A woman says she was forced to give up her child for adoption as an unmarried mother in a mother and baby home.
She says the alleged removal of her baby in 1980 has had lifelong adverse effects on her, including leaving her with complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
The woman, now a pensioner, has brought High Court proceedings against various state parties, including the Ministers for Justice and Children, the HSE, the Child and Family Agency and the Adoption Authority of Ireland.
Her case is also against a nominee for a religious order that ran the mother and baby home and against a financial institution where she was formerly employed.
Pat Kenny unleashes on ‘dictatorial and despotic’ Donald Trump
Micheál Martin has never stayed overnight in official Taoiseach residence
Mike Scott: ‘Ireland is recovering from a long trauma, and opening out in to a liberal future. I feel very at home’
Boy (4) allegedly strapped to chair by teacher, High Court hears
Her action is believed to be the first case of its kind to come before the High Court.
Sources have indicated there were several actions in the pipeline relating to alleged forced or alleged illegal adoption stretching as far back as the 1940s.
Full defences have been filed in the woman’s case, with all parties denying all of her claims.
Hugh O’Donnell, for the woman, asked the High Court on Thursday to adjourn the matter to early next month when he could provide an update.
In the woman’s action she says the alleged taking of her baby against her will has caused her anguish and great distress. She says she found the whole experience to be frightening and heartbreaking.
She claims the religious order that ran the mother and baby home was allowed to control and organise a system of forced adoption for unmarried mothers and there was a failure to safeguard her constitutional rights.
She alleges the financial institution had a position of dominion and control over her, given she was vulnerable and had an unplanned pregnancy while single at a time when such circumstances carried a negative stigma and when termination of pregnancy was not available within the State.
She claims a manager at the financial institution where she worked told her that her child would have to be given up for adoption. She says she had no choice in the matter.
After giving birth, she says, she did not want to surrender her baby and refused to leave the hospital. She was grievously upset and wounded by her child’s removal and was unaware of her rights, she says.
While she signed a certificate of surrender, the surrendering of her child was compelled on an involuntary basis and without true, informed consent and without her having obtained legal advice, she says.
All the claims are denied.
