Published On: March 9th 2026
Authored By: Haftom Endrias Weldegergs
Aksum University
Abstract
This article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of the Ethiopian and UK legal frameworks, policies, and judicial interpretations on intercountry adoption and the best interests of the child. The article further highlights the international legal frame works on intercountry adoption like the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and Hague convention on intercountry adoption, Ethiopian national framework, policy positions, and judicial precedence on intercountry adoption, the UK legal standards as well as judicial holdings on the same, and reasoning held on sample case decisions rendered by both countries’ courts on intercountry adoption and best interest of the child. Moreover, a brief and descriptive comparative analysis of state control and child centered protection was included in the article to facilitate a clear findings and solutions. Last but not least, the article winds up by analyzing the legal as well as practical challenges face in recognizing intercountry adoptions and best interest of the child, proposing reform proposals and normative recommendations that would be workable in ensuring worldwide recognition of intercountry adoptions, and concluding in a nut shell the core concepts discussed in the article.
Introduction
Intercountry adoption is the adoption of a child habitually resident in one country by a person habitually resident in another country.[1] Intercountry adoption is recognized under international law standards as a child protection mechanism to create the best family environment for a child, devoid of family care. Being such the very objective of intercountry adoption, states have been unreasonably interfering with the principle of best interest of the child and impugning this objective under the guise of public or government policy. This article will highlight the tensions between state control over intercountry adoption and obligation of States to give priority to the best interests of the child as a major problem to be addressed. On top of that, International legal frameworks along with Ethiopian and UK laws on intercountry adoptions, judicial approaches to the best interests of the child, comparative analysis on state control and child-focused protection, and legal as well as practical challenges in intercountry adoption will be briefly discussed. Finally, the article comes to an end by forwarding reform proposals and some normative recommendations, and a brief conclusion of the entire idea of the article.
Research Problem and Methodology
The central problem to be addressed in this article is the tension that exists between state control over intercountry adoptions under the guise of public policy, and the best interest of the child to be served and guaranteed for every child in need of it. The article analyzes international legal instruments, judicial decisions and interpretations, and statutory provisions stipulated under the Ethiopian and UK legal frameworks on intercountry adoption by employing doctrinal and comparative methodology.
International Legal Framework Governing Intercountry Adoption
As in the case of other human rights of human beings, international law provides robust legal frameworks and standards that govern intercountry adoption and best interests of the child through binding conventions or treaty provisions, and authoritative committees’ judicial interpretations and comments. Among these, the most central and comprehensive ones are the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child and the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. These two international conventions establish a number of rights that every child can enjoy at all times, and the rules and principles to be adhered to in intercountry adoption. When I dive into the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it sets out the obligation of state parties to arrange and foster alternative care of the child or of special protection provided that the child has deprived of his family environment.[2] It further highlights the duty of state signatories to allow intercountry adoption if the child cannot be cared for in a suitable manner in his country of residence. This reinforces the obligation of the state parties to provide the necessary safeguards and standards to the child to be adopted intercountry in an equivalent way to the case of national adoption.[3] On the other hand, the Hague convention on inter country adoption expressly places an obligation on the member states to recognize an intercountry adoption made in accordance with the provisions of the convention. [4] According to this convention, intercountry adoption should be allowed in order to reinforce the best interests of the child guaranteed under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and everywhere else. This convention further stipulates intercountry adoption is necessary to prevent child sale, abduction, trafficking, and to let children grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.[5] Intercountry adoptions made in accordance with this convention are automatically recognized by law, and refusal can only be made if the adoption is clearly contrary to the public policy of the state, taking into consideration the best interest of the child.[6]
The Ethiopian Legal Framework on Intercountry Adoption
The Ethiopian constitution, domestic family law legislation, and other child policy instruments aimed at protecting vulnerable children govern the intercountry adoption in Ethiopia. In addition to this, the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) shape the Ethiopian legal framework on intercountry adoption as they are considered as part of the supreme law of the land under article 9 of the Ethiopian constitution.[7] Art 193 of the Ethiopian revised family code holds that the court is obliged to approve the intercountry adoption if a relevant authority charged with protecting and safeguarding the welfare and interest of the child, after collecting and analyzing information about the economic, personal and social status of the adopter, has given his opinion that the adoption is beneficial to the child.[8] On the other hand, the same article in the revised family code provides the court with a discretionary power to reject the adoption agreement, provided that, in its opinion, the adoption agreement is not beneficial to the child. Furthermore, courts are vested with the power to order the relevant authorities to furnish information about the adoption agreement and the adopter.[9]
When I turn to the child policy instruments aimed at protecting children, Ethiopia imposed a moratorium on intercountry adoptions that constituted a de facto executive restriction of intercountry adoption on November 8 2017. Approximately a year after this executive restriction, Ethiopia’s House of People’s Representatives voted on repealing article 193 of the revised Family Code to ban intercountry adoption or adoption by foreigners on January 9 2018.[10] This decision of the Ethiopian House of People’s Representatives was reached following the death of an Ethiopian child at the hands of her adoptive parents in the USA in 2011. This was a de jure restriction on intercountry adoption by the parliament.
