The High Court approved an application that will allow the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make an adoption order for M.L., a minor, in favour of her foster carers, G.K. and C.K. The court also authorised the Authority to dispense with the birth mother’s consent. It did not itself make the adoption order.
Mr Justice Jordan delivered the judgment on 23 July 2020 in proceedings brought under section 54(2) of the Adoption Act 2010. The court found that the statutory requirements for approval were met and that adoption was in M.L.’s best interests in the circumstances as they stood. The judgment does not record the Authority making the adoption order.
M.L. had lived with the applicants since she was four days old. The judge found they had cared for her as parents and that she regarded them as her parents. She wanted to be adopted by them and believed it would strengthen her sense of belonging and identity. The court considered her views after meeting her informally and gave them weight in light of her age and maturity.
The judgment also sharply criticised the Child and Family Agency’s handling of contact with the birth mother. The mother had schizophrenia when M.L. was born and was unable to care for her as an infant. Contact visits were difficult, and the last recorded meeting between mother and daughter was in March 2008. But the judge found the mother’s health had improved and concluded that the Agency should have done more after 2008 to reassess her circumstances, pursue access and support a relationship. The court said the Agency’s lack of engagement contributed to the mother and daughter becoming estranged. It also found that the adoption application should probably have been progressed in 2012, and that the unexplained delay was unfair to the mother and others.
The mother disputed that M.L.’s original placement in care was voluntary and said she had not given informed consent. The judge said capacity to consent to the 2002 agreement was not for determination in these proceedings, which could not be used to challenge the District Court care orders. The court also found there was no evidence of a deliberate plan to prevent a relationship from developing.
In applying section 54(2A), the judge found that the mother had failed in her parental duty for the required period, that there was no reasonable prospect she could care for M.L. before she turned 18, and that the failure amounted to abandonment within the statute’s legal meaning. The court acknowledged that the Agency’s shortcomings and delay had made the process unfair to the mother. It nevertheless concluded that refusing approval would harm M.L.’s welfare, and granted the order sought.