Child and Family Agency & Ors v Adoption Authority of Ireland & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application pursuant to section 54(2) of the Adoption Acts 2010 - 2017 authorising the adoption of a minor child, referred to as B.I., by prospective adoptive parents U.D. and M.D. B.I. has lived with and been cared for by U.D. and M.D. for most of her childhood. Her birth mother, C.I., has had varying degrees of involvement in B.I.'s life, though contact has diminished significantly over the years and ceased during the Covid-19 pandemic, with minimal contact thereafter.

B.I. was born in 2006 and placed in voluntary care at six months old due to concerns about C.I.'s ability to cope. Initially, a shared care arrangement was in place with B.I. spending time both with C.I. and her foster family (U.D. and M.D.). Over time, access diminished from unsupervised overnight visits to supervised brief visits, eventually ceasing. B.I. was placed with U.D. and M.D. as foster carers from approximately 15 months old and they have been her primary caregivers since.

Several assessments and court orders were made over the years, including care orders and increased autonomy granted to U.D. and M.D. The possibility of adoption was first raised by U.D. and M.D. in 2022, with a formal request made in October 2023. An application to adopt was submitted in January 2024, followed by a Declaration of Eligibility and Suitability in February 2024. The Adoption Authority granted a Declaration under section 53 in March 2024 confirming that, if an order was made, the adoption would be proper.

The application was heard over two days with written and oral evidence, including affidavits from social workers, the Child and Family Agency (CFA), and C.I. The court also considered B.I.'s complex health needs, which are physical and intellectual, requiring ongoing extensive care and support that U.D. and M.D. have provided and intend to continue.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the statutory requirements under section 54(2A) of the Adoption Acts 2010 - 2017 are satisfied to authorise adoption of B.I. by U.D. and M.D.
2. Whether the failure of parental duty by the birth parents, particularly C.I., has been established to the extent that B.I.'s safety or welfare is likely to be prejudicially affected.
3. Whether there is no reasonable prospect that C.I. can care for B.I. without prejudicial effect on her safety or welfare.
4. Whether the failure of parental duty constitutes abandonment of all parental rights by C.I.
5. Whether it is necessary for the State to supply the place of the parents in B.I.'s care.
6. Whether adoption by U.D. and M.D. is a proportionate means to supply the place of the parents.
7. How to give due weight to the views of B.I., considering her capacity and communication abilities, in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements.
8. How to balance the constitutional rights of the birth mother and the child in the context of the adoption application.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The statutory proofs under section 54(2A) are satisfied, supporting the making of the adoption order.
• Adoption is in the best interests of B.I., providing stability, security, and lifelong support, especially given her complex needs.
• Due weight should be given to B.I.'s expressed wishes, communicated through her actions and body language, indicating a desire for continuity with her current family.
• The constitutional rights of all parties, including the birth mother and the child, have been considered and balanced in favour of the adoption order.

Birth Mother's Arguments

• C.I. denies failing in her parental duties and asserts she has maintained contact with B.I. through visits.
• She claims she has not abdicated responsibility and wishes to resume care of B.I., asserting capacity to do so and willingness to adjust her lifestyle accordingly.
• C.I. disputes allegations of uncooperative behaviour and failure to attend visits, attributing some issues to inadequacies in support from the CFA.
• She challenges the assertion that B.I.'s views have been adequately heard, pointing to B.I.'s communication difficulties and lack of specialist psychological confirmation of her wishes.
• Counsel for C.I. emphasized her significant parental role in early years and argued the focus should be on future likelihood rather than past abandonment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the application under the statutory framework of section 54(2) and the detailed conditions of section 54(2A) of the Adoption Acts 2010 - 2017, as interpreted in the Supreme Court’s "B Case". The court considered each statutory condition:

• Failure of parental duty (54(2A)(a)): The court found that C.I. had failed in her parental duties over a continuous period exceeding 36 months, to an extent likely prejudicial to B.I.’s safety and welfare. This was based on B.I.’s long-term care by U.D. and M.D., the diminution of contact with C.I., and expert assessments indicating C.I.'s limited capacity to provide care.
• No reasonable prospect of adequate care (54(2A)(b)): The court concluded there was no reasonable prospect that C.I. could care for B.I. without prejudicial effect, considering B.I.’s complex needs and the stability she currently enjoys.
• Abandonment of parental rights (54(2A)(c)): The court applied the legal concept of abandonment of parental rights, not physical abandonment, finding that C.I. had effectively abandoned her parental role by leaving care and decision-making to U.D. and M.D.
• State intervention necessity (54(2A)(d)): Given the circumstances and duration of care, the court found it necessary for the State to supply the place of the parents.
• Custody and home with applicants (54(2A)(e)): It was undisputed that B.I. had been in the custody and home of U.D. and M.D. for over 18 months.
• Proportionality (54(2A)(f)): Adoption was deemed a proportionate means to supply parental care, providing lifelong stability and support for B.I.’s extensive needs.

The court addressed the issue of B.I.’s voice and capacity to express views. Although B.I. cannot understand the legal concept of adoption, the court accepted that she communicates her wishes through actions and body language, expressing contentment with her current family. The court gave due weight to these expressions in line with constitutional and statutory mandates.

The court acknowledged the conflicting constitutional rights of the birth mother and the child but determined that the best interests of B.I., as paramount, justified making the adoption order. The court emphasized that C.I.’s role as birth mother and emotional bonds remain intact, and future contact may be possible at B.I.’s discretion.

The court also expressed serious concern about the lateness of the application and the systemic delays in adoption proceedings, noting the unfairness and practical difficulties such delays cause for all parties and the court system.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the application under section 54(2) of the Adoption Acts 2010 - 2017, authorising the Adoption Authority to make an adoption order in favour of U.D. and M.D. and dispensing with the consent of C.I. and the birth father.

The direct effect of this decision is to legally establish U.D. and M.D. as the adoptive parents of B.I., ensuring lifelong stability and care for the child with complex needs. The birth mother’s constitutional rights and emotional bonds remain acknowledged, with the possibility of future contact left to B.I.’s discretion. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory and constitutional principles as elaborated in prior cases, particularly the Supreme Court’s "B Case".