Revocation of Adoption Orders and the Future: Re X and Y (Revocation of Adoption Orders) [2024] EWHC 1059 (Fam) and beyond

Introduction

This unusual case appeared before the High Court in 2024, where the adoptive mother (AM) applied to the court to revoke the adoption orders for her two daughters, X and Y (aged 16 and 17 years old). The children had been adopted by her in 2012 when they were aged 4 and 5. 

Throughout their time in the family home with their adoptive mother, and previously whilst in foster care, the children maintained consistent and significant contact with their birth mother (BM). Around 2017 – 2019, X expressed to her adoptive family that she wished to reside with BM, whereas Y stated she wanted to remain with AM. There then became an element of a blended family whereby AM allowed BM to move into her property during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 to allow her to escape an abusive relationship. BM then left AM’s home in Summer 2021. In August 2021, both X and Y moved in with BM. In May 2022, X moved in with her birth father, to whom she had been introduced and developed a relationship with.

Case Summary

In February 2023, the local authority issued care proceedings to provide some regulation to the somewhat dysregulated placement of the children. Throughout these proceedings, Y remained settled in her placement with BM. X’s position changed throughout, where she wanted to remain with her birth father, and then moved back to BM’s home in May 2023. 

Mrs Justice Lieven sitting in the High Court declined to invoke the inherent jurisdiction, refusing the application. She accepted that revoking the adoption order would be within the welfare interests of Y, however; Lieven J held that the court’s inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to revoke an adoption order as Parliament had already enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. That scheme expressly addressed the issue of revocation, permitting it only in cases of legitimation, thereby confirming Parliament’s intention that adoption should create a permanent and irrevocable legal status. The absence of a general power of revocation indicates a deliberate legislative choice, and to allow the inherent jurisdiction to override this would undermine the statutory framework. Moreover, the circumstances before the court were not sufficiently exceptional to justify departure from this principle.

The Court of Appeal upheld Lieven J’s decision and dismissed AM’s appeal. The court found there was no power conferred upon it to rescind an adoption order on the ground of welfare as Parliament must have intended for adoption orders to be final.

In late-July 2025, the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal. Clarification regarding the limitation of the inherent jurisdiction on the revocation of adoption orders is much needed.

Written by Lisa Edmunds, Head of Chambers and Senior Consultant Barrister.

Law is correct as of 27th August 2025. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational purposes. Readers are respectfully reminded that it is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. No liability is accepted for any error or omission contained herein.