Re B (A Child)

Re B (A Child)

[2013] UKSC 33 · Supreme Court

What happened: Parents challenged a care order made with a plan for their daughter to be adopted. The concerns centred on possible future emotional harm, including fears about the mother's presentation of illness and the parents' ability to work with professionals. The parents had maintained regular contact and formed a good relationship with their child.

What the court decided: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by four judges to one. The majority accepted that adoption was justified because the necessary cooperation with professionals could not be achieved. Lady Hale disagreed: she considered that the feared harm did not justify this response when alternatives had not been tried. The care order remained in place.

Why it matters to adoptees: This case shows that predictions of future harm, and whether family support could address it, can be disputed even by senior judges. Lady Hale's disagreement gives a concrete legal expression to concerns about permanent separation before alternatives have been tested. Her view was not the binding outcome: the majority upheld the order. For adoptees reading their history, the case helps distinguish predicted risk from harm already suffered and ask how alternatives were assessed. This account uses the official court summary, not a completed full judgment review.

Limitations: This was a care order appeal, not an adult application to reverse adoption. Official court summary reviewed; full judgment review remains pending.