The Adoption Authority of Ireland v M (A Minor)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Max Barrett |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IEHC 511 |
| Docket Number | [2020 No. 197 MCA] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 13 October 2020 |
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE ADOPTION AUTHORITY OF IRELAND (THE APPLICANT HEREIN) UNDER SECTION 18(6) OF THE ADOPTION ACT 2010 (AS AMENDED)
- AND -
IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED PLACEMENT FOR ADOPTION OF M (A MINOR, BORN [STATED DATE])
[2020] IEHC 511
Max Barrett
[2020 No. 197 MCA]
THE HIGH COURT
Adoption order – Welfare of child – Adoption Act 2010 s. 18(6) – Applicant seeking an order approving the making of an adoption order – Whether the various factors to which the court was required to have regard when assessing the best interests of the child had been comprehensively addressed
Facts: The applicant, the Adoption Authority, by originating notice of motion of 4 September 2020, came to the High Court seeking “an Order pursuant to section 18(6) of the Adoption Act 2010 (as amended) granting approval to the Applicant to authorise the child...being placed for adoption without consulting the child’s father, where all reasonably practicable steps to obtain the cooperation of the mother have been taken, and where the applicant and/or an accredited body have been unable to and have no other means of ascertaining the identity of the child’s father”.
Held by Barrett J that the various factors to which the court was required to have regard, under s. 19 of the 2010 Act, when assessing the best interests of the child, had been comprehensively addressed in the affidavit evidence of the Authority and the Túsla report. The court accepted that evidence.
Barrett J held that, having considered that evidence and the entirety of the pleadings, the court was satisfied, in all the circumstances presenting, to accede to the application made and make the order sought.
Application granted.
Údarás Uchtála na hÉireann (or, in the English language, the ‘Adoption Authority of Ireland’) stands established under s.94 of the Adoption Act 2010. Under s.96 of the Act, its functions include “(a) … performing the functions in relation to adoptions that … were [historically] performed by An Bord Uchtála … (f) maintaining the register of accredited bodies; [and] (g) maintaining the register of intercountry adoptions”.
Section 19 of the Act of 2010 provides, inter alia, as follows:
“(1) In any matter, application or proceedings under this Act which is, or are, before … (b) any court … the court … shall regard the best interests of the child as the paramount [not the sole, but the paramount] consideration in the resolution of such matter, application or proceedings.
(2) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) what is in the best interests of the child … the court … shall have regard to all of the factors or circumstances that it considers relevant to the child who is the subject of the matter, application or proceedings concerned including –
(a) the child's age and maturity,
(b) the physical, psychological and emotional needs of the child,
(c) the likely effect of adoption on the child,
(d) the child's views on his or her proposed adoption,
(e) the child's social, intellectual and educational needs,
(f) the child's upbringing and care,
(g) the child's relationship with his or her parent, guardian or relative, as the case may be, an
(h) any other particular circumstances pertaining to the child concerned.
(3) In so far as practicable, in relation to any matter, application or proceedings referred to in subsection (1), in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the … court … shall ascertain those views and such views shall be given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.”
By originating notice of motion of 4 September 2020, the Adoption Authority comes to court seeking “an Order pursuant to s section 18(6) of the Adoption Act 2010 (as amended) granting approval to the Applicant to authorise the child … being placed for adoption without consulting the child's father, where all reasonably practicable steps to obtain the cooperation of the mother have been taken, and where the applicant and/or an accredited body have been unable to and have no other means of ascertaining the identity of the child's father”.
Section 18 of the Act of 2010 provides, inter alia, as follows:
“(5) If the identity of the father, referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant non-guardian” (in this section referred to as “that father”), is unknown to an accredited body and the mother or guardian will not disclose the identity of that father, the accredited body shall — (a) counsel the mother or guardian concerned in order to attempt to obtain his or her or their, as the case may be, co-operation, advising such person or persons — (i) that the adoption may be delayed, (ii) the possibility of that father of the child contesting the adoption at some later date, (iii) that the absence of information about the medical, genetic and social background of the child may be detrimental to the health, development or welfare of that child, and (iv) such other matters as the accredited body considers appropriate in the circumstances, and (b) where the mother or guardian concerned, after counselling, will not disclose the identity of that father, furnish the Authority with a written report of the counselling that the accredited body has so provided.
(6) Where the Authority receives a written report referred to in subsection (5)(b), and is satisfied that the accredited body — (a) has taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to obtain the co-operation of the mother or guardian, and (b) has no other practical way of ascertaining that father's identity, then — (i) the Authority may, after first obtaining the approval of the High Court, authorise the accredited body to place the child for adoption, and (ii) the accredited body may, at any time after being so authorised, if it has not ascertained the identity of that father, place the child for adoption”.
The term “relevant non-guardian” is defined in s.3(1) of the Act of 2010 as meaning, “in relation to a child”, inter alia, “(a) a father of the child who is not a guardian of the child pursuant to the Act of 1964” (with the phrase “the Act of 1964” being itself defined in s.3(1) to mean the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964).
The background to this application has been recounted in the following terms by a senior staff member of the Adoption Authority:
“3. The within application is instituted in circumstances where the Mother will not disclose the identity of the child's father and where the Authority and/or Túsla – the Child and Family Agency … have no other means of ascertaining the identity of the father. The child's father does not know of the child's birth. As such, the Authority and the Child and Family Agency have been unable to inform the child's father of the proposed adoption. …
8. Pursuant to section 11 of the 2010 Act, the Child and Family Agency is an “accredited body” within the meaning of the 2010 Act. Pursuant to section 18(5)(b) of the 2010 Act, the Authority is obliged to obtain a report from an accredited body where it is proposed that a child will be placed for adoption and where a mother will not disclose the identity of a child's father.
9. The Child and Family Agency furnished a report to the Authority … (‘the Social Work Report’). …
13. From the time of the child's birth, the mother expressed her wish for the child to be placed for adoption. The mother declined to see or hold the child following [the child's] … birth and the child was taken to … [place stated] … while … [the child] awaited a foster care placement.
14. The Social Work Report further details that the mother declined to name the child's father …
15. The mother has historically had depression and anxiety, and she has previously been treate [for same]. …
16. After carrying out a psychiatric assessment … [a psychiatrist] confirmed the mother did have mental capacity and could make formal decisions. …
18. The mother signed a voluntary admission to care form in respect of the child an [the child] … was placed with foster carers on … [date stated]. The child has remained with the same foster carers since that date; however it is intended to be a short-term placement. …
19. The Social Work Report details that the mother has been very engaged in the consultation and counselling process, and she has been open when discussing all elements of the child's proposed adoption. The social worker assigned to this case … has met with the mother in person or by telephone (due to restrictions arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic) on seventeen occasions. …
20. As detailed in the Social Work Report the mother has at all times presented as being certain that she wishes for the child to be placed for adoption. The mother has repeated her wish for the child to have two parents to love and care for her and has discussed how she never wanted to be a mother. The mother has spoken warmly about the child and her wishes for [the child's] … future and has been fully engaged in exploring alternatives to adoption. …
21 The mother is fully satisfied that her family are supportive of her decision to place the child for adoption. …
24. While the mother's anxiety and depression is well managed, social stressors can exacerbate its. However, the mother reports that her decision to place the child for adoption has not been a source of increased anxiety and she is firm and satisfied that it is the correct decision. The Social Work Report details that the mother is still engaged with mental health services. …
28 [The social worker] detailed that she and the mother have explored the prospect of revealing the identity of the child's birth father in great detail. The mother has confirmed that she is not in a position to...
To continue reading
Request your trial