The High Court authorised the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make an adoption order for R. in favour of her foster carers, T. W. and M. W., and dispensed with her birth mother’s consent. The decision followed a hearing on 23 and 26 March 2018 under section 54(2) of the Adoption Act 2010. It authorises the Authority to make the order; the judgment does not say that the adoption order itself was made at the hearing.
R. was born in May 2000 and had lived with T. W. and M. W. since July 2010, after earlier foster placements. The judgment says she has a moderate learning disability and needs round-the-clock care. It records that she made progress in their care and that they met her health, educational and welfare needs.
The court recounted that R. entered care in 2007 amid concerns including neglect, physical abuse and domestic violence. A full care order followed in 2012 after a contested hearing. The birth mother did not appeal. She had continued to attend supervised monthly access visits, while the birth father’s lawyer told the court he consented to the application.
The birth mother opposed adoption, arguing that she had not failed in her parental duty or abandoned her child in the legal sense. She accepted in evidence that, because of her personal difficulties, she could not meet R.’s complex needs and was no longer seeking R.’s return to her care at 18. Her lawyers argued that adoption was disproportionate and that guardianship or wardship could protect R.’s welfare while preserving family links.
The judge found that the mother had not had the capacity to care for R. and accepted there was no intention to neglect or abandon her. However, applying the legal meaning of abandonment, the court concluded that the failure of parental duty amounted to abandonment of parental rights. It also found that the failure would continue until R. turned 18, then less than two months away.
The court said R. could not understand the adoption application. An educational psychologist had observed a strong attachment to her foster carers and assessed her as psychologically closer to them than to her biological parents. The carers supported continued contact with R.’s parents and siblings, and one testified that they would continue facilitating access.
The judge concluded that adoption was in R.’s best interests, citing the carers’ longstanding care, their plans for her future and their ability to make practical decisions about her welfare. The court considered the proposed alternatives, including wardship, and found them unsuitable in the circumstances. It therefore authorised the adoption application to proceed and dispensed with the mother’s consent.