Savane (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1909

Savane (Migration) [2021] AATA 1909 (6 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REVIEW APPLICANT:  Mr Laye Savane

VISA APPLICANTS:  Master Mohamed Koroma
Miss Manteneh Koroma

CASE NUMBER:  2006758

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/1724644 CLF2020/4023

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:6 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first and second named visa applicants meet the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

·cl.309.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

·cl.309.321 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 06 May 2021 at 3:28pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa – Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) – members of the family unit – no evidence of formal adoption orders – customary adoption – no other living relatives to care for the applicants – Guardianship order – review applicant’s increased remittances – school registration – inconclusive DNA test results – traditional care arrangements in Sierra Leone – formal adoption not reasonably practicable – decision under review remitted     

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5C, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 309.213, 309.311, 309.321; rr 1.04, 1.12

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 28 January 2020 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. Mrs Sallay Sammeh Yanka Savane (the primary visa applicant) applied for the visa on 23 March 2018 on the basis of their relationship with her sponsor, Mr Laye Savane (the review applicant). Mohamed Koroma and Manteneh Koroma (the first and second named applicants respectively) applied for the visas at the same time as members of the family unit of the primary visa applicant.  On 28 January 2020 the primary visa applicant was granted a Subclass 309 temporary Partner visa, having satisfied the primary criteria.  Other members of the family unit who are applicants for the visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicants did not satisfy cl.309.321 because the delegate was not satisfied the first and second named visa applicants were or are members of the family unit of the primary visa applicant, Sallay Sammeh Savane, within the meaning of r.1.12 as there was no evidence of formal adoption orders in respect of them.

4. On 7 April 2020, the applicants sought review of the decisions to the Tribunal and sought fast track priority processing of the review on the basis that the delegate failed to consider customary adoption provisions in r.1.04(2) and that there is substantial country information to support a finding that the arrangements in respect of the applicants’ are in accordance with custom in Sierra Leone and their circumstances satisfy the other requirements for recognition as customary adoption arrangements: there is no other person who has a child-parent relationship with the children; formal adoption is not reasonably practicable and there is no evidence the arrangements were contrived to circumvent Australian migration requirements. It was further submitted that the primary visa applicant was granted a Subclass 100 visa on 28 January 2020, with a first entry date specified as 28 January 2021. She is unable to travel to Australia without the visa applicants as there are no other living relatives able to care for them in Sierra Leone.

5. The applications were granted priority on 6 November 2020.

6. The review applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 22 February 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms Salley Sammeh Yanka Savane, the primary visa applicant.  Relevant details from the evidence obtained at hearing are included in the discussion below.

7. The review applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the visa applicants are members of the family unit of the primary visa applicant, being Ms Sallay Sammeh Yanka Savane, within the meaning of this term in r.1.12.

10. Regulation 1.12 provides that a person is a member of the family unit of another person (the family head) if that person is a child or step child of the family head or a of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head and has not turned 18. 

11. Section 5CA of the Migration Act defines ‘child’ as including someone who is ‘an adopted child’ of a person within the meaning of this Act.

12. The Migration Act defines adoption in r.1.04 of the Migration Regulations as an arrangement whereby a person has assumed a parental role in relation to another person before the adoptee turns 18. These arrangements can be under formal adoption arrangements recognised under Australian State or Territory law; formal adoption under the laws of another country; or other arrangements entered into outside Australia that are taken to be in the nature of adoption: r.1.04(1).

13. Subregulation 2 of r.1.04 sets out the requirements that such ‘other arrangements’ must satisfy to be taken to be an adoption: they must be made in accordance with usual practice or a recognised custom in the culture of the adoptee and adopter; the child-parent relationship between the adoptee and adopter must be significantly closer than any such relationship between the adoptee and any other person; formal adoption must not be available or reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and the arrangements must not be contrived to circumvent Australian migration requirements: r.1.04(2).

