On 11 November 2026 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down its decision in G (A Child: Leave to Oppose Adoption) [2026] EWCA Civ 1445, clarifying the legal test and approach judges should adopt when a parent seeks leave to oppose the making of an adoption order under section 47 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
The court emphasised that the statutory two-stage gateway continues to govern such applications: first, the applicant must show a change in circumstances; and second, the judge must carry out a welfare-centred evaluation of whether leave should be given. The Court of Appeal rejected an approach that treated the permission stage as a mini-trial requiring a parent to prove a likelihood of success. Instead it held that the parent need show a “solid” or substantial case deserving further investigation, not a probability of prevailing at a contested final hearing.
The three-judge panel, which heard the appeal from the Family Court at Brighton, was concerned that lower courts had sometimes set an unduly high evidential threshold at the leave stage and had weighed gaps in evidence in a way that precluded meaningful scrutiny of the merits. Where a judge finds that there has been a genuine and substantial change, the court must take a broad and practical view focused on the child’s welfare throughout life rather than undertaking an exhaustive fact-finding exercise at the permission hearing.
Practitioners will note several practical consequences of the ruling. First, advocates for parents should ensure that applications for leave properly identify and adduces evidence of change and explain why the parent has a substantial case meriting further inquiry. Second, judges should be cautious about refusing leave because evidence is incomplete; the decision indicates greater willingness to grant leave and remit for case management or further directions (for example to obtain assessments or supplementary evidence) rather than shutting the parent out at the threshold. Third, the judgment reiterates that the short-term inconvenience to prospective adopters must not be given disproportionate weight where a solid case for leave exists.
The decision does not alter the statutory primacy of the child’s welfare or convert the leave stage into an inquiry about the ultimate merits; rather it re-calibrates the balance so that section 47(5) functions as the meaningful remedy Parliament intended. Barristers instructed in public law children, care and adoption work should review how they frame and support leave applications and consider seeking early case-management directions where the evidence is incomplete but change has been established.
Sources
- G (A Child: Leave to Oppose Adoption) – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (11 November 2026)
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division) recent judgments – Find Case Law / The National Archives (lists [2026] EWCA Civ 1445, handed down 11 November 2026)
- Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 47 – legislation.gov.uk