HX v A Local Authority & Ors (Application to Revoke Adoption Order)

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to revoke a lawfully made adoption order is severely curtailed. Revocation is available only in highly exceptional and very particular circumstances involving a fundamental breach of natural justice. Mistake, misrepresentation, serious injustice, emotional impact, or defects in earlier care and placement proceedings will not ordinarily suffice. A parent who knew of the adoption proceedings, was joined, was given an opportunity to file evidence and participate, but made no application before the adoption order, cannot ordinarily establish such a breach. Local authorities and Children’s Guardians must nevertheless take all reasonable steps to identify, locate and notify parents, including parents believed to be abroad.

The birth father applied under the inherent jurisdiction to revoke an adoption order made in respect of his daughter. He alleged that the local authority and Children’s Guardian had failed to identify and involve him in the care and placement proceedings, and had later failed to enable his effective participation in the adoption proceedings.

The court found shortcomings in the earlier enquiries. However, the father became aware of the adoption proceedings several months before the order, was made a party, was directed to file evidence and had legal representation and public funding. He made no application to oppose the adoption or otherwise participate before the order was made.

1. The application was dismissed. The adoption order was intended to be legally permanent. It extinguished the birth parents’ parental responsibility and made the adoptive parents the child’s legal parents. Strong public policy supported preserving the order and protecting the lifelong commitment of adopters.
2. The inherent jurisdiction to revoke an adoption order is severely curtailed. The required circumstances must be highly exceptional and very particular, and must involve a fundamental breach of natural justice. Mistake, misrepresentation, serious injustice and emotional consequences do not, without more, meet that threshold. This approach was applied from Re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside) [1995] Fam 239, Re Webster v Norfolk County Council [2009] 2 All ER 1156 and Re O (A Child)(Human Fertilisation and Embryology: Adoption Revocation) [2016] 4 WLR 148.
3. The local authority and Children’s Guardian had failed to take reasonable investigative steps during the care and placement proceedings. They should have pursued information from the Ugandan authorities, the High Commission, the Red Cross and known relatives. The mother’s account did not relieve them of that obligation. The Children’s Guardian also had to satisfy itself independently that reasonable steps had been taken.
4. Those deficiencies did not justify revocation. The court was not reopening the earlier orders. More importantly, after learning of the adoption proceedings, the father was notified, joined as a party, invited to file evidence and given an opportunity to participate. He had solicitors and emergency public funding, but made no application before the adoption order. That was not a fundamental breach of natural justice of the required kind.
5. The duty to make reasonable enquiries applies equally where a parent may be located abroad. Reasonable methods may include contacting an embassy, High Commission or consulate, using family-tracing organisations and making enquiries of known relatives, subject to avoiding risks to the parent.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier care, placement and adoption proceedings, including refusals of permission to appeal, but no appeal from the present decision.