The Supreme Court has ruled that adoption orders cannot be revisited outside the formal appeals process, reinforcing that they are final and permanent decisions.
In the matter of X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside), the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal from the adoptive mother of two now-adult children, X and Y, who had sought to have an option order set aside on welfare grounds using the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The appeal was supported by X and Y and their natural mother.
The decision reinforces that of the Court of Appeal, which ruled in November 2024 that adoption orders are ”transformative, have a peculiar finality and are intended to be irreversible, lasting throughout life, as if the child had been born to the adopter.”
X and Y were placed for adoption with the appellant – AM – when they were four and five years old, following a prolonged period in foster care. An adoption order was made in AM’s favour in May 2013, but X and Y maintained contact with their birth mother – BM – which was facilitated and supported by AM.
IN 2021, both X and Y moved to live with BM, where Y remained. X moved to live with the birth father in 2022. The breakdown of the adoption was not a consequence of AM rejecting X or Y, and the court heard AM has been motivated in supporting X and Y and giving effect to their wishes and feelings.
In February 2023, the local authority issued care proceedings on the basis that X and Y were beyond parental control. The proceedings concluded in May 2023 with child arrangement orders that X live with her birth father and Y live with BM. An order was also made that X should spend time with BM. These orders conferred parental responsibility on the respective birth parent.
In April 2023, AM made an application in the High Court seeking revocation of the adoption order under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The application was made on welfare grounds to give effect to the wishes and feelings of X and Y, both of whom supported the application, alongside BM.
The judge accepted there is a power to revoke a validly made adoption order under the inherent jurisdiction, but said that it could not be used solely on grounds relating to the adopted child’s welfare. Accordingly, she held that she had no power to revoke the adoption orders in the present case.
AM appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. It held that a first instance court has no jurisdiction to set aside a validly made adoption order, whether under the inherent jurisdiction or otherwise. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 made clear that an adoption order is intended to be permanent. The appropriate avenue is by way of an application for permission to appeal out of time, if there is an appealable error. The fact that an adoption “turned out badly” was not a reason for the court to supply a remedy that Parliament chose not to provide.
AM appealed to the Supreme Court, contending a pressing need for the court to correct the legal fiction said to exist where BM is once again the de facto mother of Y, and possibly X, but AM remains their mother for all legal purposes and Y is trapped in an identity that she has rejected.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. In the judgment delivered by Lord Stephens and Lady Simler, with which Lord Reed, Lord Sales and Lord Doherty agreed, they said adoption orders are final and permanent, and irrevocable except on the very limited and rarely used ‘legitimate exception’ ground in the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Writing in Today’s Family Lawyer earlier this year, Michael Wells-Greco, partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, said the case arises “from deeply sad and unusual facts” that do not concern “fraud, procedural irregularity, or lack of consent at the time the orders were made,” but rather “concerns a breakdown in the adoptive placement years later, and whether welfare considerations alone can justify undoing the legal transformation.”
Commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision, he added: “Adoption is designed to provide children with permanence, belonging and identity. This was a sad and unusual case, where the adoptive mother herself asked the court to cancel the adoption on welfare grounds, supported by the children and their birth mother.
“The Supreme Court has now made it clear that adoption is meant to be permanent, and that it can only be undone in rare situations.
“By unanimously rejecting the appeal, the Court confirmed that adoption orders are intended to be final, and that they can only be challenged through a formal appeal. That is because adoption has far reaching legal consequences – including certainty about who a child’s legal parents are, who has parental responsibility, and matters such as nationality.
“The Court also stressed that, in law, an adopted child is treated no differently from a child born to their parents – and just as parenthood cannot be undone in those cases, adoption cannot simply be reversed. Where an appeal is no longer possible, the only remaining legal option may be a further adoption, which will not be suitable or available in every case.
“There is no easy legal solution where an adoption later breaks down, but the case highlights the growing importance of proper funding and support for families after adoption.”
Flora Grossman is a partner in the Family department at London law firm Simkins LLP. She said: “Today’s decision reinforces the principle that adoption is for life and not subject to reopening based on changing feelings or relationships, providing certainty and reassurance for all adopters going forward.
“However, for the children in this case, it shows that the law prioritises legal permanence over their lived reality of disconnection and fails to give the children themselves any voice.
“The court has effectively rejected the argument that a child’s feelings, no matter how strong, do not outweigh the need for certainty in the adoption system. This therefore draws a very hard line reinforcing the premise that revocation is only available for procedural fraud or error, and not for welfare reasons.
“This refusal by the court will probably not end this debate and will instead surely force the government and Parliament to decide whether the current law is fit for purpose, and whether welfare reasons should in future be treated as possible grounds to revoke adoption.”
