Manchester City Council v AO & Ors

This case concerns a young girl who goes by the name of L, with a given date of birth of 24 September 2022, and so she is now aged 2 years and 4 months.

She has been in the care of the Local Authority since her arrival in England from Nigeria on 20 June 2023, 19 months ago.

It is necessary to examine with care the events that occurred prior to her arrival in the UK, and the roles of the three adults who entered her life in that period.

The parties have sensibly agreed that I should treat this hearing as not simply the fact finding exercise ordered by Knowles J, but also the hearing of the application by Mr and Mrs O for the appointment of an Independent Social Worker, the outcome of which application will depend, to at least some extent, on the findings that I make in the fact find.

Thus, I shall be looking at how L's future welfare needs will be met, even though I, along with everyone else in this case, accept that no final order concluding the welfare enquiry can be made within this hearing.

For the ease of identification of the parties, I intend with their permission, certainly so far as Mr and Mrs O are concerned, to distinguish between them by calling them by their first names:

Raphael is 43, he is Nigerian, he is described as a pastor and a music producer / musician. He has no children of whom he is the birth father. Prior to June 2023 he had never visited the UK, and had spent his life in Nigeria with only a few short trips to other African countries.

Kemi is 40, she has four children. I have read that their father died, but I know no further details about her or her life. She too at all material times lived in Nigeria with her children.

A is 43, she has one child, a son, who is now aged 18. She has been in England since 2007, when she arrived on a stolen passport. She was arrested and sent to prison for eight months, and her son was taken into care. She applied for asylum, and after several rejections succeeded on appeal, and was successively granted limited leave to remain in 2011; indefinite leave to remain in 2016; and in December 2020 she obtained British citizenship. In 2020 she changed her surname from her maiden name to O, which is Raphael's surname.

The relevance of that part of her history is that it strongly suggests that she has a knowledge of immigration rules and the consequences of breach.

Raphael and A have each been represented throughout this hearing to a high standard by King's Counsel and junior counsel.

Kemi has chosen to have minimal involvement in these proceedings, and no involvement in this final hearing. The Local Authority seek no findings against her. Thus what is said of her by me is taken from other sources, but including her police interviews.

I would like to pay tribute to the high quality of representation that all parties have had, and the help that the counsel have given me, and express my particular gratitude for a very detailed and annotated chronology, which has been of great assistance to me.

Raphael Ossai met A in Kenya in 2017. They became friendly. He asserts that they married remotely in a customary ceremony at the end of that year. Not until 13 January 2022 did they marry in a civil ceremony in Nigeria.

He says that they were unable to have children due to "personal reasons", and of course for much of the time they were living in different countries, she in England, and he in Nigeria.

In 2018 Raphael applied for a visa to come to England, but he was turned down for financial reasons. Thus he and A remained in different countries.

In January 2021 Raphael met Kemi at a party in Nigeria, and they struck up a relationship.

A came to Nigeria from England in March 2021, and her stay was extended as a result of covid regulations until January 2022.

On the first day of his evidence, Raphael told the court that he had only ever had sexual intercourse with Kemi on one occasion in 2021. On the second day of his evidence, he admitted that was a lie, and that their relationship continued with frequency throughout 2021 and 2022.

Raphael divided his time between a home in Lagos, Kemi's home in Ibadan, and A's place of residence in Abuja. He was running both women at the same time. He told Kemi that he had a woman in England, when in fact A was in Nigeria; and he told A nothing whatsoever about Kemi. He was trying to conceive a child with each lady whilst deceiving them both as to the existence of the other.

In 2021 both he and Kemi say they had a civil marriage, although the date given by Raphael was 14 August 2021, and by Kemi of 19 October 2021. That piece of evidence was not something that he had previously told A.

He tells me, and I have no reason to doubt, that in Nigeria it is lawful for a man to have two wives, although a woman cannot have two husbands.

He and A, having failed to conceive a child, decided to make enquiries as to where a child might be available for adoption. He says that they were told that there was a long waiting list in the big cities of Abuja and Lagos, and that they would find more availability in Abia State. On 5 January 2022 they wrote to the Ministry of Women Affairs for Abia State, saying that they wished to adopt a girl.

