D v London Borough of Bromley: High Court refuses Nigerian adoption amid trafficking concerns

The High Court has refused a domestic adoption application involving a Nigerian child, finding serious concerns about documentation reliability, potential trafficking, and the applicant's suitability as an adoptive parent. The case of D v London Borough of Bromley and Ors [2026] EWHC 247 (Fam) provides important guidance on applications involving countries subject to special restrictions under the Children and Adoption Act 2006.

DD, a British citizen originally from Nigeria, applied to adopt FD, a 17-year-old Nigerian girl she purported to have adopted in Nigeria in 2019. The applicant brought FD to England in April 2021 on a visitor visa, claiming both parents were deceased, though the father remained alive in Nigeria.

The application was opposed by Bromley Council, which filed Annex A reports assessing DD as unsuitable. The Secretary of State for Education intervened given Nigeria's inclusion on the Restricted List pursuant to section 9 of the 2006 Act, imposed due to child safeguarding concerns including unreliable documentation, corruption, and evidence of organised child trafficking.

Documentary deficiencies

Mr Justice MacDonald identified numerous serious problems with the Nigerian documentation. These included three different birth certificates with inconsistent information, two different 2019 adoption certificates, and a death certificate for FD's mother showing conflicting dates. The purported adoption documents lacked proper sealing, contained contradictory information about who consented to the adoption, and included an affidavit DD claimed was forged.

The court noted that five documents from Nigeria stated DD intended to bring FD to the UK, contradicting DD's assertion that she only wanted to support FD financially in Nigeria. Crucially, FD herself told the social worker that she was told "I was going to be adopted" before travelling to England.

Section 83 compliance

The court found that DD brought FD into the UK "for the purposes of adoption" within the meaning of section 83(1)(a) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, engaging the special restrictions regime. DD had made no application to the Secretary of State for an exception to these restrictions as required by the regulatory framework.

Mr Justice MacDonald clarified that whilst non-compliance with section 83 does not automatically prevent an adoption order, the court must undertake careful analysis of both public policy and welfare, with the child's welfare remaining paramount throughout their life.

Welfare assessment

The court found multiple welfare concerns militating against adoption. DD appeared equivocal about the adoption, repeatedly stating it was "what the father wants, not me" and "I am just helping." She demonstrated limited knowledge of FD's family, struggled to recall the names of her purported half-siblings, and showed dismissiveness toward FD's emotional needs following domestic abuse in the household.

Significantly, FD had witnessed and experienced domestic violence from DD's husband from 2021 until February 2025, yet no protective action was taken until FD herself called police. The court also expressed concern that FD, aged nearly 18, continued to share a bed with DD.

The court rejected the Children's Guardian's recommendation for adoption, finding the analysis insufficiently rigorous in failing to examine documentation inconsistencies or consider trafficking risks.

Public policy considerations

Mr Justice MacDonald emphasised that foreign national children are entitled to the same protection as children born in England and Wales. The judgement makes clear that applicants cannot expect courts to acquiesce in non-compliance simply because a child is already in their care, and that perceptions of a "more relaxed approach" in domestic adoption cases are erroneous.

The court refused the application, finding welfare and public policy aligned against adoption in circumstances involving unreliable documentation from a restricted country, potential trafficking indicators, and an applicant unable to demonstrate suitability.

Copyright & permissions