Procedural status: Appeal. Reclaiming motion against the grant of an adoption order. Later history checked 3 August 2026: the parents applied to the UK Supreme Court for permission to appeal (UKSC-2025-0202) and permission was refused, the application not raising an arguable point of law.
The Inner House refused a reclaiming motion against an adoption order made in respect of a nine-year-old child, holding that there was no merit in any of the grounds of appeal.
Background
The child, EO, arrived in Scotland a few weeks after his birth. In November 2016 his parents, both of Nigerian origin, brought him and his three older brothers to Scotland while their home in Italy was being repaired following earthquake damage. When EO was around five months old, he and his brothers were taken into care following allegations by the older boys of serious abuse at the hands of their parents. Criminal proceedings followed. The oldest son later retracted his allegations and, the second oldest son’s evidence no longer being capable of corroboration, the parents were acquitted.
The petitioner sought authority to adopt EO. The Lord Ordinary granted the adoption order, and the reclaiming motion followed.
What the Inner House decided
The court held that only the adoption order sought by the petitioner would provide EO with the security and stability he needs.
It rejected the over-arching criticism that the judge had failed to provide an adequately reasoned and clear proportionality and necessity analysis, and found no merit in any of the grounds of appeal.
A minor technical error in the judge’s interlocutor, a reference to the 2009 Regulations, was identified by both parties and corrected. Otherwise the reclaiming motion was refused.
Why this decision matters
An adoption order permanently severs the legal relationship between a child and their birth parents, and any court granting one must address proportionality and necessity. An appeal founded on the adequacy of that analysis will not succeed where the judge’s reasoning, read as a whole, supports the conclusion that adoption is the only route to the security and stability the child requires.
Where a child has spent almost their whole life in alternative care following removal for serious abuse, the security offered by adoption weighs heavily.
A technical error in an interlocutor can be corrected without disturbing the substantive decision.
The parents subsequently applied to the UK Supreme Court for permission to appeal. Permission was refused on the basis that the application did not raise an arguable point of law. Refusal of permission has no status as a precedent.
Legal review: Brian Rooney, Managing Partner and Law Society of Scotland Accredited Specialist in Family Law.