AN ADOPTED girl should remain with her adoptive parents although her mother withdrew consent to the adoption 10 months after the birth, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
Mr Justice Keane expressed the hope that, while the decision would inevitably cause acute emotional distress' to the natural parents, they would understand in time that it was solely in the best interest of their little girl, who is now aged seven.
Every humane person would understand and sympathise with their wish to have their child back, but he was satisfied their appeal must be dismissed.
The judge said there was at least some justification for the criticism during the Supreme Court hearing of the conduct of St Bridget's Adoption Society, Holy Faith Convent, The Coombe, Dublin.
Mr Justice Keane said he would refer to the child as "Mary", which was not her real name.
Mary was born in Holles Street, Dublin, in November, 1989. The mother was not married but had a relationship of some years with Mary's father.
Mary was placed in foster care. On January 11th, 1990, the mother signed a form of consent to place the child for adoption. In September 1990 she withdrew consent and had consistently refused since then to consent to Mary's adoption.
In February 1992 the prospective adopters took High Court proceedings and the High Court made an order dispensing with the mother's consent. The mother appealed to the Supreme Court.
A child psychiatrist, on behalf of the adopters, had told the High Court that to transfer the child would have a gravely damaging effect on her.
Mr Justice Keane said that during the Supreme Court hearing the conduct of the adoption society had been severely criticised, "it has to be said, with at least some justification".
He said no serious consideration seemed to have been given by the society to the possibility of the child being restored to her parents at any time between the handing over to foster care and the signing of the consent by the mother on January 11th 1990 It seemed to see its function as being to persuade the mother to continue with the adoption.
The High Court judge had made it clear that where there was conflict on the evidence, he had preferred the evidence of the then administrator and social worker to that of the mother and father. This, said Mr Justice Keane, was a finding with which the Supreme Court could not interfere.
Mr Justice Keane said it would clearly be preferable "to use blunt and uncompromising language" to explain the effect of placement of a child to its mother.
While language of that precise nature was not used by the social worker, the High Court judge was clearly satisfied that the consequences were folly explained to the mother and, more importantly, understood by her.
Mr Justice Keane said he was satisfied there was clear and cogent evidence on which the High Court judge was entitled to conclude it would be in the best interest of Mary that the Adoption Board should be authorised to dispense with the mother's consent.
Referring to a three year delay before the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, he said the notice of the appeal to the court was served on March 25th, 1993, but the books of appeal had not been lodged until a few weeks ago, when the Supreme Court decided to expedite the hearing.
The court had been told the lengthy delay was due to the mother and father being unable to gel a transcript of the High Court hearing because they did not have legal aid.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said the Legal Aid Board should adopt "a more liberal attitude" to applications of this type.