The High Court has authorised the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make adoption orders for four children brought from India to Ireland under guardianship orders, after finding that their birth parents had abandoned them and that adoption was in their best interests.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 27 January 2021, Mr Justice Jordan granted the Child and Family Agency’s applications under section 54(2) of the Adoption Act 2010. The orders concern four children, identified in the judgment as S.H., T.S. and two siblings both anonymised as S.S., and their respective prospective adoptive parents. The court also authorised the Authority to dispense with the necessary consents.
The children, who were born between 2005 and 2009, had been in the care of the prospective adoptive parents since 2011 and were habitually resident in Ireland. The families had obtained guardianship orders in India, but no Indian adoption orders were made. The Irish Authority had not given the required approval under Article 17(c) of the Hague Convention before the children were placed with the prospective parents.
The court found that the Indian guardianship orders could not be recognised as adoptions under section 57, and that section 68 was unavailable because the placements had not complied with the Convention’s pre-placement approval requirements. A domestic adoption under section 20 was also unavailable because the required birth-parent consents had not been provided and the evidence did not establish that the children were orphans.
The judge concluded that section 54 was the available route. He found that the evidence met the statutory tests, including that the birth parents had failed in their duties for the required period, that there was no reasonable prospect they could care for the children without prejudicing their welfare, and that adoption was proportionate. The children had lived with the prospective adoptive parents for about nine years, and all expressed a strong wish to be adopted by them.
The court described the cases as exceptional and found no intentional attempt by the prospective parents to circumvent the Convention. It attributed the procedural difficulties to confusion during the transition to the 2010 Act and Convention procedures, and said the children needed certainty about their legal relationship with their carers. It also criticised the delay in resolving the Article 17 requests, saying adoption processes should be measured in weeks and months, not years.
The judgment does not make findings about the identity or whereabouts of the birth parents. It records that original birth certificates were unavailable and that the dates of birth were accepted on the balance of probabilities. The court granted the orders sought in all four applications.