The High Court has allowed a birth mother to identify herself to lawyers and, if she pursues proceedings or a complaint, to relevant bodies in connection with an adoption case. The permission is limited and subject to safeguards protecting the privacy of the now-adult child and the adoptive parents.
In a judgment delivered on 8 June 2023, Mr Justice Jordan ruled on the birth mother’s application to lift the in camera rule governing the adoption proceedings. The substantive case had been heard in 2020, when the child was nearly 18, and the court approved an adoption order made by the Adoption Authority of Ireland.
The birth mother first raised an application to lift the rule when the original judgment was delivered. Although the court had allowed her to bring a motion by October 2020, she did not issue it until June 2022. The Child and Family Agency objected because of the delay. The judge accepted that there had been delay but said it was not a bar, noting the applicant’s vulnerability and that no real prejudice from the delay had been shown.
The child, now an adult, opposed lifting the rule. An independent solicitor met with and advised the child, then filed an affidavit setting out that position. The judge described the opposition as a weighty consideration and recognised the impact of the proceedings on both the child and birth mother.
The court balanced the child’s privacy and wish to end the litigation against the birth mother’s right to pursue a legal remedy if she had suffered a wrong. It found the application bona fide and said refusing any access could create a considerable obstacle to legal advice or a remedy. The ruling does not decide whether the birth mother has a valid claim or complaint.
The court permitted the birth mother to identify herself as the birth mother to solicitors or barristers advising her about the judgment and outcome. If she pursues related proceedings or a complaint, she may also identify herself to relevant individuals, statutory bodies, companies or office holders with jurisdiction over them. The order permits access to specified documents, including the judgment, special summons and listed affidavits with exhibits, subject to redactions and other conditions.
The court refused access to the digital audio recording of the hearing, finding it unnecessary for the applicant’s stated purposes. Materials disclosed under the order must be redacted to remove information identifying the child or adoptive parents, kept in hard copy, and restricted to two indexed folders. Recipients remain bound by the in camera rule, and the folders must be destroyed once the litigation and any complaint processes are complete.
The court said it would hear further submissions on 9 June 2023, or another date it would decide, about any ancillary or consequential orders. The judgment does not state what further orders, if any, were subsequently made.