Supreme Court rejects bid to revoke adoption of sisters

A woman’s attempt to overturn the adoption of two sisters was denied by the UK Supreme Court, which emphasized that adoption is meant to be “final and permanent.” The court ruled that revoking the adoption order would contradict the established principle of adoption permanency. The adoptive mother argued the case based on the children’s wishes, though she clarified she had not abandoned them. The sisters, now 18 and 19 years old, have not been named in the proceedings.

The children’s decision to reunite with their birth mother was central to the case, which received support from both the mother and the local authority. Child protection specialists warned that if the court had sided with the woman, it could disrupt the adoption framework, creating uncertainty for adopters, birth parents, and children alike. They noted that such a ruling might reduce confidence in the adoption system, potentially affecting future placements.

Legal reasoning and adoption principles

The Supreme Court highlighted “parens patriae” powers, which allow the state to act in a child’s best interest when no other safeguards are available. It stressed that adoption should remain “permanent and irrevocable” unless there is clear evidence of an error in the original decision. The court stated that the state’s authority to determine adoption matters is crucial for ensuring child safety.

The case involved two girls, X and Y, who were adopted in 2012 at ages four and five after time in foster care. They later reconnected with their birth mother, a relationship supported by their adoptive mother. In 2021, the sisters moved back with their birth mother, and one eventually joined her father. By February 2023, the local authority initiated care proceedings, transferring parental responsibility to the birth parents.

In April 2023, the adoptive mother filed a High Court request to revoke the adoption orders. A judge initially denied the application, stating the court lacked power to undo the orders. However, the judge permitted the girls to revert their surnames to their birth mother’s. The Department for Education (DfE) backed this, arguing that adoption orders should only be revoked in exceptional cases to maintain their permanency.

“Allowing adoption orders to be revoked based simply on welfare considerations could undermine their permanency,” the DfE’s submission said. “This would leave adopters, birth parents, and children in a state of uncertainty, potentially affecting the recruitment of prospective adopters and adopters’ commitment to their children.”

The adoptive mother’s appeal was driven by the children’s “wishes and feelings” regarding the adoption’s dissolution, according to court documents. She described the situation as a “legal fiction,” noting that their de facto parent was their birth mother. The court concluded that the legal framework established by Parliament should take precedence over individual cases seeking to undo adoption orders.