(S) M v (G) M

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1985
Neutral Citation1984 WJSC-HC 1495
Date01 January 1985
Docket NumberNo. 5624 P/1983
CourtHigh Court

1984 WJSC-HC 1495

No. 5624 P/1983
M(S) & M(M) v M(G)
BETWEEN:-
(S.) M. AND (M). M.
Plaintiff
-and-
(G) M. AND OTHERS
Defendant
RULING
1

Delivered by The President on the 7th day of March 1984.

2

This is an issue arising in a Family Law case concerning a claim of privilege made by An Bord Uchtala and also a claim made by an Adoption Society both of whom are Defendants.

3

The issues which arise depend upon the construction and application of Section 8 of The Adoption Act, 1976, which prohibits an Order for the discovery, inspection, production or copying of any book, document or record of the Bord unless a Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of any child concerned to do so.

4

The proceedings are to an extent multiple and contain various reliefs but the interest of the child concerned may at this stage be summarised as being the determination by the Court of an application by the Plaintiffs who are the prospective adoptive parents for an Order under Section 3 of the Act of 1974 dispensing with the consent of the mother and giving them interim custody and in the event of such Order not being made, a claim by the mother for an Order for custody under proceedings which she has instituted under The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964.

5

I have no doubt that the best interests of the child in regard to the determination of those proceedings when considered in the context of discovery, depends upon discovery of such documents being made as would enable all the parties to those proceedings to present their case to the full.

6

In detail this means that the Plaintiffs as prospective adoptive parents should be in a position to adduce the maximum amount of evidence establishing their suitability as custodians of the child and to defend themselves against any challenges or criticisms of that suitability and that the mother should have a like advantage and opportunity.

7

The provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1976, clearly indicate an intention on the part of the legislature that the necessary confidentiality of documents and other papers, the property of the Adoption Board, should be maintained unless the best interests of a child concerned in a particular case is established to my satisfaction as a matter of probability to require their discovery or production. Once, however, that has been established there cannot arise, in my view, any question of balancing the interests of an individual child concerned in a particular case against the general proceedings and efficiency of the activities of the Adoption Board.

8

These findings as to what constitute the best...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Kennedy v Judge Nolan & DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 19 March 2013
    ...is to examine him in the first instance but that person who requires his attendance?" 29 29. McCarthy J. then concluded by saying ( [1985] I.L.R.M. 186, 199): "It is beyond question that there must be fairness and fair procedures that an accused person must be given the opportunity of confr......
  • Ambiorix Ltd v Minister for the Environment (No. 1)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1992
    ...I.L.R.M. 42. In re Kevin O'Kelly (1974) 108 I.L.T.R. 97. Lanyon Pty. Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1974) 129 C.L.R. 650. M. v. M. [1985] I.L.R.M. 186. Murphy v. Corporation of Dublin [1972] I.R. 215; (1972) 107 I.L.T.R. 65. O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanála [1992] I.L.R.M. 237. O'Leary v. M......
  • S.H. v A.H. and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 January 2014
    ...PROTECTION OF CHILDREN & CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION [HAGUE ADOPTION CONVENTION] ART 23 M (S) & M (M) v M (G) & ORS 1985 ILRM 186 C (D) v M (D) & SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD 1999 2 IR 150 1999/5/1155 1998 IEHC 181 ADOPTION ACT 2010 S86(1) ADOPTION ACT 2010 S88 ADOPTION A......
  • L (T) v L (v)
    • Ireland
    • Circuit Court
    • 10 November 1994
    ...JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT, 1989 BETWEEN: (T) L APPLICANT: -and- (V) L RESPONDENT. Citations: M (S) & M (M) V M (G) 1985 ILRM 186 HERSHMAN & MCFARLANE CHILDREN: LAW & PRACTICE SECTION D PARA 1392 A BARKING & DAGENHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL V O & ANOR 1993 4 AER 59 R (A MI......
  • 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