Z & Z, Re [2013] EWHC 747 (Fam) (22 January 2013)

Mrs. Z was habitually resident in England and Wales for the relevant period despite limited physical presence due to involuntary absence; the Brazilian adoption was lawful, conformed to English standards, and no public policy reasons exist against recognition. The court has jurisdiction and recognises the Brazilian...

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2013] EWHC 747 (Fam)
Parties: First Applicant: Mrs. Z; Second Applicant: Mr. Z; Respondent: County Council; Guardian: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 22 January 2013
Procedural Posture: Recognition of Foreign Adoption and Subsequent Adoption Application / Judgment on Recognition Application
Outcome: Declaration granted; Brazilian adoption orders recognised.
Legal Topics: Recognition of Foreign Adoption, Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Public Policy, Adoption Criteria

Family Law International Private Law Recognition of Foreign Adoption Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Public Policy Adoption Criteria

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mrs. Z

First Applicant

Mr. Z

Second Applicant

County Council

Respondent

Children's Guardian

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Recognition of Foreign Adoption and Subsequent Adoption Application / Judgment on Recognition Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mrs. Z was habitually resident in England and Wales for the relevant period
2 Whether the Brazilian adoption order should be recognised under English law
3 Whether public policy considerations mitigate against recognition

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; Brazilian adoption orders recognised.

Orders

Recognition of Brazilian adoption orders for A and B under s.66(e) ACA 2002
Mrs. Z recognised as children's parent in English law

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.