X & Anor (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside), Re

The Court of Appeal was asked whether the court has jurisdiction, other than by way of appeal, to set aside a validly made adoption order on welfare grounds. The court held that there is no such first instance jurisdiction to revoke a properly made adoption order: the statutory scheme in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (in particular ss 1, 21, 46, 52, 55 and 67) contemplates adoption as a life-long, transformative, and largely irreversible act and Parliament has specified the narrow circumstances in which an adoption order may be revoked. Procedural remedies (appeal, extension of time, correction under the Family Procedure Rules or the slip rule) remain the proper routes for challenge where an appeal is not timely but the circumstances justify relief. The court therefore dismissed the application to revoke the adoption orders and held that welfare alone is not a basis at first instance for revocation of a validly made adoption order.

This appeal arose from an application by the adoptive mother (AM) to revoke adoption orders made in 2013 in respect of two children, X and Y. The application was supported by both children and by their birth mother (BM). Lieven J in the Family Division refused the application, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke an adoption order solely on welfare grounds (Re X and Y (Revocation of Adoption Orders) [2024] EWHC 1059 (Fam)).

The Court of Appeal was asked to determine the single legal question whether, other than by way of appeal, the High Court has any jurisdiction to set aside a valid adoption order on welfare grounds and, if so, how that jurisdiction should be exercised. The court reviewed the statutory framework in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (noting that adoption confers status as if the child were born to the adopter and that express statutory revocation mechanisms are narrowly drawn), the relevant provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the Family Procedure Rules, and an extensive line of authorities in the Court of Appeal and High Court.

The issues framed were (i) whether an inherent jurisdiction exists in the High Court to revoke adoption orders at first instance, (ii) if so, whether welfare can be the decisive basis for such revocation, and (iii) what procedural routes are appropriate where an adoption order is alleged to have been obtained irregularly. The court concluded that earlier High Court decisions had erred in treating the High Court as having a general original jurisdiction to revoke adoption orders on welfare grounds. While the authorities show that appeal out of time or correction under procedural rules may, in exceptional cases of procedural irregularity or fundamental breach of natural justice, lead to the setting aside of an adoption order, those remedies are distinct from a general welfare-based power at first instance. The court therefore dismissed the appeal, affirming that adoption orders are intended to be final and for life and that any extension of the statutory scheme to permit welfare-based revocation at first instance would be a matter for Parliament.

The judgment notes the acute personal injustice that this conclusion may produce in individual cases (as in the situation of Y), but explains that, as a matter of law and policy, the permanence and finality of adoption is the overriding statutory paradigm.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that there is no jurisdiction at first instance to set aside a validly made adoption order on welfare grounds. The statutory scheme in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 establishes adoption as a life-long, transformative legal status and specifies narrow circumstances for revocation; the proper routes to challenge are appeal (including extension of time where justified) or limited procedural remedies under the Family Procedure Rules. The court therefore refused revocation and concluded any change to permit welfare-based revocation at first instance would be a matter for Parliament.

Appeal from the High Court of Justice Family Division (Lieven J: Re X and Y (Revocation of Adoption Orders) [2024] EWHC 1059 (Fam)), heard in the Court of Appeal and determined in this judgment [2025] EWCA Civ 2. The High Court had refused the revocation application on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to revoke an adoption order on welfare grounds; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.