Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 1997

Vol. 150 No. 3

Adoption (No. 2) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this important Bill is twofold. First, it contains the Government's legislative response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Keegan v. Ireland. Second, it provides for certain amendments of the current law on the recognition of foreign adoptions. Before dealing with the individual provisions of the Bill I will outline the background to it.

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Keegan case was in favour of the father of the child, born outside marriage, who was adopted against his wishes. The relationship between him and the child's mother lasted for two years, during one of which they cohabited. The pregnancy was planned and they were also planning to marry. However, early in the pregnancy the relationship broke down. Shortly after the birth, the child was placed for adoption by an adoption agency at the request of the mother but without the knowledge of the father. As soon as he discovered this, he sought to block the adoption by applying for guardianship and custody of the child. His applications, which went as far as the Supreme Court, were ultimately rejected and the child's legal adoption was finalised in 1990.

Mr. Keegan then brought an application before the European Court of Human Rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. On 26 May 1994, the European Court delivered its judgment. The court found in favour of Mr. Keegan on two grounds. It held that his relationship with the mother of the child had the hallmark of family life for the purposes of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The fact that Irish adoption law permitted the secret placement of the child for adoption without his knowledge or consent amounted to an interference with his right to respect for family life under Article 8. The court also upheld, as a violation of Article 6(1) of the convention, Mr. Keegan's complaint that he had no right to challenge the adoption placement and has no standing in the adoption procedure. The judgment did not affect the validity of the adoption order made in respect of the child, nor did Mr. Keegan wish it to.

In accordance with Article 53 of the convention, the State is obliged to make the necessary changes to our domestic adoption laws in order to bring them into line with the convention. These changes are provided for in the Bill now before the House.

Important developments, aimed at giving greater recognition to the position of the father of a non-marital child, have taken place in Irish adoption practice since the Keegan case was determined by the courts here in 1990. These developments are designed to ensure that adoption agencies endeavour to consult fathers and ascertain their attitude before children are placed with adopting parents. While these changes occurred too late to benefit Mr. Keegan, they are acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment. These measures form the basis of the Government's legislative response to the judgment.

Central to the Government's approach is the introduction of a new statutory procedure for consulting the father of a non-marital child before the child is placed for adoption by an adoption agency, so as to afford him an opportunity of exercising his right to apply for guardianship and/or custody of the child, if he so wishes. Where a father raises no objections, the placement may proceed without further reference to him. However, if he is opposed to the adoption, the placement must be deferred for a short period to enable him to institute proceedings for guardianship and/or custody of the child. If the father's application for guardianship is granted by the court, then the adoption cannot proceed without his consent. If he is awarded custody of the child, then that will effectively be the end of the matter as the child will no longer be available for adoption.

The advantage of this approach is that since the child would not have been placed with adopting parents, the question of the child developing bonds with a new family would not arise. This was a crucial factor in Mr. Keegan's case which ultimately militated against him.

The Bill provides for certain exemptions from the requirement to consult the father. It also provides for the prohibition of the direct placement by the mother of a child for adoption with non-relatives. I will address these two matters in some detail when dealing with the relevant provisions.

It has to be acknowledged that the introduction of a consultation procedure will give rise to some delays in the placement of children for adoption. However, this is unavoidable in order to facilitate the exercise by a father of his right to apply to court for legal rights in relation to the child which, if successful, would entitle him to veto the adoption. In this context, I must stress that the absence of such a provision in Irish adoption law is at the heart of the judgment of the European Court in the Keegan case.

At the same time it is important to keep a sense of proportion in relation to the involvement of fathers of non-marital children in the adoption process. It is not envisaged that the introduction of the new statutory consultation procedure provided for in the Bill will result in any significant increase in the number of fathers wanting to take on legal rights and responsibilities. Experience since 1990 indicates that, in the majority of cases, the father shows little or no interest in the child and does not seek to be involved in the adoption process. This is borne out by the Adoption Board statistics for 1995. Of the 157 adoption orders made during 1995 for children placed by adoption agencies, in only 27 cases was there contact between the agency and the father.

The Bill also provides for certain amendments of the Adoption Act, 1991, which deals with the recognition of foreign adoptions. The main purpose of these amendments is to facilitate the recognition here of adoptions effected in countries such as the People's Republic of China, whose adoption laws permit the termination or revocation of adoptions in particular circumstances. The carefully framed amendments of the Act are contained in sections 10 to 16 of the Bill.

The House will be aware that in July, 1996, the Supreme Court on appeal upheld a decision of the High Court that Chinese adoptions qualified for recognition under the Adoption Act, 1991. While this ruling by the Supreme Court has removed any doubt about the entitlement of Chinese adoptions to be recognised here, the Government considers it desirable that the position should be clarified in legislation, as the adoption laws of a number of countries other than the People's Republic of China, permit the termination of adoptions in certain circumstances.

The opportunity is also being availed of to make certain other worthwhile changes to the 1991 Act. The most significant of these is the extension of the deadlines for the recognition of adoptions effected abroad in favour of Irish residents who had not completed the pre-adoption assessment procedures introduced by the 1991 Act. A small number of cases have come to light where the adopters were unable to finalise the adoption process in the foreign country concerned until after the deadlines passed. The Government considers that it is in the interests of the children concerned that their legal status here be regularised.

Section 1 contains definitions of key terms used in the Bill. Section 2 provides for the insertion of new and substitute definitions in section 3 of the Adoption Act, 1952, which is the principal adoption Act. The revised definition of "relative" includes a member of the extended family of the father of a child.

Section 3 empowers the Adoption Board, with the consent of the Minister for Health, to make rules governing the new procedures for consulting the fathers of children being proposed for adoption. Section 4 inserts a new Part IA, sections 7(a) to 7(f), in the Adoption Act, 1952, setting out various requirements to be followed by adoption agencies before placing children for adoption.

Section 7A provides that "father" for the purposes of the new Part IA includes a person who believes himself to be the father. This is to ensure that a father whose paternity has not been formally established will not be excluded from being consulted.

Section 7B imposes a restriction on the placing by an adoption agency of a child under the age of four weeks for adoption. This new restriction is necessary in order to ensure that a child will not be placed with adopting parents by an adoption agency before the father has had an opportunity, following the birth of the child, to notify the Adoption Board of his wish to be consulted. However, it should be noted that a child may be placed for adoption within four weeks of birth where the father has been consulted and raises no objections or where the agency has been exempted by the Adoption Board from the requirement to consult him.

At present a child may be placed for adoption immediately after birth, although the mother may not give her consent to the making of an adoption order until the child is at least six weeks old. As most children are not placed by agencies with prospective adoptive parents within the first six weeks of birth, this restriction will have little or no impact on present adoption practice.

Section 7C enables a registered adoption society, in accordance with regulations made by the Minister for Health, to arrange for appropriate care for a child pending his or her placement for adoption. This will give registered adoption societies specific statutory authority to make interim arrangements for the care of children. The health boards are already covered by the Child Care Act, 1991.

Section 7D contains a new statutory procedure to enable the father of a child to notify the Adoption Board of his wish to be consulted on (a) a proposal by an adoption agency to place the child for adoption or (b) an application by the mother or a relative of the child for an adoption order relating to the child. Such a notice may be given before the birth of the child.

Section 7E requires an adoption agency proposing to place a child for adoption to endeavour to ascertain the identity of the father, including requesting the Adoption Board to provide it with a copy of any notice received from the father.

Where the identity of the father is known to the agency it must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to consult him about the proposed placement. Where a father indicates that he has no objection the agency may proceed to place the child with adopting parents. If a father objects to the proposed placement the agency must notify him and the mother that it is deferring the placement for a period of not less than 21 days for the purpose of affording him an opportunity to make an application to the court for guardianship and/or custody of the child. If no notice of such an application is received within the deferral period the agency may then place the child for adoption.

A situation may arise where a father who is contacted by an adoption agency and informed of the proposed placement of his child for adoption does not give any indication as to whether he objects to the placement proceeding. The Bill provides that in such an eventuality, the agency will be permitted to place the child with adopting parents if it receives no indication from the father of his intentions within 21 days after informing him of the proposed placement. I am sure Senators will agree that, in the interests of the child, it is reasonable that a father should be expected to make known his intentions within a specified time frame.

However, if at any time before the child is placed for adoption the agency receives notice of an application to court by the father, the agency will be precluded from continuing with the placement until the court proceedings have been concluded. Provision is made for the expedition of any such proceedings in the best interests of the child concerned.

Section 7F provides for exemptions from the requirement on an adoption agency to consult the father in the following circumstances: (a) where the agency is unable, after taking such steps as are reasonably practicable, to consult a father whose identity is known to it; (b) where the nature of the relationship between the father and the mother or the circumstances of the conception of the child are such that it would be inappropriate to contact the father, for example, in the case of rape; (c) where the identity of the father is unknown to the agency and the mother refuses to reveal his identity and (d) where the mother makes a statutory declaration stating that she is unable to identify the father and the agency has no other practical way of ascertaining his identity. The approval of the Adoption Board must be obtained to the placing of the child for adoption in the case of (a), (b) or (c) above.

As the House will appreciate, it would be impracticable to impose an absolute requirement that the father be consulted in every instance. Cases will inevitably arise where it would be inappropriate to consult a father about a proposed adoption placement. Where, for example, a child is conceived as a result of a casual relationship during a holiday romance and the father is not even aware of the birth of the child, it would be unreasonable to require an adoption agency to contact the father since such a relationship could not be deemed to have the hallmark of a family life within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights. Similar considerations apply in the case of rape or incest.

Most difficulty will arise where the mother refuses to reveal the identity of the father. I have considered whether the placement of a child for adoption should be prohibited in such circumstances. However, I have concluded that it would not be in the best interests of the child to deny him or her the possibility of becoming a member of an adoptive family where the mother does not intend to bring up the child herself, and it is clearly her wish that the child be placed for adoption. I am conscious of the effect that a requirement to name the father could have on mothers. In an extreme case, a woman might opt for an abortion rather than allow the father to have any involvement in the post-birth situation. The Bill, accordingly, provides that where a mother refuses to name the father, the adoption agency must counsel her to attempt to obtain her co-operation. I am firmly of the view that a mother cannot be compelled to name the father and that this is as far as the law can go in the matter.

Section 5 extends the present categories of persons who are entitled to be heard by the Adoption Board on an application for an adoption order to include, among others, the child and the father or a person who believes himself to be the father. Conferring a statutory right on the father to be heard on an adoption application addresses the finding of the European Court of Human Rights in the Keegan case that he had no standing in the adoption procedure.

Section 6 sets out new consultation procedures to be followed by the Adoption Board where an applicant for an adoption order is the mother or a relative of the child and no adoption agency has been involved in the case. The board must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to consult the father in relation to the application. It may arrange for a health board to assist it in carrying out its functions under this section. The board is exempted from the requirement to consult the father in the same circumstances as are provided for in section 7F.

Section 7 prohibits a parent from placing a child for adoption with a person who is not a relative of the child. It also prohibits a person from receiving a child who is not a relative of that person for the purpose of adoption otherwise than from an adoption agency. The purpose of these measures is to ensure that private adoption placements cannot be used as a means of circumventing the new procedure for consulting the father in cases where the mother does not want him to have any say in the matter.

However, there are other compelling reasons for prohibiting the direct placement by the mother of her child for adoption with non-relatives. The Adoption Board, in successive annual reports, has expressed grave concern about such placements because they lack proper safeguards for both the child and the mother. In the case of a placement arranged by an adoption agency, the prospective adopting parents will have undergone a detailed assessment of their general suitability. This pre-placement assessment provides an essential safeguard for the welfare of the child, a safeguard which is absent in private adoption arrangements. It is not unknown for the adopting parents in such cases to have been turned down previously by an adoption agency.

The involvement of an adoption agency also provides an important protection for the mother. She is assured of receiving non-directive counselling about the wisdom of adoption in her particular circumstances so that if she decides to have the child adopted, her decision will be an informed one. In a private adoption there is no guarantee that the mother receives objective counselling as to the appropriateness of adoption. Experience has shown that the mother's position is often compromised.

A further disturbing feature of private adoption arrangements is the possible involvement of third parties which is, of course, illegal. In a number of cases investigated by the Adoption Board, it emerged that the mother did not know the adopting parents prior to the pregnancy and that they were put in contact with one another by a third party. I believe that if a child is available for adoption, there is a duty on the State to ensure the best possible placement for the child with a couple who have been properly assessed and are considered by those with professional skills in such matters to be most likely to meet the child's needs.

It should be noted, however, that the prohibition on private adoption placements will not extend to the adoption of a child by a parent or the spouse of a parent, or a member of the extended maternal or paternal family. Such arrangements are known as "family adoptions" and it is not proposed to impose restrictions on them. Thus it will continue to be lawful, for example, for a mother to adopt her child jointly with her husband who is not the father or to place the child for adoption with the father and his spouse.

Section 8 provides that it shall be an offence for a person knowingly to make or furnish any false or misleading statement or information to the Adoption Board or an adoption agency. Section 9 deals with offences generally and provides, among other matters, for the prosecution of offences up to 12 months after they were committed.

Section 10 provides for certain modifications to the definition of "foreign adoption" contained in section 1 of the Adoption Act, 1991. This is intended to facilitate the recognition under Irish law of adoptions effected in countries, including the People's Republic of China, whose laws permit the termination of adoptions in particular circumstances.

The purpose of the revised paragraph (a) of the existing definition of a "foreign adoption" is to provide for the retrospective recognition of simple adoptions which are subsequently converted into full adoptions in the countries in which they were granted. The issue of the non-recognition of simple adoptions was debated at length during the passage of the Bill through the Dáil. I will return to this in a few moments after I have outlined the rationale behind the other modifications of the current definition of a "foreign adoption" provided for in section 10 of the Bill.

Paragraph (b) of the existing definition of a "foreign adoption" requires an adoption effected abroad to have essentially the same legal effect as an Irish adoption order in relation to the termination and creation of parental rights and duties. This condition has given rise to most difficulty, particularly on the recognition of adoptions granted abroad which are broadly similar to an Irish adoption in their legal effect apart from the fact that they may be terminated in particular circumstances prescribed by the internal law of the country concerned. In order to provide for the recognition of such an adoption, the words "for so long as it is in force" have been incorporated into the substitute condition, "essentially" has been modified to "substantially", and "parental rights and duties" has been replaced by "guardianship".

Paragraph (d) of the existing definition of a "foreign adoption" provides that the law of the place where the adoption was effected required the relevant adoption authority, before effecting the adoption, to give due consideration to the interests and welfare of the child. While the adoption laws of some countries do not specifically contain such a requirement, it is clear nevertheless that they have as their fundamental purpose the promotion of the interests and welfare of the child. Accordingly, the substitute paragraph (d) is designed to facilitate the recognition of adoptions effected in countries whose adoption laws have as their primary aim the promotion of the welfare of children who are adopted under those laws.

Senators will be aware that some countries operate dual systems of adoption known, respectively, as simple or ordinary adoption and full or plenary adoption. A full adoption has a broadly similar legal effect to that of an Irish adoption order in that it severs the legal relationship between the birth parents and the child and creates a permanent new legal parent-child relationship between the adopters and the child. Full adoptions effected in countries which operate dual systems of adoption already qualify for recognition here under the Adoption Act, 1991.

I would like to explain at this point that the effect of the recognition of a foreign adoption under the 1991 Act is to accord it the same legal status as an Irish adoption order. As Senators are aware, an Irish adoption order permanently severs the legal relationship between the child and the natural parents. It follows from this that an adoption granted outside the State must have a similar legal effect to an Irish adoption under the law of the foreign country concerned to qualify for recognition here.

However, simple or ordinary adoptions are more limited in their legal effect than full adoptions in that the pre-existing legal relationship between the child and the birth parents is not completely severed. In countries such as Paraguay, where dual systems of simple and full adoption are operated, it is for the relevant adoption authority to decide which type of adoption decree is the appropriate one to make by reference to the provisions of its internal adoption laws. I have been advised that we must respect that distinction and not seek to accord a simple adoption a legal status beyond that which it has under the law of the country where it was granted.

Our own adoption laws have evolved on the basis that they protect the interests of the child and respect the rights of the birth parents as set out in the Constitution. In the case of inter-country adoption, it is proper that our laws must give the same respect to the rights of birth parents abroad as they give to Irish parents.

I am very aware of the practical difficulties that couples who have been granted simple adoptions in Paraguay are encountering because their adoptions do not qualify for recognition here. The immediate difficulties arise in relation to Irish citizenship and passports for the children. In the longer term, the children's rights and liabilities in relation to succession and taxation may be an issue.

The issues involved are complex and clearly concern a number of area of Government. Accordingly, I arranged to have them discussed at a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Children's Services. The committee agreed that everything possible should be done to support the children and find a resolution to their problems. An interdepartmental committee has been established to tease out how the difficulties currently being experienced by the families might be addressed. This committee is chaired by the Department of Health and includes representatives of the Departments of Education, Equality and Law Reform, Foreign Affairs, Justice and Social Welfare as well as the Office of the Attorney General. The work of the committee is proceeding and I hope this initiative will help to resolve some of the difficulties I have outlined.

As regards the substantive issue of the status of Paraguayan simple adoptions, I have received a legal opinion on certain aspects of Paraguayan adoption law from a lawyer in Paraguay with expertise in that law. This opinion has been considered by the interdepartmental committee and the lawyer concerned has been asked by the Irish Embassy in Buenos Aires to clarify a number of matters. This clarification is still awaited.

The amendments of the existing definition of a "foreign adoption" provided for in section 10 of the Bill are as far as we can go in extending our statutory system for the recognition of adoptions effected abroad. From a public policy point of view, it is not possible to modify the system further without completely undermining our credibility at the international level. The provisions of section 10 of the Bill are the minimum criteria that a foreign adoption must satisfy in order to qualify for recognition here. The legal opinion received from the lawyer in Paraguay has shed new light on our understanding of the legal effect of a simple adoption granted in that country. However, the advice available to me is that the legal effect of such an adoption does not comply with the terms of the substitute paragraph (b) of the definition of a "foreign adoption". In the final analysis, only our courts could give a definitive ruling on this question.

