BD Inglis, 1957
In a critical discussion of Re Marshall, Barclays Bank Limited v Marshall  Ch 263; 2 WLR 439; 1 All ER 549, the author laments the failure of the Court to distinguish between the law governing the construction of a will (in interpreting “child” or “issue”) and the law determining the status of a foreign adopted child (whether fully legitimate) in determining such child’s rights of succession. Reference is also made to Re Brophy  NZLR 1006, which fails to accord full effect to this distinction.
Debra Wilson, 2016
The author explains the circumstances in which the Adoption (Intercountry) Act 1997 will apply to cases of international surrogacy, where the intended parents of a surrogate child born outside of New Zealand wish to be recognised as the child’s legal parents in New Zealand. In accordance with the Act’s incorporation of the Hague Adoption Convention 1993 into domestic law, the Act applies if the habitual residence of the child is outside New Zealand. Determining the child’s habitual residence becomes a complicated task when there is no biological link between the child and either of the intended parents. The author argues that in such a situation the habitual residence of the intended parents can be imputed to the child where the intended parents are regarded as the legal parents in the child’s birth country, and the child has the biological make-up intended by the surrogacy arrangement. Such an approach is consistent with recent case law, the purposes of the Adoption Convention, and the principles of New Zealand surrogacy law.