Alex White (Labour)

I understand the point being made by the Minister of State about the meaning and the finality of an adoption order and the bundle of legal rights that are associated with it. One could argue that one cannot have a halfway house and that it is either adoption or it is not and there has to be certainty about it. This is what section 58 touches upon and to which my amendment No. 44 relates.

I understand very well the argument made by the Minister of State and the context in which he makes it. However, Senator Frances Fitzgerald's amendment has merit and I also draw the Minister of State's attention to my amendment No. 44 which I accept would constitute a very radical proposal in the context of the law as we know it and as has been described correctly by him. However, if one considers the current situation, in the case of a non-adopted child the position is that any relative or person who is acting in loco parentis to that child can apply for access to the child. That person may not have an automatic entitlement to obtain access but can apply none the less. The natural or even the married parents do not have an entitlement to absolute control over access. This is our law as I understand it and I am open to correction if I am mistaken. Why should that situation be changed so fundamentally and so utterly in the case of an adoption order?

In the case of a natural mother who cannot cope with the child, for instance, due to drug addiction or some other issue and the child is adopted, why cannot we at least explore or examine a bit further how a court might be able to afford her some small amount of access from time to time in the circumstances, without prejudice to the rights of the adopting parents who have all of the normal parental rights and duties as the Act makes clear and as the law currently states?

The idea that an adoption order must terminate all pre-existing relationships in that very harsh manner that it would appear to do, seems to be almost a kind of throwback to an earlier era of how we understand what adoption can offer and what is adoption.

Is there space or grounds here for the Minister of State to look at whether it has to be so black and white and such a final either-or situation? I know there are constitutional contexts to this and the Minister of State might well say the effect of this amendment would be unconstitutional but the old section 11(b) of the 1964 Act would seem to me to be unconstitutional for the same reasons if that were the case.

I do not expect the Minister of State to embrace this issue on his feet in the House but I appeal to him and ask that he might give it some further consideration. I acknowledge this is excellent and important legislation and there has been significant work on it. If we are ever to address this issue this is the only time when we can realistically address it. I do not claim to have the solution to the problem but it seems to me that this window between now and Report Stage might offer the opportunity for it to be considered once and for all.