I would like to assure Senators that no stone will be left unturned in seeking a resolution of the practical difficulties which couples who have adopted children abroad under simple adoption decrees are experiencing.

Section 11 provides for a technical amendment of section 2 of the 1991 Act. Section 12 extends the grounds for the recognition of a foreign adoption effected elsewhere than the place in which the adopters were domiciled or resident on the date of the adoption. At present, such an adoption will only qualify for recognition here if it is recognised in the country where the adopters were living at the time of the adoption. The new provision is designed to deal with cases where persons who, while living in an Islamic country or a country whose laws do not provide for the recognition of adoptions, adopt a child in some other country. I am aware that a number of Irish citizens have found themselves in this situation and the new provision will be of particular benefit to them.

Section 13 extends by 12 months the deadlines set out in the 1991 Act for the recognition of adoptions effected abroad in favour of Irish residents who had not completed the pre-adoption assessment procedures introduced by that Act. As I have already mentioned, a number of Irish residents were unable to finalise the adoption process in Romania and in certain other countries before the deadlines. The purpose of the extension is to ensure that their adoptions will qualify for recognition.

Section 14 provides for technical amendments of section 6 of the 1991 Act. Section 15 amends section 7 of the 1991 Act, which empowers the High Court to give directions in relation to entries in the register of foreign adoptions maintained by the Adoption Board. The amendments are designed to deal with situations where a foreign adoption which has been recognised here is subsequently terminated under the law of the place where it was effected. A person seeking to have recognition withdrawn must apply to the High Court for an order directing the board to cancel the entry in the register. The court shall not give such a direction unless satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the adopted person to do so. Where the court gives such a direction, it may make such orders as appears to it to be necessary, including orders relating to the guardianship, custody, maintenance and citizenship of the adopted person.

Section 16 provides for the laying before each House of the Oireachtas of regulations made by the Minister for Health under section 9 of the 1991 Act in relation to the proof of foreign adoptions. Section 17 provides that sections 2 to 9 shall come into operation 90 days after the enactment of the Bill. This is to give the Adoption Board time to make the necessary rules governing the new procedures for consulting the fathers of non-marital children, and the adoption agencies an opportunity to put in place arrangements for the operation of those procedures. Section 18 contains standard provisions regarding short title, collective citation and construction.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a major development in our adoption legislation. The provisions for improving the position of the fathers of non-marital children in the adoption process are a reasonable response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Keegan case. The Government is satisfied that the provisions address the specific issues raised in the judgment and that they will bring our domestic adoption laws into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. While it cannot be guaranteed that a child will never again be placed for adoption without the knowledge of a father who had established family ties similar to those established by Mr. Keegan, I believe that the enactment of the new provisions will minimise as far as possible the likelihood of this happening in the future.

The amendment of the Adoption Act, 1991, is designed to introduce greater flexibility into our statutory system for the recognition of foreign adoptions. I am confident the amendments will be warmly welcomed by people who wish to adopt in countries whose laws provide for the termination of adoptions. I know that there will be an equally positive response from those adoptive parents whose adoptions will qualify for recognition by virtue of the extension of the deadlines set out in the 1991 Act.

This is the first of a number of Bills that I propose to bring forward to reform and update the law on adoption. As I have previously indicated to this House, the establishment of a comprehensive legal framework for post-adoption contact between birth parents and adopted persons, and access to birth records, is a priority of the Government. The need for such a framework is fully recognised and it is my firm intention that the necessary enabling legislation will be brought forward as quickly as possible after a number of legal and constitutional issues have been clarified. In the meantime, I am proceeding with arrangements for the establishment, on an administrative basis, of an adoption contact register to assist adoptees and birth parents who wish to be put in touch with one another. My Department is currently developing proposals in this regard.

I also intend to bring forward legislation to provide for the ratification of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-country Adoption. The primary objectives of this convention are to provide safeguards to prevent the abduction, sale of, or trafficking in children, and to establish a system of co-operation among countries in order to ensure that inter-country adoptions take place in the best interests of the children concerned. The convention was signed on behalf of the Government on 19 June 1996 in order to demonstrate our support of the instrument and its objectives, and to signal our intention of ratifying it in due course.

The Bill before the House represents a significant step forward in the evolution of our adoption laws. The progressive measures contained in it satisfactorily address two major issues. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the contribution of Senators.

I echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister of State in that part of his speech relating to the priority that must be given at all times to the adopted child. The Minister mentioned the establishment, on an informal administrative basis, of an adoption register to facilitate contact between adopted children and their natural parents. This register should be voluntary and the overwhelming benefit should accrue to the child who, at this stage, may well be an adult.

As the Minister of State correctly said, this Bill deals with two very different problems. The first is the issue arising out of the Keegan case where a natural father sought to involve himself in the adoptive process and, it has to be admitted, was effectively stymied by our system. He had to go to the European Court of Human Rights to assert his rights. The second issue is the recognition of foreign adoptions.

The position of the natural father vis-á-vis a child that may be adopted will always be a difficult one. By and large this Bill contains positive measures that I am happy to support. I would like to see them enacted quickly. The onus should be on the mother to show that the natural father is not interested or does not want to be involved in the adoption process. Natural fathers have rights which must be protected.

I do not intend to read at length from the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, but I was rather dismayed by the reporting of this case in The Irish Times on 27 May 1994. I will read from three paragraphs of it:

Yesterday's judgment found that the decision to place the child for adoption without Mr. Keegan's knowledge or consent was in accordance with Irish law.

Last November's hearing was told that Mr. Keegan's former girlfriend, named only as "V", placed the child for adoption shortly after the birth. Mr. Keegan was informed of this placement by letter some days later. He contested the Adoption Board's decision to place the child, without his consent, through the Irish courts.

Counsel for the State, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, SC, denied that there had been any discrimination against Mr. Keegan because he was an unmarried father. He told the November hearing: "There is no question of the Irish court resolving upon some wholesale disregard for non-married unions".

Many children are now born out of wedlock. In so far as this Bill brings the recognition of the rights of natural fathers into a modern context, then it is to be welcomed.

I largely agree with the Minister's comment that it will not be possible in every case to secure the consent, advice or opinion of the natural father. It would be unreasonable in certain cases even to ask for that. The Minister cited three examples: rape; incest and a holiday relationship. While I completely agree with the first two, I would place a question mark over a holiday relationship because it is possible for people to fall in love quickly. It does happen, if only for a short period. In a case where the child is the product of voluntary sexual intercourse I am not sure that there should not be an obligation on the mother to disclose who the father is to the Adoption Board, or the adoption society concerned.

Of course, I accept there would be immense practical problems in implementing that. However, I would leave the door somewhat open in that there could be occasions when, even on holiday or in some very casual way, there was a relationship of love from which a child resulted. I would not close the door entirely on the possibility that, in such circumstances, the natural father should be consulted.

There can be more than one relationship going on at the same time on holidays.

How would the Minister know that?

I have read about it.

In general, I believe that where an unmarried mother is placing a child for adoption there should be a fairly strong onus on her to inform the adoption society or the Adoption Board of the identity and location of the natural father. Every effort should be made, without going to extremes, to ensure that the natural father consents to the adoption.

I have a small query about the 21 day period, although we can address this in more detail on Committee Stage. While there must be a cut off point — the clock is ticking and nobody wants to see a child in care for an indefinite period — perhaps 21 days is too short a period for a natural father to make such a decision.

Part II of the Bill relates to the recognition of foreign adoptions. By and large, I agree with the arguments advanced by the Minister of State as to whether simple adoptions should be recognised. With regard to full or plenary adoptions, the Bill introduced by Deputy Woods in the Dáil in March 1996 should have been accepted by the Government, albeit with amendments. If it had, some parents who have anxiously awaited such legislation might have been able to move more speedily. I will not make an issue of this because it is not appropriate to seek political advantage on a matter as sensitive as adoption. However, I question the need for the long delay between the time Deputy Woods introduced his Bill in 1996 and the introduction of this Bill, which will not become law until March 1997.

I wish to address the general question of whether Ireland should recognise simple adoptions in foreign countries. What is at issue is a basic conflict of laws. If simple adoptions were recognised in this country a situation could arise where, if the natural parents who live in the foreign country suddenly wanted their child back, the child could not return to the natural parents because its adoption was recognised in Ireland. In effect there would be a conflict of law between the foreign country and Ireland if both countries have different adoption laws. This points to the need for worldwide uniformity in adoption law and practice. That is the only real long-term solution to the problem. I am delighted the Bill provides for applications to the High Court in cases where the register must be changed and that the primary concern, as is normal in the High Court, will be the welfare of the child.

The recognition of simple adoptions is an extremely difficult issue and, in a way, the Bill does not solve the problem. Are children to be the victims of differences between various countries in adoption law? Are children who are languishing without hope in orphanages or children who are committed to a life of poverty and destitution in Latin America to be consigned to the scrap heap of humanity because there is a conflict of laws in relation to adoption? It is a difficult and sensitive question and I do not pretend to have the answer. However, as Deputy Woods said in the Dáil, the humanitarian aspect must be the absolute priority. The legal formalities, if they can be overcome, take second place. However, that is subject at all times to not involving a child in a tug of law, rather than a tug of love. That is the problem we are trying to avoid. It is an extremely serious problem.

