Is the Minister satisfied with the definition, or lack of definition, if you like, of "registered adoption society"? It is provided that a registered adoption society "means a body of persons entered in the Adoption Societies Register kept by the Board under Part IV of the Principal Act". That does not seem to me to give any kind of safeguard. It may be from the practical point of view there are certain safeguards where a body of persons seek to have themselves entered in the Register. I do not know the mechanics of it but it does not seem to provide for anything in the nature of regulations to govern either the composition of such societies or their registration, and I should be glad if the Minister would give us some information with regard to it.
Private Members' Business. - Adoption Bill, 1963—Committee and Final Stages.
The Board will not register, unless it is satisfied that they are a suitable body of persons.
Is there any way in which the House can be satisfied? Does the Minister or does the Board make regulations? Is there some kind of framework into which these societies fit? Have they to have a particular membership or a particular character of personnel?
No; it is really a matter for the Board. We have to trust the Board in the matter. The matter is governed by section 36 of the Principal Act which, for the convenience of the Deputy, I shall read:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board shall enter in the register any body of persons which applies to be registered and furnishes to the Board such information as the Board may think necessary to enable it to determine if the body is entitled to be registered.
(2) The Board shall not register any body of persons unless the Board is satisfied—
(a) that the body is one which exists only for the purpose of promoting charitable, benevolent or philanthropic objects, whether or not any such object is charitable within the meaning of any rule of law, and
(b) that the body is competent to discharge the obligations imposed upon registered adoption societies under this Act.
(3) The Board may refuse to register any body of persons if it appears to the Board that any person who takes part in the management or control of the body or who is engaged on its behalf in connection with the making of arrangements for adoption is not a fit and proper person to act.
So there is a fairly tight framework within which to operate. We have to leave it to the discretion and good judgment of the Board to make the proper decision.
I do not want to controvert that but it has been put to me in any event, and it is as well to record this and have the Minister look into it, if necessary, that since the 1952 Act was passed, registration of these adoption societies is virtually automatic and that neither the 1952 Act nor the Minister's proposals in this Bill give any authority to him to make regulations which would have to be complied with, either by the Adoption Board or by these societies. I understand that the registered adoption societies handle something like 80 per cent of the adoption cases which come before the Board so that it does seem that it is of some considerable importance that everybody should be satisfied.
I do not want to be taken as casting any doubts on the societies—I hope the Minister understands that—but everyone interested in the question of legal adoption should be fully satisfied that the societies which are registered are societies in which everyone can have confidence. I repeat I am not to be taken as suggesting that there are any registered at the moment that are open to suspicion or lack of confidence but remember we are not legislating just for the present; this will apply not only as it applied since 1952 but in the future and this is the time to have it considered by the Minister.
I am quite sure that the societies which are registered are suitable bodies. I have given the Deputy the text of section 36 of the Principal Act but sections 37 and 38 of the Act are also relevant.
Section 37 provides that:
The Board may cancel the registration of a registered adoption society on any ground which would require or entitle the Board to refuse an application for the registration of the society or if it appears to the Board that the requirements of this Act are not being adequately complied with ...
and so on.
Section 38 provides that:
A registered adoption society and every officer of the society or other person taking part in its management or control shall—
(a) furnish the Board with such information as the Board may from time to time by notice in writing require in regard to its constitution, membership, employees, organisation and activities;
(b) at all reasonable times permit a member or authorised officer of the Board to inspect and make copies of all books and documents relating to adoption in the possession or control of these societies.
In those three sections, there are adequate safeguards and the Board is endowed with all the necessary powers to ensure that any society which seeks registration or is registered is a suitable organisation. There is no lack of powers on the part of the Board and it is a matter for the Board to satisfy itself that the societies are suitable. If there is anybody who imagines that some registered society is not suitable, the course of action to take is to convey that view to the Board and let the Board consider the question in the light of the powers given to it in sections 36, 37 and 38. For my part, I have no evidence to suggest that any society registered is other than an excellent organisation.
It was suggested from this side of the House, when the original Act was going through in 1952, that applications for registration should be made in public, that the public were entitled to know who were to be registered and how, and the Minister's predecessor replied to the suggestion by saying that he imagined that rules would be published. I do not think any such rules have ever been published.
Does the Deputy not agree that the powers I have read out under these three sections are quite comprehensive and that the regulations laid down are adequate?
Would the Minister not consider that in view of the changes made in the Bill, in order to have a more logical approach to the matter, there might be a tendency for people outside the country to establish an adoption society for the export of children, taking the matter at its worst? Assuming that all the existing societies are above suspicion, is there a likelihood that we could have an undesirable type of adoption society establishing itself?
The only circumstances in which irregularities of that kind could arise would be if the Board did not do its job. If the Board does its job in accordance with the provisions of sections 36, 37 and 38 of the 1952 Act, there is no danger that any unsuitable body of persons could remain registered. I think these three sections are adequate and comprehensive. I do not think there is anything further that need be done by way of regulation to add to them. We established the Board and placed these stringent obligations on it and it can be assumed that it will carry them out faithfully. If we have any doubts about the Board, the whole structure becomes meaningless. If the Board carries out its statutory obligations, we do not have anything to worry about. There should be no need to go further than the three sections I have mentioned.
I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (3), page 3, line 11, to delete "section 39" and to insert "section 24".
This is a drafting amendment.
What is the effect of it?
The clause will now read:
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 of the Principal Act if, before the passing of this Act, an adoption order was made in respect of a legitimated child, being a child of whose legitimation the Board was not aware, the order shall have, and be deemed always to have had, the same validity as if the child had not been legitimated and the reference in section 24 of the Principal Act to the mother shall be construed as including a reference to the father.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, after subsection (3), to insert the following subsection:
"(4) If, before the passing of this Act, an adoption order was made in respect of a legitimated child (being a child of whose legitimation the Board was not aware), the order shall have, and be deemed always to have had, the same validity as if the child had not been legitimated and the reference in Section 24 of the Principal Act to the mother shall be construed as including a reference to the father."
