Northampton County Council v F.& F

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Hamilton
Judgment Date01 January 1982
Neutral Citation1982 WJSC-HC 1273
Docket Number10231p/1981
CourtHigh Court
Date01 January 1982

1982 WJSC-HC 1273

THE HIGH COURT

10231p/1981
NORTHAMPTON CO.CO. v. F.& F.

BETWEEN

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COUNCIL
PLAINTIFFS

AND

A.B.F. AND M.B.F.
DEFENDANTS
1

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hamilton delivered the 2nd day of November 1981.

2

I do not propose in the course of this judgment to deal with the facts in such a way or in such detail as to identify the infant child who is the subject matter of this application. They are adequately set forth in the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and the exhibits therein referred to and the affidavit of the notice party, the father of the infant child, who was born on the 24th day of September 1977.

3

Briefly stated, the Plaintiffs claim is for the return of the infant child to their duly appointed agent, the child having been wrongfully and illegaly removed from the jurisdiction of the English Courts and brought within the jurisdiction of this Court by her lawful father, who is a notice party to these proceedings, and placed in the temporary care of the Defendants.

4

It is quite clear that if the infant child is returned to the applicants or their agent, it is proposed that she be legally adopted in spite of the wishes of her father and his lack of consent, indeed his opposition, to this proposed course. The infant child's mother appears to be willing to have the child adopted.

5

Under English law the position appears to be that, in certain circumstances, a child though born of lawfully married parents may, without the consent of the parents, be placed for and legally adopted.

6

Having regard to the orders made by the Kettering Juvenile Court, placing the infant child in the care of the applicants and the degree of comity which exists between the Courts of these relevant jurisdictions, I would in the ordinary course have granted the application made on behalf of the applicants herein, both parents being English citizens who married in England, were domiciled in England and whose only child, the infant herein, was born in England and having regard to the fact that the infant had been unlawfully removed from the jurisdiction of the English Courts, without considering the merits of the case.

7

I have however already refused the application made on behalf of applicants because the effect of granting the order sought by the applicants would have been that the infant child would have been adopted without the consent and in spite of the opposition of his lawful father, a development which is not permissible under the Irish law of adoption.

8

Article 41 (1°) of Bunreachtna h-Éireann provides that:

"The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law".

9

Article 41 (2°) provides that: "The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Nottinghamshire County Council v B
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 15 December 2011
    ...provisions of Irish Constitution - Whether return of child would breach Irish Constitution - Northampton County Council v ABF & MBF [1982] ILRM 164; Saunders v Mid Western Health Board (Unrep, SC, 26/6/1987); ACW v Ireland [1994] 3 IR 232; Director General's Department of Families Youth a......
  • Lobe v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 23 January 2003
    ...CARE ACT 1991 S3 CONSTITUTION ART 42.5 F (M) V SUPERINTENDENT BALLYMUN GARDA STATION 1991 1 IR 189 NORTHAMPTON CO COUNCIL V ABF & MBF 1982 ILRM 164 NICOLAOU, STATE V BORD UCHTALA 1966 IR 567 EASTERN HEALTH V AN BORD UCHTALA 1994 3 IR 217 1993 ILRM 577 GONZALEZ CUVEAS V IMMIGRATION & NATU......
  • K.R.A. v The Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 May 2016
    ...some relevance to cases where an approach of extending constitutional rights was taken, such as Northampton County Council v. A.B.F. [1982] I.L.R.M. 164 (Hamilton J., 2nd November, 1981); Oxfordshire County Council v. J.H. (Unreported, High Court, Costello J., 19th May, 1988); Oguekwe v. Mi......
  • C.M. v Delegaci¢n de Malaga
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 March 1999
    ...J., 9th July, 1992). In re M. (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [1996] 1 F.L.R. 887. Northampton County Council v. A.B.F. and M.F. [1982] I.L.R.M. 164. O'C. v. Sacred Heart Adoption Society [1996] 1 I.L.R.M. 297. O'D. v. O'D. [1976-7] I.L.R.M. 142. Oxfordshire County Council v. H. (Unreported......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Hung, Drawn and Quartered?: The Future of the Constitutional Reference to Treason
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. V-2002, January 2002
    • 1 January 2002
    ...Supreme Court, 23 June 1987. " [1993] I IR 426. 35 Signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 and ratified by Ireland on 29 November 1956. 36 [1982] ILRM 164. " [1982] ILRM 164, at 166. 3B [1981] ILRM 113. 2002] The Constitutional Reference to Treason The substantive rights and liabilities of an alie......
  • Extra-Territorial Claims for the Irish Constitution? The Supreme Court's Approach in the Case of Nottinghamshire County Council v B
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. XV-2012, January 2012
    • 1 January 2012
    ...found to be compatible after the challenge made to it in ACW v Ireland [1994] 3 IR 232. 6 Northampton County Council v ABF & MBF [1982] ILRM 164. 7 Saunders v Mid Western Board 23 June 1987 (SC). 8 Nottinghamshire County Council v B 26 January 2010 (HC), at [72]. 9 [2010] IEHC 9, at [72]. 1......
  • Anisimova: The Legal Basis for Return to a Third Country in Irish Law
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. I-1998, January 1998
    • 1 January 1998
    ...should defend the Constitution and constitutional rights of every person within the jurisdiction of the courts". 32 [1993] 1 IR 116. 31 [1982] ILRM 164 per Hamilton J. Similar views are expressed by Costello J in Oxfordshire Co. Co. v. JH., Unreported, High Court, 19 May 1988, and in Wong v......

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