Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am grateful to Senator Fitzgerald for outlining the background to these amendments. I tabled them on Committee Stage and I was supported by Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Norris and others. The sense of them is not about changing the meaning of any of the relevant provisions but rather to change the language. The language used is based on the previous version of these provisions is judgmental and reflects a view of the mother as being in some way unco-operative. The word used is that the mother "refuses" to reveal the father's identity. The reality is that when mothers are putting their babies up for adoption, it is a deeply traumatic personal circumstance that means that they cannot keep the baby. There may be all sorts of reasons for which they cannot reveal the father's identity. To suggest that it is a wilful refusal implies a judgment or a condemnation of the mother in some way. That is the wrong sort of language to be placing in a Bill about adoption which is about the putting the rights of the child uppermost but also about recognising the human tragedy of the mother's situation, who is making the dreadfully difficult decision of putting her child up for adoption.

I would like to see us change the language. I do not want to change the meaning because it is important that mothers are encouraged to reveal the father's identity for the sake of their children. This amendment would not change the meaning of the Bill but it would change the message we are sending to mothers in this situation if we said that instead of the mother refusing to reveal, we spoke about the mother who does not reveal the father's identity. There is no judgment in that case. It might be because she is unable to do so as she does not know him. There would be many reasons she would not know the father's name and it may not be anything like a wilful refusal.

The further amendments are in the same vein. There is a sense in which the implication behind the language currently used is that the mother's co-operation is not forthcoming with the adoption authorities. That is not helpful and it would be better to describe the mother as assisting rather than co-operating. It is really a change in language to change the message we are sending to mothers in this very difficult personal decision. The Minister of State accepted that I had a point on the message underlying the language and I would be grateful to hear if he has considered changing it.