Phil Prendergast (Labour)

Section 16 merely gives a right to the father to apply to be consulted on adoption. It is extraordinarily insulting and offensive to put in legislation that a father has only a right to be consulted about his own child being permanently removed from him. It is almost unbelievable that this minimal level of protection is proposed in law in 2009. I would like to see fathers protected in this situation by providing that fathers who are named on a birth certificate can veto adoption unless the court gives the go-ahead.

The power to dispense with any attempt even to notify the father is much too wide. The High Court can dispense with any notice to the father if that is deemed inappropriate. We suggest that this measure needs to be tightened up considerably. If the conception of the child was the result of an offence such as rape or incest there should be no need to notify the father but otherwise notification should be given. That was the reason for the amendment.

It is presumed that unless the contrary is shown that the welfare of the child is best promoted in the society of both the child's natural parents. In effect, that test arises from the Supreme Court decision N v. HSE. The welfare of the child is not a free-standing concept and there must be a presumption that welfare is best promoted in the natural family unless the contrary is shown. Welfare is not to be reduced to a financial-type contest between natural parents and perhaps more well-heeled adoptive parents. That was the reason that amendment was proposed.