In the Matter of X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2026] UKSC 13

Why It Matters

The ruling preserves the stability of adoption placements and confirms that courts cannot bypass Parliament’s detailed adoption regime, shaping future family‑law strategy and safeguarding legal certainty for adoptive parents and children.

Key Takeaways

• Adoption orders are final and irrevocable except rare legitimation.
• High Court lacks inherent power to revoke valid adoption orders.
• Parens patriae jurisdiction is limited by the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
• Statutory safeguards, not inherent jurisdiction, protect children post‑adoption.
• Supreme Court dismisses appeal, confirming no revocation route.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by an adoptive mother (AM) seeking to set aside a valid adoption order for children X and Y, arguing that the High Court’s inherent parens patriae jurisdiction should allow revocation when the children reject their adoptive identity.

The Court held that adoption orders are expressly final under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and that the narrow inherent power recognised in a few cases cannot be invoked on pure welfare grounds. Parens patriae remains a residual prerogative, but its use is displaced where Parliament has provided a detailed statutory scheme.

Lady Simler noted that the only statutory ground to overturn an adoption order is legitimation, a circumstance that virtually never arises. The judgment also stressed that existing statutory mechanisms—such as making a new adoption order—already protect children, and that neither the Human Rights Act nor the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child creates a revocation right.

The decision cements legal certainty for adoptive families, limiting any future attempts to undo adoption through the courts and reinforcing the primacy of the statutory framework. Practitioners and local authorities must rely on the existing suite of child‑welfare powers rather than seeking a judicial safety net.

Original Description

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

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0039.html

Case ID: UKSC/2025/0039

Judgment date: 22 April 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKSC 13

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 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, 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.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal.

More information is available on our website: