Re O (Human Fertilisation)
[2016] EWHC 2273 (Fam) · High Court of Justice, Family Division
What happened: After assisted conception, a missing consent form led professionals to advise Y to adopt a child of whom Y was already a legal parent. The case concerned correcting that position: the court was asked to recognise the existing parentage and deal with an adoption order that should not have been needed to establish it.
What the court decided: The High Court declared that Y was the child's legal parent and revoked or quashed the adoption order. However, the Supreme Court in X and Y in 2026 rejected the reasoning that the High Court's general protective powers could be used to revoke an adoption. The parentage declaration and the reasoning used to cancel the adoption are distinct parts of the case.
Why it matters to adoptees: Errors in paperwork and professional advice can have serious consequences for how family relationships are legally recorded. This case helps explain why the underlying basis of parentage matters when interpreting an adoption record. It is not a safe example of a generally available route for an adoptee to end an adoption today: the later rejection of its legal reasoning must be read alongside the historical outcome.
Reasoning rejected in later judgments
X and Y (2026), paragraph 50, rejects the inherent jurisdiction reasoning. The parentage question remains distinct.
Limitations: The declaration of legal parentage and the reasoning used to revoke the adoption must be kept separate.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: No direct child legal-status preference established; guardian/parents spoke to welfare/status
Remedy sought: Revoke/quash adoption and declare legal parentage
Legal route: First-instance High Court inherent jurisdiction + declaration of parentage
Judgments in this case
- [2016] EWHC 2273 (Fam) · High Court, Family Division · 2016-09-13 · First-instance High Court application
Sources checked
- X and Y (2026): judgment and discussion of earlier cases (opens in a new tab)
paragraph 50 · Later judgment - X and Y (2025): Court of Appeal judgment (opens in a new tab)
paragraphs 54 and 68 · 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-0005.