They even went further to suggest 21. My only comment is that I am surprised the Board should recommend this change. The change which the Minister is effecting by this Bill may be regarded as a minor one. It is a comparatively slight extension. In fact, I think it will apply only to cases where the child was in what I might call the family of the adoptive parents prior to attaining the age of seven years. To that extent, the change is certainly limited and I see no harm in it but it surprises me to learn that the Adoption Board were seeking to extend the upper age limit for the adoption of children.
The next change being brought about by the Bill is in connection with the ages of the adoptive parents. Under existing legislation, it is provided that the adoptive parents must have attained the age of 30 years. The Minister now proposes to reduce that to 25 years provided the couple have been married at least three years. Again, while that is a substantial change in the existing legislation I do not think anyone is going to object to it. I do not think exception can be taken to it.
The next matter to which I want to refer is a change that I regard as a rather radical one in the legislation notwithstanding the Minister's introductory statement that none of the changes proposed was radical. It is the changes in regard to the citizenship of the adoptive parents. Heretofore under section 11 (5) of the 1952 Act it was provided that the board might not make an adoption order unless the applicant, or if the applicants are a married couple, the husband, was an Irish citizen or had been ordinarily resident in the State during the five years preceding the date of the application. Under section 5 of the present Bill the Minister is simply sweeping away the existing provision regarding citizenship and the five years' residence within the State.
It is true, as the Minister says, that under subsection (4) of section 11 of the 1952 Act it will still be a necessary qualification for the adoptive parents that they should be residing in the State. I do not think that is any use once section 11 (5) of the 1952 Act is taken out. The meaning from now on, as far as I can see, is that so far as residence is concerned the only qualification which will be necessary for an applicant is to show that he is resident in the State at the time of the application.There is nothing whatever to provide that the week after an adoption order is made he may not clear out of the State for good.
I can see that in some cases of adoption that may not be of particular importance but remember that the code of legal adoption applies to orphans and it may be an orphan aged five or six or seven whose whole heritage has been Irish who can now be taken out of the State the day after an adoption order is made and the Minister seems to be relying as a safeguard against that kind of situation merely on the fact that section 11 (4) of the 1952 Act is still to continue in operation. It provides only that the applicants reside in the State. I think it is fair to say that the only meaning that can be attached to that is residence in the State when the application is made but that it does not in any way tie them to residence in the State once the order has been made. Consequently, I regard the change proposed in section 5 (2) of the present Bill as quite undesirable and I would strongly urge the Minister to reconsider it before the next Stage.
The next feature of the Bill which I regard as important and again, which I regard as an extremely radical change notwithstanding what the Minister said, is in regard to section 7 of the Bill. It is interesting that in his introductory statement the Minister dismissed section 7 as purely a drafting amendment not worthy of comment by him in the House. The explanatory memorandum which the Minister issued with the Bill gives considerably more information than the Minister himself gave in his opening statement.
Under the Adoption Act of 1952, certain essential requirements are laid down in section 13 with which the adoptive parents, the applicants applying for the adoption of a child, must comply. These requirements are in no way harsh but are the type of requirements that any reasonable person would feel are the bare essentials in the case of adoption. The applicants are required to be of good moral character; they should have sufficient means to support the child they are adopting and the applicants should be suitable persons to have parental rights and duties in respect of the child or, if the applicants are a married couple, that both of them should be suitable persons.Those were the minimum essential requirements laid down in section 13 of the 1952 Act. The Act then went further—I assume for the purpose of protecting the child that was to be adopted—and in section 17 authority was given to the Board to make what might be regarded as provisional orders, interim orders of adoption, where they were, so to speak, putting the adoptive parents on a kind of trial or probationary period.
The situation up to now has been that even in the case where the interim order is made the Board had to be satisfied that the minimum essential requirements of section 13 of the Act, good moral character of applicants, sufficient means to support the child and suitability to exercise parental rights and duties in relation to the child, were fulfilled and the Board had to be satisfied those essential requirements were fulfilled even when making an interim order. In his introductory statement the Minister referred to section 7 as only a drafting amendment which did not call for comment. In the explanatory memorandum, however, this explanation is given:
The Board has power, under section 17 of the 1952 Act, to make an interim order giving the custody of the child to the applicant for a probationary period not exceeding two years, provided the circumstances are such that it would be lawful for the Board to make an adoption order in the case. Strictly interpreted——
May I interpolate here that I think it should be strictly interpreted?
——this may mean that the Board must be absolutely satisfied at the time of the making of the interim order as to the suitability of the proposed adoption, although if it was in fact so satisfied the need for an interim order would not arise. This section of the Bill proposes to allow the Board to make an interim order although it is not, at the time, fully satisfied in all respects as to the suitability of the proposed adoption.