The letter was in fact written in A's name, but they both signed it, and they said that a baby daughter had been part of their dreams for quite some time. She said, "We feel that adoption is a great choice for us".

The letter was acknowledged several weeks later, and they waited.

At the end of September 2022 an orphanage gave notice that there was a girl to be adopted. There was an affidavit purportedly from the child's mother saying that she had had a daughter born on 24 September 2022, and asking for the child to be received by the State as she, the mother was a student, the father disclaimed responsibility, and she wished for someone else to care for the baby.

By that time of course A was in England.

Raphael says that he went to the orphanage with a female friend, not A, on 27 September. He had the most cursory of medical examinations as far as I can tell, simply a measurement of his blood pressure.

On 29 September an application was issued seeking a "care order" of the unnamed child. It was issued by a lawyer by the name of Ogwo, described as the applicant's counsel, and the name of a firm in Aba, Abia State, is given.

The applicants are described as Raphael and A.

H says that she never met or spoke to Mr Ogwo. Raphael said that, although he had spoken to him on the phone, he never met him.

Raphael said that Mr Ogwo was a court lawyer rather than anyone he had instructed, notwithstanding his description as being their counsel.

Mr Ogwo is a shadowy figure in this case. I refused at an earlier hearing to admit his purported expert evidence. Amongst other reasons, despite a previous order from Knowles J and an order from me, he has failed to produce any of his files.

There is what is described as an affidavit in support of the motion. That document is allegedly written with "the consent" of Mr Ossai and AO to depose to this affidavit. It describes how they wish to foster, the baby girl, but it goes on to read as follows, and I will set out the whole passage:

Then, paragraph 7,

“That the applicants have indicated their intention to apply for foster order for the baby girl".

It will be noted that there is nowhere in that any reference to adoption.

Raphael was completely unable to tell me of any medical condition that he knew that the child was suffering, and indeed there is no evidence at all that the child was anything other than a well child. It is a complete mystery, says Raphael to himself, and to A, and certainly to the court what on earth the medical condition might have been.

On 30 September, this is page F701, an application was filed, headed, "Application for care placement". The letter written by an official of the State says that Raphael and A were "seeking the approval of the honourable court for leave to take the baby girl abroad, where the applicants reside, for bonding, pending which they will obtain care and adoption order".

The official says that, "Having visited the home of the applicants, and finding it suitable for the upbringing of a baby, the couple is hereby recommended to this honourable court for approval to foster a baby girl, who was born on 24 September".

As with virtually every document in this case, it raises more questions than it answers. The author could not have met A and visited her because she was in England. The home address that is given for Raphael and A is an address in Osusu Road, Aba. That was, I have been told, a small rented flat. It was not a home in the sense that it was where either Raphael or A continued to reside, it was simply somewhere that they had in the area where they hoped to adopt the child.

On that day, the only order before L came to England was made, and I have before me the order, described as an interim order, dated 30 September 2022. Both Raphael and A say that they had never seen the order until it emerged during the course of these proceedings. Both say that they understood and believed that they had adopted L. If they had that belief, and I will return to it, it is wholly inconsistent with the contents of the order, and indeed the other documents to which I have referred filed on their behalf.

The order of the court, amongst other things, stats that they may take the baby girl "to where they reside for adequate and proper health treatment and overall care", that it should be the duty of the social worker officer and the child development officer to "regularly visit and update themselves with the progress of the child", and that this was an interim order placing L in the interim custody of the applicants for a period of one year.

The next date of the chronology is 4 October 2022. On that date was issued the first birth certificate for L, that is if indeed the date that it bears is accurate. That document describes Raphael as the father, and Kemi as the mother. It says that the child was born on 24 September in Ibadan Hospital.

Raphael says that Kemi obtained that certificate much later than 4 October, which is the date that appears in several places on the document, and that he knew nothing about her obtaining it.

Many details on it are of course untrue. Raphael was not L's father. Kemi was not her mother. The child was not born in Ibadan. What the true date of that document is, is completely unknown.

