[Senator Maria Corrigan   ]
The ratification of the Hague Convention has the potential to be a very powerful, positive force in inter-country adoption, ensuring best practice is in the interests of children’s safety, and encourages the countries which have not formalised their processes yet to do so. I welcome the core principle that inter-country adoption should be child-centred, that is to say, the child’s interests should be paramount at all stages of the process. This is very welcome. I especially welcome the establishment of a system of co-operation among the contracting states to safeguard children’s best interests and to prevent the abduction, sale or trafficking of children. I refer to the issue of unaccompanied non-national children who have gone missing from Health Service Executive care. It is estimated there is in excess of 300 such children. While it is believed some of these have left the care of the HSE of their own volition to join family members already here, some indicated upon entering the country they were unaccompanied. Having secured entry to the country and HSE care, some have left that care. There are significant concerns to the effect that several of these children have been the victims of trafficking. Will the Minister of State indicate what steps have been taken to find these children, to establish their safety and to establish how they came to be in the country in the first place? At a time when we are introducing legislation to ratify the Hague Convention, it is especially important to examine the practices and occurrences in the country and question whether we have unwittingly become the recipients of children who have been trafficked or sold. I raise another issue regarding such children. There are instances whereby they are in the care of the HSE and supposed family members make contact, appear and seek reunification. Will the Minister of State review the procedures for reunification? My understanding is that, at present, reunification only necessitates the provision of a similar story to the HSE from the child and the supposed parent. Given the scientific advances available, it would be of greater benefit if DNA testing or a blood test were used. I am concerned that such children could be the victims of trafficking. They could have been told the story to relay upon arrival and the supposed parent could provide a similar story to the HSE. On the basis of two such similar stories a child could be dispatched into the care of an adult previously unknown to the HSE. I urge the Minister of State to take this point on board. I especially welcome Part 3, which sets out the right of the father of the child to give notice to the authority of his wish to be consulted on the proposed placement of the child for adoption, or on an application for an adoption order to be made in respect of the child, and outlines the preplacement consultation procedure required. This is a very welcome recognition of the rights of fathers. I also welcome the provision to give consideration to the views and wishes of children more than seven years of age concerning prospective adoptions, which is in adherence with the practices we seek to adopt in the best interests of the child. Several concerns exist among adoptive parents regarding future inter-country adoptions, especially those involving Vietnam and Russia. I do not wish to repeat the comments of my colleagues, save to say that I have been approached by several families who have adopted children from these countries who wish to adopt siblings for a son or daughter and who are concerned this may not be possible in future in light of the legislation. I realise the Minister of State has sought bilateral agreements and has encouraged relevant countries to ratify the Hague Convention and demonstrate they are in adherence or compliance with best practice regarding child safety. Will the Minister of State explain the position regarding the signing of bilateral agreements with such countries? I wish to raise concerns regarding Part 7, which makes provision for the High Court to allow the authority to grant an adoption order in favour of applicants if it is satisfied the child’s parents, whether married, have, for physical or moral reasons, failed in their duty towards the child for a continuous period of not less than 12 months and such failure is likely to continue without interruption until the child is 18 years old. The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children has heard several submissions from several organisations and senior counsel in this regard. These have indicated there is a considerable difficulty in establishing the standard for this requirement and how to meet it. Those who have made submissions believe the difficulty is such that in many cases it will not be possible to establish the standard. We believe the standard should be provided for the authority. I am unsure if this will be available in practice under the legislation. Will the Minister of State provide the House with the practical plans to establish clear, concrete criteria showing how this standard could be met? Acting Chairman (Senator Fiona O’Malley): I call on the Senator to prepare to conclude. I am advised she is in injury time. Senator Maria Corrigan: A good deal of the information available tends to be anecdotal, because we do not keep records in the family courts. Will the Minister of State explain if it will be possible to keep such records in future, because it could inform our practice and future legislation? There may be benefits from some degree of record keeping in the family courts. It would be a good deal better than relying on anecdotal evidence and we would be better served in that regard. I am concerned there seems to be no provision for the placement for voluntary adoption of children by married parents, which is unfortunate. This has resulted in a number of children in long-term foster care who cannot access the opportunity for adoption. This is the case even where married parents have indicated they would be in favour of the adoption of the child. I call on the Minister of State to address this. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I welcome the Minister of State. I am glad to see the Adoption Bill, which has a significant resonance in my life. I have adopted two children, one from Ireland and one from abroad. I am very familiar with the Hague Convention, although its adoption here is some 16 years late. Social workers brought that matter to our attention some time ago. It is interesting to examine how adoption has changed, even since the mid-1990s. Some 77% of all adoptions of Irish children are family adoptions. We have one of the highest rates of inter-country adoptions in the world, with just under 5,000 such cases since 1991. The area of foreign adoption is the most relevant outside of family adoptions in Ireland. I wish to address some of the issues from the point of view of families wishing to adopt, based on personal experience. One of the biggest issues is requests for assessment. The social worker has a critical role. No matter how tough social workers are, it is right and proper that the child is central to the process. It is important, however, that the social worker does not act as God and does not prevent a couple that has difficulty dealing with the assessment from being parents, for that is the right they seek. It is terrible for couples to have to wait three years to be assessed and a total of four or five years before they can be approved to adopt. This needs to be examined. I support the establishment of an independent assessment agency that would work under the same terms and conditions as the Health Service Executive, HSE, which conducts 90% of the assessments. We must ask questions about putting couples through the mill about so much work on fertility and childlessness, which is excessive at times. The adoption process is fraught with serious emotional and social considerations. There is often a time delay between a baby being allocated to a family and the couple being allowed to see the baby. Social worker empathy is critical in this situation in order not to destabilise the family. Friends of mine almost lost their opportunity to adopt because they became so anxious and the social worker decided they were perhaps not capable and fit and strong enough to adopt. The importance of meeting birth parents cannot be underestimated. It is a wonderful thing because the couple gets information about health, etc. A conversation of one hour can provide enough information for life. It also demystifies the birth parents who are sometimes put on a pedestal as being magical and mystical creatures when in fact they are just normal people with as many flaws as ourselves. When such a meeting can be encouraged and facilitated it is brilliant. The possibility of meeting the birth parents of a foreign child is poor. Tracing birth parents is also critical as the child gets older. I strongly encourage access to the original birth certificate once the child is 18 but absolutely not sooner than that. It is difficult to be a teenager and to come to terms with being adopted. At every stage of his or her life a child will ask a different question about being adopted. What is the position when the father does not wish to be named? I understand the rights of fathers who wish to be named but there are those who do not wish to be named yet may become known to the adoptive parents. It is difficult for them to hide that information forever from a child. Post-adoption services are crucial. It is important there continues to be support available for tracing and for services such as speech and language therapy. When one adopts a child from abroad there may be a language delay. Language therapy is a serious issue for native Irish children but may be an even bigger one for foreign adopted children. Psychological support is important because the trauma of separation is a big issue, especially as the child grows older. I support what other speakers have said about foster parents and strengthening their rights to adopt and doing it sooner. They are often carers of a little child for three to four years before even being considered and they may be the best parents for the child. It is time to ratify the Hague Convention and it is good to have a single standard for adoptive parents and children regardless of location. A problem arises, however, if the state of origin does not meet the terms of the Hague Convention. Millions of children languish in institutions around the globe and despite the willingness of Irish families and applicants to provide loving and secure homes, we are prevented from helping more children through inefficiency and bureaucracy in these countries. Irish adoptive parents are extremely well prepared and capable of helping these children as research into outcomes for these children shows. The Minister of State can play a significant role internationally by advancing bilateral agreements with some of these countries as a human right. Two thirds of the babies adopted in Ireland last year came from Russia, Ethiopia and Vietnam. Those countries are now in doubt because they have not done the necessary work on bilateral agreements. Time is critical for the renegotiation of the agreement with Vietnam if we are to avoid a collapse of adoptions from Vietnam. No one wants to see up to 20 children a month being deprived of families in this country. That will happen if the agreement with Vietnam is not renegotiated. These children may never be adopted owing to our authorities’ lack of commitment. I encourage the Minister of State to act on this and on the agreement with Russia. What will happen to couples who are in the middle of the process while this Bill is going through the Houses? How can we enable these countries to move forward with their commitments? Acting Chairman: The Senator’s time has expired and other people are waiting to speak. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I want to make one final point. I thank the other Senator for his grace. There should be a grandfather clause to allow families to adopt a second or subsequent child from the same family. One of the greatest needs of adoptive children as they grow up is to know someone in their own image. That can be enabled through a grandfather clause. I thank the Acting Chairman and the Minister of State and look forward to hearing his response. Senator Jim Walsh: I dtosach cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach inniu chun an Bille Uchtála a phlé. Is Bille an-tábhachtach é seo. Adoption was a strong feature of life three or four decades ago in this country when single girls who were pregnant allowed their children go for adoption and when children were orphaned. Many who have grown up as children of adoptive parents testify to their valuable role and input in shaping them in their adolescent and formative years. We could not underestimate the contribution of such parents. Many couples, for medical reasons and otherwise, are unable to conceive. Many children from Romania and other areas have received an opportunity they would not have had but for the strong Christian ethos of those who wanted children, brought them into their homes and raised them. That should be commended and it is important that the Bill regulate the process. I have listened to some arguments and know that some Senators come from a different agenda although they might introduce their comments by saying that the emphasis should be on the well-being of the child. Without a doubt that is the case. Children should not be used as a tool for promoting agendas under the pretext of equality or in any other way. I am not sure that adoption should be extended to those in a civil partnership. We have read many studies that show that the stability of the family is best served by those who are married and have entered into a lifetime commitment. There are dysfunctional families with that status, the well-being of whose children becomes an issue as we have seen in a recent example. In general, however, that family framework is more stable. That is not to say that there are no children in other family structures who are not enjoying the same protection and the same level of love and commitment. However, there are sufficient statistical data to show that where people have failed to enter into that lifestyle commitment, there is a higher propensity for relationships to break down than when they are married. That has its own impact on the children. It is probably desirable that the children should be adopted by people of the same religion, especially in the interest of the child. There is still quite a strong adherence to religion here. Whether that is to the dominant faith in the country or some other faith, children reared in that environment generally tend to have a value system which stands them in good stead as they grow up and go through life. There is an issue with children being adopted by single people. Some argue that there are anomalies in this and it must be recognised that they exist. If the emphasis is on the well-being of the child, we should not reduce him or her to some sort of appendage in society. Where good, stable parents can be identified for adoption, that is a preferable developmental framework for the rearing of children to that offered by single people. I say that as someone who was reared for most of my childhood by a single parent. I am acutely conscious of what this provides in the life of a child. Others who have been in my position would acknowledge the same situation. I am inclined to the view that where single people adopt, there should be some relationship with the child. If we place the emphasis on the well-being of the child, then we should recognise the ideal arrangement for the child. Being reared in a loving home with a mother and father provides the best opportunity for the development and well-being of the child, and provides the best opportunity for the child to grow into a good, responsible citizen for the future. The Minister of State has taken a reasoned approach to this. We need to be cautious in how we progress this issue, because it is contentious. The Bill before the House underpins much of what I support. Senator Feargal Quinn: I welcome the Minister of State, and I congratulate him and his officials on the work they have put into this Bill. Anyone who had the opportunity to listen to Eamon Dunphy on the radio last Saturday morning would have heard an interview with a very interesting individual. Dr. Paul Mooney is the president of the National College of Ireland, and he told me a wonderful story of how he adopted three children, the first of whom was adopted 18 years ago. Her name is Amy and she was adopted in Taiwan. He wrote a book, Amy, about that experience. I suggest that everyone read the book as it contains a very interesting story and is a reminder of the difficulty of adopting, especially from outside the State. This Bill is welcome as it puts the interests of the child first. This will address the issue of inter-country adoptions which currently are subject to different standards than those of domestic adoptions. It is correct that all children adopted by parents in Ireland must be subject the same set of standards. In essence, the Bill reflects the fact that adoption has changed greatly since it was legalised in the Adoption Act 1952. Once the Bill becomes law, it will be possible to adopt children only from countries that have ratified the Hague Convention or countries with which Ireland has a bilateral agreement. This means that Irish parents will not be able to adopt from countries such as Russia and Ethiopia unless an agreement is reached. How great is the possibility that bilateral agreements will be made in the near future with countries such as Vietnam, Ethiopia and Russia? A total of 229 domestic family adoption applications were received by the Adoption Board last year. These were mostly in cases where the natural mother had a child outside marriage and later married a man who was not the natural father. The natural mother and her husband applied jointly to adopt the children and the couple took on joint legal rights and responsibilities. The Adoption Board acknowledges that the procedure is not always ideal in step-parent families. The Adoption Board’s annual report states that it “considers that some other legal means should be devised to establish the rights and responsibilities of a natural mother’s husband without extinguishing the rights and responsibilities of the natural father”. This Bill provides the ideal opportunity to strengthen these rights for the stepfather and I believe it would be an oversight not to recognise this relationship in the Bill. It is of great importance that adopted children are able to get access to the medical records of their biological parents or, where that is not possible, that they be kept on the files of the Health Service Executive. For example, I know of a specific case where an adopted child had a particular illness which was very difficult to diagnose. He met his birth mother many years later and it turned out that he inherited his illness from his father. A vital amendment to the Bill would be a provision to allow the adopted child access to medical records in the case of hereditary diseases. It would be possibly life-saving information. The person’s anonymity would remain intact