The High Court refused an application to direct the Adoption Authority of Ireland to register a Philippines adoption in Ireland’s Register of Intercountry Adoptions, finding that the adoption took effect in July 2011 and did not meet mandatory statutory requirements.
J. M. applied on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife under section 92 of the Adoption Act 2010. The couple had adopted A.M. in the Philippines. A Philippine court issued its decision on 28 March 2011, followed by a Certificate of Finality on 1 July 2011. The Authority had declined to register the adoption.
The applicant argued that the relevant date was 9 November 2009, when the adoption petition was filed. He relied on wording in the later court decision saying the decree was effective from that date, and submitted that parental rights and duties had transferred then. He also argued that the adoption complied, or substantially complied, with the Hague Convention.
The court examined whether the adoption could be treated as having been effected before 1 November 2010, when the 2010 Act and the Convention’s requirements took effect in Irish law. It concluded that there had been no transfer of parental rights and duties in November 2009. The applicants accepted that the adoption could still have been revoked after the March 2011 decision and until it was finalised. The court therefore held that its effective date was 1 July 2011.
For adoptions effected on or after 1 November 2010, the court said the Act required certification under the relevant statutory route. The adoption had not been certified by the Philippines Intercountry Adoption Board, identified in the judgment as the competent Philippine authority. The court also found that the Convention’s requirement for the receiving state’s authority to assess the prospective adopters’ eligibility and suitability before the adoption had not been met. The applicants had not engaged with the relevant Northern Ireland authorities before proceeding.
The court considered an earlier High Court case in which registration had been directed despite Convention issues. It distinguished that case because those adopters had engaged with the Authority and obtained an eligibility and suitability declaration before travelling to adopt. Here, the court found the broad requirements of the Convention had not been met and that it could not properly direct registration. It refused the application.