The High Court approved the placement of a child for adoption without notifying her father, whose identity her mother refused to disclose, after concluding that nothing more could be done to identify him.
In a judgment delivered on 4 December 2015, Mr Justice Henry Abbott made the order sought by the Adoption Authority of Ireland under sections 18(5) and 18(6) of the Adoption Act 2010. The order approved placement for adoption; the judgment does not make an adoption order.
The child was born on 14 July 2012 and was in pre-adoptive foster care at the time of the proceedings. The Authority said that an earlier placement with prospective adopters could help the child develop a bond and avoid the uncertainty of long-term foster care. The social worker’s evidence was that, without approval, the child would have to be transferred to the care of the H.S.E. and placed in long-term foster care.
The mother said she had known the father for years and had been in a relationship with him. She told social workers that he was receiving medication for depression and had recently faced other stresses. She said she feared that telling him about the pregnancy and child would increase his distress, and believed he would agree with adoption. These were the mother’s stated reasons and beliefs, not findings about the father’s condition or likely response.
The Authority’s evidence was that accredited-body social workers had counselled the mother extensively, but she continued to refuse to identify the father. The mother and her sister gave evidence and also refused to disclose his identity. They said they would provide relevant medical and family information that did not identify him. The court found they had been fully counselled and were willing to liaise with the adoption authority to provide further appropriate information.
The judge acknowledged that the child’s interests were not fully met because she would not know her father or have his support, and that the father’s rights in relation to the child were also unmet. But the court was satisfied there was no further way to ascertain his identity. Weighing those shortcomings against the need for speedy placement and the mother’s wish for privacy, the judge made the order, with considerable regret, because the child’s interests remained paramount.
The judgment noted that there was no party contradicting the application on behalf of either the child or the unknown father. It also reserved the question of appointing a guardian ad litem in a similar future case.