Re K (A Child: Post Adoption Placement Breakdown); Re E (Wardship)
[2012] EWHC 4148 (Fam) · High Court, Family Division
What happened: An adopted teenager entered local authority accommodation after difficulties in her adoptive home. The proceedings examined information provided before adoption, support and therapy, and serious problems in the authority’s handling of her care. Later proceedings also concerned her adoptive parents’ wish to discuss the case publicly.
What the court decided: The initial care order was discharged on appeal in Re E [2012] EWCA Civ 1773. The child became a ward of court while remaining voluntarily accommodated. In July 2013, the court allowed the parents to discuss the case with the media from January 2014, subject to anonymity protections.
Why it matters to adoptees: This history shows the continuing need for protection and services after adoption. Court oversight of care can change without ending the adoption. It also raises a separate question about who controls an adoptee’s story: the young person opposed being made the face of her parents’ campaign, but the court ultimately permitted anonymised discussion.
Review limitations recorded
No exhaustive later treatment review; see source and review limitations.
Limitations: One case history, not three separate families. The 2012 judgment also appears as [2012] EWHC B9 (Fam); do not count that as another judgment. Appeal outcome verified through the 2013 judgment. Later publicity decision [2013] EWHC 3748 (Fam) is a follow-up lead, not fully captured here. No exhaustive later treatment review.
Case details and sources
Adoptee involvement: The 2013 judgment records her strong opposition to being the face of the campaign and distress about publicity. Adult interpretations of her behaviour are not treated as her own account.
Remedy sought: Care order discharged; wardship substituted. Later conditional permission for anonymised media discussion.
Legal route: Care proceedings, wardship appeal and subsequent publicity application
Judgments in this case
- [2012] EWHC 4148 (Fam) · High Court, Family Division · 2012-07-27 · Principal judgment
- [2012] EWCA Civ 1773 · Court of Appeal · 2012-11-22 · Appeal: care order discharged; wardship
- [2013] EWHC 2684 (Fam) · High Court, Family Division · 2013-07-25 · Subsequent publicity application; records appeal outcome
Sources checked
- Initial judgment (opens in a new tab)
Background and paragraphs 197–209 · Judgment - Appeal judgment reference (opens in a new tab)
Outcome independently recorded in Re K 2013 paragraphs 1–5 · Judgment - Later judgment: appeal outcome and publicity (opens in a new tab)
Paragraphs 1–5, 23–25 and 76–83 · Judgment
Review scope: Facts, outcome and adoptee relevance checked against the listed judgment passages. One case history, not three separate families. The 2012 judgment also appears as [2012] EWHC B9 (Fam); do not count that as another judgment. Appeal outcome verified through the 2013 judgment. Later publicity decision [2013] EWHC 3748 (Fam) is a follow-up lead, not fully captured here. No exhaustive later treatment review.
Human verification pending. Entry: CASE-NEW-048.