14. Before the Department the following documents were provided to evidence the child applicants’ relationship with the primary visa applicant: statement regarding how the children came into the applicant’s custody; a Letter of Attestation from the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs dated 13 October 2017; Guardianship order granted to Laye SAVANE and Sallay Samey Yanka SAVANE for Manteneh KOROMA dated 09 October 2017 Abdul KOROMA death certificate issued on 09 October 2017; Doris KOROMA death certificate issued on 09 October 2017; Manteneh KOROMA birth certificate issued on 05 October 2017 listing Doris KOROMA and Abdul KOROMA as biological parents.  Sallay Sammeh YANKA birth certificate issued on 18 December 2017 listing Fanta YANKA and Sheku YANKA as biological parents.  

15. The delegate refused the applications on the basis that there were no formal adoption orders in place.  No consideration was given to whether there were ‘other arrangements’ in accordance with usual practice or recognised custom, or whether the other requirements for recognition of customary adoption were satisfied. 

16. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it, and the review applicant’s concession of this point, that there were, and are, no formal adoption orders in favour of the visa applicants. 

17. Therefore the issue before the Tribunal is whether the requirements for customary adoption arrangements under r.1.04(2) are met in respect of the visa applicant children.

18. At the hearing the Tribunal questioned the review applicant about the history of the relationship with his wife, his knowledge of her family composition and his knowledge of the visa applicant children and how they came into his wife’s care and their current circumstances.  The Tribunal asked his wife similar questions when it took evidence from her separately. The both gave substantially consistent evidence and answered the Tribunal’s questions directly, without hesitation and in a straightforward manner.  Further details of their evidence are included in the discussion below.    

19. The review applicant and his wife gave consistent evidence to the Tribunal that the children are children of her only brother and his wife and would visit her house regularly and stay with her on weekends and during school holidays.  The review applicant told the Tribunal he met the children when he visited Sierra Leone in 2016.  They were staying with the primary visa applicant in August 2017 when the mudslide incident that killed their parents took place and have remained in her care since then. 

20. In October 2017, a Care Order was made in respect of the children under s60 of the Child Rights Act 2007, placing them under the supervision of a probation officer, and authorising their residence with the primary visa applicant.  The review applicant’s wife told the Tribunal that she obtained the Letter of Attestation from the Department of Social Welfare on their advice as being all that was necessary to continue to exercise parental responsibility for the children, given her blood relationship with them. When questioned what documents or evidence was required to obtain this document she said that the Department was aware of the circumstances and no documentation was required.  She said she was interviewed in the process. Both she and the review applicant gave consistent evidence that they were informed by the relevant authorities in Sierra Leone that it was unnecessary to seek adoption because such procedures were mainly for foreigners seeking to adopt children.

21. Since coming into her care, the primary visa applicant told the Tribunal she has relied on this documentation to evidence her parental responsibility for the children in Sierra Leone when arranging for their new registration at a local school in her area, and has also when she took Mohammed for medical treatment at the hospital when he had a sore tooth. The review applicant has been providing financial support throughout the period for the primary and child visa applicants. He increased the amount of his remittances after the children came into her care, to include their needs. 

22. Both the review applicant and primary visa applicant told the Tribunal that since the death of the children’s parents, there are no other relatives or other persons who are available or interested in caring for them.  It is a matter of significant stress for them both as to what will happen to the children if the visas are not granted to allow them to accompany the primary visa applicant to Australia.  They both expressed concern for the welfare and future of the children if they are left in Sierra Leone, particularly for Manteneh who is a young girl approaching maturity. They are afraid the children will be exposed to a risk of homelessness and the consequent dangers of life on the streets.  The review applicant expressed his concern about the willingness of the primary visa applicant to leave the children alone and the stress it places on their relationship to make her choose between coming to Australia and abandoning her children.

23. At the hearing the Tribunal canvassed with the review and primary visa applicant the possibility of undertaking DNA testing to verify the relationship between the children and the primary visa applicant.  They indicated that they would be willing to do this if requested. A letter inviting them to provide DNA evidence of the claimed biological relationship between the primary visa applicant and visa applicant children was issued on 24 February 2021. 

24. On 15 March 2021 the Tribunal received the following further evidence arising from matters discussed during the hearing:

    -    Evidence of review applicant’s remittances to primary visa applicant from 2016-2021 indicating a significant increase in annual amounts in the years 2018 and 2019.

