The High Court has authorised the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make an adoption order for Child X in favour of his foster-parents, Mr E and Ms F, and to dispense with any required consent. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 10 May 2022, in an application under section 54 of the Adoption Act 2010, as amended.
Child X, whose birth date is anonymised in the judgment, was placed with the applicants a few days after birth. After a period back with his birth mother, he returned to their care and remained there. The judge said they were the only people with whom he had experienced a typical parent-child relationship.
The judgment records Child X’s repeated wish to be adopted, expressed from 2015 onwards. The judge met him before the hearing and found that he appeared to understand what adoption meant. Child X said he wanted to be fully part of his foster-family and raised concern about his parents’ history of drug use. The court gave due weight to his views, taking account of his age and maturity.
Neither birth parent attended the hearing. Ms B, through counsel, neither consented to nor refused the adoption. She did not want her son to think she had given him away, and raised concern that adoption might affect access to aftercare benefits. Mr C opposed the application, arguing that adoption was disproportionate and expressing concern about losing his bond with Child X. He also raised issues about contact arrangements and his ability to communicate with social workers. These were his submissions; the court assessed them alongside the evidence.
The judgment recounts the history of intermittent contact, which had ended by 2020, and social-work concerns about the parents’ capacity to care for Child X. It records that allegations of sexual abuse against Mr C were denied by him, and that he had been assessed as posing a medium future risk. The judge said it was unnecessary to detail the allegations further. The Adoption Authority supported the application after considering the parents’ opposition and the child’s welfare and views.
The court found the section 54 requirements satisfied, including the requirement that adoption be proportionate. It concluded adoption was in Child X’s best interests, noting the applicants’ long-standing parental role, his wishes and their willingness to support future contact with his birth parents if he wanted it. The court made the orders sought. The judgment does not state that the adoption order itself had already been made by the Authority.