I can make no finding about the date or circumstances in which the birth certificate came into existence, but I do not accept for a moment that Raphael knew nothing about its obtaining, whenever it was.

At about the start of October 2022 Raphael took L to Lagos, where he had a one-room flat. I describe it as one room, but it had a separate bathroom, and it had a living/sleeping room with a kitchen area. He lived there with L for the most part on his own.

On 2 November he was joined by A, who remained in Nigeria until 29 November 2022. They say, and this date I am inclined to accept, that they obtained on 22 November 2022 a birth certificate for L in Lagos. Raphael was prepared to accept that the document was "inaccurate", but it was demonstrably untrue. It described the father as being Raphael, the mother as being A, and the place of birth being Lagos.

They said that they went to City Hall, Lagos, to obtain a passport for L, that they did not have a birth certificate, and so they were directed to obtain one, and they say they were just given this document.

Raphael said that the official simply put in the details of the birth without any input from themselves. I am afraid this is part of a theme of his evidence, that he seeks to deny responsibility for any action that might put him in a bad light. He said that they regarded themselves, from the date of collection of L, as her parents. I think it highly probable that the details entered on the document were the details that they gave.

It is of course consistent with what I accept is a heartfelt desire of both Raphael and A to have a baby girl as part of their family, but I do not for a moment accept that they thought they were already L's adoptive parents as a result of the court order of 30 September, which of course says the opposite, and which they say they have never seen. I am confident they knew that they only had a fostering order, and that is at least one explanation for why they did not have the order when they came to the UK, because they knew that it did not say what they wanted.

On 29 November A flew back to England. She had a job which was due to start in early December, though in fact was deferred until the start of January. Both Raphael and A say that the intention was that she would save some money over the course of the next six months or so, so that she could then bring Raphael and L into the country as her dependents. 29 November 2022 was the last time that A saw L in the flesh. L remained in Lagos with Raphael.

There has been a debate, both in oral evidence but also in the communications with the single joint expert, as to whether the proper meaning of the order of 30 September permitted L to be removed from Nigeria. This debate is largely academic because Raphael and A say they never saw it.

Is it arguable that the order permitted overseas travel as the letter in support, dated also 30 September, to which I have already referred, sets out their wish to take the child "abroad where they reside"? I have no means of knowing whether the court on 30 September saw that letter amongst the other documents filed. It was plainly untrue that the applicants, plurals underlined, resided abroad. Raphael had never been to England, and his visa application had been refused. The only home that the author would have been aware of, and which was repeatedly referred to in the documents, was a small flat in Aba.

Although the single joint expert is ambivalent, I think nothing turns on it. I cannot for myself see how these documents can be construed as granting leave to take the child out of Nigeria. They are inconsistent with later orders, which I will come onto, and what happened, and what was said by the adults, who never at any stage have presented L as either an adopted or foster child, or that they have been given express permission to remove L from Nigeria.

Raphael says in one of his statements, I am reading from C41, that at the beginning of 2023 his second wife, i.e. presumably Kemi, decided to move to the UK and make an application for a work visa. He goes on: "While she was waiting for her visa, I thought it would be quicker and easier if I come with her, and bring L, rather than the first respondent mother making a separate application. I shared my views with the respondent mother, however she advised me to wait until she made an application, and told me that it was not a good idea to come with my second wife".

The next paragraph continues: "I spoke to my second wife, and asked if she would agree to bring L and me to the UK with her. She agreed, and I decided to ignore" (“A's") "advice, and convinced her that it might take a while to go through the process, and it will be easier if I come with my second wife. We then applied for L's visa, and got a new birth certificate which proves that" (Kemi) is L's mother rather than ("A").

"In Nigeria there is no option to put stepmother in the birth certificate, and if someone takes the responsibility to look after the child, they can be easily added to the birth certificate as their mother. It is also normal to have two birth certificates with different mothers if father is marrying two women, and they both agree to raise the child together".

This is of course inconsistent with Raphael's evidence that he did not know about Kemi applying for the birth certificate, albeit consistent with his always blaming others.