When speaking on this Bill in the Dáil, Deputy Woods read out a list of countries whose adoptions will not be recognised under this Bill. The list includes Belgium, France, Luxembourg——

That list is out of date.

I will name the rest of the countries and perhaps the Minister of State will clarify how the list has been altered. The other countries are Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mexico, Liberia, Guatemala, China, Japan, Lebanon, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, South Korea, Thailand, Poland and Russia. I hope the list is now considerably shorter.

The Minister of State said an interdepartmental task force is looking into this problem. Can he tell us the timetable for the conclusion of the task force's deliberations? I am not suggesting that its deliberations should be rushed because nobody wants children to be the victims of rushed legislation. This is an extremely important and sensitive area. However, there is a shortage of children available for adoption in Ireland while there is an excess of children available and in need of adoption throughout the world. We have the urgent task of marrying the needs of Irish parents with those of the hundreds of thousands of children in other countries who are crying out for adoption. The Minister of State should outline the timetable for when this important work will be concluded. It is vitally important and sensible that parents who have been approved in Ireland for adoption should be able to adopt children who are unwanted and suffering.

We welcome this important Bill and we will constructively debate each section on Committee Stage. It is regrettable that Deputy Woods's Bill was not accepted last March but we will positively contribute to this legislation. We hope it will be passed so that foreign adoptions by Irish adoptive couples and parents can be recognised as a matter of urgency.

I welcome this legislation. The purpose of the Bill is two-fold: it is a response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Keegan case and it amends domestic law with regard to foreign adoptions.

The Keegan case was unusual. Since the passing of the first adoption legislation in 1952 a number of cases have been fought in the courts and changes have been made in adoption law as a consequence. The Keegan case was a continuation of that trend. Mr. Keegan had established a family relationship with the child and the court ruled in his favour. The court found that the child was placed for adoption without his consent.

Until recently, many children were placed for adoption without consent, in the strict meaning of the word. A number of children were placed with adoptive parents after six weeks and mothers had no knowledge of where their children were placed. Although the mothers gave legal consent, that was as far as it went. I am pleased that the Minister of State is introducing a legal framework for post adoption contact between birth parents and adoptive parents. He made that promise in an earlier debate in the House and I am pleased to see that he is fulfilling that promise.

Senator Mulcahy spoke about the rights of fathers of children born outside wedlock. They have rights but they also have responsibilities. It saddens me that, in Irish society today, men walk away from their responsibilities. Mr. Keegan was different, but he was also an exception. The majority of men have no interest in what happens to children they have fathered outside wedlock. Mr. Keegan, to his credit, took an interest and was anxious to be consulted. The Minister quoted the 1995 adoption figures which showed that few fathers wished to be consulted about what happened to their children. The figure for the years before showed that one in 1,000 had an interest. I worked in a church where a number of children born out of wedlock were baptised. I was there 29 years and, in all that time, I only met one father who attended the baptism of his child born outside wedlock. That is a measure of the interest shown. Certain individuals have an interest in their children born outside wedlock and we must provide for that in law. This legislation provides for fathers who show such an interest.

The second part of the legislation deals with foreign adoptions. This causes problems because there is a dual system of adoption in some countries — a simple adoption and a full adoption. Before we enacted the Adoption Act, 1952, this country could be classified in the first category because we only had a simple adoption scheme. I want to tell the House about the problems that caused. Children were born outside wedlock, adopted by adoptive parents and the child was registered in the natural mother's name. There was no legal mechanism to change that until the 1952 Act was passed; adoptive parents could not change the register to put their names as the parents of the child. However, under the Act they had the same rights as the natural parents. Until then, they did not and this led to all sorts of complications. Adoptive parents did not know at what hour of the day or night natural parents might come knocking on their door asking for the child.

There is a lot to be said for going through the full legal system and parents should be warned. Does the Minister know if adoption societies have a list of countries which only have a simple form of adoption so that parents can be informed? It is important that parents be given that information when they are adopting children.

I compliment the Minister for setting up the interdepartmental committee to deal with the Paraguay issue and some progress has been made on that from what he has told us. I hope it can be resolved. Could he give a list of other countries where the problem of simple adoptions still exists?

I welcome this legislation. It is very positive as regards the natural father being consulted if he so wishes and as regards foreign adoptions. There is a great demand in this country to adopt foreign children because the number of Irish children available for adoption is limited as natural parents want to keep their children. I hope the matter can be resolved and parents' anxieties removed. We have been lobbied by parents who have adopted Paraguayan children and I can see the difficulties they face. The problems are the same as those which existed in this country before the 1952 Act, such as getting adopted children's names on passports, etc. These should be resolved, if possible, and I hope the Minister will make progress with the interdepartmental committee in resolving the matter. I compliment the Minister for bringing his legislation before the House and I look forward to Committee Stage.

I also welcome the Bill. It is a daunting task to have to follow Senator Doyle who has such experience and is always so well informed in these areas. I am glad to hear the Minister will introduce further legislation, especially concerning the ratification of the Hague Convention. The abduction of children is a frequent occurrence, every week if not every day, both within the State and without. The faster this legislation is enacted, the better.

I compliment the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, for having the Intergovernmental Conference suggest that trafficking of people, children specifically, be included with the trafficking of drugs. That is incredibly important because people in other countries are now extremely alarmed that the international movement of children is so easy. I have met people in eastern Europe and the Far East who are desperately anxious about this, perhaps in an exaggerated way. If we, in Europe, introduce legislation to show we will not tolerate trafficking in people, it would be a step towards assuaging the fears of the people in eastern Europe and the Far East whose nationals are being transported around the globe.

The two areas addressed in this Bill are the rights of the biological father and foreign adoptions. Senator Doyle was correct when he said that Mr. Keegan was an exceptional young man in that he took such an interest in the fate of his child. There had been a long relationship and the child was planned. It was very sad for Mr. Keegan that he was denied any rights regarding the placement of his child. When he eventually won in court, it was still decided it would be better for the child if it stayed with the adoptive parents. I am sure that was the correct thing to do because the child was four by that stage. It is now recognised that moving children after a certain length of time is not a good idea. Perhaps, with the Minister's welcome announcement about contact registers being established, he can look forward to a time when his child would be in a position to make contact with him. Both the mother's and father's name will be included on these registers.

The father is given a certain length of time to state whether he objects to the placement of his child for adoption. I disagree with Senator Mulcahy that 21 days is too short. After all, the woman was pregnant for nine months. If the man had taken so little interest in the pregnancy, obviously it was a casual relationship and he would not be interested in the arrival of his child into the world.

I am also anxious about the word "obligation" being used regarding the mother. There is an obligation on her to disclose the father's name. I worry that she might seek an abortion because disclosure of the father's name might raise problems for her. She might not disclose the father's name for inclusion on the child's birth certificate if she thought there might be too many problems. I feel strongly about this because children are entitled to know their father's name and it should be on the birth certificate wherever possible.

As president of Cherish, the organisation set up 25 years ago by and for single mothers, I say we must be very cautious with this section. The Minister for Social Welfare and I have had correspondence recently about payments for lone parents where the mother must make reasonable efforts to get what is referred to in the Bill as a "liable relative" to pay maintenance for the child. We have always encouraged mothers to try to get maintenance from the father but this can be counter productive if it destroys any hope of a relationship between a father and his child. Even in the case of separated and divorced women, where the father will have had an emotional relationship with the child and be subject to legal requirements, it can be very difficult to enforce maintenance — it is paid in only 50 per cent of cases. This is a sensitive area and the Minister has achieved as much as is possible to ensure that the father can state his views on the proposal that his child should be put forward for adoption.

Foreign adoption is an emotive issue. We have all seen television programmes from other countries in which children have been deserted by their parents. However, countries do have a pride which must be taken into account. The welfare of the child is paramount and we cannot allow ourselves to be seen as a country where these children are treated in a way which best satisfies us. Some of these children live in the most appalling conditions and I want to ensure that they are given the best opportunities in life which, probably, will be with adoptive parents here. However, we must be sensitive to the culture from which they come and the feelings of those living in these countries. For example, extended families in these countries may not be enthusiastic about the adoption of a child out of their culture and if they are prepared to undertake the upbringing of the child, then we must take that into account.

The Minister spoke about the Paraguayan children who have been adopted in Ireland. There are about 30 children involved and I am sympathetic to their adoptive parents. The Minister is taking the best legal advice available but the laws of other countries must also be taken into account. Just because we feel that our environment is preferable to that in another country does not mean that we can force our rules on these countries. I hope something will be done soon to regularise the Paraguayan children because the adoptive parents are very anxious.

