A recent case heard by the Court of Appeal is of particular interest to prospective adopters. It involved a boy, T, who was placed with married adopters in May 2025. They applied for an adoption order in July 2025, and it the order was made on 21 November 2025.
Two local authorities were involved and one of them sought to appeal against the making of the adoption order on the basis that the adopters had misled the court about their circumstances. The Court of Appeal heard the case on 7 May 2026 and allowed the appeal, setting aside the adoption order.
The full Judgment is here for anyone interested.
The appeal arose as a result of information shared with a social worker in January 2026 that in fact the adopters had separated prior to the making of the adoption order. The separation had occurred in mid-October 2025, and the adoptive mother (AM) had formed a new relationship.
AM worked in a prison and had formed a relationship with a male prisoner who had a history of violent offending and drug offences. He was due for release from prison on 3 March 2026 and had given AM’s address as the place he would stay upon release. Since October 2025 the prisoner had referred to T as his ‘step-son’ and T had visited him twice in prison.
As a result of concerns about AM’s relationship LA2 issued care proceedings in March 2026 and an ICO was made. T was removed from AM and was placed with his adoptive father’s (AF) parents (where AF also lives).
At about the same time LA1 filed its application for permission to appeal out of time against the making of the adoption order.
By the time of the appeal hearing in May 2026 divorce proceedings had been started by AF, the prisoner had been released and then recalled to prison, and AM was saying she wanted nothing more to do with T. The birth parents were not involved at any stage of the appeal.
It is probably obvious why the appeal was allowed. The Court decided that prospective adopters are under a clear duty to the court to make full and frank disclosure about their circumstances at every stage of the process up to the making of the adoption order.
“That duty will be breached if the court is misled by the prospective adopter’s words, deeds or silence.” [25]
They went on to say:
“In the present case the adoptive parents withheld crucial information about the state of their own relationships from T’s adoption agency (LA1), from their own adoption agency, and from the court. The degree of responsibility that each adoptive parent and the members of their wider families may bear for this state of affairs will no doubt become more apparent in the ongoing care proceedings, and it would not be right for us to say more about that. What is entirely clear, and sufficient for the orders that we must make, is that the misinformation about the state of the adult relationships within T’s new family fundamentally undermined the court’s decision. The judge would certainly not have made an adoption order to joint applicants on 21 November 2025 if she had had doubts about the stability of their relationship or if she had had any hint of AM’s relationship with the prisoner.” [30]
What we don’t know from the Judgment in this case is what has happened to T. As a result of the adoption order being set aside, and the adoption application having been refused, T is no longer a member of the adoptive family, and the adoptive parents hold no parental responsibility for him. The care and placement orders that LA1 previously held are revived.
Where he lives, and with whom he grows up, will be questions for the care proceedings.
(As an aside, it’s an unusual case for another reason too – both LAs end up holding PR for T at the end of the appeal – LA1 because of the previous orders and LA2 because of the ICO. They seem to resolve this between them.)
I have written previously about the case of Re X and Y which has recently reaffirmed that adoption orders cannot be revoked. This case (Re M) provides one of the rare instances of a successful appeal, out of time, against an adoption order.
Emily Boardman
Boardman, Hawkins & Osborne LLP