J (A Minor : Revocation of Adoption Order)

An adoption order is intended to be final and lifelong. Revocation is therefore highly exceptional and requires the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. A purported revocation by a lower court, made outside its powers, is void. Where an adoption order was made after a complete absence of due process and wholesale abandonment of the established procedure, the High Court may consider revocation of its own motion, particularly where the order has not been drawn or sealed. The adoption application must then be restored and determined in accordance with proper procedure.

A circuit judge refused the birth mother permission under section 47 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to oppose an adoption. At the same hearing, despite insufficient material and without following the required procedure, the judge made an adoption order. She later purported to revoke it.

The matter was transferred to the High Court after the designated family judge recognised the procedural error. The central issues were whether the purported revocation was valid, whether the High Court could revoke the adoption order of its own motion, and what procedural course should follow.

1. The purported revocation was void. Revocation of an adoption order engages the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and was unavailable to the circuit judge. The purported order was therefore outside her powers. As it had been intercepted before being drawn or sealed, the High Court could address the matter directly.
2. Revocation is highly exceptional. Adoption severs the child’s legal ties with the birth family and creates a new legal parental relationship. An adoption order is made only where nothing else will do and nothing else is better. The same caution applies to revocation, which is intended to be a rare remedy.
3. The circumstances justified consideration of revocation. The adoption order had been made at a first directions hearing, without adequate material and following a complete absence of due process and wholesale abandonment of the correct procedure. Those circumstances provided a clear basis for the High Court to consider revocation. The court also emphasised the child’s right to know that any permanent separation from his family had been achieved through fairness, scrutiny and integrity.
4. Final order. The adoption order was revoked. The refusal of permission under section 47 was confirmed. The adoption application was to be restored expeditiously before the designated family judge and heard in compliance with established procedure and practice. Listing was a judicial responsibility, not merely an administrative one.

This was a first-instance decision in the High Court following transfer from the Family Court. The judgment does not state any prior appeal.