Society wants to see adoption as a beautiful thing but as the baby Ann case shows, happy endings are hard earned, writes Kate Holmquist
When two-year-old baby Ann reaches adulthood in 16 years' time, what will she think of the court battles fought over her by her natural parents and her prospective adoptive parents? Will she believe that the Supreme Court, where this week five judges unanimously decided that she be returned to her natural parents on a phased basis, did the right thing?
This is a case straight out of the bible, with the Supreme Court asked to play the role of King Solomon - except that baby Ann, as is widely acknowledged, has already been sliced in half psychologically: by being born to one set of parents; reared by another set from the age of three months until the age of two with whom she bonded; then "sensitively" returned to her birth parents.
As Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness said, it was "perhaps striking" that "the one person" whose particular rights and interests were not separately represented in the case was the child herself.
Yes, the Supreme Court has done the right thing because the original bond with the birth mother is strongest, says Karen Grattan, a trained counsellor and services co-ordinator with the Adopted People's Association of Ireland.
"This was a terrible situation and it should not have happened in the first place. The damage has been done now, no matter what option was taken. Our sympathies go out to everybody," she says.
Grattan asks why baby Ann's natural parents, who were young, didn't get the support they needed to keep baby Ann if that's what they ultimately intended to do.
"Every effort should have been made to have kept the child within her family of origin . . . Hopefully, in 20 years' time, she'll say 'yes', this was the right decision."
As they grow up, many adopted children suffer intense emotional pain as a result of being separated from their birth mothers, she says. Grattan (37) spent nearly 20 years searching for her birth mother, but then discovered her birth cert was falsified.
'ADOPTEES HAVE BEEN silenced about the pain they have experienced. There are taboos that don't allow us to talk about the ways we've been affected by the separation from our natural mothers . . . Adoptees and natural mothers are silenced because society doesn't want to hear these things. Society wants to see adoption as a beautiful thing," she says.
It wasn't psychological or biblical insight but law - in the form of the Constitution - which the Supreme Court used as the grounds for its decision.
The children of unmarried parents are eligible for adoption, but baby Ann's parents - who conceived her in their teens - were subsequently married, in January 2006. This made baby Ann and her family a constitutional family, "with all the concomitant rights and presumptions", the Supreme Court stated.
Yet in a High Court decision in September, Mr Justice John MacMenamin ruled that baby Ann would be psychologically damaged if she was taken away from her prospective adoptive parents. He held her natural parents, while motivated by the best interests of their child, were guilty of a failure of duty to her.
SO WHO IS right and who is wrong? The Minister for Children, Brian Lenihan, is reviewing all the judgments in this case to see whether constitutional or legislative change is required, a move that has been welcomed by the Adoption Board. The Children's Rights Alliance has called for the State to consider whether the child, rather than the constitutional family, be given precedence in such decisions.
Whatever transpires, the publicity over the baby Ann case has reawakened the trauma of many people who have been part of an adoption triangle over the past 50 years - adoptive parents, adopted children and natural parents. The phonelines to the various support groups for all three parts of the triangle have been ringing off the hook.
There have been many unpublicised baby Ann situations in this country, where prospective adoptive parents were forced to give up children they had hoped would become their own. Helen Scott, of the Adoptive Parents' Association of Ireland, still grieves every day for the 11-month-old son she had to return to his natural mother when she decided that she wanted him back.
"Outraged" is how the association describes adoptive parents' feelings that yet again both prospective adoptive parents and birth parents have been drawn into litigation concerning the adoption of a young child.
From the adoptive parents' point of view, there is a tortuous waiting game until the final adoption order is made. Birth parents are required to sign a Consent to Placement (form 10) before a child may be placed with prospective adoptive parents. About six months later they are requested to sign the Final Consent (form 4a). If there is failure, refusal or neglect to sign this form and the birth parents do not seek the return of the child, the child could remain in a "limbo" situation for the next 18 years without the security of a permanent, legally appointed family to call their own, says the Adoptive Parents' Association.
Even when the birth parents sign the final consent form, they can withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason, up to the last minute for the making of the adoption order. Twelve months may elapse between the signing of the consent form and the Adoption Board's enactment of the order.
Children living in this "limbo" are at constant risk of having their security disrupted. Helen Gilmartin, also of the Adoptive Parents' Association, says that one of her four children was five years old before the final adoption order came through.
"Psychologists experienced in the area of emotional attachment advise that a child forms the most crucial bonds of attachment within the first year of life. Therefore it is of paramount importance and in the best interest of the child that these bonds are not carelessly broken," says Scott.
"To be separated from the birth mother, then from foster parents, then from adoptive parents and extended family - all within the first couple of years of life - has to give rise to very grave concern at the potential attachment difficulties for the future, right into adulthood."
"Adoptive parents do not make an application to adopt a child for the purpose of entering into litigation against the child's birth parents. They simply never expect to find themselves in such a situation, through no fault of their own. The emotional soul-searching is unbearable, and the decision to go to court will be taken only after all other options have been thoroughly explored. Very simple legislative change would ensure that no other birth parents or adoptive parents would find themselves in such circumstances in the future," Scott urges.
She believes birth parents should be required to sign only one consent to adoption, at the time that the child is being placed with a prospective adoptive family, regardless of the age of the child. If the birth parents request the return of the child during the first six months after signing the consent, the prospective adoptive parents should be legally obliged to comply with that request. However if the birth parents haven't asked for the child to be returned to them during that six-month period, the consent should become irrevocable and the adoption order should be granted.
"If this simple piece of legislation were in place today this story would not be making the headlines and everyone would have known their legal position from the outset, thus avoiding a heartbreaking court case for all involved," Scott states.
Natural mothers, who in many cases felt they had no choice but to give their children up for adoption, have been following the baby Ann case closely. For them, waiting for a child to seek them out has been a life-long act of patience.
YET ADOPTED CHILDREN, now adults, live with deep psychological pain resulting from the rift with the birth mother, says Bernie Harold of Adoption Loss, a group that represents natural parents. Many natural mothers believed that they were entering "open" adoptions that would allow them to see their children, then found that the "pre-adoptive" agreement had been reneged upon once the final papers had been signed.
Having given up a child, "you feel like a hollow shell for the rest of your life. You frequently cry and are always alone. Every child you encounter throughout your life who's the same age as your own would be discreetly inquired about by you for their birthdate and whether they're adopted. And every time there's a car accident or other tragic death involving a child or young adult - you agonise over whether it's your son or daughter. And at common rites of passage - confirmations, communions, Junior Cert exams, Leaving Cert exams, weddings, graduations etc, you wonder: "Is he going through this now? Or what kind of job will he be aiming for?" And yes, their birthday. Always their birthday."
Society may, as Karen Grattan says, seek happy endings but where adoption is concerned, there are none. Gilmartin has encouraged her children to seek their birth mothers when they have expressed a desire to do so. "My son speaks on the phone to his birth mother frequently. He's doing well now, but it has been hard for him."