You have now, therefore, the situation in which the Minister is inviting this House to say to the Adoption Board: "Even though you are not satisfied that the applicants are of good moral character, or even if you are not satisfied that they have sufficient means to look after the child they propose adopting, or even if you are not satisfied that they are suitable persons to have parental rights and duties in respect of the child, you may nevertheless make an interim order giving these people the custody of the child for a period up to two years."
I think that is all wrong. I think the true meaning of the 1952 Act in relation to interim orders was that the Board, quite rightly, had to be satisfied on these minimum requirements, but they could have other doubts in their minds. They might have felt that, because of the age or condition of health of the applicants, there was some doubt in their minds on the general question of suitability. They might have felt, for example, that while the minimum requirements under section 13 were in every way complied with by the applicants, some matter regarding the environment in which the child would live — I am talking now not of the actual home but of the general surroundings where the home was situated—caused them some doubt because they did not regard the environment as entirely suitable. They might have some other doubts not related in any way to what I regard as the minimum requirements under section 13 and, nevertheless, because the minimum requirements under section 13 were complied with, the Board had the authority of the Legislature under the 1952 Act to make an interim order.
All that is now being swept away and the Minister is saying, in effect, to the Board: "It does not matter whether you have doubts regarding the good moral character or the general suitability of the applicants; you may thereafter, once this Bill becomes law, make an interim order for a period of two years." I believe that is an extremely radical change. I am surprised at a man of the Minister's intelligence not having either sufficient knowledge of the Bill he is proposing or else endeavouring to gloss over this as merely a modification, a mere drafting amendment, not requiring any comment. This is a very serious change in the Bill and one I would ask the Minister seriously to reconsider before Committee Stage.
The last feature in the Bill to which I want to refer is also, to my mind, if not entirely a radical change, certainly a substantial change in the existing law. It is the provision contained in section 9 of the Bill. As the Minister explained, section 9 of this Bill is designed to remove the obligation of notifying the local authority of the placement of the adopted child in a house in their area. Under section 2 of the Children (Amendment) Act, 1957, that obligation exists; it exists even in the case of adopted children in respect of whom an adoption order has been made or who have been placed by an adoption society.
I have some sympathy with the Minister's arguments but I do not think he is doing the right thing in making as substantial a change as he is making in this section of the Bill. The Minister is correct, I think, in his opening statement, when he says that "Prospective adopters would have been obliged by law to ascertain and pass on to the local authorities particulars which in several cases they did not know themselves and they did not want to know and that could, if known to them, be a source of constant anxiety." I take it what the Minister is referring to there is the obligation under section 2 of the Children Act, 1957, to notify the health authority with regard to the name, place, date of birth, and so on of the child. To that extent, I have some sympathy with the Minister's argument and I think it would be no harm at all to remove that particular obligation—to arrive at a situation in which, while notification was given to the health authority, it was not necessary to give the name, place and date of birth of the child.
I would, however, seriously recommend to the Minister that he should leave the rest of the obligation unaltered. The necessary machinery for child welfare inspections and child welfare care, if necessary, already exists in the various local authorities. As I understand the position, if the Adoption Board are themselves to be faced with the task of physically inspecting and satisfying themselves with regard to the homes in which these adopted children are placed, they will require a very large extension of their staff. The machinery is already there. I agree some of the particulars required under section 2 of the Children Act of 1957 could be eliminated, and might well be eliminated, in this Bill. The fact is, however, that the child welfare officers are already there in the service of local authorities and can be a valuable source of information to the Adoption Board; that machinery could be made available to the Adoption Board.
If the Minister operates section 9 of the Bill as proposed, it will mean, in effect, that the existing machinery, which is there and available to the local authorities, and at present available to the Adoption Board as a source of information, will in fact no longer be available. I would urge the Minister again to have another look at that section of the Bill before Committee Stage. As I say, I would go with the Minister to a limited extent. Some amendment to cut out the danger of anxiety or embarrassment to the adoptive parents, some measure to safeguard, if you like, the confidential nature of information given to them, might be desirable, though I am not sure it is necessary.
I feel sure the local authorities and their social welfare officers are very much alive to the responsibility of their position in this matter. If it is thought some measure to safeguard any information of a confidential nature should be taken, well and good. However, I think the Minister is making a serious mistake in removing entirely the obligation to notify, as he, in fact, is doing in Section 9. I do not think I have anything further to say except to express the hope that the Minister will reconsider the sections to which I have referred. If he does that, this is a Bill that will improve the present position. I should like the Minister to let the House know the extent to which the changes he is making in this Bill, particularly those to which I have referred, have the support of the Adoption Board or were made at the request of the Adoption Board.