Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

Section 18(4) provides that:

Where, on an application by an accredited body that proposes to place a child for adoption, the Authority [that is the Adoption Authority] is satisfied that, having regard to—

(a) the nature of the relationship between the father and mother, or

(b) the circumstances of the conception of the child,

it is inappropriate for the accredited body to contact the father in respect of the placement of the child—

(i) the Authority, after first obtaining the approval of the High Court, may authorise the accredited body to place the child for adoption, and

(ii) at any time after being so authorised, the accredited body may place the child for adoption.

The adoption authority will first have to be satisfied that because of the nature of the relationship between the father and the mother or the circumstances of the conception the father should not be contacted. Having made that decision, the adoption authority will then have to ask the High Court for a decision. On what basis will the High Court make its decision? There is little guidance in the section for the High Court. A notice cannot be served on the father to get his view on it because that defeats the purpose of it. What is the point in this duplicatory procedure? What will the High Court know that the adoption authority will not know? What mysterious information will suddenly descent on the lap of the High Court judge? The High Court will only know what the adoption authority knows. On what basis is the High Court to disagree with the adoption authority? If the mother were to swear an affidavit about something that occurred relating to the nature of her relationship with the father, would that be enough? Is the biological mother to be put in the witness box? Is a mother who is stressed over the fact that she is placing a child for adoption - let us assume it is not a family adoption but a third party adoption - the mother who is stressed about the adoption can deal with an accredited agency informally, can fill out the forms correctly? Is that mother to be thrown by the High Court into the witness box? She will told that if she wants her child adopted and if she does not want us to communicate with the father, even if the father raped her, she will have to go to the High Court and get into the witness box and explain that to the High Court judge. Why are we going to put biological mothers through that?

I very much appreciate and agree with the view of Deputy Sullivan, that on occasions we have not properly respected fathers' rights. However, this is not about respecting rights of fathers, this is about superimposing an additional court hearing that is not necessary, subjecting a biological mother to it in circumstances where we have not done so to date, adding nothing of value to the process because all the High Court will know is what the adoption authority knows. At least if the adoption authority is dealing with it, there will be some consistency, but with the High Court, there can be a revolving system with different judges sitting in the High Court every few weeks. A different judge may take a different view as to what circumstances are appropriate. How do we provide consistency? Is there any guarantee that there will be written published judgment about this so that one judge is guided by a decision made by a previous judge. All these cases will be heard in camera. What detailed types of hearings will take place? Will the High Court, for example, direct that if an application is made to it some lawyer should be appointed amicus curiae to the court to argue the opposite case as to the why the father should be told just so the judge hears a balanced argument?

I do not think this has been teased out. I am not saying this to be awkward. It will add stress to mothers placing children for adoption. In the context of family adoptions of the type I described, this will create difficulties. It will add unnecessary expense to the process. There will be a lack of consistency between different judges. The legislation does not even require that the decisions delivered of this nature are published and made available and that there is sufficient detail included in them to provide guidance to, for example, social workers working in the adoption area, lawyers advising in the adoption area, counsel dealing with cases and, more important, judges to ensure there is a consistency of approach. I believe bringing in the High Court in this respect is a serious error. I have tabled a series of amendments to take the High Court out of the process. I will say no more about it but I believe this is an issue that will come back to haunt this House in the future.

See this speech in context