Application for adoption — intercountry adoption — habitual resident — principles of subsidiarity — Adoption Act 1955, ss 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 17 — Adoption (Intercountry) Act 1997 — Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) — Re Adoption Application by KGC and TGC [2007] NZFLR 851 — Norman v Attorney General [2020] NZHC 336 — Re Wipu [2015] NZFC 6001 — Punter v Secretary for Justice [2004] 2 NZLR 28 (CA) — SK v KP [2005] 3 NZLR 590 (CA) — Mitchell v Ketut [2016] NZFC 6175 — Re Adoption of P [2005] NZFLR 865 (FC) — Re Adoption Application by KGC and TGC [2007] NZFLR 851 (FC) — Re Application by PHB FC Blenheim FAM-2010-006-000223, 22 June 2011 — Re Tolbert (Adoption) [2015] NZFC 10288 — U v Attorney-General [2012] NZCA 616, [2015] 2 NZLR 115 — Re Application by LIM FC Porirua FAM-2008-091-000629, 18 October 2001 — Re Chung (Adoption) [2015] NZFC 7754 — Re SN [2012] NZFC 9705 — Re Application by Teaupa [2016] NZFC 6920, [2017] NZFLR 89 — R v New Zealand Central Authority [2017] NZFC 516 — GI v PAI [2013] NZFC 2983 — Tagioalisi (Adoption) [2015] NZFC 2319 — Adoption Application by B [2007] NZFLR 399. This was an application for an adoption order in favour of the applicants. The child had been in the care of the applicants since shortly after her birth. The main issue for determination was whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant the adoption order, or if the Adoption (Intercountry) Act (and thus the requirements of the Hague Convention) applied. In making this decision the Court was required to establish which country the child had been "habitually resident" in at the relevant time. Of the two countries that the child had lived in, India was a signatory to the Hague Convention and Singapore was not. In assessing "habitual residence" the Court considered the length of time that the child had been with the applicants and resident in Singapore, the legitimacy of the processes that the applicants followed, and the lack of reasonable alternatives available for the applicants to adopt the child. The Court held that the applicants' intention to adopt the child had crystallised into action at the time of the second application to adopt through the New Zealand courts. As the child was currently resident in a country that had not signed the Hague Convention, the Court had jurisdiction to determine the application under the Adoption Act. However, the Court still addressed the requirements of the Hague Convention and was satisfied that the child was available for adoption, that the adoption was in her best interests and that her wishes had been consulted. The applicants intended to have a genuine parent-child relationship and there was no element of trafficking. The Court found that the requirement for formal consent from the birth parents could be dispensed with as the applicants had completed three separate processes in the child's country of origin to acknowledge the adoption. A final adoption order was granted in favour of the applicants. Judgment Date: 3 August 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *