McC. v an Bord Uchtála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice McWilliam
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1982
• Neutral Citation: 1982 WJSC-HC 1148
• Docket Number: 117 SP Ct 5/1981
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1982

1982 WJSC-HC 1148

117 SP Ct 5/1981

McC v. AN BORD UCHTALA

Moc.

.v.

AN BORD UCHTALA & ST. LOUIS ADOPTION SOCIETY

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice McWilliam delivered the 28th July 1981

2 The Plaintiff is an infant suing be her mother and next friend and seeks an order for the return to her custody of her son who was born on the 29th January, 1980, when the Plaintiff was a little over nineteen years old.

3 In January, 1979, the Plaintiff left home where she had been living with her mother, her step-father, two sisters and a brother. It was not a happy or a stable home. She took a flat in Bray, where she obtained employment and formed an association with the father of her son, and it appears that they lived together in the flat. The Plaintiff had not been on good terms with her mother and her step-father before she left home and relations deteriorated further when they learned of her pregnancy. It seems that the father of the Plaintiff's child had been previously had a child by another girl, that he favoured having the child adopted, that he and the Plaintiff discussed the question of marriage in June, 1979, but both decided against this and that they also discussed the question of having the child adopted although, at visited the Plaintiff at the hospital on 1st February, 1980, just three days after the birth of the child and the Plaintiff signed a form which the social worker had brought with her consenting to the placement of the child for adoption. I am satisfied that the social worker explained the position with regard to adoption as it is set out on form 10 and, in particular, explained that the consent could be withdrawn at any time before the making of an adoption order. There was a discussion about the child being placed in the Cottage Home rather that with foster parents but, as there were not foster parents available at the time, the Plaintiff agreed to the placement in the Cottage Home. She now says that she was very muddled at the time, from which I understand she means that she did not know what she was doing. However this may be, the Plaintiff had not gone to see her child in the hospital nursery because she was afraid she might get attached to it. This indicates that, before the social worker came to see her in the hospital, she was considering adoption rather than keeping the child. Whether she was muddled or not, she seems to have had a full and clear discussion with the social worker on 1st February about placing the child with foster parents or putting him in the Cottage Home. She was in favour of foster parents but, as there were none available, she agreed to the Cottage Home. Both the Plaintiff and her child left the hospital on the same day. The Plaintiff returned to the unmarried mother's home for a short while and then went to stay with the family of the father of her child. During this period the Plaintiff saw her son regularly at the Cottage Home. The child remained in the Cottage Home until the end of February and was then place with a family and has been living there ever since. The Plaintiff says that she wanted to have her child back and discussed with her mother the possibility of taking him to her mother's house but, at the same time, thought that this was not a good idea. I am satisfied that it was not a good idea. Whatever she felt about the matter at this time, she agrees that she did not mention her desire to have the child back to the social worker until sometime in March and then kept changing her mind. At the end of March she got a job and took a flat in Sandymount but made no plans for accommodating the child or considering such essentials as a cot or clothes. At this time the social worker was seeing her frequently and was satisfied that, in April, the Plaintiff wanted to have the child adopted. This is borne out by...