A HIGH Court decision which granted recognition to the adoptions of Chinese babies by Irish couples was appealed by the Adoption Board in the Supreme Court yesterday.
The court, with five judges, reserved its judgment. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, ruled that the names and addresses of the couples should not be given.
Three Irish couples had taken a High Court challenge to the Adoption Board's refusal to recognise adopt ions under Chinese law. The board had instructed the Irish Embassy in Beijing that the adopt ions would not be recognised.
The court was told the couples had been found by the board to be suitable to adopt children but a dispute had arisen over reconciling Irish and Chinese law relating to adoptions.
The Chinese authorities would not release babies until the adoptions were approved by the relevant authorities and institutions in the country of the prospective adoptive parents.
In appeal, Mr Aindrias O Caoimh SC, for the Adoption Board, said the board was opposing the adoptions on the grounds that an adoption in the State is permanent, but an adoption under Chinese law is not necessarily so.
An Irish adoption order terminates permanently all legal bonds between the child's natural parents or guardians and the child, but Chinese law reserves the right of the child, parents or guardian and the adoptive parents by consent to review and terminate the adoption.
The Supreme Court had to consider whether the legal effects of adoption in China were the same as the legal effects of adoption in the State.
Mr O Caoimh said the situation was not the same in both countries. The couples in the High Court had stated that they had no intention of terminating the relationship and there was a probability that the Chinese babies' parents would be unknown.
In this country, adoption was irrevocable and that was the essence of adoption here. But in China there did not appear to be an adoption order as known in Ireland: future agreements could be made to terminate and there was a legal facility for this. If a child was 10 years old or more, with his or her consent and that of all other parties, the adoption could be terminated.
In Chinese law, also, an adoptive child had an obligation to maintain his or her adoptive parents in old age. This was not present in Irish law.
Mr James Connolly SC, for the couples, said the adoption order made in China had essentially the same legal effect regarding the termination and creation of parental duties as an adoption order made under the laws of the State.
Most Chinese babies were either orphaned or abandoned, the identities of the natural parents unknown and unascertainable, he said.
The couples had obtained the opinions of two Chinese lawyers who indicated that on the facts of the situation there was no prospect of the adoptions being revoked or terminated under Chinese law in future.