Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 2 Oct 1996

SECTION 4.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, lines 30 and 31, to delete "at the disposal of" and substitute "with".

This is a simple amendment to section 4 (7) (c) (1).

In its submission, Treoir drew attention to and was concerned about the language and the fact that the phrase "placed at the disposal of" did not seem to be an appropriate way to refer to a child. I appreciate that this can happen with legal language and that we are all "at the disposal" in different shapes and forms, but Treoir have made a reasonable point. If possible, an alternative such as the amendment I have moved should be provided. That would overcome the problem as Treoir sees it.

Mr. Currie

I agree with Treoir. I also have a difficulty with the concept of a child being placed at the disposal of an adoption agency. The term has pejorative connotations and conjures up an image of a child being in some way dispensable. The provision in question was worded in this way in order to be consistent with the wording of section 39(1) of the Adoption Act, 1952 — that was the reason it was included in the first place. I fully agree that the term is inappropriate and has no place in modern child-centred legislation. I am, accordingly, happy to accept the amendment.

Dr. Woods

I thank the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Woods

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 38, to delete "his attitude towards" and substitute "whether he objects to".

This amendment was also brought to our attention by Treoir. Sub-section 7E(2)(c) states; "ascertaining his attitude towards the proposed placement."

What I propose is that this should include not just determining his attitude but whether he objects to the proposed placement. This is more direct and spells out what was intended. The view put by Treoir was that the word "attitude" is inappropriate in this section. We suggest ascertaining the "views" of fathers instead, which would be a fairly loose term. I understand the Minister is trying to find out whether the father objects to the placement or not. If that is the case, why not say that? The Minister may have some reason for not doing so.

Mr. Currie

I have looked carefully at this. I am not sure the proposed wording is better than what is already there. The paragraph as it stands has a broader focus than what is proposed in the amendment since it reflects cases where a father is supportive of the mother's decision to have the child adopted. I have an open mind on this and it is a borderline case. The wording already there is better than what Deputy Woods has suggested. I am amenable to finding a way around it and perhaps this can be done by substituting "whether or not he objects to".

Dr. Woods

If that would meet the requirement, I would be satisfied. On the other hand, I am happy to leave it to the Minister to look at that on Report Stage. I appreciate his point.

Mr. Currie

I am aware of the sensitivities. We want to be as sensitive to these matters as possible. We will examine it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments No. 3 and No. 4 are related and may be discussed together.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

"(d) informing him that any response must be submitted within a specified period.".

This amendment relates to the preplacement consultation procedure. We do not know what word we will use at 7E (2) (c). This amendment deals with the fact that no time limit has been specified within which the father would indicate his opposition to the placement or adoption. The Minister has tabled an amendment also so perhaps he would like to speak on that.

Mr. Currie

Amendment No. 4 states:

In page 6, to delete lines 22 to 27 and substitute the following:

"(5) Where an adoption agency has not received—

(a) a notice referred to in sub-section (4) within the deferral period referred to in subsection (3) (b) (i), and

(b) any indication from the father under subsection (3) (a) or (b) within 21 days after informing the father under subsection (2) (a) of the proposed placement of the child,

the agency may, at any time thereafter at which it has not received a notice referred to in subsection (4), place the child for adoption.".

Amendment No. 4 deals with a case 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 proceedings. It is proposed that the agency should be permitted to place the child with adopting parents if it receives no indication from the father of his attitude within 21 days after informing him of the proposed placement. In the interest of the child, which is the permanent consideration in all of these matters, it is reasonable that the father should be expected to indicate his attitude to the proposed placement within a specified time. Failure on his part to do so should entitle the agency concerned to proceed with arrangements for the placement of the child with prospective adopters. The proposed amendment would ensure that the placement would not be delayed solely because the father will not make his intentions known. This amendment meets the important point raised by Deputy Keogh in amendment No.3, which she might consider withdrawing.

Ms Keogh

I am pleased with the Minister's amendment. It goes a step further. It would be unreasonable to expect that some undefined period of time would be allowed to pass. It would be unsatisfactory, particularly in relation to the welfare of the child involved and it would be stressful for all. The Minister's amendment fills the gap and I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Dr. Woods

I welcome the Minister's amendment in that it fills a lacuna. Deputy Keogh has provided one means of doing so but the Minister has been more specific in referring to the 21 days. That is preferable and I support his amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Currie

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, to delete lines 22 to 27 and substitute the following:

"(5) Where an adoption agency has not received—

(a) a notice referred to in subsection (4) within the deferral period referred to in subsection (3) (b) (i), and

(b) any indication from the father under subsection (3) (a) or (b) within 21 days after informing the father under subsection (2) (a) of the proposed placement of the child,

the agency may, at any time thereafter at which it has not received a notice referred to in subsection (4), place the child for adoption.".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.