M (A Child: Adoption: Duty of Disclosure)

Prospective adopters owe the court a continuing duty of full and frank disclosure about their circumstances until the adoption order is made. The duty is especially important because adoption changes both a child’s life and legal identity, and the court generally relies on written reports and updating information rather than oral evidence. A failure to disclose material changes, including a breakdown in a joint applicants’ relationship or a significant risk arising from a person likely to enter the household, may amount to a serious procedural irregularity. It may also make the adoption order wrong because the court’s welfare assessment was based on a fundamentally mistaken factual foundation. On appeal, either ground is sufficient where the true facts show that the order should not have been made. The adoption order may be set aside, with consequential revival of earlier care and placement orders.

The child was placed for adoption by Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (LA1) with married joint applicants. An adoption order was made on 21 November 2025 after the court relied on an Annex A report and information that the child was thriving and the adopters were committed to him.

Afterwards, evidence emerged that the adopters had separated before the hearing and that the adoptive mother was in a relationship with a serving prisoner who had referred to the child as his stepson and was expected to be released to her address. Northumberland County Council (LA2) obtained an interim care order and the child was removed from the adoptive mother. LA1 appealed, supported by the Children’s Guardian and LA2. The central issues were whether the nondisclosure was a serious irregularity and whether the order was wrong because the welfare assessment under Adoption and Children Act 2002 section 1 had proceeded on a materially mistaken factual basis.

1. Appeal allowed. The adoption order was set aside and the adoption application dismissed. The court held that both limbs of CPR 52.21(3) were satisfied: the order was wrong on the true facts, and the proceedings were unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. Adoption proceedings are predominantly supervisory. Because oral evidence is not ordinarily taken at the final hearing, the court depends heavily on the Annex A report and current information supplied by social workers, referees and prospective adopters. Each prospective adopter therefore owes the court a continuing duty of full and frank disclosure up to the making of the order. The duty may be breached by words, deeds or silence.
3. Under section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child’s welfare throughout life is paramount. The stability and permanence of joint applicants’ relationship, their capacity to provide safe and stable care, and risks posed by persons likely to care for or come into contact with the child are material. These matters are also fundamental to the suitability assessment under Rule 14.11 and Annex A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
4. The undisclosed separation and the adoptive mother’s relationship with the prisoner fundamentally undermined the decision. Had the judge known the true facts, she would either have dismissed the application or made further inquiries. There was no fault by the judge: the outcome turned on the information before her.
5. Setting aside the order meant that the child ceased to be a member of the adoptive family, the adoptive parents ceased to have parental responsibility, and the earlier care and placement orders in favour of LA1 revived. The interim care order in favour of LA2 remained independently effective. By agreement, LA1 was to exercise parental responsibility during a transitional period, while LA2 was authorised under section 2(9) of the Children Act 1989 to exercise limited parental responsibility for safeguarding and placement supervision.

• Family Court at Newcastle: Her Honour Judge Hudson made the adoption order on 21 November 2025 after the final hearing.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed unanimously. The adoption order was set aside and the adoption application dismissed. The earlier care and placement orders revived, subject to the independently effective interim care order and agreed transitional arrangements.