A HIGH Court decision that an infant put up for adoption should be returned to his natural mother was upheld by the Supreme Court yesterday. The infant should be returned within 21 days.
The natural mother permitted the child to be put up for adoption and voluntarily permitted the adoptive parents to have custody of the infant but she withdrew that permission. The adoptive parents took the action to keep the child.
The High Court judge concluded that a valid agreement to place the infant for adoption did not exist because the mother's consent to the placement was neither fully informed nor free.
The natural mother was unmarried and had her baby at the age of 18 years. Her parents were shocked and wanted her out of home so nobody would know of her pregnancy.
She was sent to Dublin and had the baby in March, 1995. After the birth, the infant was placed in the care of foster parents. In April last year, she signed a form which records the initial consent of a natural mother to adoption. An adoption counsellor explained to her how the adoption process would proceed.
The mother saw the infant again in May, 1995, and the next day met the prospective parents. Before the meeting, she became distressed. When the couple arrived they were told she had changed her mind. The mother went home to her parents.
A week later she telephoned the counsellor and confirmed she was going ahead with the adoption. The mother placed the infant in the care of the couple.
The couple applied to the Adoption Board to adopt the infant. The mother met the counsellor four months' later and asked to see the infant. She saw him in November, 1995.
It was arranged the mother would sign the final consent form on a day last December but she cancelled. Last January, an adoption society received a letter from the mother seeking the return of her child.
The High Court judge said it was probable the mother did not understand that if she gave the initial consent and changed her mind, the couple could apply to the court and an adoption order might be made without the necessity of a final consent from her.
She seemed to have no comprehension that it was not a matter of asking for the return of the infant.
The mother's will coincided with her parents' will up to two months after the birth. When she first changed her mind, it was her own decision and reflected her will at that time. When she made a fresh decision to adopt, the mother subordinated her own will to that of her parents because of fear, which was a product of her upbringing, stress, anxiety, lack of maturity and deprivation of emotional support. It was not a free decision.
It was not until nine months' after the birth that the mother had matured and overcome her fear and anxiety and become sufficiently independent to exert her own will. The decision the mother made to give the child for adoption on the second occasion was not a free decision and her actions, including placing the infant in the custody of the couple, were not freely executed.