Ivana Bacik (Independent)

The general theme behind these amendments tabled by the Labour Party requires greater consideration. It is incumbent upon us to ensure the natural father has particular rights prior to a child being placed for adoption. The problem with the amendments, and in particular amendment No. 6, is that they are far too rigid in terms of the role they provide for the natural father. Also, they are not sufficiently balanced.

I commend the Minister on section 16 which is close to the current situation under the Adoption Act 1998 which provides rights of consultation with the natural father. Section 16, as drafted, provides for a much better balance. It is important that the natural father be consulted and that he should have the right to apply to the authority. However, we must be realistic. As has been stated already, in circumstances where a mother is giving up a child for adoption the reality is there is rarely a good and lasting relationship between the parents. I have already put on record other circumstances such as where a child is conceived through rape, where the father of the child is estranged or where the mother, for good reasons, does not wish to have any continuing relationship between her and the father or the father and child.

The amendments, in particular amendment No. 6, do not recognise that reality and place too great a rigidity on the rights of the father. I am concerned about the proposed new section 16(1) which states a child shall not be placed for adoption nor may an application be made without the consent of the father. This goes against the Bill in situations where, for example, the father has deserted, is unknown or has never had any link with the child beyond conception. I caution against taking on board these amendments.

Similarly I am concerned about amendment No. 7 to section 18. Amendments Nos. 7 and 16 have the same effect and state: "the father has committed an offence such that". It appears to me the Bill as drafted covers the mischief wherein it provides that:

. . . where the Authority is satisfied that, having regard to—

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

(b) the circumstances of conception of the child,

it is inappropriate for the accredited body to contact the father...

This covers the situation. It would be unduly rigid to require proof of committal of a criminal offence. There may be all sorts of reasons even where a rape has been committed that the mother has not reported it as such. That is the reality. There may be all sorts of reasons why it is impossible to say that in fact an offence has been committed. The authority must be satisfied about the circumstances of conception in order to deem it inappropriate to contact the father. I believe it is best to leave this as is and to give the authority flexibility in this regard. It is important to retain the natural rights of the father. However, we must be careful not to set in stone a rigid system whereby even where there is effectively no ongoing relationship between the child and the father, the father maintains a veto. The effect of these amendments would be to hamstring the authority, in particular amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 7 and 16 place too onerous a burden on the authority or the mother. I am opposed to these amendments.