Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 203: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason a person (details supplied) was deported despite the fact that one of their children was left here; his views on whether this is a fair system in view of the fact that they were not allowed to remove there belongings or second child; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30545/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The person referred to by the Deputy is a Nigerian woman who was deported from the State on a charter flight to Lagos on the night of the 20/21 September, 2006. She arrived in the State on 18 May 2005 and was accompanied by her son, a minor child born on 12 June 2001. On 18 July 2005 the person concerned gave birth to a second son in the State. The asylum application of the person concerned and her two children was refused following negative determinations by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Their cases were further considered under Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended, and Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996, including representations on their behalf for leave to remain in the State from the Refugee Legal Service, before deportation orders were signed.

Despite the best efforts of the Garda National Immigration Bureau on the day of the removals to maintain the unity of the family, the person concerned refused to co-operate with the Gardaí in locating the whereabouts of all her children. In the end she was deported accompanied by her youngest child. It is understood that the elder child, who was hidden from Gardaí, was passed into the care of other local Nigerian nationals by his mother. I understand that the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) informed the local area Health Service Executive of the position in relation to this child. I am advised that the GNIB was notified of the whereabouts of the missing child a few days after the charter operation took place. I am further advised that the child in question is now in the care of the North Western Regional Health Authority and that a Child Care Order hearing in respect of him has been adjourned until 3 October 2006.

I am satisfied that the persons concerned were deported following a comprehensive examination of their asylum claims and of their claims to remain temporarily in the State. It should be pointed out that it was as a consequence of a deliberate choice on the part of the person concerned that she is now separated from her elder child. This behaviour by parents cannot form a basis for either non-enforcement or revocation of the deportation orders in this instance.