In a judgment reinforcing the permanence of adoption orders, the Family Court has dismissed a birth mother’s attempt to revoke the adoption of her two children and seek renewed contact with them.

The case involved Ms A, mother of two children—L, aged 12, and P, aged 6—who were adopted in 2019 and 2018 respectively. Ms A filed an application to have the adoption orders set aside, along with a request for direct contact with the children. Both R and T Local Authorities, responsible for the children’s welfare, opposed the application.

Presiding over the case, Mr Justice Trowell rejected the applications, stating that adoption orders can only be revoked in exceptional circumstances involving serious procedural irregularity.

“The jurisdiction to revoke adoption orders is strictly limited to cases of fundamental procedural irregularity,” said the judge.

Ms A alleged multiple irregularities in the adoption process, including claims of duress, racism, and inadequate welfare assessments. However, the court found no supporting evidence, concluding that the original adoption orders were made lawfully.

In reviewing the contact application, the court found Ms A’s inability to accept the adoption process to be a risk to the emotional stability of the children. One particularly concerning incident included her telling one of the children that “adopters kill the children they adopt,” a comment that the judge found indicative of potential psychological harm.

While denying direct contact, Mr Justice Trowell allowed continued indirect “letterbox” contact, recommending that any correspondence be carefully screened before being passed to the children.

The judgment acknowledged Ms A’s challenging background, including her history as a victim of human trafficking, and expressed sympathy for her circumstances. However, the judge was clear that the children’s settled and secure lives with their adoptive families could not be disrupted.

“The welfare of the children, now well established in their adoptive placements, must remain the court’s paramount concern,” said Mr Justice Trowell.

The judge concluded that Ms A’s applications were “totally without merit”, while confirming her right to appeal the decision.