B. and B. v an Bord Uchtála

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1997
Date01 January 1997
CourtSupreme Court
(S.C.)
B. and B
and
An Bord Uchtála

- Recognition - Chinese adoption - Applications for adoption orders made to Chinese authorities - Assurances sought that Chinese adoptions would be recognised in the State - Whether an adoption effected in China came within definition of a foreign adoption for the purposes of the 1991 Act - Whether provisions in Chinese adoption law that adoptive relationship could in certain circumstances be terminated effected the fundamental nature of an adoption - Adoption Act, 1952 (No. 25), s. 24 -Adoption Act, 1991 (No. 14), ss. 1, 6 - Judicial review - Certiorari -Whether an order of certiorari lies against an expression of an opinion by An Bord Uchtála as to the interpretation of the effect of Chinese law.

An adoption effected outside the State must comply with the definition of a foreign adoption prescribed by s. 1 of the Adoption Act, 1991. S.1 (b) of the 1991 Act provides, inter alia, that the foreign adoption must have 'essentially the same legal effect as respects the termination and creation of parental rights and duties with respect to the child in the place where it was effected as an adoption effected by an adoption order'. S. 24 of the Adoption Act, 1952, as amended, provides, inter alia, that when an adoption order is made the child shall be considered with regard to the rights and duties of parents and children in relation to each other as the child of the adopter or adopters born to him, her or them in lawful wedlock. It further provides that the parent or guardian of the child shall lose all parental rights with respect to the child. Article 22 of the Chinese adoption law of 1991 provides, inter alia, that the legal provisions governing the relationship between parents and children shall apply to the rights and duties in the relationship between adoptive parents and adoptive children. Article 25 provides that an adopter may not terminate the adoptive relationship before the adoptee comes of age except when the adopter and the person who placed the child for adoption agree to terminate the relationship. If the adopted child reaches the age of ten or more years his consent to the termination must be obtained. The applicants were three married couples who were each seeking to adopt a child from the People's Republic of China ('China'). Their applications were processed by the authorities in China. However, the Chinese authorities were unwilling to proceed further with these applications until they were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • M. O'C. and Another v Udaras Uchtála Na Héireann
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 30 May 2014
    ...F (M) v AN BORD UCHTALA 1991 ILRM 399 B (B) v AN BORD UCHTALA UNREP FLOOD 12.4.1996 1996/9/2679 B & ORS v AN BORD UCHTALA 25.7.1996 1997 1 ILRM 15 CMSR FOR COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION v AN POST UNREP HEDIGAN 8.3.2013 2013/11/2999 2013 IEHC 149 START MORTGAGES LTD & ORS v GUNN & ORS UNREP DUN......
  • A, B and C (A Minor Suing by His Next Friend, A) v The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 9 May 2023
    ...the Act the effect of which was, in broad terms, to reflect essential features of an adoption under Irish law (see B v. An Bord Uchtála [1997] 1 ILRM 15 at pp. 26–27 per Murphy J.). Section 2(2) of the Adoption Act 1991 made clear that the provisions of the Act were in substitution for any ......
  • The Adoption Act, 2010, Section 49 (2), and JB (A Minor) and KB (A Minor)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 12 July 2018
    ...validate foreign adoptions otherwise potentially void due to issues regarding 'simple adoptions' ( B & B v. An Bord Uchtála [1997] 1 I.L.R.M. 15) and (iii) to significantly expand the basis of recognising such adoptions, which, as M.F. v. An Bord Uchtála and other similar cases show, was co......
  • CB v Údarás Uchtála Na hÉireann
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 November 2016
    ...in relation to these children. 39 Counsel for the Attorney sought to rely on the Supreme Court decision in B. & B. v. An Bord Uchtála [1997] 1 I.L.R.M. 15 in relation to s. 18 of the 1952 Act (s. 45 of the 2010 Act echoes this provision) where Murphy J. set out that a second adoption order ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT