Re B (Adoption: Jurisdiction to Set Aside)
[1995] Fam 239 · Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
What happened: An adult adoptee wanted a 1959 adoption order set aside. He said the adoption had been based on a fundamental mistake about his ethnic and religious origins and the suitability of the placement. His application asked the court to revisit an order made many years earlier because the circumstances in which it had been made were deeply important to his identity.
What the court decided: The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. The adoption order remained in force. The Supreme Court discussed the case again in X and Y in 2026, endorsing its emphasis on the finality of adoption orders.
Why it matters to adoptees: The case shows the distance that can exist between an adoptee's reasons for questioning their adoption and the legal remedies available to them. Questions about ethnicity, religion and origins are not made unimportant by the failure of an application. But their importance to the person does not, by itself, give a court power to cancel an adoption. This entry relies on the later Supreme Court account, rather than a fresh review of the original judgment.
Considered in a later judgment
X and Y (2026), paragraphs 74–77, affirms the finality reasoning.
Limitations: A challenge based on an original error is different from reopening an adoption because of later wishes.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: Direct adult-adoptee application
Remedy sought: Set aside adoption order
Legal route: Original application / appeal; inherent-power argument based on mistake
Judgments in this case
- [1995] EWCA Civ 48 · Court of Appeal · 1995-03-17 · Appeal
Sources checked
- X and Y (2026): judgment and discussion of earlier cases (opens in a new tab)
paragraphs 74–77 · Later judgment
Review scope: Existing database extraction checked against the discussion in X and Y (2026). Original judgment not freshly reviewed; later treatment check is limited to the linked judgments.
Human verification pending. Entry: CASE-0002.