Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 2010

Vol. 713 No. 4

Adoption Bill 2009 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

Debate resumed on amendment No. 28:
In page 24, line 20, after "couple" to insert "or the spouse of the parent of a child".
—(Deputy Alan Shatter.)

We were discussing amendments Nos. 28, 30, 71 and 72. Amendment No. 72 is in my name and Deputy Shatter already addressed his amendments. The amendments are related in so far as they pertain to relationship between the biological parents and their spouses or relatives and their various rights to adoption and access to their children.

Amendment No. 72 proposes that a parent, relative or someone acting in loco parentis should be able to apply to the court for access to the child subsequent to adoption. This gives rise to the questions of open adoption and whether we should be closing off the relationships a child may have enjoyed prior to his or her adoption. Under my amendment, the court would decide what is in the best interest of the child. There are many reasons a court might decide to allow a right of access but I am leaving the option open for the court to decide otherwise. These issues are more relevant to domestic adoptions than to intercountry ones, although they could arise in either instance. In addition to commending amendment No. 72 to the House, I support Deputy Shatter on the issues he has raised.

We have already had an extensive debate on this issue. I do not intend to accept any of the amendments in this group for the reasons I outlined on Committee Stage.

I accept it is unsatisfactory that natural mothers have to adopt their own children but the correct way to resolve this is through guardianship legislation. In September 2009 the Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper entitled Legal Aspects of Family Relationships and invited submissions from interested parties on the types of arrangements that could be made in guardianship legislation in order to facilitate a situation in which a person attempts to form a relationship with a child of a spouse or partner.

If we try to address this issue by way of amendment at this late stage, it will have a profound effect on other obligations in adoption law. Deputy O'Sullivan noted that her amendment tries to capture the idea of open adoption but this would be contrary to what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. On the basis of the Law Reform Commission paper due to be published at the end of this year, we will discuss with the Department of Justice and Law Reform, which has responsibility in the area of guardianship, the kinds of issue that may arise. The paper deals with a number of complex issues and it would not be satisfactory to attempt to address them by means of this Bill.

The Adoption Board has for many years pointed out that it is unsatisfactory and inappropriate to require a birth parent to adopt his or her own child. Such parents surrender their sole parental rights and assume joint parental status with the step-parents. The Law Reform Commission canvassed opinions on whether a minimum period should apply within which a step-parent would have to form a relationship with a child before an adoption could be effected. The same question would have to be asked in regard to guardianship. It also asked whether an adoption should only be done by agreement or if a step-parent should be able to make an independent application. I do not think we have clearly considered these issues in the context of this Bill and, for that reason, I do not accept the proposed amendments.

The Adoption Board's annual report for 2008 indicates that 217 out of 273 applications for adoption, or 79%, and 128 out of 200 court orders, or 64%, were in respect of birth mothers and their husbands. Similarly, the annual report for 2007 indicates that birth mothers and their husbands comprised 217 out of 303 applications to the board, or 72%, and 138 out of a total of 187 family adoption orders, or 74%.

The overwhelming majority of domestic adoptions are by biological mothers adopting their own children with their husbands. The Adoption Board has been calling for legislative change for more than 20 years. We can change the law in two ways. The first is to allow a guardianship order to be made in favour of the spouse who is not a parent and the second is to allow the spouse who is not the biological parent to seek an adoption order while the biological parent retains equal rights to the child.

I do not buy anything the Minister of State has said. He advises us that we should not amend the Bill at this late stage even though these amendments were canvassed at great length on Committee Stage in February. This afforded him four months to consider our arguments. He stated that he favours a guardianship arrangement but he voted down my amendment allowing for guardianship orders simply because the Law Reform Commission produced a working paper but not a final report. Given that the commission has published a plethora of final reports which were not implemented, this is not a valid reason for rejecting my amendment. He suggests that all sorts of complications arise in implementing my proposal but that is not the case because the spouse married to the biological parent would have to be properly assessed and deemed to meet all the criteria set out in legislation.

This is an important amendment which will bring the ethos of our law from 1952 to the present millennium. The Bill is consolidating rather than reforming and it has abysmally and scandalously failed to implement 95% of the reforms recommended by a broad range of reports commissioned by the Government and other organisations. It is my intention to put the amendment to a vote.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the purpose of the Bill is to provide "for restating or updating of the provisions of the Adoption Acts 1952-1998, as appropriate, and for the repeal of those Acts. It also gives force of law to the Hague Convention". The purpose of the amendments is to ensure the legislation is as comprehensive as possible, which is clearly not the intention of the Minister of State given that he has rejected amendments on tracing, the right to one's birth certificate, post-adoption services and the other issues under discussion.

