David Norris (Independent)

I second the amendment. It is a useful one that follows the principle of placing the interests of the child as paramount. It provides for a special relationship with a special guardian in circumstances where the birth mother may find it difficult or there may be some obstruction but a link with the birth parents is still retained. At the same time, it prevents the child having a new surname imposed upon him or her, thereby distancing him or her from his or her roots, or the child being removed from the jurisdiction. This is a carefully considered amendment. A court procedure is involved so it cannot be lightly entered into but carefully progressed with due regard given to legal restraints given that a special guardianship would be a serious undertaking by anyone.

There may be circumstances where it could also be used for the protection of a child. The provision appears to me to be a sort of guardian ad litem clause where a child may be in danger in his or her original circumstances and can be removed and placed into the custody of a special guardian. The guardian ad litem clause, introduced after an amendment tabled by the former Senator, Brendan Ryan, and me, only goes so far. It only represents the child in court; it is only a legal position. This amendment goes further because it opens the possibility of someone taking a human interest in the child. It is all very well for the child to have the right to a guardian ad litem to defend him or her in court. That is a very abstract notion. To have someone warm, loving and caring in the background to take on, when necessary, the function of a parent is a good and humane action and enshrines the principle of the primacy of the rights of the child. I recommend this amendment to the Minister of State and hope some move will be made in this area.