Supreme Court Upholds Finality of Adoption in Sisters' Case
A woman has failed in her attempt to revoke her adoption of two sisters after Supreme Court judges affirmed the principle that adoption is "final and permanent."
The woman clarified in her submission that she had not rejected the children, who are now aged 18 and 19 and remain unnamed.
She initiated the case following the sisters' wishes after they re-established contact with their birth mother, who also supported the application at the UK Supreme Court.
Child protection experts expressed concern that a ruling in favour of ending the adoption could destabilise the adoption system and deter potential adopters.
The judges emphasized that the state must retain the authority to make adoption decisions.
"Parens patriae" or "father of the people" powers, existed "to secure a child's protection and safety from serious harm where there is no adequate mechanism available," they said.
The ruling from the UK's highest court stated that adoption should be "permanent and irrevocable," except in rare cases where the adoption decision was made incorrectly.
The two children, referred to as X and Y, had independently chosen to move back in with their birth mother.
The court determined that allowing the appeal would conflict with "detailed and comprehensive" legislation enacted by Parliament to protect children.
The local authority supported revoking the adoption order for Y but not for X. Meanwhile, the Department for Education (DfE) submitted a written case arguing that adoption orders could only be revoked under highly exceptional circumstances.
The DfE stated that allowing revocation "based simply on welfare" could undermine the permanency of adoption.
"It would leave adopters, birth parents and, perhaps most significantly, children in a state of uncertainty," the DfE's written submission said.
"That would inevitably have an impact on the recruitment of prospective adopters and could either make adopters less committed to their adopted children if difficulties arise or conversely less willing to support ongoing contact with birth families as a consequence."
The children's adoptive mother brought the case citing the children's "wishes and feelings" regarding the breakdown of the adoption, according to court submissions.
She felt they had been compelled to live a "legal fiction," despite their "de facto parent" being their birth mother once again.
"This is not because [the adoptive mother] has rejected the children. Her appeal is driven by their welfare alone," the submission states.
The sisters were adopted in 2012 at ages four and five after a period in foster care but later resumed contact with their birth mother, a move supported by their adoptive mother.
In 2021, the sisters left their adoptive mother to live with their birth mother. One sister subsequently chose to live with her father.
In February 2023, the local authority initiated care proceedings, citing that the girls were "beyond parental control," and granted parental responsibility to their birth parents.
In April 2023, the adoptive mother applied in the High Court to revoke the adoption order.
A judge ruled that the court lacked the power to revoke the adoption orders and denied the application but allowed both girls to change their surnames to that of their birth mother.
Michael Wells-Greco, from legal firm Charles Russell Speechlys, which specialises in family law but was not involved in this case, commented on the ruling.
He said there was "no easy legal solution where an adoption later breaks down" but the Supreme Court has "now made it clear that adoption is meant to be permanent."
He said: "The court also stressed that, in law, an adopted child is treated no differently from a child born to their parents – and just as parenthood cannot be undone in those cases, adoption cannot simply be reversed."
