Re B-S (Children)
[2013] EWCA Civ 1146 · Court of Appeal
What happened: A mother whose circumstances had changed sought permission to oppose the adoption of her children. She appealed when permission was refused. Alongside deciding her application, the Court of Appeal examined shortcomings in the evidence and reasoning often used to support adoption without parental consent.
What the court decided: The mother's appeal failed. However, the court stressed that adoption recommendations and judgments must explain the available realistic alternatives and compare their advantages and disadvantages properly. A conclusion that adoption is best is not a substitute for showing why. Later guidance in Re R clarified that this did not change the law or require investigation of every imaginable option.
Why it matters to adoptees: The case provides concrete questions for reading an adoption file: which family or other care options were considered, what evidence supported rejecting them, and how were lifelong losses and relationships weighed? Its value is in making the reasoning open to scrutiny. It does not mean that any weakness in an old report automatically invalidates an adoption, or that a parent whose circumstances improve must be allowed to oppose it.
Review limitations recorded
Read with Re B [2013] UKSC 33 and the clarification in Re R [2014] EWCA Civ 1625.
Limitations: The guidance did not guarantee permission to oppose adoption. Re R clarified that this decision did not change the law or require assessment of every conceivable option.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: Children’s experiences and wishes were considered through the evidence; the mother brought the appeal.
Remedy sought: Refusal of permission to oppose adoption upheld.
Legal route: Appeal concerning permission to oppose adoption
Judgments in this case
- [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 · Court of Appeal · 2013 · Judgment
Sources checked
- Official Court of Appeal judgment (opens in a new tab)
paragraphs 33–44 and 94–103; read with Re R paragraphs 55–60 · Judgment - Official later clarification in Re R (2014) (opens in a new tab)
paragraphs 55–60 · Later judgment
Review scope: Official judgment checked for outcome; evidence requirements cross-checked against their express reproduction and explanation in Re R (2014). No exhaustive later treatment review.
Human verification pending. Entry: CASE-NEW-018.