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1) to delete paragraph (a).
As amendment No. 4 is alternative to amendment No. 3 and as amendment No. 5 is related to amendment No. 4, amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 could be discussed together, if the House agreed.
I have moved the amendment for two reasons. Under section 19 of the 1952 Act, a number of adoptions of children over nine years of age were made without any ill effects as far as I know. When the 1952 Act was going through the Dáil, it was the intention of all Parties that the age limit of seven years was only temporary and would be increased. My amendment is designed to increase the age limit from seven years to nine. The old adoption Board, by resolution in 1957, asked that the age limit of seven years be extended and the new Board, the present Board, in 1960, recorded a similar recommendation. I would press the Minister to accept my amendment.
Deputy Dockrell is not very wide of the mark with his amendment. The position at present is that to be eligible for adoption a child must be between six months and seven years old. Section 3 now allows a child to be adopted up to nine years of age, provided it is resident with the adoptive parents since before it was seven years of age. What Deputy Dockrell has suggested is a slight improvement on the section in that regard. It brings this up to nine years of age all round.
From the evidence available, this is one of the few countries with such a low age for adoption. According to a recent United Nations report, from among a large number of countries where investigation has been made the lowest age limit was that imposed in Ireland. It was stated that in most of the countries the age limit is from 18 to 21 years of age. There is a big gap between the age of nine and the age of 18, when it comes to adoption.
The Minister made the case on the Second Stage that the question of integrating a child into family life over a certain age is a very difficult matter, that perhaps it is impossible to have a full integration with the child over a certain age. The Minister's worry is that, by extending the age limit, we are liable to cause danger to the working of the Act and that while we might bring help and happiness to a few we might endanger many more. I do not think that is a sound argument. I can see the Minister's point but I do not think it should be the one we should finally accept.
The Adoption Board is most scrupulous in its examination into the temperament, the conditions, the outlook of the child, even, and a complete report is available on an individual child. They are the people who should have discretion on the decision as to whether a child should or should not be adopted over a certain age. I should leave that discretion, if necessary, to the Adoption Board. However, I should not tie their hands by legislation, as the Minister intends to do in this section.
We also have the position that a child may become an orphan at eight or nine years of age and cannot be adopted due to its age by people who would like to do so and who would be suitable in every way. Take a child of 12 or 14 years of age whom people would like to adopt. Nobody suggests that this child can be integrated with the adoptive parents as well as a child of five years of age but the people concerned will understand that themselves and, to a great extent, the child will not be expecting it. At the same time, there will be great happiness all round and no danger whatever involved. If there is an occasional case where doubt or uneasiness exists, the Adoption Board have sufficient experience and knowledge and regard for the whole adoption programme not to allow it to be jeopardised. The Minister should have no hesitation in widening the scope as far as the age limit is concerned.
I have considered this carefully. I must confess I feel the weight of the argument is in favour of Deputy Dockrell and the other Deputies who suggest the age limit be raised. I was considerably surprised to learn from the Minister on the Second Reading that the Adoption Board advocated that the age should be raised away beyond what is proposed by the Minister in this Bill. That influences my mind to a very great extent in my approach to these amendments. I had accepted the view the Minister advocated on the Second Reading that the younger the child is adopted the better and the better the chances of adjustment, and so on. However, when I find that the Adoption Board recommend that the age limit be raised—I think the Minister said on the Second Reading that they recommended the raising of the age to 18 or 21——
But still maintaining that the child must be placed before the age of seven.
That is another aspect. It does seem, anyhow, that the Board were thinking in terms of having the age limit raised very substantially higher than is proposed in the Bill. I feel it would be well if the Minister would look at this question again to see if he can go half way, anyhow, to meet these amendments.
This is a very vexed question and one about which there is a great deal of argument and discussion, and about which a number of conflicting opinions are honestly held by different people. I am myself satisfied that what we are doing is the right thing.
Let me deal with the suggestion that the Board are not in agreement with what we are doing. The opinion of the Board is that the age at which it should still be permissible to make an adoption order should be raised considerably but they ally that to the requirement that the child must still be placed with the family before it reaches the age of seven and to my mind that is the crucial thing.
I do not want to interrupt the Minister but according to my record of the 1960 resolution of the Board, it was that adoption be allowed up to the age of nine years instead of seven, as in the old Act, with no provision that the child must have lived with the adopters before the age of seven.
The Board have changed their decision since then.
This is 1960 and that was the same Board.
I asked the Board to submit to me a memorandum as to what amendments or changes they would suggest and they submitted the proposal in question. I am aware of that resolution of 1960 but that is not the decision of the Board as submitted to me officially and it is not the mind of the Board today. The mind of the Board on full consideration is that the child must be placed with the family before it reaches the age of seven. I think most Deputies will agree that that is the crucial thing. Indeed, there are authorities for suggesting that seven years of age is too old.
We want to have a system of adoption under which the child is fully integrated into the family and becomes, to all intents and purposes, a full member of the family in every sense. I am convinced, as a result of all I have heard and read on this subject, that, in order to achieve that, the placing of the child with the family before it reaches the age of seven is of vital importance. One might say then: "Very well; why then do you not accept the proposition of the Board, that, if the child is placed with the family before it reaches the age of seven, it should be permitted to be legally adopted at any time thereafter up to, say, 16 or 21"? My argument against that is that we should not permit adoptive parents to put on the long finger the making of the application for the adoption order because it is desirable, once the child is placed, that the order should be legally made as early as possible; consistent with proper investigation, and a reasonable trial period. There is an inclination on the part of some adoptive parents to postpone indefinitely the making of the application, the telling of the child, and so on. It is important, I think, that we should make it obligatory on them to reach finality as early as possible.
From the child's point of view, is it in any way beneficial?
Yes. Take the case of a Catholic child when it comes to the point of receiving Confirmation; the question of the baptismal certificate arises.
Assume one could adopt up to 12 or 13 years of age, I can see that then it obviously would be to the advantage of the child that the order should be made early. I do not follow the Minister's argument on the point of application not being made, going out of date and therefore debarred from being made; how does that serve the interests of the child?
My point is that the interests of the child are best served by making sure that the parents proceed to make the application and get the order at the earliest possible moment.
Suppose that, for financial reasons, the parents could not adopt the child before it reached seven years. The Minister is putting them out.
The Deputy is on a different point now. We are dealing with the case of a child who is placed before the age of seven. My whole argument stands or falls on that. I am for infant adoption. I am for the placing of a child in the home before the age of seven years. If that is accepted, then every argument is for inducing the adoptive parents to make application and get the order made at the earliest possible moment after the suitability of the arrangement has been established. Once the order is made, the child has the security of a home, an entitlement to a birth certificate in the surname of the adopters and so on. It would not be fair to put that on the long finger, to leave it until the child is 18, 19 or 21 years.
What bearing has the birth certificate, in view of the fact there are two types in operation?
I explained on the Second Stage that an adopted child has certain rights with regard to a birth certificate. We are proposing now that the child must be placed before it reaches the age of seven, that the application order must be made before it reaches nine, the Board being free thereafter not to make the order until it sees fit. I do not envisage that the Board would delay the making of the order but there might very rarely be some specific reason why the order should not be made for a year or two. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Board delaying the making of the order, provided application is made before the child reaches the age of nine.
Some Deputies may be inclined to exaggerate the number of adoptions which would be made, if the law allowed it, in respect of children over the age of seven or nine years. I do not believe there are many. I do not think Deputy McQuillan is quite clear on my argument as to why we should not throw the door open. My argument is that, if we do, if we raise the age and permit later adoptions, we immediately weaken the pressure for earlier adoptions. If people know they can adopt children later, they may be less likely to adopt them when young. In so far as opening the door to older children would to some extent take away the pressure to adopt while still young, I am against it because everything is to be said for adopting the young child, getting it into the family early, and getting it fully integrated.
Most people wish to adopt younger children.
Of course they do.
But why deprive the child above the present age of adoption?
For the reasons I have given. If the discretion is there, people, who might otherwise adopt a child at an early age would postpone the application, waiting until the child is older.
It is a limited argument.
That may be. The system of adoption here is different from most other countries; where older children can be adopted, it is possible to adopt legitimate children and the law provides that these children can subsequently be re-adopted. Our law makes an adoption order absolutely final. Once the order is made, the child is for evermore a legal member of the family into which it has been adopted.
I should like to quote for the House some extracts from the 1960 Report of the European Seminars on Inter-Country Adoption held under the auspices of the United Nations. This report was prepared with the co-operation of the International Social Service and International Union for Child Welfare. It is clear from the context, and otherwise, that what the report has to say about inter-country adoption applies equally to adoption inside the country. On page 13 there is a passing reference to "the recognised problem of adoption of older children". At page 28 it is stated:
It is well known that placement of older children for adoption (even) in their own countries requires a very high degree of skill on the part of the social workers concerned as well as very special qualities on the part of adoptive parents.
Pages 44 and 45, referring to the special hazards of inter-country adoption when a child is older, stresses that adoption, even in the child's own country, of older children is difficult:
A child seven years or older has already had many life experiences. ... If the experience of a warm human relationship comes too late in the child's life, emotional and sometimes intellectual retardation can result.... The task of the rehabilitation of an emotionally damaged child is one for experts....
It is known that children establish their emotional ties and their sense of identity at a very early age. The child of five or six is considered to have established his family ties and sense of identity sufficiently strongly to begin to branch out into ties outside the family ... Children as young as three years have very vivid recollections of their parents or substitute parents. Children of five or six may not be able to accept a new identity, i.e. new mother and father. For a child of seven, identity and emotional ties may also include identification with his ... neighbourhood.
I quote these to reinforce my argument that we should try, in so far as possible, to bring about a situation in which children are adopted while still young. I know conflicting views are honestly held by different people on this matter; but as far as I can come to an honest decision in my own mind about the amendment, I am convinced that the advantages are all on the side of providing that the child must be placed with the family before it reaches the age of seven, subject to the modification we are making in the Bill that the application can in certain circumstances be made to the Board in respect of a child up to nine years of age and that the Board can make the Adoption Order at any time thereafter.
It is a very difficult problem, as the Minister says. There are differences of opinion about it amongst people who know the subject and know the difficulty of creating a happy environment for the child and a happy individual from that environment at a later stage. It is generally felt that the best time to adopt a child is within its first year of life. After the first year, considerable damage has already taken place if the child is re-placed. I understand, in fact, that if a child changes within the third or fourth year, it is difficult for it to do so without risk. It is quite easy to concede the Minister's general point that from age 0 to seven would be the most desirable years to adopt a child. The earlier in that period the better from the child's point of view and from the parent's point of view—from the child's point of view in so far as it would be a well-integrated personality.
Really, what we are trying to argue here is the exceptional case. I do not think anybody in their senses would look for the adoption of a child when it is eight, nine, or ten, up to the age we have suggested here, unless there were exceptional circumstances. Within the first days of a child's life is the ideal time; any time after that becomes less and less desirable. After from five to seven years, it does not matter what level the Minister fixes. There are great risks from the point of view of the child and of the adopting parents. Everybody is conscious of these risks—the Adoption Board, the adoption society and the prospective parents. Even the child itself can probably be aware of them. It would only be done in exceptional circumstances and it would be a rather undesirable thing, did it have to happen.
But assume circumstances where a child was living in a family and it had been allowed to live for some years in a family, as happens very frequently in the country. The child grew up in that family, and then the incident of the birth certificate comes along and the whole question of adoption comes up. This is a case in which the child is only looked for adoption at a later age. Would the Minister not agree that that type of adoption should be permitted in these exceptional circumstances? It would not be something that would happen very often. It is undesirable that it should happen at all, but it could happen. If it could happen, we ought to make provision for such an eventuality.
We are all for anything the Minister could do to see the child gets the security of adoption, if there is some security in adoption as soon as possible. If he can give that incentive, he should try to do so. He should also bear in mind the possibility of this exceptional type of case, when people make this decision with their eyes open. They could only do it, having considered all the grave risks there are in such a prospect; but these risks would not exist at all if the child lived with the family over a number of years and they had deferred the question of adoption through ignorance or for one reason or another. The child would then face this prospect of needing adoption, and under the Act would not be allowed to have it because of the age limit.
I move amendment No. 5:
In subsection (1), paragraph (b), line 22, to delete "nine" and substitute "twenty-one".
The Minister referred on a number of occasions to this question of birth certificates. He suggested it would be needed when the child would go for Confirmation. I appreciate what the Minister said the last day about the whole question of birth certificates being a matter for his colleague. In fact, they are a matter for a number of his colleagues. We have the situation, as I got it here last week, that the long certificate is still needed by the Department of Social Welfare in respect of certain categories of social welfare recipients. Perhaps the Minister might help out his colleague in that. If only the one certificate were available, would that not solve many of the problems to which the Minister has referred?
No. The adopted child is entitled to the short certificate in the surname of the adopters, when, but only when, it is adopted.
But if there is only one certificate, where does all the trouble come in? At the moment we have two certificates. The incentive is to look for the long certificate.
If the child is not adopted, the birth certificate would not be in the adoptive parents' name, but in the mother's name.
That child would be entitled only to a short certificate, not to the other?
It can have the long certificate.
If the child is not adopted, it is only entitled to the short certificate? Is that not correct?
It is entitled to a long or short certificate, but not in the new name; only in the original name—the mother's name.
It is entitled only to the short certificate. If every child were entitled to one certificate only, either the short certificate or the long certificate, the difficulties to which the Minister referred would not arise as far as the general public are concerned. As I pointed out, the sight of a short certificate nowadays is enough to cast suspicion.
There is force in what the Deputy says, but it does not do away with my argument that it is desirable for the child's sake to have the Adoption Order made as soon as possible. Once the legal Adoption Order is made, the child is entitled to either the short or long birth certificate in the adoptive name. That is the key. The long one mentions adoption; the short one does not. I agree that short certificates in general may to some extent suffer from the disadvantage Deputy McQuillan says. I do not know enough about this but, while the argument Deputy McQuillan used in relation to social welfare services is to some extent valid, I am told over a greater part of the country more and more use is being made by everybody of the short birth certificate. There may be areas where the short form of the birth certificate is regarded with suspicion but far the greater use is being made of the short form of the birth certificate. That will to some extent overcome the difficulties the Deputy has in mind with regard to it.
I move amendment No. 6:
In subsection (1) to add a new paragraph as follows:—
"(c) or if the applicant is a relative of the child."
This amendment is designed to allow a relative, that is to say, an uncle or aunt, to adopt a child at any time, or at least up to nine years of age. I would press the Minister to allow that. It may be that the mother of the child was young when the child was born and that her sister or brother had not been married at that time and could not adopt the child. On marriage, that sister or brother could adopt the child and may have been keeping in touch with the child. If the child has reached the age of seven years and has not been living with the prospective adopters then he is out, so far as the Minister is concerned. I would ask the Minister to consider those exceptional circumstances. I do not suppose there would be many children in that category.
Would the Deputy not agree with me that the relative should be in a better position than a stranger to adopt the child at an earlier age?
Take the case of a child orphaned as the result of the parents being in a car crash and a relative wants to adopt.
Does the Deputy mean a child over the age of seven years?
Yes.
My answer to that is that the same objections apply to the adoption of an older child by a relative as by a stranger. There is the difficulty of integration.
I know, but when you relate this to the case of a child suddenly orphaned, would not all the arguments seem to be in favour of permitting legal adoption in that case?
I do not see what benefits the relatives could provide for the child as adoptive parents that they could not provide as relatives, as uncles or aunts.
They could provide a home.
They could do that as relatives. There are quite a few people living with relatives, aunts and uncles, minding them in their old age.
The whole system is designed to try to put an adopted child in the same boat as the child of the family. That umbrella is being taken away in the case we are talking about.
I see that child as needing the benefits of legal adoption less than a complete stranger would need them. The child is still, if you like, part of the family. The number of people in our community, fortunately, who live with aunts and uncles is quite a few. It does not seem to me that children in that particular category need the benefit of legal adoption as a stranger might.
I agree that that child does not need it to the same extent. Is there any purpose served by denying it?
Those I have mentioned.
In the case where you are talking about a relative such as the amendment refers to?
If the amendment were not in the terms it is in now but were designed to refer to an orphaned child and the application being made by a relative, would not that be a very special case?
It would be a special case, yes, I agree.
Perhaps the Minister would look at it?
To some extent that particular problem is being dealt with under the Guardianship of Infants Bill but when that Bill becomes law it is always open, of course, to the named guardian to refuse the guardianship.
Yes and it involves appointing a testamentary guardian which people may not do.
And the named guardians may not accept.
We are dealing here with cases where both parents are dead?
Yes.
Does the Minister not come with me at all, even without the amendment?
No. I would mention, in passing, that Deputy Dockrell's amendment is not quite right from the drafting point of view.
That is why I explained carefully what I meant at the beginning. Does the Minister not think that there is something to be said for an uncle or aunt being put in the position of being able to adopt?
I want to say about all this that there is something to be said, undoubtedly, apart from relatives altogether, for permitting older children to be adopted. I could not validly claim here in all honesty that there is no possible case where a perfectly good adoption of a child of 14 or 15 could take place. That would be an absurd proposal to make. I do not claim that. What I do claim is that it is better, on balance, that some of these adoptions should not be made rather than that we should throw the door open and by so doing endanger the structure of adoption as a whole. I do not deny that there could possibly be successful adoption of certain children.
Surely a relative is a desirable adopter?
I am going this far with the Deputy: I have agreed there probably are some cases where it would be all right and even desirable.
Will the Minister look at that?
I shall.
I think I am correct in saying that subsection (2) of section 5 is the proposal to wipe out Irish citizenship as a requirement in the adoptive parent. Am I right in that?
Yes.
I think subsection (1) of section 5 will find general agreement, that is, the lowering of the age limit for the adoptive parents, but I mentioned on Second Reading that I have very strong objections to the proposal to remove the Irish citizenship requirement contained in section 11 of the 1952 Act. The position is that at present, if this Bill does not go through, it is necessary that the adoptive parents either should be called Irish citizens or shall have five years' residence here before an adoption order can be made. Now it is proposed to wipe out the protection—I believe it was a protection— that was afforded, by means of subsection (2) of this section. I did ask the Minister on Second Reading to reconsider that and I would urge him at this stage to reconsider it.
I cannot see how the Bill is improved by the inclusion of subsection (2) of section 5. I do not think it would in any way diminish the value of the Bill simply to delete that subsection.
Of course, the Deputy knows the present position is that the husband must be resident here for five years or be an Irish citizen. As I pointed out, the qualification for Irish citizenship is so wide that this provision about being a citizen is almost meaningless.
There would be two things, citizenship or residence.
I am leaving citizenship and coming to residence. Surely if we are to have the unqualified statutory obligation that the Board be satisfied that the proposed adopters are suitable, then if they are residing here for one, two or three years, why prevent them from adopting a child? Bearing in mind all the time that the Board must be satisfied as to their suitability, I think the citizenship qualification is unreal. Stipulating a five-year residence period may prevent suitable people who want to adopt a child from doing so. As long as there is the safeguard of the statutory obligation that the Board must be satisfied as to their suitability, there is nothing to worry about.
As against all this, I must point out if such people do come before our Board seeking an Irish legal adoption, they have submitted themselves to the scrutiny of the Board. Non-residents would be more likely to take a child for adoption under the law of their own country. If we make it easier for desirable people resident here to come to our Board and be scrutinised and regarded as suitable, thus making an Irish adoption possible, then that is desirable.
There is very little substance in that argument. What the Minister is saying, in fact, is that we are trying to induce people to come before our Board but if our Board are not satisfied with them they can take the child and have it adopted under procedure in their own country. There is no great protection in that.
There is more in it than that. The Deputy seems to have misunderstood me.
When this Act was passed in 1952 after a great deal of thought it was decided there should be some minimum essential conditions. Among those was the condition that these persons should either be Irish citizens or be in residence here for a period of five years. This is simply being swept away by the Minister in this Bill and the only qualification so far as either residence or citizenship go hereafter is that at the time the application for adoption is made, the adoptive parents should be in the country. They can fly in in the morning, make their applications and fly out in the afternoon. That is the limit of protection so far as residence goes if this Bill goes through unamended and there is nothing at all to prevent the adoptive parents taking the child away the afternoon the adoption order is made. I cannot see how the Minister can sell that to the House as an improvement.
I can, of course. Talking about international opinion on this matter—I am not really putting this forward as a conclusive argument but it is still a factor—we are the only country in the Council of Europe that has a citizenship qualification. All other countries are satisfied that it is not necessary and I am satisfied, too that it is not necessary. When I say people can fly in here, take a child out and have it adopted by the laws of their own country, that is true, but this is a different matter and Deputy O'Higgins will agree with me that if we can make any provision here which will enable suitable persons resident here—they must be resident, under the 1952 Act—to adopt a child who would not otherwise be adopted, there is an advantage in that.
What opportunity have the Board of deciding that suitability once this protection is removed?
The Board have the obligation to decide the suitability of the adoptive parents. They can lay down their own rules about this and can say: "We are not satisfied that you are a suitable person. We insist that you wait until you have lived here for a year while we carry out our investigation and have adequate evidence, and we are not going to make the order at this point." Take the situation of foreigners living here for two or three years and who are in a position to satisfy the Board beyond any shadow of doubt that they are suitable to adopt a child and wish to adopt a child under our legal adoption system. Is it not wrong that they should be prevented from doing that and that the Board should be prevented from accepting them as suitable adoptive parents by this technical requirement that they should have lived here for five years? That is the real argument I am putting forward in favour of this section.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, before section 7, to insert the following section:
Section 22 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (3) of the following subsection:
"(3) If the date of the child's birth is unknown, the Board shall determine the probable date of birth and that date shall be entered as the child's date of birth and if the Board subsequently ascertains the actual date of the child's birth, the determination shall be cancelled and the adoption order relating to the child correspondingly amended and if the date of the child's birth is not the date determined as aforesaid, the entry shall be amended."
This amendment is to clear up a possible defect in the provisions of the 1952 Act which related to the fixing of the date of birth for a foundling or other person whose date of birth is unknown. The law as it stands enables the board to fix a date of birth in such cases and that date of birth is accepted for all purposes but it is not certain that if the actual date of birth subsequently becomes known the Board are entitled to amend it in the records and authorise the Registrar of Births to amend the register. The amendment will make it clear the Board have this power.
As I made clear on the Second Reading, I regard section 7 as another objectionable section in this Bill. This is the amendment of the Act in regard to interim orders. The present position is that section 17 of the principal Act, the 1952 Act, deals with interim orders and permits the Board to make an interim order provided the Board are satisfied as to the minimum essential conditions laid down in section 13 of the 1952 Act. The minimum conditions laid down in section 13 of the 1952 Act are, first, that the applicants should be of good moral character; secondly, that they should have sufficient means to support the adopted child; and, thirdly, that they should be suitable persons to exercise parental rights and duties in respect of the child.
Having laid down those minimum essential requirements, if the Board were satisfied they were fulfilled, under section 17 of the 1952 Act the Board could make an interim order in cases where they might have doubts for some other reasons. They may have doubts with regard to the health, for example, of adoptive parents; they may have doubts with regard to the environment to which the child is being brought, or they may have doubts for a hundred and one other reasons, none of which would be related to failure to measure up to the main standards set out in section 13 of the 1952 Act.
For any reason apart from those essential main standards, the Board could have doubts and having them, could make an interim order. What the Minister proposes to do by virtue of section 7 is to allow the Board to make interim orders, notwithstanding that the Board may not be satisfied as to the essential requirements set out in section 13 of the 1962 Act. I do not think this a desirable departure. It seems to me it would be far better, if the Minister wanted to amend the 1952 Act in relation to interim orders, simply to provide that the Board should not have any authority to make interim orders.
Deputy O'Higgins and I may be only repeating the arguments we put to each other on Second Stage. I have thought about this; I have considered it since, and I am still not prepared to accept that Deputy O'Higgins's doubts and fears on this matter are real. This seems to be the obvious thing to do. The whole idea of making the interim order is to afford the child the protection and security of a home while the Board are coming to a decision on some of the aspects of the case.
One of the difficulties is that health itself, which Deputy O'Higgins mentioned, is one of the ingredients of suitability. From that point of view alone, it seems to me the Deputy should agree that the Board should be entitled to make an interim order. I cannot see what harm it can do. If we accept that the Board is a responsible body and lives up to its obligations and its duties, then there is no danger whatsoever in endowing them with this power. In fact, I think it is very desirable we should do so.
I may be only repeating what was said on Second Stage and knocking my head against a stone wall in trying to convince the Minister, but I believe section 9 also contains a weakening, an undesirable weakening, of the present position with regard to legal adoptions. The present position is that when a child is being adopted, the local authority must be notified. That is an accidental provision in relation to adoptions by virtue of the Children Act, 1957.
The practical importance of this is that once the local authority are notified with regard to the reception of a child in their area, they have the machinery to inspect the home of the adoptive parents. They know, or are able to ascertain, from their local knowledge the general type of environment and so on. I can appreciate the argument of the Minister on Second Reading that it is undesirable that particulars of the child's birth and name should have to be furnished. That is one of the requirements at the moment of the Children Act, not of the Adoption Act.
That is not unreal. There was an actual case.
I know that, and I agree the Minister is on solid ground there and that he would be acting wisely if in this section he provided that the Children Act should be so amended as to make it unnecessary to give those powers to the local authority, but I do not think he is acting wisely when he amends it to the extent of cutting completely out the local authority administration and machinery which is at the disposal of the Adoption Board at the moment. In fact, the Minister is doing that.
I want them out of the picture.
Completely?
Yes.
I do not think that is desirable from the point of view of the Adoption Board because it is cutting off from them a source of information. I do not think it is desirable from the point of view of the child to be adopted, and I would urge the Minister to reconsider it.
I had thought all Deputies interested in adoption would have been with me in this matter. I am afraid there is a certain confusion in the minds of people who quote for us what happens abroad in the matter of child welfare authorities. In Britain, there is not an Adoption Board, these matters being regulated by the courts. I am not sure what the exact situation is, but I am sure the ordinary machinery the courts have available in England is the making of these inspections by the local authorities.
Here, the child welfare authority concerned is the Adoption Board itself and I think it wrong in principle that the local authority as such should also have a function in these matters. The concept of adoption is that it is a matter through which the child is settled into the family as a naturally-integrated member of that family, and to encourage some notion that the local authority as such should have some function in what are the private affairs of that family is a misconception of the whole theory of adoption as we see it.
There is no doubt the Adoption Board should have, if they need them, the resources of the local authority, if they wish to avail of them. The Board will have these resources: they have access to the services of the child welfare offices of the local authorities. I do not object to that: quite the contrary. What I am concerned with is the suggestion that local authorities have a function as such in regard to adopttion. I think that is theoretically wrong and bad in practice. It subjects adoptive parents to a system of inspection, not only by the Board which, we all agree, should have a function, but by the local authority. Why should we inflict this on prospective adoptive parents? Why should they be subject to this local authority inspection as if they were applying for a housing grant or something like that?
If we do anything here that will make people less inclined to adopt, we are doing a bad thing. If we subject them to two quite separate systems of inspection, there is a possibility or danger that some of them may say: "I am not going to submit to all this inspection." I think the proper people to do the investigation, or rather, under whose aegis investigations should be carried out, are the Adoption Board. I should prefer the Adoption Board to have its own skilled and trained staff to do all or most of the work that is necessary. My aim would be to ensure it has that staff. If there are some cases in which it wishes to call on additional information or services which the local authority may provide, I am not suggesting that they should not do so.
I can see what the Minister is up to, to some extent, but I think he speaks as somebody who has not great experience of local authorities. I may be wrong, but my understanding of his comments is that he is somewhat critical of local authorities having any power of interference in a matter of this kind. The Minister has suggested that the adoptive parents should not, in any circumstances, be subject to the annoyance or intervention, shall we say, of inspection of a second authority, that the Adoption Board should be the sole body entitled to look after the child's welfare. Perhaps there is a certain amount of annoyance for the adoptive parents in being subject to the local authority but we should be more concerned with making quite sure of the child's welfare rather than possible annoyance to the parents.
When the Minister states that the chief welfare authority so far as children are concerned is the Adoption Board, he must ensure that sufficient staff are available to carry out inspections and safeguard the child's welfare. I may be wrong, but my understanding of it is that there are 600 or 700 adoptions per year and if the Minister has two officials attached to the Board, I gather it is impossible to have that function carried out properly with that limited number of officials.
If the Minister is serious in curtailing the activities of the local authority and their powers or duties up to this, he must now create a new organisation, with an immense staff, if he is to provide the same safeguarding of children as exists at present under local authority inspection. He must have a substitute for that and that means a new set of officers, quite a substantial number. If the Minister is serious and logical, he must do that because of his apparent disregard for local authorities. If the Minister wants that, it is all right. If he is going to assure the House that he will create a new body and give them the necessary staff and make that body responsible in a certain degree to this House, there may be something in what he says, but we cannot have a new group created and let them into action without some responsibility being exercised in this House.
