The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has recently heard a case involving the adoption of a girl against her birth mother’s wishes. The court stated that removing a child from her birth parents is a serious interference with their family life and noted that adoption without parental consent is only justified in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the court concluded that the decision to pursue adoption was not proportionate to the harm that the child would have faced if she continued to live with her birth mother. This article will provide an in-depth analysis of the case and its implications for future adoption cases in the United Kingdom.
The Supreme Court of Ireland was recently asked to rule on the adoption of an 18-year-old girl with a moderate learning disability and developmental delay associated with foetal alcohol syndrome by her foster mother against the wishes of her birth mother. According to reports, the Birth mother’s side argued that the adoption has the “life-long consequence” of breaking the legal link between Miss B and her birth parents, and stated that the Child and Family Agency (CFA) has failed to explore family reunification during Miss B’s upbringing.
The Court of Appeal (COA) had previously given the go-ahead last August for Miss B to be adopted by her foster mother, who had continuously cared for her since she was just a few months old. The majority ruling overturned a June 2022 decision of the High Court’s Mr Justice Max Barrett, who did not believe the adoption would benefit Miss B’s best interests. Despite the birth mother expressing a desire to be reunited with her daughter, the COA found that it was inevitable that the adoption order would result in the severance of the legal ties between Miss B and her birth family.
At the Supreme Court hearing, Mary O’Toole SC, the representative for the birth mother, argued that adoption was not proportionate in this case due to the nature of the birth mother-daughter relationship and the CFA’s failure to look at family reunification. Ms O’Toole also stated that the woman had significant difficulties in the years surrounding Miss B’s birth, including experiencing domestic violence and being isolated from her family, which led to her turning to alcohol. However, she had managed to overcome her issues and cared for her other children. Access to Miss B became more difficult when the birth mother moved closer to relatives, and the CFA did not provide any financial assistance to enable the mother to travel to visit her daughter, leaving it to the birth mother and foster mother to arrange access.
The CFA’s representative, Dervla Browne SC, on the other hand, urged the seven-judge court to uphold the COA’s majority ruling. She argued that the birth mother’s failure in her duties wasn’t a historical failing but one that existed three years before the adoption declaration as she did not take action in relation to her child. Browne also stated that the CFA’s predecessor took every step they possibly could to reunify the child and her mother, but two critical windows of opportunity were missed by the birth mother.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court of Ireland, Judge Maurice Collins remarked that it was “striking” that there was no independent evidence about Miss B’s mental capacity, wishes, and understanding of the adoption. Both the COA and the High Court acknowledged that Miss B was loved deeply by both her birth and foster mothers.
The case raises matters of “profound public importance” concerning court orders authorising the adoption of children whose parents fail in their duty to them in light of the constitutional provision for State intervention in family life. However, despite the adoption having been approved by the COA, the Supreme Court of Ireland is yet to deliver its ruling in the case.
