W, Re

Revocation of a properly made adoption order through the inherent jurisdiction is permissible only in highly exceptional circumstances. Leave should be granted only where revocation appears proportionate and necessary, and reasonably likely ultimately to succeed. The court must weigh the child’s welfare against adoption’s finality, the consequences of involving the natural family, the risks of further litigation, and the likely emotional impact on the child. A proposed revocation based only on possible misuse of parental responsibility is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

A local authority sought permission to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to apply for revocation of an adoption order made in 2004. The child, aged twelve, had been removed from her adoptive family after the adoption broke down and was living successfully in foster care. The adoptive parents supported, or did not oppose, revocation, while the local authority relied principally on alleged emotional and psychological harm caused by the breakdown of the adoption.

The court also considered the consequences of serving the natural parents, whose parental responsibilities would revive if the adoption order were revoked. The central issue was whether it was in the child’s best interests, and sufficiently proportionate, necessary and likely to succeed, to grant permission for the proposed application.

1. Permission refused. The court refused leave to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to seek revocation of the adoption order.
2. Under Re B (Adoption Order: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239 and Re W: Webster & Anor v Norfolk County Council [2009] EWCA Civ 59, adoption is intended to be final and lifelong. The inherent jurisdiction may be used to revoke an adoption order only in exceptional and highly particular circumstances.
3. The court had to balance the possible welfare advantage of a fresh start against the substantial disadvantages of reopening the adoption. Those disadvantages included the risk of continuing litigation, the need to notify the natural parents, possible representation and assessment issues concerning the child, further professional intervention, and the risk of emotional harm to the child and others.
4. The appropriate threshold for granting permission was that the proposed process should appear proportionate, necessary and reasonably likely ultimately to result in a revocation order. The court concluded that success was less likely than failure and that the process risked opening a Pandora’s box of harmful consequences.
5. The natural parents would ordinarily have to receive notice. Revocation would produce a legal reversion to the position before adoption, including revival of their parental responsibilities. This was supported by Re W (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1535.
6. Arguments based on possible misuse of parental responsibility, without more, were wholly insufficient even to establish a prima facie case for revocation or removal of parental responsibility.
7. The care proceedings were concluded by the making of a Care Order. The court considered that conclusion to be in the child’s and all concerned’s best interests.