K v Maya & Anor

Tom Wilson (instructed by Goodman Ray Solicitors) for the Applicant Eva Holland (instructed by Cafcass Legal) for the First Respondent Johanne Simmonds (instructed by ACounty Council) for the Second Respondent Hearing date: 20th December 2022 ____________________

Overall, the report concludes, that: 'K's commitment to [Maya] since she has been here has been unwavering especially when put in the context that she first expressed a wish to adopt [Maya]six years ago and has taken a step-by-step approach to get here� �There is no doubt that there is added complexity from a transracial adoption and a single parent adoption but I feel confident that [K] is able to meet [Maya's] needs both now and in the future and that she will be a strong advocate for her as she has been thus far.'

For the avoidance of doubt I accept and agree with the position taken on behalf of the Guardian by Ms Holland, with whom Mr Wilson agrees, that whatever the arrangement was for Mr ETT when he came to be looking after Maya, there is no evidence that he was appointed as a guardian or that his consent otherwise falls to be considered under this section. I note also that his consent was not required by the High Court of Country F in relation to the adoption order made there. I am concerned here with Maya's birth mother and birth father when I consider this aspect.

a. The parent or guardian cannot be found or lacks capacity to give consent; or,

There is relatively little authority as to what constitutes an acceptable form of consent and, inevitably, each case must turn on its facts.