Re W (A Child); Re H (Children)
[2013] EWCA Civ 1177 · Court of Appeal
What happened: Two separate families challenged decisions refusing them permission to oppose adoption. Adoption orders had already been made, so the appeals had to address both the refusal of permission and the orders that followed. The Court of Appeal dealt with the two challenges in one judgment.
What the court decided: The appeals succeeded and the resulting adoption orders were set aside. The applications needed to be reconsidered through a proper process. That reopened the decisions; it did not guarantee that adoption would ultimately be refused or that the children would return to their original families.
Why it matters to adoptees: The case recognises that failing to give a proper hearing can cause injustice to children as well as to the adults seeking to oppose adoption. It helps explain why scrutiny of procedure is part of protecting the person whose life is being decided. It is also a clear example of the distinction between successfully challenging a completed adoption order on appeal and having a general right to end an otherwise valid adoption later in life.
Review limitations recorded
Read alongside [2026] UKSC 13: appeal powers are distinct from an inherent power to revoke a valid order on welfare grounds.
Limitations: One judgment covering two appeals. Reopening the process did not guarantee that adoption would ultimately be refused.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: Parents brought both appeals without legal representation.
Remedy sought: Adoption order(s) set aside on appeal.
Legal route: Appeal against completed adoption order(s)
Judgments in this case
- [2013] EWCA Civ 1177 · Court of Appeal · 2013-10-16 · Joined appeals judgment
Sources checked
- Judgment source (opens in a new tab)
Paragraphs 1–12 and 26–31 · Judgment - Current distinction between appeal and revocation (opens in a new tab)
Paragraphs 78–81 · Later judgment
Review scope: Official judgment checked for linked proceedings, setting aside and rehearing distinction. No exhaustive later treatment review.
Human verification pending. Entry: CASE-NEW-031.