Seanad debates

Monday, 30 March 2015

Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015: Report and Final Stages

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Averil PowerAveril Power (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:



In page 23, to delete all words from and including "that- " in line 37 down to and including line 38, and in page 24, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following:"whether the procedure was performed inside or outside the State,".
These amendments are grouped and are designed to allow the courts to assign parentage in cases where somebody was conceived through AHR prior to enactment of the Bill, inside or outside the State. As I pointed out on Second Stage, the current situation is not satisfactory. Following implementation of the Bill, children conceived in Irish fertility clinics with the assistance of donor sperm will automatically have their intentional parents legally recognised. Children conceived in foreign fertility clinics, or in Irish clinics prior to the enactment of the Bill, with the assistance of donor sperm will have the opportunity for a court to have their intentional parents legally recognised but only if the identity of the donor is unknown to the intentional parents, so not if known sperm was used. Those conceived in the past with known sperm, even where the donor stated categorically and had an arrangement with the intending parents that the individual was just donating and had no intention of being a parent, are not covered by the Bill.

Children conceived with known sperm whether in a clinic or outside a clinic are completely excluded from any opportunity to have their intentional parents legally recognised. There is not even a provision for the courts to decide what is in the child's best interest. That is unsatisfactory. The courts should be able to decide parentage in such cases where it can clearly establish the intention of all the parties. It should be able to decide what is in the child's best interests, particularly if everybody agrees. I do not understand the logic where the parties are prepared to present themselves in court and the donor is prepared to tell the court that they never had any intention of acting in a parental role, that they would have been prepared to sign all the necessary consents if this Bill had been in place and that they wish the child to have the opportunity to have their actual parents recognised.

Where everybody is in agreement and is prepared to testify to that fact to the court, it seems bizarre that the court cannot assign parentage in those circumstances. I accept it is more difficult if there is a dispute, yet the courts are capable of deciding on family law disputes and on complicated cases all the time. I cannot understand the logic behind excluding any role for a court where there is agreement by all those concerned. I accept that going forward the Minister wants to be able to restrict the circumstances in which AHR and DAHR take place. I agree with the logic behind that and, obviously, that is the reason for the disincentive, if people want to go outside those arrangements they will have greater difficulty in having parentage arrangements recognised if they do not abide by the procedures set out in the Bill.I agree with that but so many children have already been born through DAHR that there should be a facility in such cases for prior parentage to be recognised without having to go down other routes such as adoption. The procedure in the Bill for deciding on parentage in cases of unknown donors prior to the Bill could easily be extended to known donor situations. It would be in the best interest of the child to have clarity in these situations so I urge the Minister to accept these amendments.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.