    -    Evidence of school registrations for the visa applicants for the academic years 2017/2018 and 2019/2020 at schools in the primary visa applicant’s area Morabie Koya Rural Waterloo, signed by the primary visa applicant as Parent/Guardian and evidence of payment of school fees.

    -    Medical report relating to Mohamed Koroma dated 19 July 2019 from Waterloo Government Hospital relating to an admission for swollen jaw. 

    -    Submission from the applicant’s representative dated 15 March 2021 addressing the above evidence. The submission indicated the primary visa applicant wishes to accept the Tribunal’s invitation to undertake DNA testing and have initiated the arrangements through the Australian High Commission in South Africa.

25. On 14 April 2021 the Tribunal received from the Department a copy of the DNA results and report by DNA Labs in respect of the DNA tests undertaken.  The report indicated the results are inconclusive that an Aunt-niece relationship exists between Sallay Sammeh Yanka Savane and Manteneh Koroma; and that it is unlikely that Sallay Sammeh Yanka Savane shares an Aunt-nephew relationship with Mohamed Koroma.

26. On 15 April 2021 the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment or respond to this information.  The Tribunal advised the applicant that the information was relevant to the review because subject to comments or response, if the Tribunal relies on this information it would not be satisfied that the visa applicants are the children of Ms Sallay Sammeh Yanka Savane’s brother and therefore that she is a blood relative of them. If it made this finding it may not accept that Ms Savane has adopted the children in accordance with usual practice and recognised custom in Sierra Leone of extended family taking parental responsibility for children who are their blood relatives. If the Tribunal made these findings it would contribute to the reasons that it is not satisfied the visa applicants are the adopted children of Sallay Sammeh Yanka Savane as defined in r.1.04(2) and are not members of her family unit within the meaning of r.1.12.

27. On 25 April 2021 the Tribunal received a response to its invitation including submissions from the representative and a letter from Manteneh Koroma. The submission stated that the review applicant acknowledges the results of the DNA tests with surprise and disappointment. It is argued however, that contrary to the Tribunal’s explanation in the invitation to comment of the relevance of this information and reliance on it, there is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal in this matter to find that Manteneh and Mohamed are the primary visa applicant’s adopted children within the meaning of r.1.04(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). It is submitted that DNA tests are not determinative of familial relationship and that ‘family’ must be considered more broadly in the social context, taking into account the nature of the relationship between the parties and the roles they have played and continue to play in each other’s lives. The children have always known Mr Koroma as their father and the primary visa applicant as their aunt. This was the basis on which they were in her care at the time of the mud slide accident and have remained in her care since. Reference is made to the attached letter from Manteneh regarding the strength of that bond. This in not invalidated by the DNA test result. For this reason it is submitted that the visa applicants are members of the primary visa applicant’s family unit and she has adopted them within the meaning of the regulations. In the alternative, it is argued that kindship care is not limited to family, and absence of a familial relationship does not mean the arrangements are not in accordance with custom. Reference is made to the country information previously submitted that indicates that care arrangements are not limited to people genetically related.

28. It is submitted that there are no other known living biological relatives willing or able to care for the children in this case and the responsibility has fallen on the primary visa applicant.  This is entirely consistent with recognised custom in Sierra Leone regardless of the absence of a genetic relationship.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

29. The issue before the Tribunal is whether the requirements for customary adoption arrangements under r.1.04(2) are met.

    Results of DNA tests

30. The primary visa applicant claimed the first and second named visa applicants are her brother’s children and she took over parental responsibility for them because of her pre-existing close relationship with them and in accordance with local custom and tradition. In support of this claim she provided with her application official documents evidencing recognition of her as the paternal aunt of the children.  At the hearing, and in documents provided following it,  further evidence was given to support that the primary visa applicant has taken responsibility for the children, including providing for their accommodation, health and education, since they became orphans, and that the review applicant has been providing continuous and ongoing financial support to the children on the basis that they are members of the primary visa applicant’s family unit throughout this period.

31. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicants the possibility of obtaining DNA evidence to support the claimed blood relationship between the primary visa applicant and visa applicant children, stressing that this was a request only and not a requirement. Mrs Savane willingly, and without hesitation, accepted this invitation to undertake DNA testing and on this basis it was done. 

32. However, as it turned out, the results of the DNA tests provided to the Tribunal was that it was ‘unlikely’ the primary visa applicant shares an Aunt-nephew relationship with the first named applicant and ‘inconclusive’ that an Aunt-niece relationship exists between her and second named applicant. 

33. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the DNA results, together with all the evidence now before it, the representative’s submissions and the personal letter from the second named visa applicant.  For the following reasons, the Tribunal does not consider the results of the DNA tests in this matter to be determinative of the issue under review. 

34. While acknowledging the outcome of the DNA test results, the Tribunal accepts the representative’s submission that the DNA outcome came to the review and primary visa applicant’s surprise and disappointment.  It also acknowledges the second named visa applicant’s letter which indicates it does not change her view of who her parents were. Given the unfortunate and tragic circumstances of the death of the children’s parents, it is not possible to explore this matter much further.   In any event, the results are only conclusive to rule out (or ‘inconclusive’ in respect of one of the children) a genetic relationship between the primary visa applicant and the first and second named applicants.  It is still plausible and credible that, regardless of a genetic connection, her brother, as husband of his wife, was a father (step-father) to the children. The Tribunal also notes and gives weight to the fact that the primary visa applicant immediately and willingly undertook the testing and accepts her surprise at the result. It finds the review and visa applicants to be credible witnesses and accepts their evidence of the circumstances in which the children came into her care and ongoing care that she continues to provide. This has also been supported by documents evidencing their enrolment at school in her area, attendance for health services, and the review applicant’s ongoing financial support for the family. The official documents provided indicate that she is recognised as the next of kin by local officials and the community.   

35. For all of these reasons, despite the DNA results in this matter, the Tribunal accepts the first and second named applicants are the niece and nephew of the primary visa applicant, if not by blood relationship then as the children of her brother’s wife (which would be considered a step-relationship) and that accordingly, she is considered their close relative and in this case, in the absence of any information or evidence of any other close relatives, their next of kin.

1. The Tribunal therefore proceeds to consider whether the requirements for customary adoption arrangements under r.1.04(2) are met on the basis of this relationship.

   Usual practice

2. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the children have been in the care and custody of the primary visa applicant since August 2017, when they became orphans upon the death of their parents in a mudslide in Freetown Sierra Leone. This incident is the subject of independent news reports[1] and the Tribunal accepts that it is plausible and credible that this occurred as claimed.

   [1]

3. The applicant’s representative submits there is substantial country information to support that the arrangements made for the children were in accordance with usual custom and practice in Sierra Leone, and referred to various reports including the Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone’s African Charter Report[2], and report of  Save the Children[3] among other sources[4] in support.   The Tribunal has considered this information, together with other sources[5] and accepts that customary law governs the majority of the practice of adoption in Sierra Leone and the important role that extended family plays in raising children in that country. It accepts the importance of traditional care arrangements is reflected in the acknowledgment of the rights and duties of extended family members in the Child Rights Act 2007 (SL) and that the system of informal kinship care in Sierra Leone (known as menpikin) is significantly influenced by local traditions which view care of close relatives as a family obligation.  It also accepts, on the basis of the country information considered, and confirmed by the review applicant and his wife’s oral testimony, that there are very few domestic adoptions. 

   [2] Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone, “Initial Report on the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare

   [3] Save the Children, Save the Children Research Initiative: Understanding and Improving Informal Alternative

   [4] Lacey Andrews Gale, Beyond men pikin: improving understanding of post conflict child

   [5] MRT RESEARCH RESPONSE SLE34330 Sierra Leone – Customary Adoption’, Migration Review Tribunal – Australia, 24 February 2009, CISE1310071961 

4. The Tribunal accepts that the country information cited indicates it is government policy in Sierra Leone that kinship care is the preferred solution for separated and displaced children (subject to considerations of the best interest of the child and to adequate supervision).[6]

   [6] See Save the Children (above n3) p24; African Charter Report, above n 3, [169]-[170], [179]; Gale, above n 4, 2

5. Therefore, having regard to the weight of independent country information, and the evidence of the review and primary visa applicant, the Tribunal accepts in the present case that the foster/guardianship arrangements in place evidencing the children being in the sole custody and care of, and residing with, the primary visa applicant since the death of their parents are in accordance with the usual practice and recognised custom in Sierra Leone as required by r.1.04(2)(a).

