The High Court has authorised the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make an adoption order for B.I., a teenager with complex health needs, in favour of her long-term foster carers, U.D. and M.D. The order dispenses with the consent of her birth mother, C.I., and her birth father.
In a judgment delivered on 28 May 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson found that the statutory conditions for adoption under section 54 of the Adoption Act 2010 were satisfied. The court’s order authorises the Authority to make the adoption order; the judgment does not itself state that the Authority has made it.
B.I. has lived with U.D. and M.D. since she was about 15 months old. The judge said they had been her primary caregivers, managing her extensive physical and intellectual needs, and that those needs would continue into adulthood. She found there was no reasonable prospect of a change in care that would avoid prejudicing B.I.’s welfare, given her established life and need for stability and support.
The judge also found that the carers had taken responsibility for B.I.’s day-to-day care and key decisions, and that the statutory test concerning abandonment of parental rights was met. She stressed that the legal test concerns parental rights, not physical abandonment of the child, and said she did not attribute blame to C.I.
C.I. told the court she wanted to care for her daughter and disputed claims about her conduct and involvement. The judge said she believed C.I. was sincere, but considered that she had not been involved in B.I.’s day-to-day care for many years and probably did not appreciate the scale of B.I.’s needs. The court also accepted that B.I. could express views about her lived experience, although she could not understand the legal concept of adoption. It gave due weight to her expressed comfort and security with the carers and her wish for her living arrangements to remain unchanged.
The judge voiced concern that contact between C.I. and B.I. had diminished over time, eventually stopping during the Covid-19 pandemic, and questioned whether every reasonable effort had been made to support their relationship. She said she could not use this application to appeal or review the Child and Family Agency’s assessment of that requirement.
She also criticised the application’s timing. It was heard shortly before B.I. was due to reach adulthood, leaving C.I. little time to respond and raising difficulties around advice, appeals and court resources. The judge said some resumption of contact in adulthood would be hoped for, but would be for B.I. to decide.