The High Court rejected an attempt by a married couple from Sligo to overturn an Adoption Board circular advising people not to proceed with adoptions from Ethiopia and Rwanda while the Board reviewed those countries’ laws. The court did, however, find the Board should have informed the couple in writing when it issued the circular and explained what information it was seeking about Ethiopian law. It awarded damages, with the amount left for later assessment.
The couple, identified in the redacted judgment as E.L. and T. O’L., held a declaration of eligibility and suitability to adopt one child abroad, issued on 14 August 2007 and valid for 12 months. They had adopted a child from Ethiopia in 2006 and were preparing to adopt a baby girl referred to them by a children’s home there.
They had arranged travel for 23 October and return flights for 16 November 2007. The judgment records that the Board published its notice on 11 October, advising applicants with existing declarations not to proceed until further notice. The couple said they were told not to travel, without reasons, and that they had not known about the website notice until their solicitor alerted them. The Board’s registrar disputed aspects of their account and said the couple had been informed about concerns over possible incompatibility between Ethiopian and Irish adoption law.
The Board identified questions about the rights of birth parents, children and adoptive parents under Ethiopian law. It said it was reviewing the law before determining whether adoptions there met Irish recognition requirements. During the court hearing, the Board said it did not oppose the couple proceeding with an adoption, would consider any later application to register it, and had no role in the Foreign Affairs Department’s decision on a letter of introduction.
The couple sought judicial review and declarations, arguing, among other things, that the Board had frustrated a legitimate expectation and denied them a chance to respond. The judge held that the Board acted under its statutory powers and in the public interest when it issued the circular. He refused the requested reliefs and said no declaration allowing the adoption was needed because the Board had stated in court that the couple could proceed. The judgment did not decide whether the proposed adoption could go ahead in practice or whether it would qualify for registration.
The judge separately ruled that once the Board decided to issue the circular, it had a duty to inform the couple in writing and explain what information it was seeking about Ethiopian law. The court said this could have allowed them to obtain legal advice and make submissions. Damages were awarded but not assessed; the questions of damages and costs were adjourned for three months.