Held, matter remitted to the Family Court. (1) It was important to recognise at the outset the stark contrast between the position where a Scottish Children’s Hearing had made a compulsory supervision order and a case where the Sheriff Court had instead made a permanence order. Where an order had been made under the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 no parental rights or responsibilities had been conferred to the local authority and the natural parents therefore remained “parents” within the meaning of section 52(6) of the 2002 Act for purposes of section 52(1). Equally they remained “parents who have parental responsibility” for the purposes of FPR r 14.3, and were required to be joined as respondents to the proceedings. However, in accordance with established principles, the Family Court in England had jurisdiction to hear the application for an adoption order pursuant to the 2002 Act (the adoptive parents’ habitual residence in England being the only relevant criteria) and to dispense with the consent of the natural parents in accordance with section 52(1)(b) of the 2002 Act, were it considered necessary to do so, irrespective of the natural parents’ nationality or habitual residence (paras 10, 34–35, 46).

(2) A Scottish local authority, which was an adoption agency for the purposes of the relevant Scottish legislation, was also an adoption agency for the purposes of sections 42 and 43 of the 2002 Act and for the purposes of FPR r 14.3. Therefore the prospective adoptive parents were, pursuant to section 42(2)(a) of the 2002 Act, not required to give notice of intention to adopt as the children had been “placed for adoption with them by an adoption agency”. Accordingly, the adoption application had been properly made and the task for the Family Court was (a) to decide whether adoption was in the best interests of the children and (b) to determine whether the welfare of the children required their natural parents’ consent to be dispensed with (paras 36, 46).

(3) The apparent combined effect of sections 1(1)(a), 2(1) and 3(1) of the Family Law Act 1986 restricting the Family Court or the Family Division from making an alternate private child arrangements order if the children were deemed not to have been habitually resident in England did not prevent the court from properly carrying out its function such to make it an inappropriate forum; if so required the inherent jurisdiction could be relied upon to bridge any gap in the orders that could be made. With particular consideration given to the delay that would be suffered were the matter to be heard in Scotland, in the present case England was the most appropriate forum. However, in an adoption case where, as here, the court had been invited to dispense with the natural parents’ consent it was inconceivable that obstacles be put in the way of the natural parents being present in court throughout the final hearing. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted for hearing in the Preston or Blackburn Family Court on the basis that the travel and accommodation expenses of the natural parents were to be met by the Scottish local authority, if not already covered by public funding (paras 51–52, 59–61, 63–66).

Per curiam. Where an adoption application is made to an English court relying upon a Scottish order, whether a compulsory supervision order or a permanence order with authority to adopt, the papers should be referred to the designated family judge at the outset with a view to making an order joining the Scottish local authority before the first directions hearing (para 68).