ZH v HS & Ors (Application to Revoke Adoption Order) [2019] EWHC 2190 (Fam) is the latest in a small but growing group of successful applications to undo an adoption. While sometimes referred to as revocation of an adoption order, these are in reality either appeals substantially out of time or, as in ZH, an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances; both routes require leave. The consequence of a successful appeal is a return to the status quo ante (per Thorpe LJ in Re W (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1535 and Munby P in Case O (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008) [2016] EWHC 2273 (Fam)). ZH was a Somalian refugee who, in trying unsuccessfully to enter the UK from Holland, became separated from her two year old daughter, T. T did enter the UK and went to live with her paternal aunt and uncle. They sought to adopt her, apparently because they were repeatedly asked for legal documentation recognising their care of her. Ineligible for legal aid, they made an adoption application without representation or translators. The court made the order notwithstanding very significant breaches of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, FPR r14, and PD14C, in that T had not lived with the adopters for at least three years; they had no leave to make the application; no attempts been made to locate ZH; the parents, T, and the local authority were not made parties; and the social work assessment reporter, possibly on her first report, treated the consent of T’s father (in Somalia) to her being placed in his sister’s care nine months earlier as consent to adoption, whereas in fact he did not consent and any such consent would have needed to comply with FPR r 14.10(6). There was no consideration of the test for dispensing with parental consent. ZH did not secure entry to the UK until T was aged four, whereupon she sought to revoke the adoption. Theis J found that the adoption was ‘a disproportionate order for what was required, was not an order that met the lifelong welfare needs of this child and was made following a flawed process, replete with errors and omissions’ that ‘go to the very root of the adoption process’. She therefore – and with the agreement of all parties – revoked the order, holding that the application should not have been issued in the first place. ZH joins a number of cases in which courts have been willing to revoke an adoption in situations in which the procedure was so significantly flawed that it undermined the

中文翻译：

---

ZH v HS & Ors（撤销收养令的申请）：三组撤销案件

ZH v HS & Ors（撤销收养令的申请）[2019] EWHC 2190 (Fam) 是少数但不断增长的成功撤销收养申请中最新的一个。虽然有时被称为撤销领养令，但实际上这些上诉要么是过时的，要么是在 ZH 中，在特殊情况下行使固有管辖权；两条路线都需要请假。成功上诉的结果是恢复原状（根据 Re W (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1535 和 Munby P in Case O（2008 年人类受精和胚胎学法案）[2016] EWHC 2273 中的索普 LJ （家庭））。ZH 是一名索马里难民，她试图从荷兰进入英国失败，与她两岁的女儿失散，T. T 确实进入了英国并与她的姑姑和叔叔住在一起。他们试图收养她，显然是因为他们一再被要求提供承认他们照顾她的法律文件。没有资格获得法律援助，他们在没有代表或翻译的情况下提出了收养申请。尽管 T 违反了 2002 年收养和儿童法案、FPR r14 和 PD14C，但法院还是做出了该命令，因为 T 与收养人一起生活了至少三年；他们无权提出申请；没有试图定位 ZH；父母、T 和地方当局不是当事人；社会工作评估记者，可能在她的第一份报告中，将 T 的父亲（在索马里）同意她在九个月前由他姐姐照顾，视为同意收养，而事实上他不同意，任何此类同意都需要遵守 FPR r 14.10(6)。没有考虑免除父母同意的测试。ZH 直到 T 4 岁才确保进入英国，于是她试图撤销领养。Theis J 发现收养是“对所需要的不成比例的命令，不是满足这个孩子终身福利需求的命令，并且是在一个有缺陷的过程中制定的，充满了错误和遗漏”，“追根溯源”。收养过程”。因此，经各方同意，她撤销了该命令，认为该申请一开始就不应该发出。