Adoption application — fit and proper persons — criminal history — final order — special circumstances — border closures — COVID-19 — Adoption Act 1955, ss 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 16 — Care of Children Act, s 5 — Family Violence Act 2018, s 11 — Adoption (Intercountry) Act 1997 — The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — R v Manu [2015] NZSC 122 — Re F FC Manukau FAM-2007-092-000917, 16 May 2008 — Re F FC Manukau FAM-2007-092-000917, 16 May 2008 — SI v TI [2016] NZFC 11046 — I v I [2018] NZHC 327 — T v T [2014] NZFC 4333 — Ness v Ness [2016] NZFC 2078. This was an application for the adoption of a young child by the applicants, who were from New Zealand and Tonga. The child had been born in Tonga and the mother, who was in her teens when she gave birth to the child, was a family friend of the applicants. A report filed by Oranga Tamariki recommended against the adoption order being made. In deciding whether to grant an adoption order, a court had to be satisfied that the adoptive parents were fit and proper persons to care for the child and meet the child's needs. The two applicants had another child together, and had previously been in an arrangement with a family where they had cared for an infant child for four months, from the time of the child's birth until the biological parents decided that they wanted to keep their child. There had been a criminal issue relating to the applicant mother, whereby she had been charged with assault. The applicant mother stated that she had been overcome by emotion following the child having been taken away from her. Looking to case law, the Judge noted that a criminal history was not of itself a disqualifying factor. The applicants were to be assessed as fit and proper at the time they were making the application. Looking to relevant Acts, the Judge noted that the incident of violence was serious, but that it was a one-off incident, the incident was fueled by emotion and was uncharacteristic of the applicant. She had also attended 10 out of 20 anger management sessions and had acknowledged the seriousness of her actions. Both of the applicants were church-goers and their congregation knew of the incident, and several family members provided references in support of the adoption application. In looking to the welfare and best interests of the child, the Judge considered that the child was currently in Tonga and in the temporary care of a teenage relative. The applicants were committed to the child and had the financial means to care for her. They were also willing and able to relocate to Tonga should that be required. The Judge found that the applicants were fit and proper persons to care for the child. The next question to determine was whether to make an interim adoption order or a final one. Special circumstances must exist in order for a final order to be made in the first instance. Here, given the child's Tongan citizenship and the fact that New Zealand and Tongan borders were closed due to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, an interim order would not give the child the necessary legal status to be able to be relocated to New Zealand. The Judge was satisfied that a final adoption order was justified under the circumstances, and a final adoption order was made. Judgment Date: 18 May 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *