The revocation of adoption orders – bright line rules v the discretion of the inherent jurisdiction

Mary Welstead, Visiting Professor in Family law University of Buckingham

The Appeal Court’s detailed analysis of the law on revocation of adoption orders reveals a serious divide between those judgments which accept their sacrosanctity and those which have used the inherent jurisdiction to revoke. The Court concluded that the inherent jurisdiction could not be used for the latter purpose.

The policy behind the law relating to irrevocability attempts to create relationships which are identical to those of biological parents and their children. Adoption is for the benefit of children, an insistence on irrevocability orders is based not just on giving stability to adopted children but also giving it to their adoptive parents.

When an adoptive relationship breaks down, there is a significant difference between adopted children and children who have lived with their biological parents. If the latter relationship breaks down, the biological relationship remains. By attempting to make both types of parental relationship the same are we in reality indulging in a form of legal fiction which may damaging adopted children?