As Deputy Shatter noted in reading from the reports, the amendments in this group relate to the vast majority of adoptions in this country in recent years and the circumstances in which people find themselves. It is wrong, therefore, to choose not to incorporate these provisions in what is intended to be comprehensive adoption legislation covering all the elements and types of adoption that are likely to arise in the foreseeable future.

The Minister of State indicated he will introduce legislation dealing with issues such as tracing. Given the legislative pressure on the Government, I do not believe it will be possible for him to do so in the near future. For this reason, I urge him to take this opportunity to make the Bill as comprehensive as possible. He appears to agree that the issues covered in the amendments need to be addressed. The proposals have been recommended in reports issued by the Law Reform Commission. It is wrong to reject the elements we are proposing to have incorporated in the Bill to make it as comprehensive as possible.

The majority of adoptions in the past couple of years have not been domestic or step-parent adoptions but international adoptions.

The majority of domestic adoptions are family adoptions.

Lest I am misunderstood, I was referring to domestic adoptions.

While I accept that both Deputies were referring to domestic adoptions, to argue that the Bill does not do anything, has failed abysmally and does not, in any way, move matters forward is to forget that the vast majority of adoptions are international adoptions. As we all know, the Bill updates Irish law and provides significant safeguards in an area that is notoriously difficult to navigate for prospective adoptive parents. I hope to achieve this objective in the next couple of days. It is wrong, therefore, to argue the Bill does not achieve anything.

I am not making up problems about step-parent adoptions or guardianship applications. The Law Reform Commission has identified this issue in its consultation paper and invited submissions about an identified list of issues that need to be addressed.

As regards tracing, I have given a commitment that the Government will legislate in this area. Many of those who have made representations to me accept that separate legislation as opposed to a piecemeal amendment is required. It has been my intention throughout to introduce separate legislation on tracing. As I stated, I have made a commitment in this regard and hope to realise it. If the Deputies wish to put their amendments, it is within their gift to do so.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 70.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • O’Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wall, Jack.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 24, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"(4) On the application of the spouse of a biological parent desiring to adopt a child to acquire the same rights and responsibilities with regard to the child as the biological parent.

(a) The adoption order shall confer the same rights and responsibilities on the spouse as vest in the biological parent.

(b) Shall not affect the rights and responsibilities of the biological parent.

(c) Where the biological parent with whom the child does not permanently reside continues to have regular contact with the child, the Authority may make an order conferring guardianship rights and responsibilities on the applicant to so act jointly with the child’s existing guardian or guardians instead of making an adoption order.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 25, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"(7) In exercising its functions in relation to recognition of an adoption effected outside the State, the Authority shall insofar as possible recognise an adoption effected outside the State by a person who was ordinarily resident in the jurisdiction in which the adoption was effected at the time it was effected.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 32 arises from Committee proceedings and has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 25, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"(7) A person or couple who prior to the commencement of this part completed an intercountry adoption effected outside the State may notwithstanding this Act effect another such adoption within 5 years of the former adoption from the same State having first obtained a declaration of suitability in accordance with this Act and such adoption may be recognised as if effected under the law applicable prior to the coming into operation of this Act.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 25, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"21.—A person or couple who has or have prior to the commencement of this Part adopted a child from another country, may notwithstanding this Act conduct a second or subsequent adoption from that country within 5 years of such commencement if the Authority is satisfied that the standards that are being or will be applied to the adoption accord with those of the Hague Convention.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 34 arises from Committee proceedings and amendment No. 35 is related. The amendments may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 25, line 14, after "Executive" to insert "or other accredited body".

These amendments relate to allowing a body other than the HSE to furnish a report as to the suitability of someone to adopt to the adoption authority. We went into the reasons for this in great detail on Committee Stage and I will give the Minister an opportunity to respond as to whether he has had second thoughts on this issue.

I have not had second thoughts on the issue. I am satisfied the HSE must have a role at the end of the process and it must be notified in circumstances where there is a discontinuance as set out in section 21. It states "By notice delivered to the Health Service Executive at any time after an application under section 20, the applicant or applicants may discontinue the proceedings that are the subject of that application” and it in turn advises the adoption authority. Any other accredited body under the legislation would be registered with the adoption authority so it would have the effect of notifying the authority in that fashion. The intention of the amendment is captured in the legislation anyway so it is not my intention to change my mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.

Amendment No. 36 arises from Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are related and, therefore amendments Nos. 36 to 38, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 25, to delete lines 29 and 30.

These amendments propose in section 23(1) to delete the specific reference stating: "The Authority shall not make an adoption order unless the child— (b) at the date of the application, is not more than 7 years of age,”. The proposal is to delete that provision and substitute on page 25, line 45, which is section 24(2), an additional provision. Section 24(2) currently states: “Before making an adoption order under subsection (1), the Authority shall give due consideration to the wishes of the child, having regard to his or her age and understanding.” The amendment proposed would state: “Where the child is over seven years of age, having regard to his or her age, maturity and understanding, the Authority would give due consideration to the wishes of the child.”

The effect of this is to make express provision to ensure the wishes of children over seven have had regard to while removing what is an antiquated and unnecessary provision which simply reiterates a section in the Adoption Act 1952, which essentially prohibits the adoption authority from making an adoption order unless the child at the date of the application is not more than seven years old. It then allows, where the child is over seven, in particular circumstances that one can adopt a child over seven. I do not understand why we are just repeating what is an unnecessary provision inserted in the 1952 Act in legislation to be enacted in 2010. The proposal I have brought forward is a more sensible way of approaching the issue.

I do not intend to change this area. It is not clear from Deputy Shatter's proposal or comments what he is trying to correct and what problem is to be addressed. There is an arbitrary nature in picking a certain age in any respect and all of us would have different views as to when a child might be properly consulted about something as significant as an adoption. In any case, section 24 — as already pointed out by the Deputy — already ensures that a child reaching the age of seven can be adopted and in those circumstances due regard is had for the wishes of the child, with the safeguard that regard would be had for the child's best interest. This is mirrored to some extent in other parts of the law where a child's own wishes may not be in his or her best interests. Such issues must be distinguished, which is why this element is in the Bill. It is not my intention to change the law in this area.

We discussed this at great length on Committee Stage but we have limited time this evening. I will not press these amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 37 to 39, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 26, line 2, after "order" to insert "or guardianship order made by it".

This amendment is no longer relevant in the context of earlier decisions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 41 arises from Committee proceedings and has already been discussed with amendment No. 16.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 26, line 7, after "mother" to insert the following:

", father (if named on the child's birth certificate),".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.

Amendment No. 44 arises from Committee proceedings and has already been discussed with amendment No. 16.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 28, to delete lines 1 and 2.

On the basis of the decision made on amendment No. 16, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 28, lines 14 and 15, to delete all words from and including ", after" in line 14 down to and including "Court," in line 15.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.

Amendment No. 48 arises from Committee proceedings. Amendment No. 49 is related and is an alternate to amendment No. 48. Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 53 are also related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 48 to 51, inclusive, and amendment No. 53 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 29, to delete lines 37 to 43 and in page 30, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:

"33.—(1) (a) The Authority shall not make an adoption order, or recognise an intercountry adoption effected outside the State, unless—

(i) the applicants are a married couple who are living together,

(ii) the applicant is the mother or father or a relative of the child, or

(iii) the applicant, notwithstanding that he or she does not fall within subparagraph (ii), satisfies the Authority that, in the particular circumstances, the adoption is desirable and in the best interests of the child.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the Authority may recognise an intercountry adoption effected outside the State on the application of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (c) of section 90(3).”.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 51 is to reformat section 33 and to ensure that an adopted person or a person with an interest in the matter who wises to have particulars of an adoption entered into the register of inter-country adoption as provided for under section 90 and who is married does not need the consent of a spouse in order to have the adoption recognised. In other words, only adoptive parents require each other's consent to the adoption.

The amendment to section 33 provides that if the person applying for recognition of an inter-country adoption effected outside the State is the adopted person or a person with interest in the matter as referred to, the person does not have to meet the minimum age requirement of 21 years. The age limit of 21 in this subsection is only relevant in the context of the adoptive parents at the time of the making of the adoption order or the recognition of the inter-country adoption order.

I will speak to amendment No. 49 proposed by Deputy Shatter. If the applicant is a spouse of the child's parent, the married couple may apply to adopt the child under section 33(1) but not if the child is a child of marriage. Under existing legislation children of widows or widowers who remarry cannot be adopted by their surviving parent's new spouse. Children of a marriage can only be adopted in exceptional and very limited circumstances, which provision is not altered in this scenario. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution will have a significant bearing in this area.

The Minister of State made reference to the specific circumstance I was addressing in amendment No. 49 where the applicant is a spouse of the mother or father of the child in circumstances where, for example, a couple, the husband or wife of which is widowed at an early stage in the marriage and has a young child. There is a similar issue as to whether if the widow or widower remarries the new spouse should be entitled to have all of the parental rights that would normally attach to a biological parent. It is another anomaly in the law that in those circumstances an adoption cannot be effected. This proposal is designed to address that issue.

I support Deputy Shatter in this instance. I am aware of specific cases that fit exactly the case made by him. All too often tragedies and circumstances present that the current wording will not accommodate. This is reflective of a set of circumstances that is real and will repeat. We now have an opportunity to reflect on this fact. So many different marital relationships are the make-up of Irish society today. It is important to bear in mind that strong bonds are created between the spouses of one or other parent of a child which becomes part of a newly established family unit. It is important that in any given eventuality we accommodate the right of the surviving partner, although he or she may not be natural parent of the child but with whom the child has bonded and formed a faithful and loving relationship, to adopt the child. I believe the case is compelling and that if we do not take on board the arguments presented and duly reflect this in the legislation we are missing an opportunity.

I support the case made by Deputy Shatter and believe it is fully meritorious of acceptance by the Minister of State.

I do not have anything further to add. We have dealt with this matter in detail. I do not wish to be unhelpful but we have gone through this matter to a great extent. While I have sympathy with the points made by Deputies I believe this is a matter that might be more appropriately dealt with in a different context. I will not be accepting the amendment.

This is an area where I do not believe there is a constitutional problem. In respect of a widow or widower with young children who marries, there is no particular reason an arrangement cannot be contained within our adoption legislation which allows the person he or she marries to adopt the children. One then creates a situation whereby the biological parent and the spouse to whom he or she is married retain equal rights in relation to the children. This is not intended to be about a situation where, for example, a married couple — which we know we have difficulties with pending a constitutional referendum — give up their children voluntarily. That is an issue we addressed in the referendum proposal and involves a married parent with all of the constitutional rights conferred by Article 41 apparently trying to divest themselves of rights that are described in the Constitution as inalienable. We have sought to address this.

In these circumstances there are a small number of families in this country afflicted by tragedies. Young men and women are losing their lives in traffic and other accidents and on occasion as a consequence of violence. It is extraordinary that we should have a law that states, for example, that a 29 or 30 year old husband or wife with a child of two years of age whose spouse has died in a car crash and who remarries at some time in the future and whose spouse wishes to acquire parental rights, having established a good relationship with the child-children, is not allowed to acquire the same rights and obligations in law towards the children or to have constitutional recognition as would normally apply had one not suffered a tragedy or would have continued to apply had one's spouse not died.

My problem with the Government's approach to this legislation and the Minister of State's unwillingness to address this particular issue, among all the other issues we have raised, derives from the fact that we have had 20 years of examination of our adoption laws and a plethora of Ministers, many well before the Minister of State's time, promising to update our laws, address the anomalies and unfairness and allow for the variety of family circumstances that occur to be addressed in a manner that is humane and sensible. Yes, this legislation will finally bring into force in this country the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption but there is much more we should be doing. This legislation has been essentially awaited for more than a decade. I do not believe there is any remote possibility of our seeing during the remaining lifetime of this Government a reforming adoption Bill addressing the myriad issues we have raised.

On this particular issue, there is a small number of people in this country whose lives would be improved by acceptance of this amendment. There are people in the future whose lives will be improved by it. I wish to put the amendment.

I reiterate my support for this amendment. There is no justification for perpetuating an injustice, which is exactly what presents in these sets of circumstances, where they apply. I cannot understand why we would miss the opportunity during the passage of this Bill to address what we must recognise. Deputy Shatter stated that a small number of people are affected. One would be surprised by the number of people affected. All too sadly we hear statistics in regard to young people losing a partner in a whole series of circumstances, including accidents, road traffic or otherwise, or for health related reasons. A particular case comes to mind.

I find it difficult to understand why we would perpetuate that anomaly, to put in those terms. Surely, this is the appropriate and right time to correct and extend that opportunity to the people so described in the amendment. I believe it will contribute to good outcomes, both for the caring adoptive parent in these circumstances and for the child for whom this relationship will be crucial throughout the rest of his or her childhood years and into the future. I strongly commend it to the Minister of State because I recognise these circumstances. I believe the amendment can only do good.

I support the amendment. In the small number of cases that have been described, the best interests of the child would be served by allowing the adoption to take place. Therefore, the amendment should be accepted by the House.

