The High Court authorised the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make adoption orders for two siblings, A. and B., in favour of their foster parents, Mr X. and Mrs X. It also dispensed with the consent of any person whose consent was required. The orders followed two applications under section 54(2) of the Adoption Act 2010, heard together by Mr Justice Jordan on 3 March 2022.
The children had lived with the applicants since 2010. Their birth mother, C., had returned to Nigeria in January 2016 and had not contacted them since. The court heard that she had significant psychiatric illness and was too unwell to participate meaningfully in the adoption proceedings. She was represented by a guardian ad litem and a legal team. The judge was satisfied that she could not give reliable evidence because of mental infirmity and that it was appropriate to proceed without her evidence.
The children’s birth fathers had never been involved in their lives and could not be identified. The court found that appropriate measures had been taken to establish their identities and proceeded in their absence. The judgment records that the birth mother had described A.’s father as a British citizen of Jamaican origin and B.’s father as a Nigerian national, but the available information was insufficient to identify either man.
The birth mother’s family opposed adoption. Her sister told the guardian that the family believed adoption was unfair while C. was alive and feared the children would abandon their mother. The guardian reported that C. was unable to understand or respond to the issue. The judge acknowledged the family’s opposition and the mother’s rights, but found that the statutory requirements for the orders were met. Those included parental failure over the required period, no reasonable prospect that the parents could care for the children, abandonment of parental rights as legally interpreted, and adoption as a necessary and proportionate means of supplying the parents’ place.
The judge had spoken to both children by video. The judgment says they understood adoption and its consequences and clearly wanted to be adopted by the applicants. The court found adoption to be in each child’s best interests, taking account of their views and the other rights at stake.
For case 2022/15M, concerning A., the court made the two orders sought: authorising the Adoption Authority to make an adoption order in favour of Mr X. and Mrs X., and dispensing with required consent. It made orders in the same terms for B. in case 2022/18M. The judgment did not itself make the adoption orders; it authorised the Adoption Authority to do so. The judge also expressed concern about delays in adoption proceedings and urged the agencies involved to expedite them.