The High Court approved the making of an adoption order for a teenager without consulting the child’s unidentified natural father, relying on both section 30(3) and section 30(5) of the Adoption Act 2010 to 2017.
Mr Justice Max Barrett gave judgment on 23 November 2021 in an application by the Adoption Authority of Ireland concerning a proposed adoption by the child’s foster-mother. The child, who had been in care since arriving in Ireland, wished to be adopted by the foster-mother. The court said the child’s best interests were the paramount consideration and that the child’s views, age, maturity and needs were relevant.
The Authority had asked the court to approve proceeding without consulting the father. An affidavit filed for the Authority said his identity remained unknown despite extensive efforts. Materials from the Child and Family Agency indicated that the mother’s husband was not the father; two men suggested by the maternal family could not be accurately identified, located or traced. The affidavit also said the father had never met the child or sought guardianship, access or custody.
The child’s mother, a non-Irish national, died in 2008, shortly after childbirth. The judgment records that she had come to Ireland alone and that the child was placed in foster care. Because she had died, the Authority could not obtain from her the statutory declaration or counselling contemplated by sections 30(4) and 30(5).
The court held that the law does not require an impossible act. It concluded that counselling under section 30(4) could not be carried out after the mother’s death and was not required in those circumstances. It read section 30(5) as applying without the requirement for prior counselling and the related declaration where the mother or guardian was deceased. The court said it would expect evidence that every reasonable effort had been made to identify the father before finding there was no other practical means of doing so.
The judge also considered section 30(3), which permits approval to make an adoption order without consulting a relevant non-guardian where consultation would be inappropriate in the circumstances. Given the limited information about the parents’ relationship, the absence of a relationship between father and child, and the child’s best interests, the court found that provision applicable too.
The court granted approval under both sections for the adoption order to be made without consulting the father. The judgment resolves that approval application; it does not state that the adoption order itself was made that day.