When we are considering our views on foreign adoption it is important to remember what happened last year when the situation was reversed. Children who were sent for adoption in the US eventually discovered more about their adoptions when papers were found in the archives of the Department of Foreign Affairs. A large number of those people have now made representations to try to find out more about their adoption. Approximately 60 of them have sought certificates of surrender and confirmation of suitability. At the time it was felt that the best course of action was being taken for the children. The National Archives holds the files for the purposes of issuing passports but it only refers individuals to the convents or agencies who handled the adoption originally. We need to be very sensitive about this.

The contact register will be very important and I welcome its establishment. I compliment Senator McGennis on her tenacity on this issue because she has been seeking such a register since I came into this House. More and more adoptees are seeking information on their biological background but there is great difficulty finding this information as the records are confidential. An adoptee may only know the name of his or her birth parent, usually it is the mother. While the privacy of the adults involved has to be protected, the interests of the child should have priority.

The contact register in England allows birth parents and adopted children, who have reached 18 years of age, to apply for the information necessary to make contact with each other. That information is exchanged only when both parties have agreed. We should implement a similar system in Ireland. The adoption register is one step towards more openness but a certain amount of secrecy still exists. This has led to traumatic events in the lives of some adopted children, so the more openness we have the better.

If a child is adopted at an older age it is important to maintain contact with a biological relative. The register may also make it possible for the biological parent to be given information on the progress of the child without making contact. This can make an enormous difference to the mothers and also to the child if contact is eventually made and he or she discovers that their well being was inquired into over the years.

The register will be of no use to those adopted before 1952 and who have only the names of the adoptive parents on their birth certificates. There are two cases before the High Court where adults with such birth certificates are attempting to find the names of their birth parents.

We should be sensitive about the language we use when discussing this issue. Most adoptees prefer the term "birth parent" rather than "real" or "natural" mother or father. If they have been happy in a family they will refer to the adoptive parents as their mother and father or parent. The choice of words may seem a technicality but it can make a significant emotional difference and it also shapes and reflects the way we think about adoption.

There seems to be problems from time to time regarding the Adoption Board. In The Irish Times on Tuesday there was a report about a couple who have been refused permission to adopt because the wife had cancer. Two oncologists stated that the disease had been cured. From the medical evidence I felt that the condition was cancer of the cervix which has a very high cure rate but the Adoption Board decided that five years must elapse from the time of the operation before it would consider the couple for adoption. By this stage the woman will be 41 which is over the legal age for adoption. Unless the board has expert advice from other oncologists I wonder how wise it is to treat people in such a manner.

Section 10 of the Adoption Act, 1991, can be a cause of concern for would be adopters. As of now, there is no need for the board to give any reason for its refusal to allow couples or a single person to adopt. There are some anomalies here. In the Bill, a widow or widower is allowed to adopt but a single person is not mentioned. A widower or widow is not necessarily a father or mother whereas a single person, especially a mother, could have one or more children and be a successful parent. This could be important when women try to adopt children from countries where single parent adoptions are more readily allowed, for example, in China.

I also have difficulty in understanding section 10 (2) of the 1991 Act which says that, notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, where the board is satisfied that in the particular circumstances of the case it is desirable an adoption order may be made in favour of an applicant who is not a person specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of this section: paragraph (b) says the applicant is the mother, father or relative of the child and (c) that the applicant is a widow or widower.

It is hard to work out what are the particular circumstances of the case. If one cannot find out what the precedent is, how can a person find out what are the particular circumstances so they can see if they fall within that category? Surely natural justice suggests that the board has to let people know what these particular circumstances are. If a person is refused, can they ask for an independent assessment? It is difficult for people who may appear to be admirable to adopt children who may be living in dire circumstances and may be in need of a family. We now recognise there are many families where, regrettably, for one reason or another, there is only one parent and it is unfortunate that this is not made clear to those who want to adopt.

The Minister spoke about pre-adoption assessments and he has provided for suitable changes to be made retrospectively in the Bill. However, it is important that we watch this area. As the Minister knows, sometimes people who are not found acceptable in pre-adoption assessment try other countries. Because no reasons are given, it is difficult for them to know why they have been refused. There were cases in England where people were described as being too fat to adopt. While I do not have the greatest enthusiasm for Stephen Dorrell, he has now suggested that adoption agencies will have to bring forward some reasons couples are refused permission to adopt. People may get themselves into invidious situations and they go abroad and bring back children. We then have to deal with the most heartrending cases where who knows what legislation will follow.

Some time ago, the High Court encouraged the board to try to give would be adopters answers within a reasonable length of time, for instance, two years. Will the Minister encourage the board to be more open in its decisions as to why people are refused and try to make their decisions known as soon as possible?

There is a great amount of legislation being brought forward in the Department of Justice, but it would be helpful if a consolidated Bill were introduced because people would not have to refer from Act to Act, as has become the case because legislation has had to be updated so quickly.

The day when people could easily adopt children in this country — when 4,000 or 5,000 children were adopted every year — is long gone. There are 3,000, maybe 4,000, adoptions each year now and almost all are inter-family, usually the mother, husband or another family member adopts the child. This legislation dealing with foreign adoptions is important. While it is difficult for the Minister, I hope he will continue the work to ensure these adoptions do not run into trouble at a later date when they may be challenged because of legislation in the country from where the child originally came.

The Bill has three purposes. The first is to resolve the legal difficulties arising from the 1990 Keegan v Ireland case. This case has been well outlined. The European Court found that the placing of a child for adoption without consultation with the father was an infringement of his family rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also agreed that the fact that Mr. Keegan was not allowed to participate in the adoption hearing was an infringement of his rights under Article 6 of the same convention.

The second purpose is the facilitation of the proper recognition of Chinese or foreign adoptions in this country and the third is to clear up other minor anomalies in the Adoption Act, 1991. Adoption has psychological effects, especially on the mother. In the years I worked in the psychiatric services, I came across a number of people who felt hurt by decisions they had taken as regards adoption which stayed with them for life. A woman will take a decision when she becomes pregnant — sometimes she may panic if she is not married. What choices does she have? She has to decide whether to abort the child. If she decides to keep it, does she put it up for adoption or does she keep it? Usually she is on her own. The Minister mentioned 157 adoption orders in 1995 but there was contact between the father and the agencies in only 27 cases, a ratio of one in six.

I have seen cases where a mother gave a child up for adoption and after six months decided to take the child back. I remember the depression of and the psychological damage done to the adoptive parents. They would have had no children of their own and their happiness during that period was unbelievable. Some of them entered psychiatric hospitals because of it. I have seen others who had to be treated later in life because of an earlier decision, whether to abort or adopt. They felt guilt and hurt which stayed with them forever; they never forgot it.

I know one couple who adopted four children. They were the finest children anybody could have. I also knew two friends each of whom adopted a child in the same year. In the following year, both women were pregnant and had children naturally. The benefits of adoption sometimes have to be weighed against the losses.

The Minister outlined the situation in the Keegan case. He set out to establish a statutory procedure to consult with fathers of non-marital children. Where a father raises no objection to the adoption of a child, it can proceed without further reference to him. Those points were stressed by the Minister of State. The changes in the Bill are a response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and must be welcomed.

If a father is opposed to an adoption the placement must be deferred to allow him instigate court proceedings for guardianship and custody. As the Minister of State outlined, there is a greater recognition of fathers in that provision, which is welcome. If the court awards the father guardianship, the adoption cannot proceed without his consent. If a mother decides to put a child up for adoption, it is important for the father and child, and augurs well for the child's future, if the father is in a position to adopt the child. If the father is awarded custody the issue of adoption does not arise. The Bill also prohibits direct placement of a child for adoption to non-relatives by a mother.

The moves to consult the father are very important. As was said earlier, most of these fathers slip away and avoid responsibility. I have seen cases, however, where fathers, who were informed after their child was aborted or adopted, went through the same stresses and strains as mothers who felt extremely bad about having to do either. This Bill is a definite step in the right direction. Fathers and mothers can carry that loss and hurt forever and it is important we address the situation. The Minister of State has made a good effort in that regard.

Most of the issues were covered by other Senators and I will not go over them again. The measure on Chinese adoptions was a Government response to Deputy Woods's Private Members' Bill. The most significant measure was the extension of the deadlines contained in the 1991 Act for the recognition of foreign adoptions. Those who complete the extensive pre-adoption procedures outlined in the 1991 Act currently have a problem meeting the deadlines. The Minister of State has gone some way towards addressing this situation.

The Minister of State has made moves in this Bill to try to close the loopholes in the law. Most Members agree that the Bill is a major step forward and I commend him on it. I commend the Bill to the House.

I also welcome the Bill which seeks to correct many anomalies. It is right that fathers should have a say in whether their child is adopted. It is a pity we could not have tighter restrictions to ensure that more fathers were made responsible and accountable.

Now the Senator is talking.

I did not say that only today or yesterday. I got a headline in the Irish Independent about ten years ago for making that statement.

I hope the Senator gets a headline tomorrow.

That is how far ahead I was in my thinking. I do not see why the State or the girl should be the victims and have to carry the can; as the old cliché says, it takes two to tango.

It is also important that adopted children should be able to find out the identity of both their natural parents. The big problem with adoptions has been that while it was always possible to discover the identity of the mother, it was not always possible to discover the identity of the father. I hope we can remedy that serious situation.

It is sad to hear girls saying they had a one night stand and do not want to meet the man again. It is sad that society has got to the stage — I do not want anybody to jump on my back for saying this — where girls have dropped to that level because of drink and drugs. Boys will be boys and many of them do not want to face up to their responsibilities as they should.

It is important for foreign adoptions to be properly registered and documented. Those children might wish to return to their country of origin in 20 years' time to find out where they came from and who were their parents. I wonder if that is being documented as well as it should.

Senator Maloney touched on the need for more support for unborn babies. We are told that 500 girls go to London every month for abortions, a colossal number. Is that the answer in the 1990s? We have been highly critical of children being sent for adoption to America and elsewhere in the 1940s and 1950s. However, is abortion a good enough answer in the 1990s? Are we doing enough or do we not want to hear about it? I sometimes wonder if people have forgotten the Ten Commandments, particularly the fifth.

It is sad that doctors are making £500 for ten minutes work in those clinics. I heard a girl being interviewed recently who had changed her mind in an abortion clinic. The staff in the clinic were very annoyed for wasting their time and she got no sympathy from them. All they wanted was the money. Although the great majority of doctors work long hours to save lives, it is sad that a small minority of those who studied to save lives are prepared to do the opposite. Senator Maloney said he had experience of girls who had had abortions seeking psychiatric treatment. Many women who have genuine miscarriages get worried and upset about them for a long time. What will be the repercussions of the world we live in today? It is too horrific to think about.

I welcome the Bill. As Senator Maloney said, it is a panic situation when a girl gets pregnant. I have no experience of this, but from what I hear that is so. Our current treatment of that problem is not good enough. It is all very well to talk about freedom of choice, but the unborn baby should also be given the choice to live. Legislation should be put in place in that regard. There are many people who would be willing and delighted to adopt children but they cannot get them.

While I welcome the Bill, and the Minister of State is doing a good job, I appeal to him to think about whether we are doing enough for the unborn. We should put in place a system to try to prevent the abortion trail. In 15 or 20 years people will ask what kind of barbaric society and Government ruled Ireland in the 1990s.

I wish to express my appreciation for the work the Minister of State has put into this welcome Bill. I do not need to repeat much of what has been said. Our hearts are behind the objectives of the Bill. Those of us fortunate enough to have natural families do not always appreciate the joy experienced by parents when they are able to adopt. We are reminded of it when we encounter the trauma they experience in the adoption process. Years ago, large numbers of children in Ireland were adopted; however, those wishing to adopt today must often go outside the country.

The interests of the child is of paramount importance. I was in America three weeks ago when an adoption case hit the headlines. A father who had not given permission, claimed that the adoption of his child effected by the mother three years previously was illegal. The child was removed from the adoptive parents to the birth parents, resulting in trauma and difficulty. This case made headlines because the father had deserted the mother. This was a difficult situation and it illustrates that it is not possible to legislate for all circumstances. However, the Minister of State has done his best to address the difficulties.

Was this an American case?

That is correct. It has nothing to do with Ireland, other than to remind us of the difficulties we face in this area. A number of parents have adopted children from Paraguay and there is great concern that not every stone has been left unturned in the efforts to achieve success with the simple and plenary forms of adoption. The Minister of State said:

The legal opinion received from the lawyer in Paraguay has shed new light on our understanding of the legal effect of a simple adoption granted in that country. However, the advice available to me is that the legal effect of such an adoption does not comply with the terms of the substitute paragraph ... In the final analysis, only our courts could give a definite ruling on this question.

I urge him to publish the legal advice he has received. Lawyers differ, and in the same way as many hands at any task have a better chance of success, publication of the legal advice will enable those concerned parents make an input and help find a solution to this worrying problem. In an era of freedom of information there should be no difficulty with this.

I understand that the basic problem between a simple and plenary adoption arises where the child predeceases the adoptive parents, and possible difficulties, such as inheritance and succession rights ensue. Given that such situations are unlikely, there must be a solution to the problems in this area. The efforts made by all concerned, including the Minister of State, his Department and the parents themselves, to reach a solution would be helped by the publication of the advice received by the Minister of State.

I congratulate the Minister of State on the steps he has taken. I urge him to go one step further, especially in the area of Paraguayan adoptions.

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I welcome this Bill. We are dealing with a complex area here because individual cases involving children, adoptive parents and natural parents are involved. However, the welfare of the child must be of paramount importance.

I commend the Minister of State on the efforts he is making to resolve this issue. We all know the difficulties faced by our constituents involved in adoption, especially foreign adoptions. It is a complex issue and will probably require changes in the future. However, I appreciate the Minister of State's efforts to address the more obvious difficulties that have arisen in recent years.

The purpose of the Bill is two-fold. The first is to meet the consequences of the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in the Keegan case, and second is to deal with the problems that have arisen with some foreign adoptions.

We have not had the happiest relationship with the European Court of Justice, and have been found by the court to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights on a number of occasions. For example, Senator Norris was granted a judgment by the court and legislation was introduced a number of years later to address the issues it raised. In addition, there was the case of the Well Woman Advice Centres, and the Keegan case, which this legislation seeks to address.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill which will change those aspects of the Adoption Act, 1991, which have given rise to difficulties. They should lead to the recognition of adoption orders in a number of foreign countries. Difficulties have arisen because while there are two different types of adoption processes in many countries, our law recognises one procedure and not the other.

The initial impetus to produce a Bill to address this situation arose because of the problems with Chinese adoptions, which were highlighted on a television programme, and the subsequent move by Deputy Woods to introduce a Bill in the other House to address the difficulties being experienced by people to have Chinese children legally adopted in this country.

However, the issue is wider than this. Parents have had difficulties with Paraguayan adoptions. We have all been lobbied by members of that group and I welcome the efforts being made by the Minister to address their difficulties and concerns in having their adoptions recognised here.

It is not only in adoptions of children from China and Paraguay that difficulties have arisen. I have had many representations from a couple in my constituency who were interested in adopting a child from Thailand, as were other couples throughout the country. That is because the number of children being placed for adoption here is so low that couples who would normally consider adopting children have been forced to go abroad. I welcome the fact that so few children are being put up for adoption and that women feel they are in a position to keep their children. None of us wishes to go back to the past when many women felt that their only option was to place a child for adoption. For many of them it was an extremely difficult decision that they made in the best interests of the child, but the fact that it is acceptable now for a single mother to keep a child rather than give it up for adoption is welcome.

In relation to the couple from my constituency attempting to organise an adoption in Thailand, it is unfair that many couples go through all the procedures, such as exploring the possibility of adoption in a particular country and getting investigated by social services here as to their suitability, only to discover that they will never be able to legally adopt a child from a certain country because that country's adoption laws are not in accordance with ours. Such couples should be informed at the beginning of the process that there is no possibility of a child brought back by them from another country attaining the status of a child adopted in this country or of a child adopted in a country whose adoption procedures we recognise.

They are informed but many ignore it.

I found this extraordinary. The Adoption Board should inform parents in the beginning that there is no point pursuing an adoption in a certain country because it will not have legal status here. In the case in my constituency, the couple discovered that, in order for the adoption to be granted in Thailand, they needed confirmation that the child could be legally adopted here. Because adopted children in Thailand retain inheritance rights from their natural parents, this meant there was no full and final break from the natural parents and the child could not be legally adopted here. That prevented children from being brought here and it was heartbreaking for these couples to discover this after two years of following the procedures. I found that provision on inheritance rights extraordinary as anyone who has to put their child up for adoption will probably not have much for that child to inherit. I sympathised greatly with the couples involved.

Maybe, as the Minister of State said, they are told this in the beginning but in this case I understand they were not, only discovering the problem at the end of the process. I welcome the provisions being introduced in this complex situation and I appreciate the Minister of State's efforts, particularly in trying to resolve the Paraguayan situation.

The second part of the Bill concerns the Keegan judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. The recognition of the legal rights of fathers is a welcome development. With every right there is a responsibility and encouraging fathers to avail of their rights and responsibilities is very worthwhile and should be encouraged. It is very important that both parents are involved in rearing their children. Until recently, most lone parents were women; it was rare for the unmarried, natural father to bring up a child. That natural fathers are interested in bringing up their children is to be welcomed and it is important we recognise in law the rights of the natural father.

We spoke of the blessing and joy of children. That is why we sympathise with childless couples. They have problems because of the shortage of children for adoption here and the difficulties adopting children abroad. We can also understand a father who is legally removed from any involvement in the upbringing of his child. It is difficult for two parents to bring up children so it must be extremely difficult for a lone man or woman. Therefore it is important to recognise in law that both have the right to be involved as far as possible.

I welcome the Minister of State's commitment to the adoption contact register to assist adoptees and birth parents who wish to contact each other and his development of proposals in this regard. Maybe he could inform us when this will be in place. It is an issue on which many Members have been lobbied, particularly by adults who were adopted as children and who have had great difficulty in tracing their natural parents.

I am awaiting a Supreme Court decision with great anticipation.

I appreciate that there are difficulties but this is a very important matter and the proposals should be brought forward quickly. I welcome the amendments to the 1991 Act which are designed to introduce greater flexibility into our statutory system for the recognition of foreign adoptions. These will be warmly welcomed by people who wish to adopt in countries whose laws provide for the termination of adoptions, and I appreciate the Minister of State's efforts in this regard.

I welcome the Bill and hope it will have a quick passage. It has been awaited for a long time.

I also welcome this Bill. It is very timely but it is a pity it was introduced in the aftermath of a very squalid case which involved the violation of the human rights of some of the parties involved. I can only begin to imagine the feelings of Mr. Keegan, who, having cohabited with a woman with the apparent desire to marry her and produce offspring, then found that their child was taken without his consent or knowledge and placed for adoption so that he lost contact with it. That loss of human contact is a gross violation.

Over the past week or two we heard a similar but worse story of an Irish man living in America whose wife suffered from depression. Apparently they had everything — he had a good job, she had a nice home. While suffering from depression she, without any prior indication, booked herself into an abortion clinic from where she rang him to say that his child had been destroyed. It is clear that the feelings of that man were very strong.

I appreciate what my colleague Senator Honan said about the feelings of fathers towards their children which are not often recognised. I am glad this legislation will recognise these rights. It is important that we develop our sensitivity towards people's human rights. One of the delightful things about moral development is the number of young fathers one sees with their papooses slung over their shoulders in supermarkets. This balanced parenting is good for the psychological and social development of the children.

I strongly support Senator Honan's call for an adoption register. The Minister said he is awaiting a Supreme Court judgment in this matter and presumably this inhibits any immediate development. However, I hope there will be development. I have been contacted by a large number of people——

I am going ahead with the contact register on a voluntary basis. However, there are other questions in relation to birth certificates, etc., and I will be in a better position to make my mind up when I have the Supreme Court decision.

I appreciate that additional information. I have been contacted by friends, one of whom is a married woman with children. I did not realise she was adopted but late one evening under generous influences she poured her heart out to me and was extremely interested in discovering who her parents were. On my desk I have a letter which arrived in the last couple of days from a young man in Cork who has exactly the same feeling that it is necessary to his sense of identity that he should have some information about his natural birth parents.

The principal thing I want to address, and it has not been addressed to the extent I would like, is foreign adoptions, particularly Paraguayan adoptions. The Minister addressed this matter in his speech but for legal reasons a final solution, if that is not an unhelpful phraseology, is being deferred in anticipation of advice from Paraguayan lawyers with expertise in family law.

I wish to place on the record views that have been expressed very coherently by a group of people concerned with Paraguayan adoption. I am not sure whether the Minister has this developed text:

In its Report on the Recognition of Foreign Adoption Decrees the Law Reform Commission noted that:

Numerous legal consequences flow from the recognition or non-recognition of an adoption order. Upon the validity of an adoption order may depend such matters as entitlement to exercise parental rights. The rights and liabilities of an adopted person in relation to such matters as succession, maintenance and taxation may also be an issue.

This is fundamental as it clearly indicates that central rights are affected by this question, rights which it is appropriate for Parliament to address.

Adoption decree non-recognition denies the child growing up in this country the Irish citizenship his or her parents hold.

This matter was drawn to my attention by a graduate of Trinity College who found himself in this situation about eight or nine years ago. With his help I framed a piece of legislation which travelled a very small way down the legislative road before being stymied. For that reason I have a particular interest in this matter. The communication continues:

The parents cannot put their son or daughter on their passports: even within the European Union the child cannot travel with his or her parents without having obtained entry visas for almost every member state visited.

That is an absolute curse even in economic terms. I have heard economists say that one of the difficulties with currency and people advocating European Monetary Union is that if you take £100 and travel from Dublin to London, Paris, Brussels, etc., you have only £57/17/6 remaining. It is the same process of attrition that is inflicted on the parents of adopted children if they have to get all these extra visas instead of being able to put them on the passport. The text continues: "The child may have difficulty obtaining medical care or access to education because of his or her status". This is something to which we should be particularly sensitive because it is precisely the situation in which Irish illegal immigrants in New York find themselves. It is a very vulnerable position in which to be placed.

Non-recognition also subjects the child to a penal tax liability on any inheritance he or she receives from his or her parents. There are Irish families today that the law splits down the middle, making strangers of brothers and sisters by recognising one child's adoption in state X while denying recognition to another child's adoption in state Y. [In other words, there is an absence of that well known and beloved platitude of politicians, the level playing field.]

By providing for the establishment by the Adoption Board of a Register of Foreign Adoptions, the Adoption Act, 1991, put in place a procedure through which formal recognition could be extended in this State to an adoption order obtained in a foreign jurisdiction. But an entry can only be made in this Register if the decree of the foreign state complies with all the conditions of the definition of a "foreign adoption" contained in section 1 of the 1991 Act. Some or all of the adoption decrees issued in approximately 20 foreign states are currently denied registration by the Adoption Board on grounds of non-compliance. I have been contacted by a group of families with children adopted in Paraguay which is one of these states. As a result of the Adoption Board's stance, these parents find themselves living in a legal limbo subject to the legal degradations and disabilities to which I have already referred.

The Government's proposals "to address the difficulties that have emerged in the operation of the 1991 Act" are contained in the Adoption (No. 2) Bill, 1996, which has been passed by the Dáil.... On Minister Austin Currie's own admission these proposals open registration to only a small minority of countries whose decrees are currently unrecognised because they continue to treat "simple adoptions" as being unworthy of recognition. As he stated at Committee Stage to the Dáil Select Committee on Social Affairs on 2 October 1996:

The effect of the recognition of a foreign adoption here is to accord it the same legal status as an Irish adoption order. This means that the child is regarded in law as a child of the adopters as if the child was born to them within marriage. It follows from this that the legal effect of the foreign adoption must be broadly similar to that of an Irish adoption. It must have similar characteristics to an Irish adoption order in terms of the termination and creation of parental rights and duties. However, this is not the case where a simple or ordinary adoption is concerned since such an adoption does not extinguish the legal relationship between the child and the birth parents.

In other words, this concerns the extinguishing of the relationship between the birth parents and the child and the creation of a new relationship between the adopted child and the adopting parents.

To establish whether this statement is correct in the case of Paraguay we [the Parents of Adopted Paraguayan Children] have made inquiries in South America as to the exact legal effect produced by a simple adoption granted in that state. The legal advice we have received appears at least to show that the Department of Health and the Adoption Board had not gone deeply enough into the subject and were wrong.

[I should add as a footnote the following observation:] Countries with codified systems of law on the French model frequently possess two types of adoption — the plenary and the simple. By contrast, Irish law, in common with that of other countries which have an Anglo-Saxon legal heritage, provides for only one kind (the plenary). In Paraguay only orphaned and abandoned children are eligible for plenary adoption: the simple form of decree is mandatory in the case of children whose birth parent(s) have consented to their placement for adoption.

The true position, we are advised, is as follows: a Paraguayan simple adoption has substantially the same legal effect as an Irish adoption order with regard to, first, the creation of a relationship between the adopted child and the adoptive parents and, second, the termination of a relationship between the adopted child and the birth parents.

With regard to the creation of a relationship between adoptive parents and the adopted child, our inquiries confirm that all Paraguayan adoptions — whether simple or plenary — create a family relationship between the adopted person and the adoptive parent(s): that is, they confer the position of a matrimonial child of the family upon the adopted person. Under both forms of adoption other children of the adoptive parents, including adopted children, are siblings of the adopted child [and are recognised as such]. Thus a similarity of legal effect criterion is satisfied under this heading.

With regard to the termination of the relationship between the adopted child and the birth parents a difference does exist between plenary and Paraguayan simple adoptions. There are "rights and duties of the blood relationship" not extinguished by simple adoption. These concern inheritance procedure [which is one of the factors to which I referred]. Whether adopted under the plenary or the simple Paraguayan form, the adopted child inherits from its adoptive parents as a matrimonial child. This inheritance passes to the child's descendants if he or she predeceases his or her adoptive parents.

It is not usual for children to predecease their parents and is relatively uncommon but it can happen, so it must be catered for.

Where the simple adoption's unextinguished blood relationship arises is in the situation where a deceased child's heirs or his or her parents: the governing principle of this situation is that the deceased child's estate is divided equally between the adoptive parents and the blood parents [which seems fair enough]. (Such a principle either could not or should not govern the child adopted under the plenary form since, as we noted earlier, that child has been adopted in this way because it has been orphaned or abandoned.) [In other words, the neglect of the child or mischance which has befallen the parents extinguishes the rights of the parents.] Unterminated birth parents rights thus exist only in relation to what is in practical terms a remote set of multiple contingencies (the child pre-deceasing its parents and leaving no heirs with precedence over its parents in an intestacy situation). Moreover, these rights are brought into play only by the death of the child. Such a divergence between the plenary and the simple forms of adoption creates no reasonable ground for denying recognition to the latter: the similarity of legal effect between Irish adoption and Paraguayan simple adoption remains overwhelming in spite of it. [While this groups accepts there is a divergence, it is saying the degree of divergence is marginal but, in legal terms, the degree of convergence is overwhelming.]

After we brought new information on the legal effects of Paraguayan simple adoption to Mr. Currie's attention, the Minister wrote to us on 17 December 1996 that "his Department is in the process of obtaining a comprehensive legal opinion from a lawyer in Paraguay [the opinion to which I referred earlier] with expertise in adoption law on certain aspects of that law. It is expected that this opinion will be available shortly. If this brings to light new information which is in conflict with our present understanding of the nature of ordinary adoptions, then the matter will be examined further." The question of how the range of practical problems that stem from non-recognition might be resolved is also, Minister Currie informed us, being considered by an Interdepartmental Committee on Paraguayan Adoptions.

We welcome these initiatives by the Minister. If available, a straightforward solution is to be preferred to a complicated alternative and the practical difficulties arising from non-recognition of our decrees would be removed if recognition were to be extended under the legislative proposals the Seanad will be considering.

The Minister said he is awaiting advice from the Paraguayan lawyer. Perhaps he will inform the House of the likely time frame in which this advice will be made available and how it will affect the progress of the Bill.

I, as I gather other Members have, been asked to establish the Minister's position on the recognition of Paraguayan simple adoptions. I ask him to declare categorically to the House whether these adoptions will be recognised under section 10. The clear legal advice which has been received by those who briefed me on this matter is that they should be entered in the register of foreign adoptions. That seems to be the nub of the case. They have substantially the same legal effect as an Irish adoption and it has never been suggested that total compatibility in nature and effect between Irish and foreign decrees should be a requirement for recognition.

I notice my distinguished colleague, Senator Maloney, perusing the same document. I hope I have not inflicted a second, third or fourth performance of this work on the House but it was so well argued and follows closely on what the Minister said, I thought it was useful to place the detail of the argument on the record.

We all made a passing reference to it.

Then I have fleshed it out in a grand manner. I hope I placed it in a useful context and I ask the Minister to reply to the substance of the many questions raised.

I thank Senators for their constructive contributions. I am heartened by the support the House has given to the objectives of the Bill. As I explained earlier, the legislation is specifically designed to address the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Keegan case and certain difficulties which have emerged in the operation of the Adoption Act, 1991.

The important new procedures provided for in the Bill for consulting the fathers of non-marital children being proposed for adoption are a necessary legislative response to the European Court judgment. They reflect the important developments which have taken place in Irish adoption practice since the Keegan case was determined by our courts in 1990. These measures will bring our domestic adoption laws in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. While nobody could give a cast-iron guarantee that a child would never again be placed for adoption without the knowledge of a father who has established family ties similar to those established by Mr. Keegan, the enactment of the new provisions will minimise the likelihood of this happening in the future.

In this context and in response to a point made by Senator Mulcahy, I attach great importance to the new statutory right that a father will have to formally notify the Adoption Board of his wish to be consulted regarding the proposal to have the child adopted. This will help to ease the burden on adoption agencies and, in certain cases, the Adoption Board to ascertain the identity of fathers, particularly where the mother is unable or unwilling to disclose his identity. As a father may exercise this right before the birth of the child, this puts the 21 day time limit on a father who has been consulted into context. Senator Mulcahy asked whether 21 days would be sufficient. Senator Henry pointed out that the father's partner would have been pregnant for nine months and, in those circumstances, 21 days is sufficient.

As I have acknowledged, the introduction of a consultation process will give rise to some delays in the placement of children for adoption. This is unavoidable in the circumstances. However, I am sure Senators will agree it is clearly in the interests of the child, the birth parents and the prospective adoptive parents that any question or doubt as to the child's availability for adoption should be resolved conclusively before the child is placed. In any discussion on adoption, especially foreign adoption, the element of certainty is extremely important because doubts can cause considerable difficulties.

Senator Mulcahy expressed concern about the circumstances in which a father would not be consulted about the proposed placement of a child for adoption. Generally speaking, the adoption agency concerned must apply to the Adoption Board for authority to proceed with the placement and the board is not likely to give such an authorisation unless it is satisfied, on the basis of cogent evidence presented to it by the agency, that reasonable grounds exist for dispensing with the requirement to consult the father. The only circumstances in which the authority of the Adoption Board will not be received is where the mother is unable to identify the father and makes a statutory declaration to that effect.

As to foreign adoptions, the amendments to the Adoption Act, 1991, are designed to introduce greater flexibility into the statutory recognition system. Under that Act the Adoption Board has a central role in examining the adoption laws of various countries in order to establish whether adoptions effected under them are entitled to be recognised under Irish law. In light of the Supreme Court ruling on 25 July last that Chinese adoptions qualify for recognition under the 1991 Act, the Adoption Board re-examined the adoption laws of a number of countries which it had previously considered not to be compatible with the definition of a foreign adoption contained in that Act. It was for that reason I advised Senator Mulcahy that his list was out of date. Arising from its review, the board considers that adoptions effected in Thailand and Liberia also qualify for recognition in light of the Supreme Court ruling. A decision on Guatemala and Peru has been deferred pending receipt by the board of a legal opinion from a practising lawyer in each of those countries.

The board is understandably reluctant to publish a list of countries whose adoptions would be entitled to recognition by virtue of section 10 of the Bill in advance of its enactment. However, the chairman of the board has indicated to my Department that, subject to legal opinion being obtained, the board may be in a position to recognise adoptions granted in Rwanda and South Korea.

In reply to those Senators who spoke about the problems encountered by Irish couples who have adopted children abroad under simple adoption decrees, in particular, Senator Norris, Senator Quinn and Senator Doyle, who posed questions about the difficulties encountered by couples adopting children from Paraguay, I would like it to be understood and accepted that I am doing everything possible to find a solution. I have enormous sympathy for couples who are in this position. Acquiring a passport is apparently a major problem and other matters have arisen in that context.

For this reason, I referred the issue to the Cabinet committee on children, the ideal body to which to refer matters of this nature. Not only does it include the Departments for which I have responsibility — the Department of Education, the Department of Health and the Department of Justice — it contains representation from the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Foreign Affairs, whose input is crucial as regards passports just as input from the Department of Justice is crucial as regards visas. I chair the Cabinet committee on children and those Departments are looking with considerable urgency into these matters. I have instructed the committee that I want these problems resolved as quickly as possible. I assure Senators that to the extent that I can expedite this matter, get to the root of the problems and find a solution I am doing so and I do not think anyone could do more in this respect.

However, as in all these cases, I must remember that I am Minister of State with responsibility for children and my paramount consideration is the interests of the child. While I have the greatest sympathy for couples who, for whatever reason, do not have children of their own and wish to adopt, I know where my responsibility lies. In response to Senator Honan, before these people brought children into the country they were warned that problems with simple adoptions, for example, were likely to arise, so they cannot say they were not aware of them. I must now pick up the tab — I do not mind doing so — and I am determined to find a solution. Senator Honan stated that the welfare of the child was our primary consideration and said couples should be warned at the beginning; as far as I am concerned, that happened in the case of Paraguay.

Senators may not be aware that two options are available to adoptive parents who are in the unfortunate position of needing to regularise their legal status. It is open to Irish residents who have been granted a simple adoption decree abroad to make an application to the Adoption Board for an Irish adoption order in respect of the child. This option is available in any case where an adoption effected abroad does not qualify for recognition. A number of countries, including Paraguay, which operate dual systems of adoption make provision in their laws for the conversion of simple adoptions into full adoptions. In acknowledgement of this fact and in order to facilitate adopters who pursue this possibility, I brought forward a Committee Stage amendment in the Dáil to provide for the retrospective recognition of simple adoptions which are converted into full adoptions in the countries where they were granted. This amendment now forms part of section 10 of the Bill.

In response to Senator Quinn, I am willing to make the opinion of the Paraguayan lawyer available to parents who adopted children there. As I explained, clarification of certain aspects of the opinion is awaited. When this comes to hand, I will arrange for the opinion to be transmitted to the group representing Parents of Adopted Paraguayan Children. I want to be as helpful as possible with regard to all these matters. I share the concern expressed by Senator Doyle and Senator Honan that prospective adoptive parents should be made aware before they travel abroad that certain adoptions do not qualify for recognition here. The Adoption Board and the adoption agencies do caution couples against adopting children in countries whose adoptions are not compatible with ours. A list of such countries has been prepared by the Adoption Board and has been widely circulated. Support groups for adoptive parents, such as the Irish Foreign Adoption Group, also play an important role in advising couples.

I have taken note of the comments made by Senator Henry and Senator Norris about the need for transparency in the adoption process in relation to unfavourable decisions. I will bring these valid points to the attention of the Adoption Board.

I thank the Senators who have contributed to this debate. I am sorry I have not been able to pay more attention to the document from which Senator Norris quoted large extracts. In spite of the fact that every Senator appears to have a copy of this document, one was not available to me. That seems strange considering that I am the Minister of State with responsibility for changing the law in this area and I am making a very serious effort to find a solution to these problems.

The debate has been a constructive one on an important Bill which represents a significant step forward in the development of Irish adoption law. I look forward to the Bill's progression through the House with maximum co-operation and in as short a time as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next week, subject to agreement among the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26 February 1997.
Sitting suspended at 5.35 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.
Top
Share