   Child parent relationship

6. The evidence is that the children reside with the primary visa applicant, and have been residing with her exclusively since August 2017, when their parents died in the mudslide incident. There are no other living relatives.  The primary visa applicant provides for their daily needs, living arrangements and attends to their education and health care needs, with the financial support of the review applicant.  Documentary evidence in support of this has been provided.

7. At the hearing, the Tribunal questioned the review applicant and primary visa applicant about their respective family compositions, and their evidence was consistent.   Apart from the elderly mother of the primary visa applicant, who lives in a remote village some distance away, and is reportedly unwell there are no other relatives who have come forward to provide care or responsibility for the children since the death of their parents.

8. A Care Order in place since October 2017 and Letter of Attestation provided by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs confirms and supports the familial and existing child-parent relationship between the children and the primary visa applicant.

9. On the evidence, the Tribunal accepts the child-parent relationship between Manteneh and Mohamed and the primary visa applicant is closer than any such relationship with another person and therefore the applicants satisfy the requirements of reg 1.04(2)(b).

   Formal adoption not available or not reasonably practicable

10. The Tribunal accepts that Sierra Leone law provides for formal adoption under the Adoption Act 1989 and Child Rights Act of 2007, but both are widely considered to be out of date.[7] Adoptions were suspended in May 2009 in order for measures to be undertaken to review the Adoption Act and acceded to the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption.  While the suspension was lifted in 2012, with reported official information indicating new intercountry adoptions would take place under the country’s existing legal framework[8] it is also noted that adoption orders from Sierra Leone are not recognized in the UK[9].  The Tribunal accepts that the country information indicates there are very few domestic adoptions and care of orphan relatives usually occurs outside the formal system.

    [7] International Social Services, Country Fact Sheet for the CRC – Sierra Leone,

    [8] ‘HANCI Suspended in Sierra Leone; Illegal Adoption Investigation to Resume’, Rally, 19 April 2012: ‘MRT RESEARCH RESPONSE SLE34330 Sierra Leone – Customary Adoption’,  

    [9] ‘Foreign Travel Advice – Sierra Leone’, UK Home Office, n.d., CXBB8A1DA26123  

11. The Tribunal notes that under The Child Right Act 2007, a person who has resided with and taken care of a child as a foster parent for not less than a continuous period of six months, may apply to adopt a child if the person is at least thirty years of age. The Tribunal notes that the primary visa applicant was less than thirty years of age (she was 26 years old) at the time of application.

12. On the weight of country information cited, the Tribunal accepts that formal adoption was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances of the applicant children and on this basis the applicants meet reg 1.04(2)(c)(i)(B).

    Arrangements not contrived to circumvent Australian migration arrangements

13. The Tribunal accepts that the evidence before the Tribunal is that the children had a pre-existing relationship with the primary visa applicant as the children of her brother, and they were in her care at the time of the mudslide which killed their parents.  It accepts that that the arrangements for their care is consistent with custom in their country, as indicated above.  The present application was made at the same time as the primary visa applicant made her visa application, and it was always the intention to include them as members of her family unit.  The timing of the official documents are consistent with the event which took their parents lives and raise no concerns for the Tribunal.  The Tribunal took oral evidence at a hearing from the review applicant and primary visa applicant and found them to be credible witnesses, and there is no information before the Tribunal to raise doubts about the motivations or credibility of the arrangements.

14. Having regard to all of the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the arrangements were not contrived to circumvent Australian migration requirements and reg 1.04(2)(c)(ii) is met.

