Re M., (an Infant)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1946 |
| Date | 21 June 1946 |
| Court | High Court |
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 baptised and its birth registered, and on both occasions described the child as being that of herself and her husband. In August, 1944, the prosecutrix first met the respondent and asked for the return of the child, which was refused. Nine months later she again met the respondent and asked for the return of the child and was again refused. The respondent lived with her husband in a three room flat and the household had a weekly income of £6. The prosecutrix, who had no permanent home, but resided at her places of employment which she frequently changed, was at the time of the hearing employed as the manageress of a cafe at the weekly wage of £1. She alleged that she was also in receipt of gratuities amounting to £2 per week and lived in the café premises. She proposed bringing the child to reside there with her. It was alleged by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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......
-
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 (2)
...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......
-
Eastern Health Board v M.K.; Re M., S. and W
...740. In re Haughey [1971] I.R. 217. In re K. (Infants) [1965] A.C. 201; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 408; [1963] 3 All E.R. 191. In re M. an infant [1946] I.R. 334. Re M. and R. (Child Abuse: Evidence) [1996] 2 F.L.R. 195. Mapp (a minor) v. Gilhooley [1991] 2 I.R. 253; [1991] I.L.R.M. 695. McKeon v. Dir......
-
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......
-
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......