Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Revoke Adoption of Sisters
Summary
The UK's highest court has rejected an adoptive mother's application to revoke adoption orders made in 2012 for two sisters, now aged 18 and 19, who resumed contact with their birth mother and later moved back in with her. The Supreme Court upheld the principle that adoption is 'final and permanent', invoking parens patriae jurisdiction to protect children's safety where no adequate mechanism exists. The Department for Education had warned that allowing adoption orders to be revoked based solely on welfare considerations could destabilise the adoption system and create uncertainty for adopters, birth parents, and children, impacting prospective adopter recruitment.
Family law practitioners advising on adoption should note this ruling's strong reinforcement of the permanence principle: courts will decline to revoke adoption orders even when all parties — adoptive parent, birth parent, and the children themselves — support reversal. Any future applications for revocation must demonstrate the original order was wrongly made, not merely that circumstances have changed.
About this source
The Inner Temple Library is one of the four Inns of Court library services in London. Their Current Awareness blog is staffed by professional law librarians who scan the day's English legal news, court judgments, regulatory updates, parliamentary questions, and academic commentary, and post short summaries with links to the source. Around 185 posts a month. The blog has been the standard daily-read for English barristers, solicitors, and law librarians for over a decade because of the editorial filtering: the librarians read more than any practitioner could, and they post only what matters. Watch this if you practice English law, manage a UK firm's research team, or want a curated daily feed of UK legal and regulatory news.
What changed
The Supreme Court dismissed an adoptive mother's appeal seeking to revoke adoption orders for two sisters aged 18 and 19, whom she had adopted in 2012 after a period in foster care. The children had resumed contact with their birth mother in 2021, later moving back to live with her, and one sister subsequently chose to live with her father. The court held that adoption should be 'permanent and irrevocable' except where an adoption decision was wrongly made, and that allowing revocation based on welfare alone would cut across detailed parliamentary legislation protecting children.\n\nFamily law practitioners and local authorities should note that courts will apply this permanence principle even where adopted children and their birth families wish to reverse the arrangement, and even where the adoptive parent supports revocation. The Department for Education's warning that revocability could undermine adopter recruitment and commitment provides the policy rationale courts will continue to apply.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Getty Images
Tom Symonds Amy Walker and Freya Scott-Turner
22 April 2026
A woman has lost an attempt to undo her adoption of two sisters after judges said to do so would go against the long held principle that adoption is "final and permanent".
The woman made clear in her submission that she had not rejected the children, who are now 18 and 19 and have not been named.
She said she brought the case because of their wishes after they resumed contact with their birth mother, who also supported the application at the UK Supreme Court.
Child protection experts were concerned that if the court had ruled in favour of ending the adoption, it would have destabilised the adoption system itself and made it harder to find potential adopters.
The judges said the state should continue to have the power to decide matters of adoption.
"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 at the UK's highest court said adoption should be "permanent and irrevocable" except in rare cases where an adoption decision had been wrongly taken.
The two children, known as X and Y, had made their own decision to move back in with their birth mother.
The court decided that allowing the appeal would have cut across "detailed and comprehensive" laws passed by parliament to protect children.
The local authority supported the application to revoke the adoption order in respect of Y but not X, while the Department for Education (DfE) also lodged a written case arguing that adoption orders could only be revoked in highly exceptional circumstances.
It said that allowing them to be revoked "based simply on welfare" could undermine their permanency.
"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 because of the children's "wishes and feelings" about the breakdown of the adoption, according to written submissions to the court.
She felt they had been forced to live a "legal fiction", despite the fact their "de facto parent" was again their birth mother.
"This is not because [the adoptive mother] has rejected the children. Her appeal is driven by their welfare alone" the submission says.
The girls were adopted in 2012 aged four and five after a period in foster care - but later resumed contact with their mother, which was supported by their adoptive mother.
In 2021, they left their adoptive mother and moved to live with their birth mother. One sister later decided to live with her father.
In February 2023, the local authority issued care proceedings on the basis that the girls were "beyond parental control" and conferred parental responsibility on to their birth parents.
In April 2023, the adoptive mother made an application in the High Court seeking revocation of the adoption order.
A judge then found the court had no power to revoke the adoption orders and refused the application, but the judge made orders allowing 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 - 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."
Related topics
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Inner Temple Library Current Awareness
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from BBC.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Inner Temple Library Current Awareness publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.