Re W (Inherent Jurisdiction: Permission Application: Revocation and Adoption Order)
[2013] EWHC 1957 (Fam) · High Court of Justice, Middlesbrough District Registry
What happened: 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.
What the court decided: The court refused permission to pursue revocation through that route and made a final care order. The adoption order was not cancelled. Later judgments, including X and Y in 2026, rejected the suggestion in some older cases that these general protective powers provide a route to revoking valid adoption orders.
Why it matters to adoptees: For adoptees who later entered care or whose adoptive family relationships ended, the distinction is important: a change in where a child lives does not automatically end their adopted legal status. This case records an unsuccessful attempt to address that gap. It should not be presented as a practical revocation route, or as a judgment that the breakdown of an adoptive relationship is insignificant.
Reasoning rejected in later judgments
X and Y (2026), paragraph 50, identifies a misunderstanding of the appellate authorities.
Limitations: Permission was refused. References to an inherent power in this older judgment should not be treated as current law.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: Direct wishes recorded in letter/social-work/guardian material
Remedy sought: Permission to pursue revocation
Legal route: Permission to invoke asserted inherent jurisdiction in care proceedings
Judgments in this case
- [2013] EWHC 1957 (Fam) · High Court · 2013-05-22 · Permission application within care proceedings
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 52 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-0006.