I now propose focusing on what the mother and the first named respondent have represented in their respective affidavits as to the basis on which Baby A was handed over to the first named respondent on the day she left hospital.
The mother was not present at the handing over. In her first affidavit she described what happened when she left hospital on that day as follows:
"I say that I left hospital in the company of my aunt . . . and also in the company of my mother . . . together with my daughter. I say that we initially went home and my aunt . . . brought me inside and discussed what was about to happen, namely the delivery of the child to the first and second named respondents. I told my aunt that I was happy with this decision and sure in myself that this was what I wanted to do. I say and believe that my mother then delivered the child into the custody of the first respondent at the home of [the Agency's representative]. I say and believe and am informed by my aunt . . ., who was present at this meeting, that a full and detailed discussion took place between the first respondent, my aunt and my mother to the effect that the child was being delivered into his custody as an interim measure and that it was subject to my final decision on whether or not I wanted to place my child for adoption. I say and believe and am informed by my said aunt that the first respondent indicated that this was also his understanding of the situation."
In his affidavit, the first named respondent has recounted the events of that day as follows:
". . . I drove down to [the provincial town] again and went to the home of [the Agency's representative] where [the mother] and aunt handed [baby A] to me. I was told that [the mother] did not want to see the baby in case she grew attached to it. I emphasise that our taking the baby was a temporary arrangement, that [the mother] could see the child whenever she wished and could change her mind at any time about adoption. I recommended that she should receive counselling."
Later in his affidavit the first named Respondent has averred as follows:
"We wish to emphasise most strongly that at all times we were only concerned to do what was in the best interests of [the mother and Baby A]. We stressed throughout that we were willing to look after the baby until [the mother] made up her mind what she wanted to do and that, in the meantime, she could contact us, see the baby or change her mind as often as she wished. We kept in touch with the family from the moment that I picked up the baby and they were able to contact me on my mobile telephone or through my office at any time."
In the course of this inquiry, the mother's counsel, Mr Phelan SC, told the court that he was instructed by the mother that, if she had known as much about the Agency as she now knows as a result of the proceedings, she would not have been happy to give custody of Baby A to the first and second named respondents. In a supplemental affidavit sworn by her in the course of the proceedings, she has averred that prior to these proceedings she had no knowledge of the procedures and laws relating to adoption. She assumed that because the Agency was advertising publicly in the Golden Pages it was well versed in the relevant laws and procedures and had the relevant experience and was reputable in the field. She further averred that she believes she was completely mislead by the first named respondent by misrepresentation and non-disclosure.