Re M., (an Infant)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1946 |
| Date | 21 June 1946 |
| Court | High Court |
(H.C.),
In re M., an Infant
Habeas corpus - Illegitimate child - Rights of the mother - Welfare of the child.
Some days after its birth in 1943, the prosecutrix gave her illegitimate child into the custody of the respondent, together with a sum of £60. The respondent, a married woman with no children, did not meet the prosecutrix, but received the child from the nurse in whose home the child was born. Before the birth of the child the prosecutrix had arranged through the doctor that the respondent should "adopt" the child. The respondent had the child...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
16 cases
-
O'B. v S
...Ch. 238. 3 Dickinson v. North-Eastern Railway Co. (1863) 33 L.J. Ex. 91. 4 Woolwich Union v. Fulham Union [1906] 2 K.B. 240. 5 In re M. [1946] I.R. 334. 6 G. v. An Bord Uchtála [1980] I.R. 32. 7 The State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtála [1966] I.R. 567. 8 L. v. L. [1978] I.R. 288. 9 McGee v. ......
-
O.R v an tArd Chláraitheoir
...in Article 42.5 and also the further right, again like all other children, to free primary education as referred to in Article 42.4. ( In Re M. (An Infant) [1946] 1 I.R. 334; Nicolaou and G. v. An Bord Uchtála). How these particular rights come to vest in such child is probably better expla......
-
G v an Bord Uchtála
...v. O'S. (1974) 110 I.L.T.R. 57. 8 Quinn's Supermarket v. The Attorney General [1972] I.R. 1. 9 J. v. C. [1970] A.C. 668. 10 M., In re [1946] I.R. 334. 11 Ryan v. The Attorney General [1965] I.R. 294. 12 McGee v. The Attorney General [1974] I.R. 284. 13 McDonald v. Bord na gCon [1965] I.R. 2......
-
Gorry v Minister for Justice and Equality and A B M v Minister for Justice and Equality (1), Gorry v Minister for Justice and Equality and A B M v Minister for Justice and Equality
...Duffy P. as long ago as 1946 that children had the same rights under the Articles, whether marital or non-marital: Re M. (an Infant) [1946] I.R. 334. 67 It is not difficult to see that an intimate relationship of some permanence where the two people treat themselves, and are recognised by o......
Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
-
The Constitutional Protection of Children in Ireland ? Assessing the Need for Reform and the Available Alternatives
...93 Ibid . 94 supra note 89. 95 supra note 89. 96 Humphrys v Polack [1901] 2 KB 385 at pp 389–390. 97 supra note 89. 98 Re M (an infant) [1946] IR 334 at p 345. 99 State (Nicolaou) v An Bord Uchtála, [1966] IR 567 at p 601; North Western Health Board v HW and CW supra note 89. 100 Ibid . 101......
-
A Critical Analysis Of The Protection Of Families Under The Irish Constitution Of 1937
...who are committed to each other cannot avail of the same protections that a separated couple can. D THE UNRECOGNISED FAMILY UNIT 23 [1946] 1 IR 334. 24 „Nobody‟s child‟ 25 J Nestor An Introduction to Irish Family Law (2 nd edn Gill and Macmillan Dublin 2003) 162. 26 Quinn ‘ Cohabiting coupl......