Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Niall Collins agus Dara Calleary. I join colleagues in congratulating the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, on her appointment to Cabinet. It was a wise and inspired move by the Taoiseach to elevate the Ministry with responsibility for children to full Cabinet level. It is particularly gratifying that a Kildare person is occupying the role.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on an issue of significant concern. I compliment my party's spokesperson on children, Deputy Charlie McConalogue, on his initiative in bringing forward this important proposal which seeks to address the need for the State to provide for the adoption of children in the event of substantial parental failure and where married couples are prepared to agree to the adoption of a child of their marriage.

This debate makes good use of parliamentary time and constitutes further proof of the Fianna Fáil Party's commitment to provide a positive and constructive Opposition in the 31st Dáil. We last discussed these matters during Private Members' time on 18 and 19 May 2010, when the current Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, moved a motion calling in effect on the then Government to proceed, post haste, to fix a date for the holding of a referendum on the rights of the child which included provision for constitutional reform in the area of adoption, as envisaged in Deputy McConalogue's Bill. On that occasion, contributors on all sides acknowledged the work done by the Joint Committee on a Constitutional Amendment on Children under the chairmanship of former Deputy Mary O'Rourke. While the Chairman was praised, Members were also unanimous in commending Deputies Howlin, Ó Caoláin and Shatter and then Senator Alex White on their considerable efforts and the leadership they showed in achieving political consensus on a number of issues relating to children and on the matter of a form of words for a constitutional amendment.

On the occasion of that debate, which was held just 13 months ago, there appeared to be a most genuine consensus on the need to press forward with a referendum at the earliest possible time. As a backbench Government Deputy at the time, I considered that the concern of a number of Departments, including the then Department of Education and Science, that the proposed wording of the amendment would give rise to problems and unintended consequences could be addressed by tweaking the proposed wording of the amendment and that this could be done within a reasonable timeframe. In due course, the then Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, proposed a new form of words. As we all know only too well, however, his initiative was overtaken by events.

In light of the momentum that was generated in the previous Dáil towards creating a stronger constitutional and legislative framework in support of the rights of the child, it is sad and disappointing to see this goodwill and momentum being dissipated to some extent by a Government which considers that the pay of judges rates priority attention over the rights of the child. This is despite the statements made by Members of the Government parties when in opposition, the commitments they gave in the course of the election campaign and their statements on entering government.

A number of Deputies opposite indicated that it would be inappropriate to hold a referendum on children's rights in conjunction with the presidential election. I recall that it was the current Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, who suggested in February, in the run-up to the general election, that the referendum was a priority issue for his party and would be held alongside the presidential election. Some of the Deputies opposite are, therefore, departing from the position set out by their leader some time ago.

While there are complexities surrounding the broader issues of children's rights, they are not insurmountable and the issue of adoption is more straightforward and capable of being dealt with in the timeframe set out by Deputy McConalogue. If it were to respond positively to the proposal before the House, the Government would avail of an opportunity of joining with us in creating greater security, new opportunities and, ultimately, better life prospects for many young Irish people now and in future.

The statistics on children in care, which I am sure all Deputies have studied, are truly staggering. Of the 6,000 children in question, 90% are currently in foster home placements, with one third of these or close to 2,000 children in long-term foster care. Figures for the first quarter of 2011 suggest there has been an inordinate increase in the number of children being taken into care.

In looking back over the matters debated by the joint committee over the two year period to which Deputy Neville referred, I recalled a report from a principal social worker in one of the country's 32 local health offices. In the time remaining, I propose to read some extracts from what he had to say about the need to provide specific categories of children with the opportunity of being adopted. The word of a professional working at the coalface adds perspective to our debate. He stated the following:

On the proposed amendment to the Constitution I think the position should be that adoption can be considered as an option for all children where the reality is that they have been placed, and are living away, from their birth or natural parents. Clearly appropriate timeframes will have to be worked out as to when children become available, so to speak, for adoption.

Excluding inter-country adoptions there are three routes to adoption at the moment.

The old fashioned "stranger adoption" where the mother indicates she wants the baby adopted and the baby is placed with parents unknown to her, assessed and selected by an Adoption Agency.

A relative, as defined by the Adoption Act 1998, adopts the baby.

