Adoption — final adoption order — habitual residence — Adoption Act 1955, s 10 — Adoption (Intercountry) Act 1997 (AIA), ss 4 & 10 — Care of Children Act 2004 — United Nations Convention on Intercountry Adoption, art 2 — Spiegler v Spiegler [2020] NZFC 2872 — Punter v Secretary for Justice as the New Zealand Central Authority [2004] 2 NZLR 28 (CA) — Re Application by PHB FC Blenheim, FAM-2010-006-223, 22 June 2011 — Mitchell v Ketut [2016] NZFC 6175 — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363, (2006) 26 FRNZ 707 CA. This was a hearing to determine whether the child was habitually resident in New Zealand or South Africa, and as such whether the Court had jurisdiction to determine the adoption application brought by the applicant. The child's grandmother sought to formally adopt the child, and had previously been appointed the sole guardian and granted day-to-day care of the child. A social worker's earlier report had concluded that because the child was only in New Zealand on a temporary visa and his biological mother and family members remained in South Africa, he could not be considered habitually resident. The application therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Hague Convention articles in the Adoption (Intercountry) Act. Oranga Tamariki asked the Court to determine the child's habitual residence. The Judge accepted the submission that the time for assessing habitual residence was when the intention by the applicant to adopt was formed. The applicant definitively decided to pursue an adoption in January 2020, making this the time from which the child was habitually resident in New Zealand. The Judge directed that the adoption application could now proceed. Judgment Date: 10 August 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *