High Court orders adoption of teen without consent of her birth parents

The High Court has granted an application by Tusla to have a 17-year-old girl, who is currently in foster care, adopted without the consent of her birth parents.
The application was brought by the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) and a foster carer while the girl’s birth parents were listed as respondents in the case, as was the Adoption Authority of Ireland.
The judgment of Ms Nuala Jackson published this week noted that while the girl went into long-term care more than a decade ago, the birth parents remained in contact over the years through supervised access visits.
The girl’s birth mother said, in her affidavit, she appreciated what the care services did for her daughter and that a “successful relationship” had been maintained but that she was concerned about future access should her child be adopted.
The birth father said he, too, had “maintained regular contact throughout her [the daughter’s] life” but that his access hours had been reduced when the girl went to secondary school.
“I do not accept that I have failed in my duty to [his daughter] since her birth. I maintained a relationship with my daughter. Any failures on my part in respect of my daughter did not constitute an abandonment of all parental rights,” he said in his affidavit.
Both birth parents in their affidavits “expressly reject the suggestion that they abandoned their child. They do accept that their contact with her and involvement in her life has been most constrained”, said the judge.
Ms Justice Jackson said “abandonment” had a very particular meaning in law.
“While the word ‘abandon’ has gloomy overtones reminiscent of the novels of Hugo and Dickens, and it is a word which, in its ordinary meaning would distress parents, it does not necessarily mean or imply abandonment in the sense of the physical abandonment of a child,” said the judge.
“It is rather directed at the question of the abandonment of parental rights vis-a vis the child,” she said.
The birth mother submitted she does not understand why adoption was necessary when her daughter was approaching her majority (the age at which a person normally becomes an adult in law), did not have special needs and is capable of “managing her own affairs”.
“It has never been explained to me as to how it is in [her] best interests that she be adopted which will sever all legal ties between myself and [the daughter]. I can understand what [the daughter] means about wanting to feel secure. I believe this can be achieved without going through the process of adoption,” she submitted.
“The making of an adoption order reflects the fact that a new family relationship has been created and this is one which is underpinned and supported by the State and its legal system,” said the judge.
“It is also worth observing that the ties created by an adoption do not cease when the adopted child attains his or her majority,” she said.
The report of a social care leader was included in the application. It states that the worker was told by the girl that “she worries that the adoption will not occur. [The girl] spoke about these worries never leaving her head. This one is her biggest fear.”
Ms Justice Jackson said there was “no dispute” that the birth parents experienced “considerable difficulties” in their lives and had voluntarily placed their daughter in care but noted there had been a lack of engagement in assessments and therapeutic recommendations made to them.
In making the order for adoption, Ms Justice Jackson said it was important to reflect upon the fact that the respondents will always be the girl’s birth parents.
The judge noted the assurances of the foster carer who said they will support and encourage the girl to maintain a relationship with her birth parents.
“I have formed a clear view that [the daughter’s] wishes and best interests favour the making of the order sought and these factors overbear the relationship which has evolved from the very curtailed participation of the birth parents in her life,” said Ms Justice Jackson.