The founder and proprietor of the pregnancy advice agency at the centre of the adoption case controversy is being investigated by i the Garda and a file is to be sent to the DPP.
A Garda source confirmed last night that a criminal investigation into the custody of one of the babies involved had almost been completed. Several people had been questioned.
Ms Justice Laffoy ruled earlier this month that the proprietor of the agency had unlawful custody of the baby of a 21-year-old college student who had sought help from the counselling service. That infant, known as Baby A, was taken back from the man and his wife and is now in the care of the Eastern Health Board.
The Garda investigation involves Baby B, the child of a 17-year-old second-level student who the couple had taken possession of three days after her birth in April. That baby was returned to her mother's family in late June.
There was widespread reaction from politicians, child-welfare groups and adoption bodies yesterday to the facts detailed in Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment.
The Minister of State for Children Mr Frank Fahey, said he was considering regulations governing the operation of pregnancy counselling services.
He said the operation of the agency at the centre of the case was "highly unsatisfactory".
The judgment described how Baby B was born in a Dublin hospital in April. She was handed over to the founder of the pregnancy counselling service and his wife three days after her birth. The girl sought her return, but had to seek the assistance of the health board and gardai in getting the baby back.
Mr Fahey said he intended discussing the issue of pregnancy counselling services with officials from his Department and the health boards. "I do not want to make any judgment until I have had the opportunity to look at the situation. I have to have a look at the whole issue of regulation and then see how feasible it is to regulate all counselling services."
The Eastern Health Board said it was examining the implications of the judgment and what action needed to be taken as a result to protect other women with crisis pregnancies who have been advised by the particular pregnancy advice agency involved.
The Pro-Life Campaign yesterday distanced itself from the counselling service referred to in the High Court judgment. It called for stricter regulations governing pregnancy counselling agencies.
"Pregnancy counselling agencies should be obliged to operate to the same standards, and in accordance with the existing procedures, of the already established caring agencies such as LIFE and CURA," according to a statement from the campaign.