The Court of Appeal has removed a child from his adoptive parents because they hid facts including that the mother was in a new relationship with a violent criminal accused of child sex offending.
In M (A Child: Adoption: Duty of Disclosure) the court heard that, even before an adoption order was made last year, the adoptive couple had separated, the father had moved out of the family home, and the mother was intending or hoping that her new prisoner partner would come to live with her and the two-year-old boy, known as T.
None of the circumstances had been discovered by the relevant agencies nor disclosed by the adoptive couple.
Judge Peter Jackson, at the Royal Courts of Justice, ruled the decision last year to allow the adoption was based on a “serious irregularity” and agreed to set aside the adoption order and dismiss the adoption application.
In his judgment he said making the right order for a child depended “heavily upon the good faith and efficient cooperation of its informants, including social workers, referees and, above all, prospective adopters”. The adopters were, he said, ”under a clear duty to the court to make full and frank disclosure” at every stage. That duty would be breached if the court were “misled by a prospective adopter’s words, deeds or silence”.
He said the welfare evaluation presented to the original hearing at Newcastle Family Court was flawed. His ruling, which was agreed by Judges Warby and Cobb, noted the then-prospective adopters’ social worker had not attended the final hearing, which was held online, because they were on leave.
Tom Wright, senior associate in the family team at Birketts LLP, said cases like T’s would damage the public’s confidence in the adoption process.
“T’s case underlines the importance of thorough background checks in adoption assessments,” he said. “These are a fundamental part of the adoption process, with their primary purpose being to safeguard children, ensuring that any placement promotes the child’s long‑term welfare, safety and stability.
“There are valid questions about whether the local authority should have known about the issues within the adoptive parents’ relationship.”
The court heard that T had never lived with his birth mother, who had issues with substance abuse, and was placed for adoption by Gateshead Council in May 2025. An order was made the following November for him to be adopted by a couple who had been together for eight years and married for two.
In January this year, the adoptive couple and T joined the adoptive grandparents, T’s former social worker and the judge who made the order at court to celebrate the adoption. But later that month the social worker learned the couple had separated and the woman was in a relationship with a male prisoner at the jail in which she worked.
Enquiries then revealed the adoptive father had moved out of the home in October last year, and that the council tax office had been told of this on the day the adoption order had been made.
The prisoner with whom the adoptive mother was in a relationship was in custody for a drug-related offence.His criminal history included battery and possession of weapons. He had also been accused of sexual offending in respect of a child.
While in prison he had been referring to T as his stepson and telling fellow inmates his XL bully dog was being cared for by T’s adoptive mother. He had also given the address of T’s adoptive mother as the one he was to be released to in March 2026.
Northumberland Council issued care proceedings in the Family Court on 2nd March and T was subsequently removed from the adoptive mother. He was placed with the adoptive father’s parents, with whom the adoptive father now lives.
Neither of the adoptive parents appeared or were represented at the appeal, which was filed by Gateshead Council, but the adoptive mother told Northumberland Council she wanted no further involvement with T.
The prisoner is now back in custody, having been arrested for threatening behaviour and criminal damage at the adoptive mother’s home on the weekend before the appeal hearing. His current release date is set for the end of June 2026.
T will now go back through the family courts. Wright said: “He has endured considerable upheaval in his short life, and it is incredibly important that the number of children that have similar experiences is kept to an absolute minimum, which in turn ensures public confidence in the process is maintained.
“Robust background checks help maintain confidence that adoption agencies place children safely and responsibly, prioritising child welfare above all else.”
