The High Court has approved an application by the Adoption Authority of Ireland to proceed with a proposed step-parent adoption without consulting the child’s biological father. The court’s order permits the Authority to proceed without that consultation; it does not itself make an adoption order.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 22 November 2019, Mr Justice Jordan found the statutory test under section 30(3) of the Adoption Act 2010 to 2017 was met. He said it would be “entirely inappropriate” for the Authority to consult the father in the circumstances.
The child, identified as X, was born in March 2008. Her parents were unmarried and their relationship ended when she was about five months old. The mother later married Y, who applied separately to adopt the child. The Authority had declared Y eligible and suitable in June 2018. The mother consented to the proposed adoption and made a statutory declaration that she did not wish the father to be consulted.
The judgment recounts the Authority’s investigation and the court’s consideration of evidence about abuse. The mother said the father physically and emotionally abused her during their relationship. The judgment records independent support for her account, including medical social work reports, court orders, a domestic violence support worker’s letter and other records. The father was convicted of assault arising from a February 2014 incident during supervised access. The judgment says the child’s arm was sprained and the mother’s arm ligaments were torn in that incident.
The father had obtained supervised access in December 2008 and was appointed a joint guardian in 2010. The judgment describes access as sporadic, later reduced to fortnightly, and ending after the February 2014 incident. A 2015 District Court order removed him as guardian and appointed Y instead. The father was deported from Ireland in June 2018, and had not seen the child since February 2014.
Justice Jordan said the child had no parental bond with her biological father and was afraid of him. He considered the child’s fears and anxieties, the history of limited contact and the abuse evidence. He also addressed Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concluding that family life did not exist in a way that engaged the father’s rights in this case. Having treated the child’s best interests as paramount, he granted the approval sought under section 30(3).