needs.

The Children’s Guardian supported the application, noting the child’s expressed wish to be adopted and the existence of a positive relationship with the applicant.

The Court’s analysis

The court set out a structured approach to the statutory scheme and rejected the submission that a separate “most exceptional circumstances” test should be imported into the welfare analysis. Instead, it confirmed that the correct approach was a careful balancing of public policy considerations and the child’s welfare.

On the facts, the court found that the documentation said to evidence the Nigerian adoption was “manifestly unreliable”, identifying multiple inconsistencies and features consistent with the very risks that led to Nigeria’s inclusion on the Restricted List. The court concluded that the child had been brought to the UK for the purposes of adoption, engaging section 83 and the special restrictions under the 2006 Act.

In assessing welfare, the court identified significant safeguarding concerns, including the child’s exposure to domestic abuse, inappropriate sleeping arrangements given the child’s age, and the applicant’s equivocal and transactional approach to adoption. The court was not satisfied that the applicant could provide the secure and stable environment required throughout the child’s life.

The Court’s decision

Balancing welfare and public policy, the court concluded that both pointed decisively against making an adoption order. The application was therefore dismissed.

Significance

This decision underscores the importance of rigorous scrutiny in adoption cases involving Restricted List countries. It confirms that non-compliance with section 83 will weigh heavily where the evidence reflects trafficking and documentation risks, and that public policy considerations may align with, rather than compete against, a child’s long-term welfare.

The case also clarifies that there is no free-standing “most exceptional circumstances” threshold: the court’s task remains a holistic welfare and public policy balancing exercise grounded in the statutory framework.

Kathy Walker was instructed by the Children’s Guardian to represent the child’s interests in this complex and sensitive High Court adoption matter.

About Kathy Walker

Kathy Walker is a Director at Duncan Lewis Solicitors and a highly respected specialist in public law children matters, with over 20 years’ experience in complex and sensitive care proceedings. A longstanding member of the Law Society Children’s Panel, Kathy is recognised for her child-focused and empathetic approach, and for her expertise in some of the most challenging cases involving serious medical, welfare and safeguarding issues.

If you require specialist support from our Family & Child Care team, please contact Kathy Walker via email at kathyw@duncanlewis.com  or via telephone on 02031190513.