15. On the findings and for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied the arrangements in respect of the care of the first and second named visa applicant children are taken in the nature of adoption within the meaning of the Act on the basis of satisfying the requirements set out in reg. 1.04(2).

16. On this basis the Tribunal is satisfied that the first and second named visa applicants are the adopted children of the primary visa applicant and therefore are members of the family unit of a person who satisfies the primary criteria in cl.309.21.  It is also satisfied, on the evidence, that the sponsorship referred to in cl.309.213 includes sponsorship of the first and second named visa applicants. Therefore the applicants meet cl.309.311 at time of application.  The Tribunal is satisfied they continue to be members of the family unit of the primary visa applicant at time of decision and therefore meet cl.309.321.

17. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 309 visa.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal remits the applications for Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first and second named visa applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 309 (Partner (Provisional)) visa:

    ·cl.309.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

    ·cl.309.321 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Meena Sripathy
    Member

    
    

    Extracts from Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

    Reg 1.12    Member of the family unit 

    Scope

    (1)  This regulation has effect for the purposes of the definition (the main definition) of member of the family unit in subsection 5(1) of the Act.

    General rule

    (2)  A person is a member of the family unit of another person (the family head) if the person:

    (a)  is a spouse or de facto partner of the family head; or

    (b)  is a child or step‑child of the family head or of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head (other than a child or step‑child who is engaged to be married or has a spouse or de facto partner) and:

    (i)  has not turned 18; or

    (ii)  has turned 18, but has not turned 23, and is dependent on the family head or on the spouse or de facto partner of the family head; or

    (iii)  has turned 23 and is under paragraph 1.05A(1)(b) dependent on the family head or on the spouse or de facto partner of the family head; or

    (c)  is a dependent child of a person who meets the conditions in paragraph (b).

    This subregulation has effect subject to the later subregulations of this regulation.

    Section 5CA Child of a person

    (1)  Without limiting who is a child of a person for the purposes of this Act, each of the following is the child of a person:

    (a)  someone who is a child of the person within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975 (other than someone who is an adopted child of the person within the meaning of that Act);

    (b)  someone who is an adopted child of the person within the meaning of this Act.

    (2)  The regulations may provide that, for the purposes of this Act, a person specified by the regulations is not a child of another person specified by the regulations in circumstances in which the person would, apart from this subsection, be the child of more than 2 persons for the purposes of this Act.

    (3)  Subsection (2), and regulations made for the purposes of that subsection, have effect whether the person specified as not being a child of another person would, apart from that subsection and those regulations, be the child of the other person because of subsection (1) or otherwise.

    Reg 1.04 Adoption  

    (1)  A person (in this regulation called the adoptee) is taken to have been adopted by a person (in this regulation called the adopter) if, before the adoptee attained the age of 18 years, the adopter assumed a parental role in relation to the adoptee under: 

    (a)  formal adoption arrangements made in accordance with, or recognised under, the law of a State or Territory of Australia relating to the adoption of children; or 

    (b)  formal adoption arrangements made in accordance with the law of another country, being arrangements under which the persons who were recognised by law as the parents of the adoptee before those arrangements took effect ceased to be so recognised and the adopter became so recognised; or 

    (c)  other arrangements entered into outside Australia that, under subregulation (2), are taken to be in the nature of adoption.

    (2)  For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), arrangements are taken to be in the nature of adoption if: 

    (a)  the arrangements were made in accordance with the usual practice, or a recognised custom, in the culture or cultures of the adoptee and the adopter; and 

    (b)  the child-parent relationship between the adoptee and the adopter is significantly closer than any such relationship between the adoptee and any other person or persons, having regard to the nature and duration of the arrangements; and 

    (c)  the Minister is satisfied that: 

    (i)  formal adoption of the kind referred to in paragraph (1)(b):

    (A)  was not available under the law of the place where the arrangements were made; or 

    (B)  was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and 

    (ii)  the arrangements have not been contrived to circumvent Australian migration requirements.

    
    

of the Child 2002-2014”, [153].

Care Mechanisms to increase the care and protection of children, with a focus on Kinship care in West Central
Africa, October 2013, page

34

fostering in Sierra Leone,
5.