Raphael told Kemi that L was his grandchild, and the child of his (non-existent) daughter. He said he told that lie rather than telling her the truth, so as not to upset her if she did become pregnant by him.

As to birth certificates in Nigeria, the Nigerian law is very similar to the UK law. A parent must register the birth of their child in the locality of where the child is born. Each child can have only one birth certificate, with a unique number. If a child is subsequently adopted, then direction is given to the Registrar-General, as would be the case here.

It is clear that both birth certificates were obtained by giving false information. They should never have been issued. I reject the evidence of Raphael and A that they thought they were entitled to the birth certificate that they obtained, and that of Raphael in respect of the other certificate, which he says Kemi obtained. I am sure this was all part of their plan so that the travel documents would be in apparent order when L travelled, be it with either A or Kemi, to the UK with Raphael. Indeed, in his own evidence Raphael admitted that it was the plan to use the Kemi birth certificate to get L into the country, and the A birth certificate once they got here.

On 2 February 2023 a passport for L was issued, and on 20 March 2023 Kemi received a job offer as a healthcare worker in England for a company in Leeds. That of course enabled her to apply for a visa.

On 5 May 2023 Raphael applied for a visa as Kemi's dependent. He claims that he had no part in the completion of his visa application form, and it was all done by Kemi. Thus, again it is nothing to do with him. His address is given as Ibadan, which was her address but not his; L is described as his daughter, which of course she was not; and that he would be staying at the premises in Leeds, which are in fact the office premises of the employers that Kemi was to work for. He said that he would be travelling with Kemi's four children, described as his stepchildren, as well as with Kemi and L.

There were documents which showed that he was named as the Guardian of those four children. He said that he had nothing to do with the obtaining of those documents, which were once again entirely done by Kemi, notwithstanding the fact that he provided his photograph which appears on the guardianship documentation.

I have no doubt that Raphael was fully aware of everything that was going on.

On 9 May Raphael received a skilled worker partner visa, as Kemi's dependent. In the meantime he had told A that he would be coming with L, and she obtained the consent of the Local Authority Housing Department for the intended arrival of two additional occupants into her flat.

Raphael then managed to convince Kemi, against her wishes, that she should leave her own four children in Nigeria, and accompany him and L alone to the UK. I regard this as typical behaviour of Raphael, concerned only for himself rather than others. It was cruel to require her to leave her four children in Nigeria, and accompany him and L, and she was understandably upset.

A WhatsApp group chat was arranged involving substantial numbers of the family, principally of Kemi's family. I accept that A was a member of it. In the chat there is discussion, which I need not read out, about the travel arrangements and how essential it was that everyone played their roles to avoid detection of their various dishonest actions.

There is no evidence that A was significantly involved in the chats, and indeed she had been overruled by Raphael, who had insisted that Kemi bring over L, rather than waiting for A to come and get her, as she wished.

A denies being involved in the chats other than being joined to them, and that she did not read any of the posts.

I do not regard this as being a matter of significance, and it does not require a finding because whatever Raphael was posting on the chats could very easily have been given over the telephone by him to A, as they were speaking most days.

I am confident that she was aware of all the arrangements and deceptions for bringing L into this country, albeit I accept that she was unlikely to have been the originator of them. It is not without significance that she bought the tickets for travel for Raphael, Kemi and L.

There has been some debate about the extent of communication between Raphael and A. But a log produced only today shows that on 18 June there were some 24 telephone calls between Raphael and A, of which 3 were missed calls, and need to be subtracted.

On 19 June Raphael, Kemi and L travelled form Lagos, via Addis Ababa to Manchester, arriving on the morning of 20 June 2023. It appears that the last time that A and Raphael spoke was whilst they were in transit at Addis Ababa.

On arrival in Manchester the family were stopped at immigration, who were concerned about the behaviour of Raphael, Kemi and L, and in particular the apparent absence of a relationship between Kemi and L, who, according to Raphael, had only met on perhaps one occasion before the journey. A search of their luggage revealed the two inconsistent birth certificates, along with other documents.

