Adoption case: court judgment: A two-year-old child placed for adoption should remain with the couple who want to adopt her, with whom she had formed emotional bonds, and not be returned to her natural parents, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the natural parents, now in their early 20s, sought custody of the child, referred to by the court as Ann, not her real name.
He said he had conducted an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution relating to the claim for custody. He ruled that Ann was lawfully in the custody of the carer parents.
The natural parents, who had put Ann up for adoption when they were unmarried students and who have since married, are appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.
The judge said that having regard to article 42.5 of the Constitution, there were compelling reasons why the child's custody should not be altered and there had been what was termed, in a non-culpable sense, a "failure of duty" displacing the normal presumption under the Constitution that the appropriate place for the upbringing of a child was in the family unit. So the child should remain with carer parents.
The judge said it had been clearly established the attachment and bonding between Ann and the carer parents existed to a very high, unusual degree.
"The decision of the court is that having regard to the emotional bonding which had taken place, the child should remain in the custody of the carer parents."
There was evidence from psychologists and psychiatrists as to the extent to which a breaking of a bond of attachment at Ann's age could have long-term serious emotional and psychological consequences for her, he said.
"The evidence established that the psychological harm which might be caused by attempting to place Ann in the custody of her natural parents was such as to displace the constitutional presumption, and that the constitutional right of the child to the protection of her health and welfare should be vindicated," he said.
After Ann's birth in 2004, the placement for adoption took place in November of that year and since then she had remained with the carer parents. It had not been disputed that Ann was living in a close, warm and supportive family unit, he said.
In September 2005, the birth mother wrote to the Adoption Board stating she no longer wished for the adoption to proceed and sought to regain custody of the child. A series of meetings and counselling sessions took place in October and November 2005. The birth parents ultimately decided to marry and this took place in January 2006. They began court proceedings a month later.
After the marriage, the birth parents constituted themselves a family unit within the meaning of the Constitution.
"No wisdom can reduce the emotional stress and heartbreak inevitably involved in determining the issues with the applicants and the respondents. All parties testified with great dignity," the judge said.
The evidence raised a number of other questions. These included: an apparent absence of provision for ongoing independent counselling for the natural parents; and the difficult and potentially conflicting role of the social workers who advised not only having regard to the interests of the natural parents, but also the welfare and interests of the child. These interests did not always coincide.
"A complex and tragic situation developed where over the period of placement, bonding took place between the child and the intended adopters during a time when it transpired her natural parents had not reached a fixed conclusion regarding their consent to the making of a final adoption order," the judge said.
The natural parents were two young and vulnerable people trying, in some isolation, to cope with a very human and difficult situation. "They were not to blame for what happened. No one was. But the fact remains that these two young people found themselves in a position where their hearts and their heads were in conflict and where support was needed from every source. I do not think that they received the support they needed."