Family relationships and contact
Cases considering contact and relationships. Placement decisions and applications after adoption involve different legal questions.
Ask the Adoptee Rights Assistant
Please leave out names and identifying details.
L (A Child: Step-Parent Adoption)
[2021] EWCA Civ 801
Stepparent adoption can change legal family relationships even where a child remains in the same household with one birth parent. It is therefore more than a change of name or an acknowledgement of who provides day-to-day care. This case can help people adopted by a stepparent understand the kind of decisions made about their other parental relationship. It does not mean every stepparent adoption has the same history, contact arrangements or justification.
Re B (Post-Adoption Contact)
[2019] EWCA Civ 29
For adoptees asking why face-to-face relationships with family were not maintained, the case explains a significant legal obstacle. A relationship can matter to an adopted person without the court having ordered adults to sustain it during childhood. It is also important to distinguish contact after adoption from the earlier decisions about preserving relationships when adoption is being planned. Later cases in this database examine those earlier decisions, including sibling contact.
Re B-A (Placement Order and Contact Order)
[2026] EWCA Civ 356
Maintaining a family relationship may depend on more than adults expressing goodwill. This case shows why a court may need to make contact enforceable, including where a parent would struggle to secure arrangements informally. For adoptees examining childhood contact plans, it helps distinguish what was promised from what was legally required. It does not guarantee that the same contact arrangements will continue unchanged after adoption.
Re R and C (Adoption or Fostering)
[2024] EWCA Civ 1302
Sibling relationships can be treated as part of a child's future, rather than merely a connection to a past left behind. The case supports asking what an adoption plan says about preserving those relationships in practice. But it was a decision authorising placement for adoption, not a finding that adoption always preserves family ties or is always preferable to fostering. Later guidance warns against copying its contact arrangements without an individual assessment.
Re S (Foster Care or Placement for Adoption)
[2026] EWCA Civ 47
This is a concrete example of a court deciding that adoption was not the right plan for a particular child. Existing family relationships and the consequences of another move were part of the welfare assessment, not simply obstacles to completing an adoption. It can help adoptees ask whether similar matters were considered in their own history. The decision depends on this child's circumstances and does not establish a rule that fostering must always be preferred.
Re S (Placement Order Contact)
[2025] EWCA Civ 823
For adoptees, the difference between a promise of contact and contact that actually continues can be substantial. This case helps frame questions about how sibling relationships were assessed and why a particular form of protection was chosen. Its guidance is useful even though the appeal failed. It does not establish an automatic entitlement to a contact order, a fixed number of visits, or unchanged arrangements after a final adoption order.
W and others (Implementation of Adoption Plan Pending Appeal)
[2024] EWCA Civ 837
Ending visits and saying goodbye can have real consequences before any final adoption order exists. This case records judicial criticism of allowing the adoption process to move ahead prematurely. For adoptees examining their history, it highlights the importance of the sequence of decisions, contact changes and challenges. The successful appeals led to further assessment and proceedings, not a verified outcome of reunification.
W v United Kingdom
Application no. 9749/82
Decisions that reduce or end contact can shape an adoptee's lifelong relationship with their original family. This case shows that how those decisions are made, including whether family members can participate and challenge them, matters in its own right. A finding of a rights violation does not necessarily undo what has happened. The domestic procedures examined were historical, so this is not a description of every route available to families today.