Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I have sympathy with both sides of this argument. There is an echo of a previous debate here because we are speaking in this regard of the importance of a father in a child's life. I know we are operating within a particular constitutional architecture and as such the Minister of State will be so guided. I sympathise with some of the concerns raised by Senators Bacik and Healy Eames. However, the substance of section 16 appears to be rather onerous, regardless of whether it reflects the status quo, in that it requires a father to advise the authority of his wish to be consulted in regard to a proposal to adopt. Is it not possible to draft a provision that establishes that where a child's father is guardian, he must be consulted while providing for the circumstance where an offence, such as rape and so on, might have been committed?

Is it possible to exclude in certain circumstances the right, which otherwise exists, for the father who is a guardian to be consulted and to provide that where the father is not a guardian he may advise the authority of his wish to be consulted? Is it not possible to deal with the different types of circumstance that can arise giving particular and due respect in the context of all we say nowadays about the importance of fathers in children's lives? Should that not be reflected in new language that provides for certain duties on the part of the authority towards fathers who are guardians rather than putting the onus on the father to advise the authority?