An Application by the Adoption Authority of Ireland Under Section 30(5) of the Adoption Acts 2010 – 2017 (as Amended)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Jordan |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 378 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2020 No. 289 MCA] |
and
[2021] IEHC 378
[2020 No. 289 MCA]
THE HIGH COURT
FAMILY LAW
Adoption – Consultation – Adoption Acts 2010-2017 s. 30 – Applicant seeking an order granting approval to the applicant to make an adoption order in respect of the child without consulting the child’s father – Whether it would be inappropriate for the applicant to consult the father in respect of the adoption of the child
Facts: The Adoption Authority of Ireland applied to the High Court for: (1) an Order, pursuant to s. 30(3) of the Adoption Acts 2010-2017 granting approval to the applicant to make an Adoption Order in respect of the child without consulting the child’s father, in circumstances where the applicant was satisfied that it would be inappropriate for it to consult the father in respect of the adoption of the child; (2) in the alternative, an order pursuant to s. 30(5) of the Adoption Acts 2010-2017 granting approval to the applicant to make an Adoption Order in respect of the child without consulting the child’s father, in circumstances where the mother was unable and/or unwilling to reveal the identity of the father of the child; (3) such further and other relief that the court shall deem fit.
Held by Jordan J that the Court had considered granting the approval under s. 30(5) but to do so would ignore the mother’s naming of and provision of details concerning the father and would be to ignore that she had not sworn the statutory declaration mentioned in that sub-section. Jordan J held that the mother was entitled to take the view that she could not swear a statutory declaration in the terms of the sub-section. The Court considered it necessary to consider the purpose of s. 30 and weigh the competing rights involved. Jordan J found that doing so permitted the granting of the approval under s. 30(3) as the Court was satisfied that the father had for many years not been, and was not, interested in maintaining a relationship with his daughter, much less in being available to be consulted about her proposed adoption.
Jordan J held that, in the circumstances, the Court would make the order sought pursuant to s. 30(3) approving the making of the Adoption Order without consulting the father of the child.
Application granted.
EX-TEMORE JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Jordan delivered electronically on 2nd February 2021
This is an application by the Adoption Authority for;-
-
(1) an Order, pursuant to s.30(3) of the Adoption Acts 2010–2017 granting approval to the applicant to make an Adoption Order in respect of the child, IBO without consulting the child's father, in circumstances where the applicant is satisfied that it would be inappropriate for it to consult the father in respect of the adoption of the child;
-
(2) in the alternative, an order pursuant to s.30(5) of the Adoption Acts 2010–2017 granting approval to the applicant to make an Adoption Order in respect of the child, IBO, without consulting the child's father, in circumstances where the mother is unable and/or unwilling to reveal the identity of the father of the child;
-
(3) such further and other relief that the court shall deem fit.
The application is grounded on the affidavit of Mr. Mark Kirwan, the Manager of the Domestic Adoption Unit of the Adoption Authority which affidavit was sworn on the 8th December 2020.
The child's date of birth is [REDACTED] 2003.
The averments in the affidavit grounding the application and the exhibits accompanying it deal in a comprehensive manner with the background circumstances.
Insofar as the background to the application is concerned, the following is the position:-
-
(a) On the 12th August 2017, the mother of the child married an Irish citizen, X, the applicant for the Adoption Order.
-
(b) The declaration of eligibility and suitability in respect of the applicant was issued and is dated the 30th October 2019.
-
(c) The biological father of the child does know of the child's birth and is registered on the child's birth certificate.
-
(d) The mother does not know whether the father is married or in a civil partnership.
-
(e) The relationship between the mother and the father lasted for nine years. They were in a romantic relationship and lived together as partners. The relationship continued for a period of five months after the child's birth and the mother, father and child lived together for that period of five months.
-
(f) The father may not know of the proposed adoption. However, there was extensive communication with close relatives of his advising of the proposed adoption and the consequent need to get in touch with the father. It seems most improbable that news of the proposed adoption did not reach him.