The two adults, that is Raphael and Kemi, were interviewed.

Raphael told what can only be described as a pack of lies to the immigration officers. He said that A was the mother, but that he did not know where she lived. He said that A was in Nigeria, but he did not know exactly where. He said she had been his fiancée, but their relationship was over. He said he would be living with Kemi in Leeds, and that he had rescued L to give her a better life in this country.

Kemi told a somewhat more truthful story. She maintained that A was the mother of L, she said she was not the mother, and she said the second birth certificate was obtained to deceive the entry clearance officer. Of course her position was slightly different because she has never wanted to be the carer of L.

Raphael and Kemi were remanded in custody for immigration offences, and L placed into foster care.

Raphael was interviewed the following day. He said that L was the biological child of him and A. He said that he was going to stay with Kemi, and A would see her daughter from time to time. He said that he had never told Kemi that he was married to A, or anything about that. He did not say to Kemi that L was his daughter, because he did not want Kemi to feel that she had to meet another partner of Raphael, in other words L's mother.

He referred to cultural matters, namely that in Nigerian custom any child in someone's care may be referred to as their daughter, and that any errors in documents must be seen in that light. I will come back to that, but in this case I have no doubt that any deceptions were deliberate.

His explanation in this court as to his lies was that he was "struggling with anxiety and in a confused state". I have no doubt that what he said to the immigration authorities was not caused by anxiety or confusion but by an attempt to achieve his aims.

A gave two interviews but they were on advice largely no comment. A was very soon contacted by social services, but she sought to avoid them, not returning calls. Having initially agreed to a DNA test, she then refused it, explaining that she knew what it would show. She made no enquiries about L, she says on the advice of her criminal lawyer.

On 6 July L moved from her short-term foster placement to another placement with very experienced foster carers, where she remains.

Raphael continued to insist that A was the biological mother of L, but that he did not know her address. He said he was not sure that he was the father of L, but he treated L as if he was.

Both Raphael and Kemi were charged with immigration offences and remanded in custody until sentencing.

On 1 September 2023 there emerged another court order from Nigeria. It is utterly unclear as to the circumstances in which it came about, although it is probable that Mr Ogwo had some involvement in it. The order says as follows, I shall read out paragraphs 1, 3 and 6, and this is to be found at F727:

"(1) That subject to sections 103 and 106 of the Child's Right Law of Abia State 2006 the baby girl has been placed in the hands or custody of the applicants for fostering". The applicants are named as H and Raphael.

"(3) That the child shall in respect of his custody, maintenance and education, stand to the foster parents exactly in the position of a child born to the foster parents in lawful marriage".

"(6) That however upon the grant of this order the applicants are enabled and/or permitted to take and travel with the baby girl child to any place of their choice, both within Abia State and Nigeria as a whole". It is thus plain that there was no permission to travel outside Nigeria.

By then of course, 1 September, both Raphael and Kemi were in custody. It is impossible to know how this document came into existence, and it would not be right to try and guess.

A had very little contact with social services. She says that she was advised to avoid contact with them, and she made minimal enquiries about L before October 2023.

The parties agreed on the instruction of a single joint expert on Nigerian law, a Mr Badejo. I think I can summarise the relevant parts of his advice:

In circumstances where it appears that a Nigerian child may have been unlawfully removed from Nigeria, the Nigerian High Commission have repeatedly been asked by the Court if they wish to attend and/or intervene. They have been provided with orders setting out what the issues are, and when the hearing dates are to take place but, apart from attendance at a very early hearing, they have shown no willingness to become involved in any way with this case.

On 3 October 2023 the Local Authority issued its application for a care order.

On 26 October 2023 Raphael and Kemi appeared before the crown court in Manchester for sentence. I am troubled about what happened on that day. From the transcript of the sentencing comments, it is clear that the judge was under the impression that: (1) Kemi and Raphael had been strangers to each other until introduced shortly before travel through an agency; (2) that A was the birth mother, Raphael the father, and Kemi was simply participating in a humanitarian act in the reunification of the family. That was also the way that Kemi's sentencing note reads. There is no mention in any document or during the hearing that Raphael and Kemi were married. No sentencing note was provided on behalf of Raphael, and his advocate addressed the judge orally on sentence.

