Can a company adopt a child?
<p>With apologies for the (only somewhat) click-bait title, in an answer to another question (see <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/84028/44033">this answer</a>) the statement</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Typically the only thing a legal entity that is not a natural person cannot do is sign a marriage contract.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>was made. Some commenters disputed this, asking, e.g.,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can a business become a (natural) child's legal guardian, can a business have power of attorney over a (natural) person, etc.?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This got me curious:</p>
<p><strong>Can any legal entity adopt a child?</strong></p>
<p>Or does one, perhaps, need two corporations to do this? Of course, the answer to the above may be a simple &quot;no&quot; for trivial reasons, but my question is really closer to asking the looser question:</p>
<p><strong>What is the most ridiculous thing a legal entity can do that one would only expect a natural person to be able to do?</strong></p>
<p>I'm happy with any interpretation of &quot;ridiculous&quot;, here. As pertains to jurisdiction, I've put the tag <a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="united-states-container">united-states</a> for starters, but I am interested in other jurisdictions too, e.g., the UK (one commenter mentioned that corporations frequently vote in elections in the City of London).</p>

<p>In the US, adoptions follow state law. <a href="https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.33&amp;full=true" rel="noreferrer">Here</a> is the law for Washington state. RCW 26.33.140 says that &quot;Any person who is legally competent and who is eighteen years of age or older may be an adoptive parent&quot;. The word &quot;person&quot; does not have a statutory meaning under this title, thus it has its ordinary meaning. There are discussions in case law regarding the &quot;person&quot; status of corporations, but those extensions of the meaning &quot;person&quot; involve extending a constitutional right which refers to a &quot;person&quot; to corporations. A corporation can hold property, enter contracts, and sue and be sued just like a person, and from the earliest days esp. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518, the US courts have recognized that corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. But corporations can't vote or get married. So, in Washington you have to be a person-person. And, presumably in all states.</p>

<p>In <strong>Germany</strong> a legal person can't adopt a person, but can be the <strong>legal guardian</strong> (&quot;Vormund&quot;) if a child has no parents. There are special &quot;Vormundschaftsvereine&quot; (associations for guardianship), typically charitable societies. They need a permission of the state and shall only be appointed as a guardian by the family court, if no natural person as a volunteer guardian is available, <a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p6144" rel="noreferrer">§ 1791a BGB</a>.</p>
<p>I don't know, how often this is done. The association can't get any payment for the guardianship (<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p6317" rel="noreferrer">§ 1836 III BGB</a>), so the normal case seems to be that a employee of the association is appointed as a natural person.</p>
<p>From 2023 this will be the only option (and clearly named in § 1774 I Nr. 3 BGB new). The guardianship of the association is not longer possible.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="england-and-wales-container">england-and-wales</a>, <a href="/questions/tagged/northern-ireland" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;northern-ireland&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="northern-ireland-container">northern-ireland</a> (partially)</p>
<p>In theory, yes.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/schedule/1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Interpretation Act 1976, Schedule 1</a>:<br />
“Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate. [Applies to legislation after 1889]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/38/section/51" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Adoption and Children Act 2002, Section 51</a>:</p>
<ol>
<li>An adoption order may be made on the application of one person who has attained the age of 21 years and is not married or a civil partner.</li>
<li>An adoption order may be made on the application of one person who has attained the age of 21 years if the court is satisfied that the person is the partner of a parent of the person to be adopted.</li>
<li>An adoption order may be made on the application of one person who has attained the age of 21 years and is married if the court is satisfied [of various conditions]</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>In practice, no.</p>
<p>While &quot;one person&quot; may include a body corporate, the conditions under which a person may adopt cannot be satisfied by a corporation. While it cannot marry (and could theoretically satisfy the marriage condition of s.51(1)), it cannot &quot;attain an age&quot;. Different terminology is used for the age of corporations.</p>
<p>The word <em>person</em> occurs over 500 times in the Act, but it is not separately defined and in many cases it could refer to a corporation. To rely on a particular construction of half a dozen words is either a marvel of concision or an enormous lapse.</p>
<p>There are other safeguards, in that a judge has to be satisfied of the suitability of the prospective adopter before making an order. The practicalities involved in caring for an adopted child would make the nebulous arrangement of adoption by a company difficult to justify as &quot;suitable&quot;.</p>

united-states united-kingdom corporate-law adoption any-jurisdiction