The High Court has approved the Adoption Authority of Ireland’s application to make an adoption order for a child without consulting the child’s birth father, whose identity could not be established. The judgment addressed consultation only; it does not itself make the adoption order.
Ms Justice Nuala Jackson gave the reserved judgment on 12 February 2024, after indicating on 8 December 2023 that consultation could be dispensed with. The Authority sought approval under sections 30(3) and 30(5) of the Adoption Act 2010–2017.
The child, referred to as B in the proceedings, was born in 2014, entered voluntary care within days and never lived with the birth mother. The proposed adopter has cared for the child throughout. The mother consented to adoption, and the court said the child wished to be adopted. A social work report concluded adoption was in the child’s best interests.
The mother had initially identified X as the father, and he was named on the birth certificate. DNA testing established that he was not the father, and the certificate was amended. The mother later said two other men, Y and Z, might be the father, but she could not say which, if either, was. She said Y had died abroad. Z, who lived abroad, did not respond to two emails from Tusla after the mother provided his email address. The court noted that the account of Z’s response came solely from the mother, but found that reasonable direct contact efforts had been made.
The judge found there had been no family life between the child and the two possible fathers. She concluded that the circumstances met section 30(3)’s test for treating consultation as inappropriate, considering the absence of a relationship or parental bond, the efforts to consult and the child’s welfare. The judgment stated that the abuse factor discussed in the case law did not arise because there had been no involvement by a possible father before or after conception.
The court also found the section 30(5) requirements met: the mother was unable to identify the father, and the Authority had no other practical means of establishing his identity. The judge said the provision did not require exhaustive searches.
Finding that the child’s best interests were paramount and that adoption should proceed in a timely manner, the court made an order under both sections 30(3) and 30(5), approving an adoption order without consultation with the birth father. The judgment does not identify the child, mother, proposed adopter or possible fathers by name.