Introduction

The case of X and Y, Re (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) ([2025] EWCA Civ 2) before the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) addresses a pivotal issue in family law: whether courts possess the inherent jurisdiction to set aside a validly made adoption order solely on the grounds of the adopted child's welfare, independent of the appellate process. This case involves AM, the adoptive mother of two children, X and Y, who seeks to revoke the adoption orders established in 2013. Supported by both children and their natural mother, BM, AM contends that the adoption order no longer serves the children's best interests.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal scrutinized the single question of law central to the appeal: the existence of any jurisdiction for the court to set aside a valid adoption order outside the appellate mechanism. The High Court, represented by Mrs Justice Lieven, had previously denied AM's application to revoke the adoption orders, asserting the lack of jurisdiction to do so on welfare grounds alone.

The Court of Appeal, after a thorough analysis of statutory provisions and precedent cases, concluded that the High Court does not have an inherent jurisdiction to revoke adoption orders based solely on the welfare of the adopted child. The court emphasized the inherently final and transformative nature of adoption orders, which are designed to establish a permanent and legally binding parent-child relationship, effectively extinguishing the rights of natural parents unless specific statutory provisions apply.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively reviewed numerous precedents to determine the boundaries of the court's jurisdiction concerning the revocation of adoption orders. Key cases include:

• Re B (Adoption: Setting Aside) [1995] UKSC 33: Affirmed that there is no inherent jurisdiction to revoke adoption orders except under specific statutory provisions.
• Re F (R) (An Infant) [1970] 1 QB 385: Illustrated the court's inherent power to set aside adoption orders in cases of fundamental procedural irregularities.
• Webster v Norfolk County Council [2009] EWCA Civ 59: Reinforced the notion that revocation of adoption orders is permissible only in highly exceptional circumstances.
• Re K (Adoption and Wardship) [1997] 2 FLR 221: Demonstrated the court's reluctance to revoke adoption orders absent substantial breaches of natural justice.
• Re O (A Child) [2016] EWHC 2273 (Fam): Presented a unique scenario where an administrative error led to the revocation of an adoption order.

These cases collectively emphasize the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity and finality of adoption orders, limiting their revocation to scenarios involving severe procedural flaws or fundamental injustices.

Legal Reasoning

The court anchored its reasoning on the statutory framework established by the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). Specifically, sections 21 and 52 delineate the grounds and procedural requirements for placing and adopting children. The ACA 2002 does not provision an inherent power for courts to revoke adoption orders based solely on welfare considerations. The court further interpreted that any attempt to do so would contravene the legislative intent to render adoption orders final and irreducible exceptions in family law.

By examining the transformative effect of adoption orders, the court underscored that these orders irrevocably alter the legal parent-child relationship, thereby demanding a high threshold for any future alterations. The judgments reinforced that the inherent jurisdiction, previously misconstrued in certain lower court decisions, does not extend to welfare-based revocations outside the established appellate pathway.

Impact

This judgment reaffirms the sanctity and permanence of adoption orders within English and Welsh law. It sets a clear precedent that courts cannot unilaterally revoke adoption orders based purely on welfare grounds, thereby ensuring stability and certainty for adoptive families and reinforcing public confidence in the adoption system. Future cases will adhere strictly to the appellate route for challenging adoption orders, reserving any inherent jurisdiction revocation to only the most extraordinary circumstances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inherent Jurisdiction

Inherent jurisdiction refers to the powers that courts possess naturally, even if not explicitly stated in statutes. Historically, courts could set aside decisions if they were procedurally flawed or unjust, but this judgment limits such jurisdiction concerning adoption orders.

Adoption Order

An adoption order is a legally binding decree that permanently transfers parental rights and responsibilities from the natural parents to the adoptive parents. Once in place, it extinguishes the legal relationship between the child and natural parents, treating the child as though they were born to the adopters.

Placement Order

A placement order authorizes a local authority to place a child for adoption. It is a precursor to the adoption order and remains in force until it is either revoked, converted into an adoption order, or the child reaches the age of 18.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in X and Y, Re (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) solidifies the legal framework surrounding adoption in England and Wales, reinforcing the finality and transformative nature of adoption orders. By denying the inherent jurisdiction to revoke such orders on welfare grounds outside the appeal process, the judgment upholds the integrity and stability of adoptive families. This outcome aligns with legislative intent and longstanding judicial precedent, ensuring that adoption remains a robust means of providing permanent and secure homes for children in need.

While the decision may be distressing for the immediate parties, especially the children who seek to reconnect with their natural mother, it underscores the judiciary's commitment to adhering to statutory boundaries and public policy considerations that prioritize the long-term welfare and stability of adopted children. Future avenues for addressing similar situations remain confined to the appellate route, maintaining a clear and predictable adoption system.