tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665355359899630254.post7312350553157339113..comments2023-12-20T07:29:21.752-05:00Comments on Administrative Law Matters: Irrebutable Presumptions and Fair ProceduresPaul Dalyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13433629868698007121noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665355359899630254.post-24810154854112656212013-03-11T18:24:37.120-04:002013-03-11T18:24:37.120-04:00Abbot J –“The conclusion does not raise the consid...Abbot J –“The conclusion does not raise the consideration of the best interest of the child which in most cases, if not in all, would be best served by an inquiry of the genetic interest.” <br />Ireland’s 60,000+ adopted people would 100% agree with this & we hope that the M.R. vs An t-Ard Cláraitheoir judgement will result in a revisiting of the 1998, Supreme Court I.O’T vs B judgement (if such a thing is possible?). This case, concerned 2 adult women (informally fostered during 40’s & 50’s) seeking identification of their genetic mothers under the 1987 Status of Children Act from a highly suspect church run adoption agency , the Rotunda Girls Aid Society (RGAS) – now defunct - in the guise of a Fr Gerard Doyle. If memory serves, the High Court agreed with the 2 women but the case was appealed (by the agency?) to the Supreme Court & the women lost. <br />The 1998 I O’T v B Supreme Court judgement stated that the child has an un-enumerated constitutional right to know the identity of his/her natural parents. The court said however that the right was not absolute and had to be balanced against the natural mother’s right to privacy and anonymity. The Supreme Court stated that neither set of rights was absolute and went on to suggest a list of questions a Circuit Court judge may wish to consider when determining which right would prevail in any given case . They included<br /> <br />1. The circumstances giving rise to the natural mother relinquishing custody of her child;<br />2. The present circumstances of the natural mother and the effect thereon (if any) of the disclosure of her identity to her child;<br />3. The attitude of the natural mother to the disclosure of her identity to her natural child, and the reasons there for;<br />4. The respective ages of the natural mother and her child;<br />5. The reasons for the natural child’s wish to know the identity of her natural mother AND TO MEET HER (MY EMPHASIS)<br />6. The present circumstances of the natural child; and (INCREDIBLY)<br />7. THE VIEWS OF THE FOSTER PARENTS, IF ALIVE<br /><br />Regrettably, this list has been rewritten to refer to Ireland’s entire population of adopted people, adopted under the 1952 Adoption Act & worse is treated as an exhaustive list of qns by the Adoption Authority of Ireland (AAI), the HSE & every tin-pot adoption agency, all relieved that they can use this case to enforce a blanket ban on revealing parental information to adopted people. Fairly obvious basic questions, which could have been considered have never been added including; <br /><br />“Is the natural mother still alive?”; “What if the natural mother cannot be located?”<br /> & obvious corollaries to the 7 qns such as” the circumstances giving rise to the child losing the guardianship of his mother” & critically “The attitude of the adopted person to the non-disclosure of information on all other family members – father, siblings etc)” are never asked.<br />Perhaps a legal eagle out there could comment on how constitutional it is to allow 1 group of adults (adoptive parents) to arbitrarily decide whether or not another group of adults (adopted people) may know the identity of their genetic parents. If you are interested in this case & my queries, could you please email adoptionrightsalliance@gmail.com FAO Susan Lohan<br />Adoption Rights Alliancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387423203805317518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7665355359899630254.post-61616697991254451992013-03-11T17:15:09.652-04:002013-03-11T17:15:09.652-04:00Abbott J "The conclusion does not raise the c...Abbott J "The conclusion does not raise the consideration of the best interest of the child which in most cases, if not in all, would be best served by an inquiry of the genetic interest". Ireland's 60,000+ adopted people would agree 100% with this arguement largely due to the Supreme Court enforced - I O'T vs B 1998 - judgement, concerning 2 adult women, informerly fostered during the 1940's & 50's which copperfastened the status quo of adopted people having to apply to a court for discovery of their genetic parentage. In the same judgement, then Chief Justice, Hamilton J set out 8 ludicrous tests which a Circuit Court judge might wish to apply in considering whether or not to release the details of a fostered person's genetic parentage to them. They are <br />1. The circumstances giving rise to the natural mother relinquishing custody of her child;<br />2. The present circumstances of the natural mother and the effect thereon (if any) of the disclosure of her identity to her child;<br />3. The attitude of the natural mother to the disclosure of her identity to her natural child, and the reasons there for;<br />4. The respective ages of the natural mother and her child;<br />5. The reasons for the natural child’s wish to know the identity of her natural mother AND TO MEET HER (MY EMPHASIS)<br />6. The present circumstances of the natural child; (AND INCREDIBLY) <br />7. THE VIEWS OF THE FOSTER PARENTS, IF ALIVE.<br /><br />These tests have been subverted by the Adoption Authority, the HSE & every tinpot adoption agency to be an exhaustive list & to refer to people adopted under the 1952 Adoption Act so the Supreme Court has effectively ruled that 1 group of adults (adoptive parents) can dictate whether or not another group of adults (adult adopted children) can discover their genetic parentage. Am I alone in thinking this was then & is now unconstitutional?. Critically, the list proposed by Hamilton J is highly unequal - excluding the fairly obvious “Is the natural mother still alive?” & “The circumstances giving rise to the child losing the guardianship of his mother?” & “The attitude of the adopted person to the non-disclosure of information on all other family members – father, siblings etc)?” etc etc.<br />If any legal eagle out there would like to examine this issue further, please contact Susan Lohan, Adoption Rights Alliance, email: susan@adoption.ieAdoption Rights Alliancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387423203805317518noreply@blogger.com