Re X (Adopted Child: Access to Court File)
[2014] EWFC 33 · Family Court, sitting at Bristol
What happened: 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.
What the court decided: The court refused disclosure under the particular statutory route concerning the Registrar General's records, but allowed full inspection and copying of the adoption court file using its separate power over court documents. The result depended on the circumstances of this historic file; it was not an automatic entitlement to all adoption records.
Why it matters to adoptees: Questions left unanswered by adoption can pass to the next generation. This case recognises that a descendant may have a substantial interest in understanding that history. It also offers a practical distinction: a refusal from one record holder, or under one legal provision, does not necessarily answer a request for a different set of records. Agency files, registration records and court files have different access routes.
Later treatment not comprehensively reviewed
The original records decision has been checked. This is not a complete review of subsequent cases or current procedure.
Limitations: Access to this historic court file did not establish automatic entitlement to every adoption record.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: Descendant applicant; no direct adoptee voice
Remedy sought: Inspection/copying of historic adoption court file; alternative s 79(4) disclosure
Legal route: Historic disclosure rule / predecessor of FPR 14.24; s 79(4) alternative
Judgments in this case
- [2014] EWFC 33 · Family Court · 2014-09-09 · First-instance records disclosure application
Sources checked
- Re X (2014): official judgment (opens in a new tab)
paragraphs 29–37 · Judgment
Review scope: Official judgment checked for facts, disclosure outcome and the distinction between the two access routes. Subsequent treatment not comprehensively reviewed.
Human verification pending. Entry: CASE-0008.