The High Court approved an application by the Adoption Authority of Ireland to authorise the placement of a child, identified in the judgment as M, for adoption without consulting the child’s father. The order was made under section 18(6) of the Adoption Act 2010 after the court was satisfied that the statutory conditions were met.
The father’s identity was known to the mother, but not to the Authority or the Child and Family Agency, Tusla. The judgment says he did not know of the child’s birth, was not named on the birth certificate and was not a guardian. The mother told a social worker that she knew him as a work colleague, but had had no contact with him since the child’s birth. The court did not identify him.
Evidence before the court, set out in an Authority affidavit and a Tusla social work report, was that the mother had consistently wished for the child to be adopted and had engaged in counselling about that decision and whether to disclose the father’s identity. She said she could not name him because she was concerned her privacy would be compromised. The affidavit also recorded her belief that he gambled and used drugs; those were her claims, not court findings about the father.
The mother had a history of depression and anxiety. A psychiatric assessment found that she had capacity to make formal decisions. The court said the evidence showed no reason to doubt her good faith, and accepted the Authority’s assessment that further efforts to obtain the father’s identity could delay or prevent adoption and might harm the child’s welfare.
The judge considered the child’s best interests paramount under section 19. He also addressed concerns raised in an earlier adoption case about a father being unaware of a proposed adoption, explaining that the law allows an application of this kind where a mother will not disclose the father’s identity and the statutory requirements are fulfilled. The judgment noted the practical limits on what can be done to protect an unidentified father in such circumstances.
The court raised a concern about access to paternal medical history if the child later developed a condition for which it was relevant. The Authority’s evidence was that the mother might disclose the father’s identity if there were a serious risk to the child’s health. The judge questioned what would happen if she were then unable to do so and suggested that a confidential arrangement, such as a sealed letter, might be considered in future cases. This was a suggestion for consideration, not an order made in this case.
Having accepted the affidavit and social work evidence and considered the pleadings, the court granted the application and made the order sought. The judgment approves the Authority to authorise the accredited body to place the child for adoption without consulting the father; it does not identify him or make findings about the allegations concerning him.