The United Kingdom’s Legal Framework on Intercountry Adoption
Immigration Rules- Appendix Adoption (UK Government)
This appendix provides provisions for recognition of intercountry adoptions agreed under the auspices of the Hague Convention and overseas adoptions. It sets out many provisions dedicated to an adopted children on how to secure entry clearance and permission to stay in the UK, be it an overseas adoption or an adoption based on the Hague convention, provided that the suitability and other requirements are fulfilled.[11]
Intercountry Adoption Guidance for Adoption Agencies
This guidance provides invaluable information on how adoption agencies should handle applications from people wishing to adopt a child from another country. It also highlights the procedures to be followed for applications of recognition for adoption, the restrictions imposed on some countries, and comprehensive guidance for the adoption agencies in doing the same.[12]
Hague Convention Implementation in the UK
The Adoptions (intercountry aspect) Act 1999 provides provisions giving effect to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, the objectives and requirements of intercountry adoption, and the central authorities and accredited bodies to be designated to discharge the responsibilities entrusted to them under the Act.[13] The best interest of the child is the central principle to be respected and followed under this act in the manner with The Hague’s convention formulations.
Intercountry Adoption Registration Guidance
This part of the UK’S legal framework explains guidance for people who want to have their convention or overseas adoption registered by the Registrar General in England and Wales. It further sheds light on countries recognized as overseas or convention adoption, how and where to apply for registration, guidance on completing the application form, and what will happen to the application and supporting documents.[14]
UK Policy on Restricted Countries
This stipulates the possibility of adopting a child from overseas and the most important things that should be taken in to account in doing so, such as the best interest of the child and absence of safe environment, the restricted countries as well as the reasons for the restriction, and how to make an exception request to adopt a child from a country on the restricted list and the processes to be followed in dealing with such cases.[15]
Judicial Approaches to the Best Interest of the Child
Recognizing that courts play a vital role in shaping the practical application of the intercountry adoption laws, this section strives to explain how Ethiopian and UK courts applied the best interest of the child in their decisional reasoning and their compliance with the long-standing rules on intercountry adoption principles. In a case between Mr. Richard Thompson (instructed by K&S@Law solicitors), who appeared on behalf of the Nigerian applicants, and Mr. Thomas Jones (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor), who appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the UK court allowed the appeal lodged by the applicants for recognition of adoption made in Nigeria. The court based its decision in quashing the decision of the Secretary of the state on the best interest of the child and held that public policy should not override the best interests of the child since recognizing an adoption and allowing the child to enter the UK are not, as such, egregious issues that undermine public policy. Beyond this, the court also considered the case in light of article 8 of the ECHR, whether non-recognition would cause interference with the family life of the adopters as well as their child, and if that interference is necessary and proportionate. [16]
In 2020, the Ethiopian Federal Supreme Court Cassation bench interpreted the ban imposed on intercountry adoption by the House of Peoples’ representatives in 2018 as not applicable to foreigners of Ethiopian origin who wish to adopt a child from Ethiopia. In a later case also, the same court’s cassation bench extended the interpretation on the ban on intercountry adoption as not applicable to foreigners who wish to adopt a child of their Ethiopian spouse, introducing a new approach to the recognition of intercountry adoption in Ethiopia, taking into account the importance of the federal supreme court cassation decisions as binding precedents forward.[17]
Comparative Analysis: State Control versus Child Centered Protection
Comparative analysis on state control versus child-centered protection discloses differing approaches to balance these two extremes. While Ethiopia and the UK seek to protect children from abuse, trafficking, neglect, and exploitation, some procedural rigidity, judicial recklessness, and administrative authorities’ reluctance on the guise of public policy are becoming very challenging and attention seeking. When we dive into the Nigerian case in the UK, as mentioned above, we observe the Secretary of the State’s reluctance and unwillingness to recognize intercountry adoption, relying on the principle of public policy and other similar non-convincing reasons, without considering the best interests of the child and the child’s welfare.[18]
Legal and Practical Challenges in Intercountry Adoption
Intercountry adoption is facing as many practical challenges as procedural difficulty and rigorousness, limited judicial guidance, administrative unwillingness, and policy shifts despite the existence of national and international legal safeguards. Yes, practically, adopted children face non-recognition by countries in a way that contravenes the international legal standards on intercountry adoption and the long-standing principle of best interest of the child. In the Ethiopian case, the limitations on intercountry adoption imposed by the executive in 2017, the parliamentary ban on intercountry adoption in 2018, and the fluctuating judicial interpretations on intercountry adoption rendered by the federal Supreme Court cassation bench constitute major enforcement challenges to the recognition of intercountry adoption. Governments often invoke public policy, inter alia, as a defense for non-recognition of intercountry adoption. This is not just a barrier to enter in to an agreement of adoption; it is also a bottleneck for recognizing an existing adoption, which in turn results in the deprivation of the family life of the child and his adoptive parents, family breakup, emotional damage, and father/ motherlessness.