-
(g) The father has not been appointed a guardian of the child pursuant to a court order or otherwise.
-
(h) There was an informal access agreement in respect of the child up until 2015.
-
(i) The father and the child do not have an ongoing relationship. He last saw the child in 2009 in [REDACTED].
-
(j) The mother has provided the father's name, his date of birth and what she described as his [REDACTED] PPS number along with his last known address and his last known work address. The evidence proves that she does appear to have co-operated fully in the efforts to reach the father and ascertain his views.
-
(k) The mother was born on [REDACTED] 1978. She and the applicant for the Adoption Order have been in a relationship since 2006 and were married in 2017. The mother and the applicant for the Adoption Order have a daughter of their marriage who is now eight years of age.
-
(l) The father was involved in parenting the child for the first five months of her life, together with her mother. Following their separation, the father had access with the child every second weekend, but contact became more sporadic as time progressed. In 2006, the mother began a relationship with her current partner (the applicant for adoption) and both she and the child relocated to Ireland with the father's consent in 2007.
-
(m) Once the mother and child relocated to Ireland the mother says that there was very little contact between the father and the child. The mother contacted the father once per month to facilitate the child speaking to him on the telephone.
-
(n) Between 2008 and 2013 the father reportedly had telephone contact at Christmas and on the child's birthday. It appears that contact took place in 2014 on her birthday and that was when the father last spoke with the child. The had previously met with him on two occasions in [REDACTED] in 2008 and 2009.
-
(o) Between 2013 and 2015 the mother says that she attempted to contact the father with a view to getting him to sign an application for an Irish passport. She failed ultimately and she applied to the District Court in Dublin in 2015 to dispense with his consent and obtained the necessary order.
-
(p) The father has been identified by name but efforts made to locate him in order to consult with him have failed. The social worker attempted to telephone and email the father on the 16th July 2018 using the contact details which had been provided by the mother. The email did not deliver and the telephone number that had been provided was not in use.
-
(q) The social worker contacted International Social Services and the Embassy of [REDACTED] with a view to making contact with the father. In addition, a person acquainted with the birth mother informed the father's mother (the child's grandmother) of the situation and it appears that the grandmother did not wish to become involved in the matter.
-
(r) The mother contacted the father's brother on social media but did not receive a response.
-
(s) The social worker contacted the [REDACTED] Tax Agency on the 14th August 2018. However, the efforts made to trace the father by this route failed. The last known address that the agency had recorded in respect of the father dated back to 2015. They did however have addresses for the paternal grandmother and paternal grandfather. The social workers sent correspondence to the father's mother and his father respectively. The letter to the paternal grandmother was retuned marked “insufficient address/refused”. The letter to the paternal grandfather was delivered but no response was received.
-
(t) The child is obviously aware of her father's existence and her mother has told her about their relationship.
-
(u) The social worker has met with the child who has stated that she is not curious to obtain more information about her father and she does not wish to have a relationship with him at this time. She believes that she can rely on her mother to communicate information in respect of her father to her in the future – should she wish to obtain further details.
-
(v) It is clear from the evidence that the child is in favour of the proposed adoption and considers the applicant to be her “dad” in circumstances where he has cared for her since 2007.
It is clear from the evidence that the child wishes the adoption to proceed and it is also clear from the evidence that it is in the best interests of her welfare that the adoption is allowed to proceed.
Amongst the documentation exhibited are:-
-
(a) An email from the social worker dated the 14th of August 2018 and addressed to the [REDACTED] Tax Agency seeking information in relation to the father, and the response to that email.
-
(b) A letter dated the 7th September 2018 (together with proof of postage of same), addressed to the father's mother (the child's grandmother) seeking information in respect of her son and informing her of the proposed adoption.
-
(c) A letter dated the 7th September 2018 (together with proof of postage of same), addressed to the father's father (the...
To continue reading
Request your trial