Michael Wells-Greco and Hannah Owen write for Today's Family Lawyer on a recent UK Supreme Court case that considers whether an adoption order can be set aside on welfare grounds
min readCan adoption ever be undone? A recent UK Supreme Court case goes to the heart of what adoption means in English law.
The issue central to this case is plain: Can an adoption order be set aside on welfare grounds using the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction?
Adoption follows a deliberately rigorous statutory process, and does not merely regulate parental responsibility - it replaces it. In the creation of this adoption process, Parliament did not provide a power to revoke an adoption order on welfare grounds. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to circumvent this. Now attention turns to the Supreme Court judgment, to see whether this may be overturned.
The case of X and Y arises from deeply sad and unusual circumstances, with a breakdown in the adoptive placement years after the initial adoption. The case does not concern procedural irregularity, fraud or lack of consent at the time the orders were made, it centres around whether welfare considerations alone can justify undoing the legal transformation of adoption.
Michael Wells-Greco, Partner and Hannah Owen, Senior Associate, both in our Family team, write for Today's Family Lawyer on this significant case.
Adoption is designed to provide children with permanence, belonging and identity. Its transformative nature is what distinguishes it from all other orders in family law.
"The Supreme Court must now decide whether that permanence is truly irrevocable, or whether, in the most exceptional cases, the law must accommodate reality.
Whatever the outcome, X and Y is likely to become a defining authority on the limits of the inherent jurisdiction and the meaning of finality in adoption.
Read the full article in Today's Family Lawyer here.
