Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

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

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Section 2 provides for the revised definition of the relative which includes a member of the extended family of the child's father. Will the Minister expand on that?

Before I do, there was an inquiry before the public session about a list circulated earlier and, with Deputy Woods' permission, I will deal with that first.

At the completion of Second Stage on 3 July, some Deputies expressed interest in having a list of countries whose adoptions would qualify for recognition here on the enactment of section 10 of the Bill, which provides for certain amendments of the current statutory definition of a foreign adoption. The Adoption Board has a central role in examining the adoption laws of various countries to establish whether adoptions effected under those laws are entitled to be recognised under Irish law.

As the committee is aware, an important development has taken place since Second Stage. The Supreme Court ruled on 25 July 1996 that adoptions effected in the People's Republic of China qualify for recognition under the Adoption Act, 1991. In the light of this ruling, the Adoption Board re-examined the adoption laws of a number of countries which it had previously considered were not compatible with the definition of a foreign adoption contained in the Adoption Act, 1991. Arising from this review, the board has prepared a revised list which, with the permission of the Chairman, I propose to circulate to Members of the committee. Apart from Chinese adoptions, the board considers that adoptions effected in Liberia also qualify for recognition in the light of the Supreme Court decision. The board is not at present in a position to reach a decision in relation to Guatemala and Peru pending receipt of a legal opinion from a practising lawyer in each of the two 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 the enactment of the new provision. However, the chairman of the board has indicated to my Department that, subject to legal opinions being obtained, the board may be in a position to recognise adoptions granted in Rwanda, South Korea and Thailand.

I thank the Minister for the list. I notice that there is an asterix against certain states in the new list of recognised countries. These are Mexico, Bolivia, Paraguay, Venezuela, Japan and Papua New Guinea. In addition, we have the list of countries that are not recognised including Rwanda, Guatemala, Peru, Lebanon, Nepal, South Korea and Thailand. At first glance it looks like Paraguay, for instance, has moved from the unrecognised to the recognised group. However, the asterix tells us that these are countries where there is a dual system of adoption; plenary or full adoption, and simple adoption or what is described in brackets as foster care. Only plenary adoptions effected in these countries can be recognised.

That is where the problem lies. People who have adopted children from places like Paraguay have used simple adoptions; they are not plenary adoptions. Consequently, the situation remains that they will not be recognised, which is regrettable. We should discuss that when we come to the section.

That is precisely what I was going to suggest, if the Chairman agrees.

I wish to make the same point as Deputy Woods. A number of amendments before the committee relate to the crux of the matter. We will discuss them in order. At first glance the list is a bit misleading. There are obviously quite a number of countries affected by that proviso whereby the dual system of adoption is in force.

The list has been made available by the Adoption Board, not by the Department. I had no input into that.

I know that.

In relation to the extended family and the father of the child, will the Minister clarify what is covered under that?

The existing definition of relative in the 1952 Act excludes members of the extended family of the father of a non-marital child. The purpose of the substitute definition is to bring them within its scope. The reference to the spouse of a relative is new and is designed to bring the husband or wife of a member of the extended maternal or paternal family within the scope of the definition.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn