Henderson v Attorney-General

[2015] NZHC 1971

NOTE:  PURSUANT TO S 22A OF THE ADOPTION ACT 1955, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLICATIONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-3209

CIV-2014-404-3210 [2015] NZHC 1971

UNDER	the Adoption Act 1955
IN THE MATTER OF	Sections 3, 10 and 13A of the Adoption Act 1955
AND	In the matter of two applications to adopt a female child and a male child
AND	In the matter of an appeal from the decision of the Family Court
BETWEEN	HENDERSON AND HENDERSON Appellants
AND	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Hearing:	19 May 2015
Appearances:	S C Abernethy for Applicants A Todd and G Gillies for Attorney-General E B Parsons Counsel to assist the Court
Judgment:	19 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Whata on

19 August 2015 at 3.00 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

HENDERSON AND HENDERSON v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 1971 [19 August 2015]

Solicitors:

Wayne Thompson, Auckland

Crown Law Office, Wellington
Copy to:

S C Abernethy, Auckland

E B Parsons, Auckland

[1]      Family Court Judge Adams rejected an application for adoption by a New Zealand national, resident in Thailand, of his two Thai step-children.   The Judge resolved in short that:

(a)       The  adoption  should  not  be  granted  in  the  absence  of  a  social

worker’s report pursuant to s 10 of the Adoption Act 1995; and

(b)The applicants did not have a sufficient connection to New Zealand for the purpose of adoption under New Zealand law.

[2]      It transpires that a social worker report was in fact produced for the purpose of the s 10 evaluation. It appears then that the Judge may have failed to have regard to it, though it is more likely that the Judge did not think it was adequate. In any event, I have come to the view that the Judge was wrong on both counts for the reasons to follow. As requested by the appellants, I will also address the merits of the application for adoption.

Background

The family

[3]        The appellants are a married couple who live in Bangkok, Thailand. Mr Henderson is a New Zealand citizen and his wife Mrs Henderson is a Thai citizen. The couple was married on 15 February 2010 in Bangkok.

[4]      Mrs Henderson has two biological children from previous relationships, S (known as F) and T (known as JJ).  Mr Henderson adopted S and T under Thai law on 24 April 2013, and they informally took the surname Henderson. The process had apparently taken three years.  He now seeks to do the same under New Zealand law.

[5]      S has apparently never met her biological father.  Mr Henderson is the only father she has ever known. Similarly T’s father has no recent contact with him, and Mr Henderson is the only person filling that role. In their original application for the

adoption…