Raphael said in evidence that he was shocked at the lies told by Kemi to the sentencing judge. Without a full transcript of the sentencing hearing, including the prosecution presentation, I cannot draw any complete conclusions, but there is a clear inference that the court was not told the truth, so as to achieve shorter sentences.

Raphael and Kemi were each sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment.

A did not attend the sentencing hearing, and she says she had no contact with Raphael from 20 June 2023 until a date in early 2024.

On 4 March 2024 Raphael having been in custody since 20 June 2023 was taken to an immigration removal centre, having served his sentence and received a notice of deportation. An immigration judge granted him bail on 10 April 2024, and he has applied for leave to remain, claiming that to remove him would breach his Article 8 rights. He now lives in Leeds with A.

There are major uncertainties surrounding Raphael and A. When I asked Raphael whether he intended to continue his relationship with Kemi, his, to me astonishing, reply was that he would need to be convinced by Kemi that she genuinely wanted to continue the relationship, in which case it could continue.

There was not one word of what A might think about that situation, although he knew well that she did not want him to have another woman. What does that mean, I ask myself, for the future of their relationship? Ms Howe KC appearing for A was plainly right to say that there is some hard thinking that needs to be done.

Secondly, Raphael may be deported. If he is, where would A go? She says she would stay here, and I accept that, but what if L was to be placed with them? There may well be a fight over who is going to look after her.

Thirdly, there is uncertainty about what will happen to A. On a date, which appears to be 4 November 2024, although it is possible that is the date of printing the document, she was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to do an act to facilitate the commission of a breach of UK immigration law by a non-UK national. She is on bail, she has to report weekly. She may be prosecuted and, if she was, she would face the problem, if found guilty, of the fact that this would not be her first immigration offence.

Neither Raphael nor A have seen L since arrival in June 2023, and their application for contact made in these proceedings was refused by the court. That means that Raphael has not seen L for nineteen months, when she was but 9 months old; and A has not seen her for twenty-six months, when she was but 2 months old.

A wishes to believe that the frequent video calls that she had with Raphael and L while she was in England, and they were in Nigeria, will mean that L has a remembrance of her. But I am sorry to say that I think that is fanciful. There is no prospect of L having any recollection of A, and I have doubts that she would have any recollection of Raphael.

In the Children's Guardian's report, filed just a few days before this case began, she expressed her concern about L's experiences when in the care of the father in Nigeria, and in particular she referred to the great difficulty that L showed in detaching herself from her very experienced foster carers. She exhibited a great need to be held before she would go to sleep, and demonstrated substantial separation anxiety. She pointed out what is undoubtedly true, that in moving from what has been an overlong short-term foster placement to another home, wherever that might be, is going to be very challenging for L.

The Guardian's concerns were heightened by the description given by Raphael of the circumstances in which he cared for L in Lagos. I accept her account of what she says he said, namely that he was living in a small apartment in Lagos, going out only when the heat was not too intense, which meant mainly in the evenings, and the description given of a somewhat solitary existence. In fairness to Raphael, it cannot have been easy for him to care for a small child when he has no experience of parenting.

L has been described to me as a clingy child. She still has sleeping issues, needing to be held to go to sleep, and wakes often. She has a separation anxiety. If her primary foster carer was even to stand up, she becomes wary. A report from CAMHS, thought to be dated, although it is not dated, about March of 2024 sets out the concerns. It appears at the bottom middle of page 2464, the reference is G79. The information given to CAMHS came from the foster carer in all probability. It is said that L has made some improvements since then.

L also receives assistance from the speech and language therapy services. I accept the general picture presented of a child without basic parental attachment. I cannot be sure as to whether the cause is down substantially or entirely to the parenting that she has received in Nigeria, but I am sure that her being brought into this country illegally and thus separated from her carers is bound to be a significant factor, and it means of course that she will present extra challenges to any carer, who will require more than usual skills.

