Re-entering care
Cases involving care or local authority accommodation after a completed adoption. Entering care does not itself end an adoption; each case explains what happened and what the court decided.
Ask the Adoptee Rights Assistant
Please leave out names and identifying details.
A and Another v Essex County Council
[2003] EWCA Civ 1848
The case records care after adoption followed by return to the adoptive home. It connects disclosure failures with understanding and meeting a child’s needs. The litigation concerned the adopters’ claim; it did not decide the child’s own potential claim.
AX v BX and Others (Revocation of Adoption Order)
[2021] EWHC 1121 (Fam)
The judgment gives substantial space to the young people’s own accounts of identity, belonging and the consequences for the next generation. It records a successful historical application, while the later decisions show why that outcome cannot be presented as an available general route today.
M (A Child: Adoption: Duty of Disclosure)
[2026] EWCA Civ 568
Scrutiny of an adoption should include the information provided about the prospective adoptive home, not only the assessment of the original family. The case shows that the court's approval depends on an accurate account of that home. For adoptees investigating concerns about how their adoption was arranged, the distinction between information concealed or misstated at the time and developments afterwards can be legally significant. The later arrangements for this child are not established by this entry.
Re K (A Child: Post Adoption Placement Breakdown); Re E (Wardship)
[2012] EWHC 4148 (Fam)
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.
Re P (A Child)
[2018] EWCA Civ 720
Adopted children may need protection and care outside their adoptive homes. Their allegations require a sound investigation and a properly reasoned decision. This case records a failure of the justice system to resolve serious allegations reliably; entering care did not itself end the adoption.
Re W (Inherent Jurisdiction: Permission Application: Revocation and Adoption Order)
[2013] EWHC 1957 (Fam)
For adoptees who later entered care or whose adoptive family relationships ended, the distinction is important: a change in where a child lives does not automatically end their adopted legal status. This case records an unsuccessful attempt to address that gap. It should not be presented as a practical revocation route, or as a judgment that the breakdown of an adoptive relationship is insignificant.