The High Court has authorised the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make an adoption order for a young woman identified as L., despite the opposition or inability to consent of her birth parents. The order was made under section 54(2) of the Adoption Act 2010 after the court found the statutory proofs had been met.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 12 November 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said L. was almost 18 and had been in care since birth. She had lived with her present foster family since March 2010. The court heard that both birth parents had maintained contact through supervised access, though their participation in L.’s life was limited.
The judge distinguished the parents’ positions. She considered that the birth mother’s stance was not so much opposition as an inability to consent to a step she believed would end her parental relationship with L. The birth father opposed the application. Both denied abandoning their parental rights and pointed to their continuing contact. The father said financial difficulties had prevented him from attending recommended programmes and that he had not known he could seek to revoke consent to the voluntary care arrangement.
The court considered affidavits, adoption assessments and reports concerning L.’s wishes. Jackson J said L.’s handwritten letter showed maturity and comprehension of the issues. She also referred to a social care report recording L.’s fear that the adoption might not happen, which the report described as her “biggest fear”.
The judge applied the statutory tests, including whether the parents had failed in their duty for the required period, whether there was a reasonable prospect they could care for L. without prejudice to her welfare, whether the failure amounted to abandonment of parental rights, and whether adoption was proportionate. She said the parents’ continuing contact did not prevent a finding of abandonment in the statutory sense, which concerned parental rights and responsibilities rather than physical abandonment. She also found adoption proportionate, recognising its lifelong legal and family consequences.
Balancing the rights of L. and her birth parents, the judge concluded that L.’s wishes and best interests favoured the order. She said those considerations outweighed the relationship formed through the birth parents’ limited participation. The court also considered assurances, given through counsel by the second named applicant, that she would support and encourage L. to maintain contact with her birth parents as an adult.
The court made an order authorising the Adoption Authority to make the adoption order sought. The judgment does not state that the adoption itself was made by the High Court; it records the authorisation under section 54(2).