That responsibility can now be exercised through the local authority. It is very important to have a certain amount of power in regard to investigations. I could not imagine investigations being made directly through a board which was not directly responsible to this House——
The Board has responsibility to me and, therefore, to the House. Obviously the Board would not be entitled to dispense with inquiries or investigations.
I am glad the Minister is going on record in that respect. He knows the difficulties that arise in regard to questions.
I shall not seek to hide behind that. The Board has statutory obligations.
The Minister will forgive me if I say he might not be there so long.
I shall not forgive you.
I do not share the Minister's distrust of local authorities. I think the local authority service, the public health nursing service which is now being extended and is available at the moment, is an excellent service. Why not avail of it and the other excellent services the local authorities provide instead of saying: "We do not want the parents to be subjected to inspections by local authorities and we would prefer to have them subject solely to inspectors from the Adoption Board"?
My argument is that you save quite an amount of expenditure from public funds and you get, in addition, the same efficiency in return for the money now expended. Thirdly, the welfare of the child is being better safeguarded than would be the case under the Minister's proposals, unless he is going to set up the new machinery which I think is necessary.
It might be as well to refer the Minister to a letter which he apparently got early this month. I have the cutting here from the Irish Times of 5th December, 1963 and it quotes a letter sent to the Minister by the Joint Committee of Women's Societies and Social Workers. I understand this Committee represents approximately 19 societies, including the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the Irish Housewives' Association, the Irish Guild of Catholic Nurses, the Church of Ireland Social Service and the Social Study Departments of UCD and TCD.
The Deputy is geting into a very tricky realm here.
It was in the newspaper.
I got that letter on my desk on the same day as it appeared in the newspaper. I always distrust that sort of thing.
That does not make the arguments advanced in it any the weaker. I shall not read the letter fully, just the relevant portions. The letter, which was addressed to the Minister, said that the joint committee of Women's Societies would like to place on record their dissatisfaction with the Adoption Bill now before the Dáil. It said these amendments had been awaited with interest and that they had hoped for more helpful legislation. Then, in relation to Section 9—I am skipping portion of the letter to make it briefer—they say their main concern is and always has been with the welfare of the child. In this respect, they say, the Bill is sadly lacking; in fact, it considerably lessens the protection of the deprived child. Particularly is this apparent in section 9 which proposes to remove the protection given by the local health authority, that is, the children's officer or public health nurse. The local authorities had done much to supplement the work of the Adoption Board by contributing local knowledge which is absolutely essential for the protection of children placed in their areas. It is particularly essential to have this knowledge before the child is placed.
Then they go on to make the point which the Minister made on Second Reading and which I regard as a good one, that there is objection to requiring particulars of the birth and so on to be furnished to the local authority and in this letter the joint committee accept that argument. They say:
The only objection voiced so far is to the necessity for giving particulars of the child to the local authority. The Committee is of the opinion that this objection can be met by exemption, in placements for adoption, from the requirement to supply name and place of birth of the child; of the greatest importance is the assurance from the local authority adoption worker that the adopters and home are suitable to receive a child with a view to adoption. Suitable staff to do this already exists.
They go on with this:
We do not consider that the Adoption Board is capable of taking over from the local authority this preliminary work, unsupervised by any child welfare authority—surely it is not within the Board's terms of reference to handle every phase of adoption, but only to enter into the proceedings when placement is an accomplished fact.
That is nonsense.
It may be. The Minister will have his opportunity of replying. I gathered from his early reply that he did not reply to the letter when he got it. I am giving him the opportunity of replying now.
I wish Deputy O'Higgins would not fall for that.
The letter to the Minister goes on:
The Board, like a court, must remain independent until the final stage is reached, and the seal of legal adoption is required.
This is the considered view of a Committee, representative of some 19, or thereabouts, societies, and I do not think that the Minister should shrug it off in that way.
I know exactly whose considered opinion it is.
I do not know who the Minister is tilting at. All I know is that I saw this letter in the paper. It seems to me to be a reasonable case and the Minister apparently feels that he should become annoyed because it is referred to here. The case that is made——
I am not annoyed but surprised to see Deputy O'Higgins falling for this sort of thing.
I think if the Minister reads his Brief properly, he will recognise that the case being made there was in large measure made by me on the Second Reading of this Bill which was a long time before 5th December. I believe that the case made there by and large is a sound case. It is the case I made on the Second Reading of the Bill and which Deputy McQuillan urged here this evening. I think the Minister is making a great mistake if he feels that his proper approach to this is one of arrogantly waiving aside the representation made to him by these ladies and that he is in any way being slighted because the letter appeared in the public press, I think he said, on the same morning as he received it. That, to my mind, does not justify the Minister in dismissing the arguments which are put up there. They are certainly arguments which require an answer. I am not at all convinced by the answer the Minister has given so far.
I am certainly not being in any way arrogant in regard to this matter. I am as anxious as any Deputy in the House to ensure that we do the right thing but I am entitled to look with suspicion on a letter which comes to me and at the same moment as I get it on my desk it is published in the morning newspaper. I think if people are anxious to bring about improvements in this piece of legislation that is not the way to go about it. I am particularly reinforced in that opinion when I know that I have, previous to the receipt of that letter, endeavoured to explain my position and the reasons for what I am proposing to some of the people concerned. However, that is not really relevant to the discussion. I think we can decide for ourselves here what is the right thing to do, on the merits of the case.
I really would have thought Deputy McQuillan would have been with me on this because I know the interest he has in this problem, particularly of the illegitimate child, and how he is anxious, in rural Ireland particularly, that the old stigma and notions in this matter should disappear once and for all. I think, in favouring the bringing of the local authorities into this matter he is injuring that cause which he himself applauds, because by having to notify the local authority of the placement of the child with adoptive parents you are putting it in a certain class, to which, to my mind, it should not belong. This had to be done up to now, but even allowing for that, I think you are taking away from the whole notion and concept of adoption by suggesting that these children placed with parents for adoption should be subjected to inspection by the local authority as such.
I am fully with Deputy McQuillan and Deputy O'Higgins when they say that these trained and skilled people with local knowledge are in the service of the local authority and that the Adoption Board should have access to their services. If the Adoption Board has not got the staff in any particular instance to carry out a specific inquiry, there is no reason whatsoever why it should not have access to the valuable services which these people can provide. Where I disagree with the Deputies—I do not know whether I can get this across clearly or not—is that I believe that the control of inspection should be with the Adoption Board and not with the local authority. There is no reason why children brought for adoption should come under the local authority jurisdiction in any way by notification.
How does the Minister propose to synchronise the local authority and the health officers for inspection purposes?
It is quite a simple matter to work out some arrangement whereby, if the Adoption Board wishes, it will be able to call on the local authority for services in this matter. In fact, this arrangement is already in existence and no difficulty has been experienced up to now in that regard.
Does that mean notification of the local authority?
No, it merely invokes the aid of these particular officers or getting more specialised knowledge, not notification of the local authority as such.
There is a difference.
There is a difference in principle of giving the local authority a standing in this matter as distinct from the Board having access to its services. I think that is an important difference in principle where the child is concerned.
Deputy O'Higgins suggested to me that I was more concerned with the trouble or inconvenience caused to parents and that I should be more concerned with the welfare of the child. I am concerned with the welfare of the child, and I do not want the child to have different categories of people dealing with it. Adoption is something which is dealt with by the Adoption Board directly with the family concerned. The Board satisfies itself that the family is suitable and thereafter, as far as any governing agent is concerned, that child is to all intents and purposes a member of that family.
I have no amendment for Report Stage, and perhaps if nobody else has an amendment, I might be given all Stages now.
If the Minister will give an undertaking genuinely to consider in the Seanad Deputy Dockrell's amendment with regard to adoption by a relative, I have no objection to taking all Stages now.
Thank you. I shall give that undertaking.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration.
I have not had the opportunity of hearing the Minister on the matter of the adoption of children after they attain the age of seven years except in the special case of children living with parents earlier than that. I fully appreciate the desire on the part of everybody to promote the adoption of infant children rather than that of children of a relatively mature age but, as I understand it, the Board has a wide discretion in determining the merits of every individual proposal for the adoption of a child. If, having reviewed all the circumstances they come to the conclusion that in this case adoption is not in the child's best interests, without any reflection on the people desiring to make the adoption, it is open to the Board to say that they cannot give approval to the proposal.
So long as that discretion remains with the Board, I find it hard to understand the establishment of a rigid rule, leaving no discretion to the Board, which excludes them from the consideration on its merits of any proposal for the adoption of a child over seven years of age except in the exceptional circumstances mentioned. Is there some very grave reason against leaving it to the discretion of the Board to provide for the small number of cases which turn up from time to time in which, in the judgment of all prudent people the best interests of a child would be served by being adopted albeit the child is eight, nine, 10, 11 or 12 years of age?
I have heard of cases where it was suggested that a long relationship existing between adoptive parents and a child of 15, 16, or 17 years of age was sought to be regularised by adoption and it was discovered that the terms of the Act, as it has been and will be, do not permit of that at all. I recognise this is a matter of considerable delicacy and one which must be proceeded with with the utmost care, but I cannot see any sound reason for withholding this decision from the Adoption Board.
I can well understand the Minister saying to the Board that if such a discretion is reposed in them that it was the general view, strongly held, that adoption should normally relate to infant children, that it was relatively indifferent up to the age of seven or eight years of age but that there ought to be the gravest reasons before adoption should be completed in the period between seven years and 21 years of age. I recognise that full weight ought to be given to the desirability of infant adoption and the promotion of that course in so far as it is humanly possible to secure it.
I think, with the evidence at my disposal, that we are going too far if, by our legislation, we make provision to cover the exceptional case not only more difficult but impossible. If there are some special reasons of which I am not aware whereby adoption after seven years of age is clearly difficult from the point of view of good administration, in the best interest of the juvenile I would be prepared to agree to a special procedure in which the Board would be enabled to recommend it to a second body whose approval would be required before such adoption would be made. I do not know if any such extreme precaution is necessary. The Board has acted with great care and discretion so far but if the course I mention is necessary I would not demur.
I would be glad to hear the Minister give the reasons why our attitude appears to be so implacable against any adoption after seven years of age. I would be glad to know if he thinks no procedure could be devised which would provide for the exceptional case for adoption after seven years of age which would be in the best interest of the child concerned.
I said earlier on this point that I know that different people hold different views about this particular matter. It is possible for honest people to disagree about the right thing to do. I am glad that Deputy Dillon agrees with me that infant adoption is the ideal, that in so far as we can ensure it, we should endeavour to see that children are adopted at as early an age as possible. Some authorities think that the age of seven years is rather too old. My reason for being, as has been said, implacable about the adoption of older children is that I am afraid of doing anything which would endanger the structure of adoption as a whole. All the authorities are agreed that if the age of the child were increased, the risk of failure would increase and failures in any significant number could be disastrous from the point of view of the structure of legal adoption which we have as a whole.
Then, there is the other argument by which I am persuaded more than by any other. If we open the door for these desirable cases, we do take from the overall impetus there is for people to adopt children while young. In other words, if people know they can postpone adoption until later, there will not be the same pressure on them and, so far as you would weaken at all the pressure to adopt children as early as possible, then I am against it. As I said here to Deputies, I readily admit that there must be cases in which it would be possible to adopt older children of 14, 15 or 16 with entirely beneficial results. I went on to say that a lot of Deputies exaggerated the numbers of those—
I should imagine it is very small.
Very small. On the whole, it is a question of balance but on the whole it is better not to have those very desirable cases if you are going thereby to weaken the structure of the adoption system. It is better that we should be, if you like, hard about the matter and say: "Very well; but hard cases make bad law and even though in a small number of cases it might be desirable, we should not do anything which will have the effect of injuring the excellent system of adoption which has been built up here over the years."