Browse all cases
Entries in alphabetical order. Return to search.
Ask the Adoptee Rights Assistant
Please leave out names and identifying details.
Re W (A Child); Re H (Children)
2013 · England and Wales
Two separate families challenged decisions refusing them permission to oppose adoption. Adoption orders had already been made, so the appeals had to address both the refusal of permission and the orders that followed. The Court of Appeal dealt with the two challenges in one judgment.
Re W (Inherent Jurisdiction: Permission Application: Revocation and Adoption Order)
2013 · England and Wales
G's adoption had broken down and G had moved into foster care. The local authority asked for permission to use the High Court's general protective powers to seek cancellation of the adoption order made in 2004. The application arose because the legal relationship created by adoption continued even though G was no longer living in that family home.
Re X (Adopted Child: Access to Court File)
2014 · England and Wales
The daughter of a man adopted in 1930 sought his original adoption court file after his death. She wanted to understand his birth mother's identity and the family's origins. The court had to consider both the route she used to request the information and the privacy interests involved in opening a historic adoption file.
Re X (Recognition of Nigerian Adoption)
2026 · England and Wales
The English court was asked to recognise an adoption made in Nigeria. It considered the legal validity of the overseas order and the safeguards surrounding the adoption process. The case raised questions about the evidence needed before an adoption made in another country could be given legal effect in England and Wales.
SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer
2019 · England and Wales
UK proceedings concerned a child cared for under Algerian kafala, a form of guardianship that is different from adoption. The issue was whether she could join her guardians under European free movement rules. The UK Supreme Court referred questions about those rules to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
W (Children) / Webster v Norfolk County Council
2009 · England and Wales
The Webster parents sought permission to challenge adoption orders after the usual appeal deadline. Later medical evidence had cast substantial doubt on findings that a child's injuries had been deliberately inflicted. Those earlier findings had helped set in motion proceedings that ended in adoption. The parents wanted the court to reopen the decisions in light of the changed understanding of the evidence.
W and others (Implementation of Adoption Plan Pending Appeal)
2024 · England and Wales
Family members appealed decisions about four children while the local authority continued adoption planning for the younger three. Farewell contact was arranged despite the authority knowing that legal challenges were being pursued. One issue in the appeals was whether the grandmother should have been given a further assessment as a possible family carer.
W v United Kingdom
1987 · England and Wales; UK-origin European proceedings
An English father challenged the process used to make decisions restricting contact with his child, who was subsequently adopted. His complaint reached the European Court of Human Rights. It concerned his involvement in decisions affecting family life and his ability to have those decisions examined by a court.
Y.C. v United Kingdom
2012 · England and Wales
A mother challenged English proceedings authorising her son's placement for adoption. Her complaint included the refusal to carry out a further assessment of her as his sole carer. She took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, asking whether the decisions had breached the right to respect for family life.
ZH v HS and others (Application to Revoke Adoption Order)
2019 · England and Wales
A young child had been adopted in England by her paternal aunt and uncle after becoming separated from her mother during migration. When her mother reached the UK, she challenged the adoption. The court identified extensive failures in the process, including problems with parental consent and the statutory requirements for the application. The relatives had acted in good faith, but professionals had not adequately considered other legal arrangements.