I do not think it is safe to argue there would not be a constitutional doubt about this area. I appreciate that the number of people who belong in this category may be small. The Government intends to put a referendum to the people that would clarify this situation for once and for all. There would be no doubt whatsoever. As Deputies Ó Caoláin and Shatter will know, the committee ordained that the heads of an adoption Bill would be published before a referendum would take place. Obviously, that will have to capture the kinds of issues that have been raised. It would be more appropriate to address the matter in that way than by means of a Report Stage amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 30, line 9, to delete "an adoption order or" and substitute the following:

"an adoption order is married, or an applicant, other than an applicant who is a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (c) of section 90(3),”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 30, line 27, to delete "order, or recognise" and substitute the following:

"order or, except where the applicant is a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (c) of section 90(3), recognise”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 30, line 35, to delete ", or recognise an intercountry adoption,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 31, lines 4 and 5, to delete all words from and including "order," in line 4 down to and including "unless" in line 5 and substitute the following:

"order or, except where the applicant is a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (c) of section 90(3), recognise an intercountry adoption, unless”.

Amendment agreed to.

As amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are related, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 31, line 7, after "them" to insert the following:

"(or either of them, if a failure by one only of the married couple to comply with this section would not seriously threaten the welfare of the child)".

I am proposing to amend the wording of section 34, which currently provides that an adoption order shall not be made "unless the Authority is satisfied that the applicant or, if the applicants are a married couple living together, each of them ... is a suitable person". The applicants need to have enough money, etc. The various requirements, which are listed in section 34, include the requirement to support "the child's development" and the requirement to value the child's "ethnic, religious and cultural background" and identity, etc. Amendment No. 54 proposes that it should not be necessary for both parents to tick all of the boxes listed in this section of the Bill. In other words, I suggest it should suffice for each requirement to be met by one parent or the other — both parents should not have to meet all of the requirements.

I have proposed amendment No. 55 because I am particularly concerned that the test should not be as strongly applied if "a natural parent or relative of the child" is applying to adopt the child as it would be if a complete stranger were applying to adopt the child. If a mother is adopting her own child, or a grandparent is adopting his or her own grandchild, she or he should not be refused simply because she or he might not have "adequate financial means", for example. In other words, the test should not be too broad or rigorous in the case of an adoption by a natural parent, grandparent or other relation. In such circumstances, these tests should not be as strong as they are for other types of adoptions. That is basically what I am trying to achieve in these amendments. We had a good discussion on them on Committee Stage. There seemed to be a general acceptance that the test should not be quite as demanding when those applying to adopt are directly related to the child.

The requirements set out in section 34 are very wide. One of the criteria to be followed when determining suitability is that the applicant should be "in good health". How would one define "good health"? Is it not a very broad phrase? Questions could be asked about the "good health" of any of us. It has the potential to be interpreted in a wide, broad manner. As Deputy Jan O'Sullivan has said, there can be circumstances in which the natural parent may wish to adopt. The partner or spouse of a mother who is adopting her own child may not be "in good health", according to the determination of the person responsible for making such a decision. One's health changes as one moves through life, but that does not alter one's ability, commitment or suitability as an adoptive parent. This section of the Bill is all about suitability. I have to say Deputy Jan O'Sullivan is making a valid point. I have mentioned just one example — the ground of "good health" — from the set of criteria provided for in this section of the Bill. Not every person will be able to tick all of the boxes. That does not and should not preclude consideration of such a person's spouse or partner, if he or she applies to adopt. If the natural parent of the child is seeking to adopt, it is an indisputable situation. I strongly support the Deputy's appeal to the Minister of State.

The requirement to assess prospective adoptive parents is set out in the Hague Convention. The convention refers to "parents" rather than to one or other parent. We have to ensure the best interests of the child are placed at the centre of this assessment. That requires that both prospective adoptive parents are assessed. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan quite fairly raised the question of a natural parent who may be seeking to adopt. It has to be acknowledged that there is a requirement for an applying adoptive parent to have "adequate financial means". A natural parent who has raised a child perfectly well up to the point of the application might be found not to have "adequate financial means". No specific sum is provided for — one's means simply need to be adequate to one's purpose. The health and presentation of the child would serve as proof that one's financial means are adequate, regardless of what they might be. There is a requirement that both prospective adoptive parents be assessed.

I acknowledged earlier that it is not ideal for a natural mother to have to adopt her own child. It can give rise to the kind of oddities mentioned by Deputy Ó Caoláin. It is odd for one to have to prove one is in good health before one can adopt one's own child. I suggest that the requirements are suitably onerous. One has to put the best interests of the child first, particularly in the context of international adoption. When one is assessing whether a child who has come through some trauma in his or her life should be placed with a prospective adoptive parent, one has to consider whether that person is capable of bringing the child up in the child's best interests. For that reason, I do not propose to accept these amendments.

As it is 10 o'clock I am now required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Health and Children and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.

The Bill, which is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2° of the Constitution as a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann, will now be sent to the Seanad.

Top
Share