In the third case, the mother gave birth to her child, Z, in England. She wished for him to be adopted in the UK and did not want her family involved. The local authority nevertheless contacted her relatives, who were unable to offer him a home. The putative father consented to Z’s adoption in the UK. The mother provided advance consent to the adoption and, following the birth, had no further contact with him. The authority recommended placement for adoption and applied for a placement order; prospective adopters were identified. The Estonian authorities were informed and indicated that they had no objection to Z’s adoption in the UK.

Comment: The jurisdictional provisions of Brussels IIa do not apply to adoption decisions or to measures preparatory to adoption. In England and Wales, jurisdiction to make orders for the placement and adoption of children is derived solely from statute—primarily the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and, in certain respects, Schedule 2, paragraph 9 of the Children Act 1989. There is no alternative jurisdiction to make such orders, whether statutory or inherent. While the inherent jurisdiction may supplement statutory provisions, it cannot be used to make orders that conflict with the statutory scheme.

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 does not apply where a child has been voluntarily relinquished for adoption, as such a child is not considered to be “detained” within the meaning of the Convention.

Where parents have given valid consent to placement for adoption, the local authority is authorised to proceed with placement. In these circumstances, there is neither a duty nor a power to seek a placement order under section 21 of the 2002 Act. Accordingly, in Z’s case, there was no jurisdiction to make such an order.