Boy’s adoption overturned in Court of Appeal after woman fails to disclose relationship with prisoner

The adoption of a two-year-old boy has been annulled in the Court of Appeal after his adoptive mother failed to disclose that she was having an affair with a prisoner.

In a ruling handed down on Monday, Judge Peter Jackson said the boy, known only as T, was placed for adoption with a married couple in Northumberland in May 2025 and was formally adopted last November.

But T’s former social workers were informed earlier this year that the adoptive father had moved out of the family home last October and that the adoptive mother had since begun a relationship with a prisoner serving a sentence in the prison where she worked.

They also learned that the woman had been caring for the inmate’s bully dog, XL, and had twice taken the boy to visit the inmate, who had referred to T as his “stepson” since October 2025.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson said on Monday the prisoner was in custody for drug offenses at the time and had previous convictions for assault and weapons possession, as well as being charged with sexual offenses involving a child, which did not lead to further action.

The judge said he was released in March but returned to prison for breaching license conditions at the end of the same month after being arrested at the adoptive mother’s home for alleged threatening behavior and criminal damage.

T was removed from the mother’s care in March and placed with the adoptive father; Gateshead Metropolitan Council subsequently sought to have the adoption overturned in the Court of Appeal.

Lawyers told the hearing on Thursday that failure to disclose the mother’s relationship with the prisoner was a “serious irregularity” and meant the adoption was “based on a materially incorrect factual basis”, calling it “unfair to the child”.

Neither of T’s adoptive or birth parents attended the hearing; The adoptive mother had previously told the council she did not want “any further involvement” with him.

In his ruling, Judge Peter Jackson, sitting with Judge Warby and Judge Cobb, said T had received a “high standard of care” from adoptive parents who social workers said loved him “unconditionally”.

But he continued that “misinformation” about their relationship meant the original decision to adopt had been “fundamentally undermined”.

He said: “The consequence of each of these errors was that the court acted on a fundamentally wrong basis.

“Of course, the judge made no mistake: Based on the information before him, any judge in family court could have made the adoption order, whereas no judge could have done so based on the actual facts.”

The case will then be sent to the family court for discussion.