Chief Justice Mr Justice John Murray
"There are special circumstances, namely the welfare of an infant of tender years, to be taken into account when determining the manner in which effect may be given to the order of this court under Article 40 [ an order requiring the release of the child following the court's decision that she is in unlawful custody of her prospective adoptive parents] . . . it is for the Supreme Court to decide how a phased transfer of custody may be best achieved."
Mr Justice Niall Fennelly
"It is impossible to ignore the enormous trauma involved. No decision of the court will satisfy everybody. Any decision will cause hurt. That is why it is imperative to adhere to clearly established principle. Uncertainty of jurisprudence may cause greater trauma.
"In this case, there is a primordial constitutional principle that a child's welfare is best served in the heart of its natural family . . . there must be compelling reasons to rebut that presumption."
Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness
"It is perhaps striking that the one person whose particular rights and interests, constitutional and otherwise, were not separately represented, whether by solicitor or counsel or through a guardian ad litem, was the child herself.
"It would be disingenuous not to admit that I am one of the 'quarters' who have voiced criticism of the position of the child in the Constitution. I did so publicly in the report of the Kilkenny incest inquiry in 1993. The present case must, however, be decided under the Constitution and the law as it now stands. With reluctance and some regret, I would allow this appeal."
Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan
"Nothing in the procedures which took place in this case, from the placement for adoption onwards, could be held to constitute abandonment of the child. I am satisfied that there is no basis for any finding that there was a failure of duty."
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman
"In one very obvious sense this case is a tragic one. Its result will of necessity inflict enormous grief and loss on one of the contending couples. The tragedy lies in the fact that neither deserves this fate. Both are caring, conscientious people, fit and capable in every way to be the guardians of a child. One of the most disturbing features of this case is the time which has elapsed since the mother requested the return of her child. At that time she had been with the proposed adopters for 10 months and was about 14 months old. She has now been in their care for 24 months." He "could not disagree" with the natural mother when she said she had been "stalled" by the Adoption Board.