In the matter of X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside)

Permission to Appeal granted

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0039

Parties

Appellant(s)

Respondent(s)

X and Y

The Local Authority

Secretary of State for Education

Issue

Does a court have jurisdiction to set aside a valid adoption order other than by way of appeal?

Facts

This appeal arises from an application to revoke an adoption order in respect of two children, X and Y. The application was made by their adoptive mother, AM, and supported by both children and their birth mother, BM. X and Y were placed for adoption with AM in August 2012. They were then 5 and 4 years old respectively. They had previously spent a prolonged period in foster care during which they had significant contact with their birth mother, BM. The children did not settle well. They asked for continuing contact with BM. AM agreed that the children should spend time with BM and the extended birth family. In 2017-19, X expressed a wish to live with BM whilst Y wanted to remain with AM. In 2020, during the Covid lockdown, AM allowed BM and BM’s youngest children to move in for a period to live with her in the adoptive home to help BM escape from an abusive relationship. In June 2021, the relationship between AM and BM broke down. In August 2021, X and Y left AM’s home and moved to live with BM. At this point, both children said they wanted to live with BM. In May 2022, X, who had by then been introduced to her birth father, moved to live with him. Several changes ensued. Since August 2021, Y remained fairly settled with BM. X changed her position; in February 2023 she wanted to live with her birth father and then in May 2023 she moved to live with BM. In February 2023, the local authority issued care proceedings to regulate their existing placements. In April 2023, AM made an application to revoke the adoption orders made in 2013. At the hearing before Mrs Justice Lieven in March 2024, X and Y (then aged 17 and 16) supported the application to be ‘unadopted’ (initially X did not want to be ‘unadopted’ but after the hearing was adjourned to give her time to reflect, she supported the application). Lieven J held that the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke an adoption order on purely welfare grounds. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision and dismissed AM’s appeal. AM now applies for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom