Landmark ruling gives custody to adopters

[TheBear]

From The Irish Times:

• The High Court has ruled that a two-year-old child would be psychologically damaged if she was taken away from an intended adoptive couple and given to her natural parents.
  
  In a landmark judgment, Mr Justice John MacMenamin ruled that the psychological harm done by attempting to place the child in the custody of the natural parents, who were now married, displaced the presumption in the Constitution that the appropriate place for the upbringing of a child was within a family unit.
  
  He said the constitutional right of the child to the protection of her health and welfare should be vindicated.
  
  In a case he described as "most difficult and distressing", the two-year-old - named as Ann, not her real name - will remain with the two people who want to adopt her, with whom she has formed an emotional bond.

A very interesting case, though it could later lead to difficult decisions: while the rights of the child are clearly at the centre of this case, how can we accurately assess the level of emotional attachment felt by someone so young that they can barely express themselves? Or does such a lack of verbal expression simply lessen the chance that they'll lie or be influenced in their decision-making?

[White Horse]

This is a peverse decision.

While a bond will have formed between the child and her adoptive parents, it is nothing compared to the genetic bond with her parents.

The child is only two and children of that age are very adaptible.

She could grow up to hate her foster parents for preventing her to be with her own flesh and blood.

[stringjack]

While a bond will have formed between the child and her adoptive parents, it is nothing compared to the genetic bond with her parents.

What exactly is a 'genetic bond' in this context?

[Mise_Eire]

Agood question.

I think it's an excellent decision.

[drjimryan]

This is a very sad case indeed. I must however agree with White Horse, the child is only two and I personally feel that if I was personally in that situation I would be Devestated at the prospect of handing back the child but I feel as stated the best course at two years of age is to return the child to the natural parents.

[Bogwarrior]

In the 2 years since the child was born, they abandoned the child, got married and then took proceedings to get the child back.
They sound very emotionally unstable. Who's to say they wont abandon the child again? Then what?
In saying that they should be allowed visiting rights to build a gradual bond with the child, till he/she is adult enough.

[stringjack]

...but I feel as stated the best course at two years of age is to return the child to the natural parents.

What's your reasoning?

[Pidge]

They sound very emotionally unstable. Who's to say they wont abandon the child again? Then what?

Well, not necessarily. I've heard of a similar thing happening to a few people. Two people go out for a few months and the girl gets pregnant. Not knowing where the relationship between them is going, they give up the child for adoption. The relationship later becomes more serious and the couple move in together/marry etc and now feel in a position to offer a stable home. I know some people who had a child, gave the child up for adoption and two or three years later married and had twins.

Knowing only the details of the case presented in the article, the decision seems the correct one. Not only does it seem the fairest (both for the child and the two sets of parents), but if the decision were otherwise, the adoption system would be damaged.

[OneHumpNotTwo]

Pidge wrote

if the decision were otherwise, the adoption system would be damaged

I honestly do not know if Judge Mc Menamin was right or wrong . I suspect that if he had gone the other way there would have been widespread approval too.

If my understanding of the judgement is correct the full process of adoption had not been completed. The mother/parent(s) still had to sign the final papers. The legal process of putting a child up for adoption appears to be a two stage process.

1. I think I will put my child up for adoption(The reason might be commendable/not commendable )
2.I have considered the situation and I am going ahead with the adoption process.


The legal process gives a time for reflection to the natural mother. A time to get over the panic an unmarried motherhood might pose. A time to acknowledge the love she has for her child. A time to make the right decision.

The McMenamin decision imposes a short(ish) time limit on making this important decision.

I repeat that I honestly do not know if Judge Mc Menamin was right or wrong . All the commentators that I have read approve this decision , I just think that the question deserves better than unquestioning acceptance.