J (Adoption: Appeal)

Factual and Procedural Background

On 1 May 2013, an adoption order was made by the Great Grimsby Magistrates in favour of a step-father (referred to here as "Step-Father") adopting an 11-year-old boy ("Child"). The biological father ("Father") was not a party to the adoption proceedings, nor was he notified. The adoption application process involved false information provided by the Child's mother ("Mother") and Step-Father, who misled the local authority social worker, Cafcass reporting officer, and the court about the identity and whereabouts of the Father. The Father had suffered from anxiety and depression, which affected his contact with the Child, but he sought to resume a relationship with the Child in 2016 after recovery. Upon discovering the adoption, the Father applied through solicitors for permission to appeal out of time against the adoption order. The court granted permission to appeal out of time, allowed the appeal, and set aside the adoption order on the basis that the Father’s Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were profoundly engaged and had been denied procedural fairness.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Father, who was not a party to the original adoption proceedings, should be permitted to appeal out of time against the adoption order.
2. Whether the adoption order should be set aside due to procedural irregularity and serious misrepresentations made by the Mother and Step-Father.
3. Whether the court’s failure to notify the Father and consider his rights constituted a breach of natural justice and Article 8 ECHR rights.
4. The appropriate welfare-based orders to make following the setting aside of the adoption order.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Mother and Step-Father were aware of the Father's identity and contact details but deliberately concealed this information from the local authority, Cafcass, and the court.
• They failed to serve the Father with the adoption application papers or inform him of the proposed adoption.
• The false information prevented statutory authorities and the court from properly assessing the adoption application, including the Father's relationship with the Child and his wishes and feelings.
• The adoption order was made on incomplete and misleading information, rendering the outcome unjust and a serious procedural irregularity.

Respondents' Position

• The Mother and Step-Father did not oppose the appeal or the setting aside of the adoption order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that the Father’s Article 8 ECHR rights to family life were significantly engaged by the adoption proceedings despite his not being a party to the original case. The court found that the Mother and Step-Father deliberately misled the local authority, Cafcass, and the court by concealing the Father's identity and contact information, which denied the Father procedural fairness and prevented a full and informed assessment of the adoption application. This conduct constituted a serious irregularity and a fundamental breach of natural justice. The court relied on established case law confirming its jurisdiction to set aside adoption orders obtained by fraud or where a party with a right to be heard was not notified. The adoption order was thus set aside as it was made on incomplete and false information, rendering the outcome unjust. The court also considered the welfare of the Child, noting the Child’s expressed wish to be “unadopted” and the current positive contact with the Father. The court approved subsequent welfare-based orders to facilitate ongoing contact and grant parental responsibility to the Father, reflecting the Child’s best interests.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final ruling was to allow the appeal and set aside the adoption order made in favour of the Step-Father. The court directed that the entry in the Adopted Children Register be deleted or removed accordingly.

This decision directly restores the Father’s legal relationship with the Child and acknowledges the procedural injustice caused by the concealment of information. The court made welfare-based orders by consent to ensure regular contact between the Father and the Child and granted the Father parental responsibility. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing principles regarding natural justice, Article 8 rights, and the exceptional circumstances under which adoption orders may be set aside.