The content of the Children's Guardian's report has led the Local Authority to seek to add an additional threshold ground, and I required the social worker to file an updating statement in this regard. No one objected to the addition of the ground. The social worker explained that before he filed his last affidavit he had not spoken to the Children's Guardian, and it took him and indeed Raphael and A by surprise to read what she reported. It was disappointing that the issue arose so late because I specifically raised it at the pre-trial review on 6 December 2024, when I had seen it foreshadowed.

To take this one allegation in isolation, I do not propose to make the findings sought by the Local Authority for this reason: I accept that placing L anywhere will present great problems for her. I accept everything that I have been told by way of absence of a secure attachment. I think it very probable that this reflects her early life experiences. But I am not prepared to say that this is the result of Raphael and/or A not giving the standard of care in Lagos that would be expected of a parent as that would be surmise without any full evidential examination.

In reaching that conclusion I bear in mind also the various Local Authority reports through the second half of 2023 and early 2024 which generally speaking give at least a reasonable report of L's progress.

In considering the evidence of Raphael and A, I have had regard to the issue of culture raised by Raphael in particular. Mr Maddison appearing on behalf of the local authority was right to say that “truth and honesty should not be subject to cultural relativism". It may be that the use of terms "mother" and "father" are in general usage in Nigeria applied informally to mean the caregiver in the family or in a family unit, regardless of biological connections, but I do not accept that this extends to official or formal transactions including statements, and documents such as birth certificates and court orders. It plainly does not.

The lies told by the three adults in these proceedings and in their actions in Nigeria are not innocent mistakes or the result of careless use of language, they were deliberate deceptions. The fact that such deceptions are often effective in Nigeria is recognised, hence the document that appears in the bundle at F189 headed, "Nigeria: special restrictions on adoptions from abroad (Nigeria) order 2021".

The areas of concern to the Home Office are set out, which includes, and I will just give the headlines: Difficulties concerning the background and adoptability of children; unreliable documentation; concerns about corruption in the Nigerian adoption system; evidence of organised child trafficking within Nigeria, and I add that I have no reason to think that that last factor applies in this case; and concerns about weaknesses in checks completed by Nigerian authorities in relation to adoption applications from prospective adopters who are habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

As a result of those concerns, the Secretary of State was of the view that it would be contrary to public policy to further the bringing of children into the United Kingdom from Nigeria as specified in section 9(2) of the Children and Adoption Act 2006.

It is clear to me that L's arrival in the United Kingdom was not only a breach of UK law, but was obtained in breach of Nigerian law by reason of the false birth certificates leading to the grant of a Nigerian passport.

I have made my findings of fact on the balance of probabilities. It is for the Local Authority to prove the facts relied upon, on that standard of proof, namely the balance of probabilities. It is not for the respondents to prove anything. I must make my findings on the evidence that I have heard and read, not on speculation or suspicion. I must look at each piece of evidence, both individually but also in the context of all the evidence, so that I can see how it fits with the rest of the evidence. Plainly the evidence of Raphael and A is of great importance, and I must make a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. Just because I do not believe one piece of evidence from a witness, it does not mean that all the evidence of that witness is to be disbelieved.

I have made my views clear as I have gone along. Insofar as any summary is needed, I say this:

I refer to the schedule of findings which appears at A177 of the bundle. It is unnecessary for me to go through the individual findings that are sought, which set out in a rather more detailed version everything that I have already said in the course of this judgment.

The only phrase that I take issue with is at the start of paragraph 21 which says, "At all the material times". That should be changed to, "At various times after their arrival in England", because it was only when they were in England that they claimed that they had adopted L.

The result of all this is that I continue the interim care order. I refuse the application for the instruction of an Independent Social Worker, because I can see no circumstances in which this child could properly be placed with either or both of this couple, who have caused her presence in this country by unlawful means, and have caused her and indeed themselves such harm, and whose own positions for the future are so uncertain. L's need for safe and secure upbringing cannot be met by either Raphael Ossai or AO, or the two of them together. It therefore follows that a report from an Independent Social Worker is not necessary.

That completes my judgment.