Reform Proposals and Normative Recommendations
Given the legal and practical challenges to the recognition of intercountry adoption and the varying judicial and policy interpretations that undermine the real application of the best interest of the child on the ground, I came up with certain recommendations that I thought crucial for remedying and coping with these obstacles, as follows:
- States should manage to enter into a new and widely acceptable international agreement to reinforce the best interest of the child, to foster and maintain smooth recognition of intercountry adoption.
- Governments should not impose disproportionate restrictions and interventions on intercountry adoption for whatever reason, as the welfare and best interest of the child outweighs any policy or political motive.
- Courts of any country should give primacy to the best interest of the child in their task of interpreting laws and should devise effective procedural safeguards that uphold the same right.
- Ethiopia needs a comprehensive reform of its intercountry adoption legal frameworks and policies to squarely fit the existing and prospective international standards on intercountry adoption and the best interest of the child.
- Executive and administrative agencies should be equipped enough to maintain and uphold efficient and expeditious procedures in discharging their duty of providing information to courts and other related tasks.
Conclusion
This article concludes by recognizing the Ethiopian and UK substantive safeguards for ensuring the best interest of the child as a driving force in recognizing intercountry adoption. However, a more protective legal framework that ensures the maximum attainable child protection by bringing about quick judicial oversight and procedural flexibilities on intercountry adoption becomes pressing, taken in to account the challenges face in enforcing the same as discussed above.
References
[1] Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption, (concluded 29 May 1993, entered into force 1 May 1995), art 2.
[2] Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) art 20 (1).
[3] Convention on the Rights of the Child ( adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) art 20 (2).
[4] Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption, (concluded 29 May 1993, entered into force 1 May 1995), article 23.
[5] Ibid, preamble.
[6] Ibid, art 24.
[7] The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No.1/1995, Federal Negarit Gazeta, No 1, Addis Ababa 21, 1995,arts 9 and 13.
[8] Revised Family Code of The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Proclamation No. 213/2000, art 193.
[9] Revised Family Code of The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Proclamation No. 213/2000, art 193 (3).
[10] Library of Congress, ‘Ethiopia: Federal Family Code Amended, Ending Intercountry Adoption’ (Global Legal Monitor, 26 March 2018) https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2018-03-26/ethiopia-federal-family-code-amended-ending-intercountry-adoption/, accessed 22 January 2026; Revised Family Code (Amendment) Proclamation No. 1070/2018(Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia).
[11] Home Office, Immigration Rules: Appendix Adoption<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules-appendix-adoption> accessed 22 January 2026.
[12] Department for Education, Intercountry Adoption: Information for Adoption Agencies <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/intercountry-adoption-information-for-adoption-agencies> accessed 22 January 2026.
[13] Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999.
[14] General Register Office, Guidance on Registering a Convention or Overseas Adoption < https://www.gov.uk/government /publications/registering-an-overseas-adoption-in-the-adopted-children-register/guidance-on-registering-a-convention-or-overseas-adoptio-in-the-adopted-children-register-acessible> accessed 21 January 2026.
[15] Department for Education, Child Adoption: Adopting a Child from Overseas- Restrictions <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/adopting-a-child-from-overseas> accessed 22 January 2026.
[16] In re A (a Child) (Recognition of Nigerian Adoption: Common Law Test) [2024] EWHC 2961 (Fam).
[17] Abebe A Jimma and Dawit Abate, ‘Inter-Country Adoption in Ethiopia: Legal Challenges and Judicial Interpretation’ (2025) Ethiopian Journal of Human Rights https://ejol.aau.edu.et/index.php/ejhr/article/view/8816 accessed 20 January 2026.
[18] In re A (a Child) (Recognition of Nigerian Adoption: Common Law Test) [2024] EWHC 2961 (Fam).
