The High Court approved an application by the Adoption Authority of Ireland to make an adoption order for a minor, identified as X, without consulting X’s natural father further. The ruling did not itself make the adoption order; it granted the statutory approval the Authority needed to proceed without that consultation.
The application was brought under section 30(3) of the Adoption Act 2010. The Authority said it had made repeated efforts to contact the father, including correspondence to his last known address and an email address recently in use. He did not respond to correspondence after September 2019 and did not attend a hearing arranged by the Authority in January 2020. The Authority said it had no other means of locating or contacting him.
The evidence before the court was that X’s stepfather had applied to adopt X and had been married to X’s mother for years. X regarded the stepfather as his father. The natural father had met X five times when X was very young, and they had not met for most of X’s life. The court noted that the father had not sought access rights or applied for custody or guardianship.
Reports from Túsla supported the adoption application. A social worker reported that X did not remember the earlier contact with the natural father and became visibly upset when adoption was discussed. The reports described a close relationship between X and the proposed adoptive father and concluded that adoption was in X’s best interests. The judgment also records that the natural father was aware of the application and did not want the adoption to proceed.
The court considered the child’s best interests under section 19 of the 2010 Act, including the nature and duration of the relationship with the natural father. It found that the relationship had been so brief that its substance was negligible or, at the time of judgment, non-existent. The judge also concluded that family life between X and the natural father did not exist in a way that engaged the father’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment distinguished the case from *Keegan v Ireland*, noting that the Authority had made substantial efforts to consult the father and had allowed him time to bring a custody application.
Accepting the Authority’s affidavit evidence and Túsla reports, the court granted the approval sought. The judgment does not record the subsequent making of an adoption order.