asked the Minister for Justice if he has any information in regard to the number of cases in which by reason of current legislation it has not been possible to adopt children of a mixed marriage; and if he will examine the present situation with a view to introducing amending legislation to enable children of such a marriage to be legally adopted.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Child Adoption Legalisation.
42.
There is no figure available because people would not be disposed to make an application in respect of a particular child if they knew that the application could not be accepted. Nevertheless, it is possible to draw conclusions from the known facts. The only children eligible for adoption are orphans and illegitimate children and accordingly, when the question refers to children of a mixed marriage, it can mean only orphan children of mixed marriages. "Orphan" is defined as meaning a child both of whose parents are dead. Furthermore, a child to be eligible for adoption must be placed in the adoptive home before it reaches the age of seven years, unless the prospective adopters are close relatives. Taken together, these provisions mean that the number of children who could possibly be affected must be extremely small.
The number actually, as distinct from potentially, affected would be smaller still—in fact much smaller— because, even if an orphan is eligible for adoption, there is no presumption that it is available for adoption. It may have relatives or others willing to look after its upbringing and its interests might not be served by formal adoption which involves its discarding its identity, and possibly other rights, as the child of its deceased parents.
In practice, therefore, the number of children to whom the question relates must be insignificant.
I cannot, at the moment at all events, see any prospect of altering the present position without grave risk that the administration of the adoption laws could become an area of the controversy and perhaps legal actions in the courts, all of which could have a very disturbing effect on the general body of adopters and could greatly damage the success of adoption generally.
While appreciating the difficulties pointed out by the Minister, may I, nevertheless, ask him, in view of the fact, as he has said, that an insignificant number of children are involved—I do not particularly concur with the word insignificant—if he would urge the Adoption Board to treat any such instances in a very sympathetic manner because of the highly anomalous situation which exists under the 1952 Act as amended by the 1964 Act, section 12, which causes a great deal of unhappiness and difficulty in a very small number of cases?
We are dealing here, in the context of this country, with the orphan children of a mixed marriage. I do not believe that, in fact, any such case has arisen. It is a possibility that such a case could arise but the number involved must be insignificant. When this Bill was being brought before the Dáil there were consultations between the various religious bodies and I am satisfied that in this controversial field the provisions of this Bill came as near as could be devised to meeting the expressed views of these different denominations in connection with this issue.
Is the Minister saying, in effect, that he is not sure but that he thinks there are insignificant numbers affected?
I am sure they are insignificant, if they exist at all.
The Minister has indicated that there could be areas of controversy raised. Is the Minister saying that amending legislation to ensure that hardship even for an insignificant number of children would cause controversy among certain of the bodies he has mentioned? Is the Minister saying this?
I am.
Would the Minister not accept that the effect which he has outlined was most certainly not contemplated by the draftsman or indeed by the Legislature under the 1952 Act? If a specific instance is brought to his notice, would he consult with his Department and endeavour to resolve such an anomalous situation? It would be quite tragic if an orphan child of a mixed marriage could not be easily adopted because he or she happens to be an orphan of a mixed marriage. The Minister must agree that there is an anomaly here and I do not think the House ever intended it to develop. I do not want to overstress the point in view of the small number involved.
I am satisfied that these matters were fully considered at the time this Bill was brought before the House, that there were consultations on these difficult matters. I am satisfied that the difficulties are as real today on this issue as they were then.
Question No. 43.
Is the Minister saying that at the time of the original legislation these bodies with whom he consulted indicated that they would not be prepared to accept any amending legislation in the future of the sort suggested here?
I will put it this way: I am satisfied that these issues were discussed with all the different religious bodies concerned at that time and I am satisfied that this legislation was as near as could be got to meeting the different views expressed at that time and I am satisfied that some of these objections would be just as valid today as they were then.
Would the Minister not agree that what is implied in his reply is that the numbers are so insignificant that it would not justify risking a possible controversy with the bodies concerned? Surely the Minister will agree that, even if only one child, by virtue of this Act being in existence, were deprived of the opportunity of being brought into a normal home and being brought up in a normal, happy, family atmosphere, it would justify the Minister going ahead and amending this? Would the Minister not also agree that it would be most unchristian, irrespective of what denomination one belonged to, to condemn any child to this misery and orphanhood which could possibly be avoided?
I accept that, even if there is only one child involved, if a legal operation could be done that would get over the difficulties I see, it would be worthwhile. On the other hand, I am quite satisfied, for the reasons I have stated, that this would be an exercise in futility, running my head against a stone wall.
I am calling Question No. 43.
In view of the changes in attitude since 1962 would the Minister not be prepared to have further consultations with these church bodies on this matter because I assume that the first consultations took place nine years ago in 1961?
There are certain fundamentals which would have to be cleared long before this could be dealt with, in view of the expressed attitudes that are on record, both publicly and to my Department, at the time of the introduction of this Bill.
Question No. 43.
I do not wish to unduly badger the Minister but would he not agree, and we could place it on record, that it was never really the intention of the church bodies that an orphan child of a mixed marriage could not be legally adopted, that it was never intended but somehow got in through parliamentary draftsmanship? I think the Minister would agree that an anomaly has developed, a very serious legal anomaly?
This is not so. Public attitudes were expressed at that time by the Catholic Church, on the one hand, and by the other churches, which for their own purposes agreed that they would not raise difficulties about adoptive parents, whether they belonged to any of the different denominations with which they were concerned or not. But there were fundamental objections expressed by the majority church and, I think, by the others. Unless agreement in many other spheres has been reached between these bodies, there has been no change as far as this legislation is concerned.
Has the Minister inquired?
I have no doubt; I am reasonably intelligent.