Adoption order set aside in M (A Child) after prospective adopters concealed relationship breakdown

The Court of Appeal has set aside an adoption order after finding that the prospective adopters had concealed the breakdown of their marriage, the adoptive mother's relationship with a serving prisoner, and the possibility that the prisoner might reside with the child. The judgement in M (A Child: Adoption: Duty of Disclosure) [2026] EWCA Civ 568, handed down on 11 May 2026 by Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Warby, and Lord Justice Cobb, reinforces the duty of full and frank disclosure binding every prospective adopter throughout the adoption process.

T, now aged two, was placed with a married couple by Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (LA1) in May 2025. An adoption order was made on 21 November 2025. Unknown to the court, the adoptive father had moved out of the family home in mid-October 2025 — the very day the adoption order was made, the council tax office was notified of his change of address. The adoptive mother had by then entered a relationship with a male prisoner whose offending history included battery, possession of weapons, drug offences, and an allegation of sexual offending against a child. She had taken T to visit the prisoner in prison and had given his address as her home for his release, scheduled for 3 March 2026. The prisoner had been referring to T as his "stepson" since October 2025.

The deception came to light in January 2026 when the former social worker received information about the separation. Northumberland County Council (LA2) issued care proceedings in March 2026, securing an interim care order. T was removed from the adoptive mother's care and placed with the adoptive paternal grandparents. The adoptive father did not oppose the appeal; the adoptive mother chose not to participate.

The Court of Appeal allowed LA1's appeal on two independently sufficient bases. First, the order was simply wrong on the true facts: no judge could rationally have made an adoption order in favour of joint applicants whose relationship had already ended and who had concealed a prospective cohabitee with a serious criminal history. Second, the failure to disclose constituted a serious irregularity rendering the proceedings unjust within the meaning of CPR 52.21(3)(b).

The judgement articulates with clarity the duty that falls on every prospective adopter. Because oral evidence is not taken at adoption hearings and the court performs an essentially supervisory function, it depends heavily on the good faith of all informants — social workers, referees, and above all applicants themselves. Rule 14.11 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and Annex A of PD14C require specific assessment of the stability and permanence of a couple's relationship as a fundamental component of the adoption decision. The Court held that "each prospective adopter is under a clear duty to the court to make full and frank disclosure about their circumstances at every stage of the process up to the making of the adoption order. That duty will be breached if the court is misled by a prospective adopter's words, deeds or silence."

The Court drew on a line of authority including Re B, R & C (Children) [2002] EWCA Civ 1825 and Re J (A Child) [2018] EWFC 8, in which Cobb J described an adoption order obtained by concealment as "predicated on incomplete and essentially false information." The present case extends that principle squarely to the concealment of a relationship breakdown between the applicants themselves, as distinct from misrepresentations about the birth family.

As to the legal consequences, setting aside the adoption order revived the original care and placement orders made in favour of LA1 under Re W (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1535. The concurrent interim care order independently vests parental responsibility in LA2. The Court commended the two local authorities for reaching a detailed transitional agreement pending further care proceedings, under which LA1 exercises parental responsibility during the intervening period while LA2 retains supervisory and safeguarding functions.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson added a practical note of wider application: where an Annex A report is completed well in advance of the final hearing and prospective adopters have been excused personal attendance, social workers and the court should take particular care to ensure that all information placed before the court is fully current.