T.M. and A.M. v an Bord Uchtála; Re A.N.M.(an Infant)

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1993
Date01 January 1993
CourtSupreme Court
(S.C.)
(H.C.)
T.M. and A.M
and
An Bord Uchtála
In re A.N.M., an Infant

- Application for permission to adopt child refused by defendant - Whether provisions of Adoption Acts, 1952-1988 apply to children born outside jurisdiction to alien parents - Abandonment of child recognisable as denial of rights specifically protected by Constitution - Whether proposed adoption unequivocally in interests of child -Whether reference to parents and children in Constitution confined to citizens of State -Adoption Act, 1988 (No. 30), ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 -Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Arts. 40.3, 42.5.

In November, 1979, the plaintiffs, both Irish citizens domiciled in Ireland, applied to the Delhi Council of Child Welfare in India to adopt an Indian child. In September, 1980, a Delhi court appointed the plaintiffs together with their Indian attorney as joint guardians of an Indian girl born on 5 July, 1980, and who had been abandoned by unidentified parents. The Delhi court had appointed the plaintiffs as joint guardians specifically for the purpose of enabling them to bring the child back to Ireland in order to have the child adopted by the plaintiffs under Irish law. Since October, 1980, the child had resided with the plaintiffs in Ireland and had acquired a certificate of naturalisation and an Irish passport. In May, 1982, the plaintiffs' application for permission to adopt the child was refused by the defendant because of the absence of proof that the child was either born out of wedlock or was an orphan. Following the enactment of the Adoption Act, 1988, on 26 July, 1988, the plaintiffs renewed their application to the defendant which on 13 March, 1990, made a declaration pursuant to s. 2 of the Adoption Act, 1988, to the effect that if an order was made by the court under s. 3 (1) of the 1988 Act it would, subject to s. 2 (2) of the 1988 Act, make an adoption order in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs instituted High Court proceedings seeking an order pursuant to s. 3 (1) of the 1988 Act which was refused by the High Court on 10 March, 1992, on the grounds that the 1988 Act did not apply to a child of 'alien parents' ([1992] ILRM 568). The plaintiffs appealed against this decision. Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J. and O'Flaherty J.; Hederman, Egan and Blayney JJ. concurring) in allowing the appeal, 1, there are no grounds whatsoever for holding that the provisions of the Adoption Acts, 1952-1988, do not apply to children born outside the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Lobe v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 2003
    ...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 & NATURALIZATION SERCIVE 515 F 2D 1222 1975 US APP 5TH CIR HEANEY V IRELAND 1994 3 IR 593 CHAULK V R 1990 3 SCR 1303 ......
  • AO and DL v Minister for Justice
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 2003
    ...Justice [1996] 1 I.R. 381. Laurentiu v. Minister for Justice [1999] 4 I.R. 26; [2000] 1 I.L.R.M. 1. T.M. and A.M. v. An Bord Uchtála [1993] I.L.R.M. 577. McGee v. Attorney General [1974] I.R. 284; (1973) 109 I.L.T.R. 29. Moore v. East Cleveland (1977) 431 U.S. 494. Moustaquim v. Belgium (19......
  • Eastern Health Board v an Bord Uchtála
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 Enero 1994
    ...- Child born in India and brought to Ireland - Adoption Act, 1988, ss. 2, 3, 6 - (101/92 - Supreme Court - 8/3/93) - [1994] 3 IR 217 - [1993] ILRM 577 |Eastern Health Board v. An Bord Uchtala| HIGH COURT Jurisdiction Adoption - Authorisation - Infant - Foreigner - Naturalisation - Alien par......

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