Foster parents apply to adopt their foster child under the Adoption Act 1988. This is only possible under very restrictive conditions where the parents are shown to have comprehensively abandoned their parental duties.

In my area we have worked with 3 ''stranger adoptions'' and about 6 foster parents adopting foster children over the last 10 years. All of these adoptions have provided very good solutions for the children involved. And this has been particularly true for the foster children adopted. All of these children were over 10 years old, and some were 16 or 17 years old. Therefore, the children could understand the process of their adoption and could see that this was a powerful and very visible demonstration of their foster parents' love for them. Also it was shown to them that they were being accepted into the family not only by their foster parents but by their foster siblings as well.

At the moment there are 230 children in care in my area. Thus over the last 10 years I would guess there have been about 600-700 children in care. Thus adoption as an option is only for a very small minority - barely over 1% of children in care. Over the last 3 years I have had 4 requests to assist families who would be classed as private foster carers, under the Children Act 2001, to adopt the child they had living with them. Private foster care is any arrangement where the child is in the full-time care of a person other than his parent-guardian or their partner or relative. Two of the requests came from families where the wife was the grand-aunt of the child - or the aunt of the mother of the child. It seems clear that both children have been placed with the full consent and support of the mother. In the one inspected by a social worker from my team the child is thriving and doing very well within his private foster family. The wife in the family is not close enough a relative as defined by the Adoption Act 1998. Therefore, there is no mechanism by which this child can be adopted by the adults he has lived with for the last 3 years. In another case, the relationship was much more distant - the wife in the private foster family is a second cousin of the mother of the child.

The fourth case here is a family similar to the earlier three except the child was 17 years old. The husband here was a relative of the mother. In an agreement made when the child was two years old the mother placed the child with her relative and his wife. This agreement was facilitated by a Health Board social worker at the time. This solution was a private arrangement and was seen as better than taking the child into the care of the Health Board.

He continued:

As the child approached 18 years of age, the couple, who were the carers for 15 years, sought to adopt him. Again, this did not prove possible under the existing Adoption Law.

A final case I'll mention involves a baby born from an extra marital relationship and placed in the care of the H.S.E. from the maternity hospital. The mother is adamant the baby cannot live with her as her marriage has been revived and she cannot see how the baby could fit in with her husband and her other children. She was very open to the idea of adoption, but neither she or her husband will comply with the Adoption Board's rules on establishing paternity. It seems that any mention of the extra marital baby threatens the stability of the newly reforged marriage. This baby then cannot be placed for adoption but has been placed in long-term foster care.

All of these 5 cases were active in [this local health area] in the last two years. All are situations where [the social worker thinks] it is most likely that an adoption would have been in the best interest of the child. Yet the adoption option was not possible. [His] area is one of 32 LHOs in the country, so [he assumes] there are considerably more children in this position countrywide.

Some of the impediments [he has] identified could, I suspect, be remedied by legislation. Blocks on children of married parents may require a constitutional amendment. The overall benefit of the amendments proposed should be to free up the position so that the best plan for each child can be constructed and all options, including where appropriate, adoption, can be realistically considered.

He concludes:

The present position is that many children are in long-term foster care - both state and private -- and cannot be adopted. This remains the case even though they may have minimal, or no, contact with their natural parents and have a relationship with their foster carer of an emotional depth and intensity that one associates with natural parents-child relationships. The emotional and psychological benefits of the permanence of adoption cannot, in my view, be underestimated for such children who are adopted.

In short, of the 700 children approximately in care in my area over the last ten years hardly more than 1% were adopted. Given the emotional and psychological benefits associated with adoption, far too few children are getting the chance of adoption. An appropriate constitutional amendment on adoption could help enormously in changing this landscape.

As can be adduced from the extracts of the report which I have just read into the record, there is a most compelling case to proceed, as a matter of urgency, in accordance with the proposals set out in the motion. In conclusion, I am conscious of the fact that some Members on the other side of the House are reluctant to proceed. However, I will quote what former Deputy Michael D. Higgins said on these matters in the House in May 2010: "What must be decided? The children of the people who will be consulted in all the Departments are not at risk. If one wants to say every child is a protected child in this Republic, then one will vote for the motion. That is what we should do, we do not need any more time."

I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context