as no other information would be given out. I urge the Minister of State to include this provision in the Bill. I am not sure how this could be done, but if the individual in my example had known of his hereditary illness much earlier in life, he could have taken steps to overcome it much earlier as well. The Bill does not impose an upper age limit, which means that many couples will still not know whether they can apply for adoption. Without a defined upper age limit, couples wishing to adopt are left unclear about whether they qualify, leading to some being rejected while others of the same age are allowed to adopt. I do not know the answer and I would hate to put a limit on the age of the parents because they could be the perfect parents. The Bill provides a clear opportunity to set down an age limit which will help to clear up any confusion and inevitable disappointment for couples. On the other hand, perhaps it is better to leave it up to the authorities to decide themselves. A few years ago a couple approached me in one of my supermarkets and asked me what champagne they should buy. I got talking to them and discovered that the gentleman had been looking for his birth mother all his life. He had never been able to trace her so he took three days off to try to find her. She was not living in Ireland. When he contacted her by telephone, he asked her if a particular date meant anything to her. He gave the date of his birth. He said that she was quite emotional when she heard the date. When she asked him who he was, he said that he was born in a certain hospital in Ireland on that date. She had been looking for him for many years. She had wondered whether she could find him. He had been looking for her as well. She was coming to Ireland that afternoon. They were going to the airport to meet her. That is why they wanted champagne. It was an emotional experience for me. I remember taking great pleasure in giving them the champagne. I was reminded of the trauma people go through in their lives. I am aware that the Minister of State has attempted to cover this in the Bill before the House. According to the most recent annual report of the Adoption Authority of Ireland, at the end of 2007 almost 7,000 people were registered on its information and tracing service, which aims to reunite adopted people. The report points out that: The Register gives adopted people and their natural families an opportunity to confidentially state their preferences on the extent and type of contact they wish to have ... In particular, the Register has given natural fathers and other natural relatives of the adopted person a recognition that many felt they did not previously have.
Some 297 matches between parents and adult children have been made since the authority was established in 1952. It is clear that this is an emotional matter. The authority’s report noted that older natural mothers have been reluctant to add their names to the register. We all have experience of that. I am aware of such a case. If one gave one’s child up for adoption 20, 30 or 40 years ago, one might find it traumatic to be reminded of what one went through. Future publicity campaigns could make a greater effort to persuade such people to add their names to the register. At the same time, we must be careful to maintain confidentiality as many people might not want their names to be known. I would like to reflect briefly on two points that have already been made. I refer first to the need for a grandfather clause to allow the relatives of children to adopt them. I hope it will be possible to achieve that. I know it is on the agenda, but I am not quite sure how it will be achieved. Second, we need to take steps to reduce the amount of time it takes to adopt a child. I accept that it is important to be careful in this regard. However, it seems to me that there must be some way of speeding up the process, especially in cases in which it is fairly clear that there is no problem, so that it does not take very long. I admit that I do not have much experience of these matters. In the past, people who have wanted to adopt have not been able to do so. Senator Walsh and others spoke about different religions. Approximately 32 years ago, I knew of a Protestant man and his Catholic wife who were finding it difficult to adopt a child in Ireland. At that time, most birth parents left instructions to the effect that they wanted their children to be brought up with one religion or another. We managed to introduce the couple in question to a person who was involved in these matters. He knew of a case in which the birth parents had left no instructions. The couple adopted a girl who is now a wonderfully successful woman. Many things can be achieved. People who have no chance of having children experience great joy when they are able to adopt. The Minister of State and his officials have done a great deal of work in this area. It is important for us to take our time with this legislation so that we get it right. This work will be well worthwhile when it leads to great rewards for so many families, children and adoptive parents. I congratulate the Minister of State on the steps he is taking at this stage. As we consider the Bill on its next Stages, we need to ensure we improve it. If there are any flaws in it, we need to find ways of making it better. If we do so, it will have worthwhile benefits for many people. Senator Fiona O’Malley: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews. I particularly welcome this long overdue Bill which introduces into Irish law the contents of the Hague Convention. That measure, which is long overdue, is one reason to welcome the introduction of this Bill. I want to make one or two other comments on this timely Bill. We need to update and modernise our legislation. Senator Quinn spoke about the joy this Bill will bring to families and to children in the care of the State. It is far nicer to be in a caring and loving home than to be in the care of the State. We should try to facilitate the swiftest possible placement of children in permanent homes. I agree with Senator Corrigan that foster parents who have built relationships with children should be able to adopt them where possible. She also referred to one of the flaws of the Bill which is the notion that children whose parents are married cannot be adopted. Any child who has been abandoned for whatever reason deserves the greatest protection possible. If his or her parents will not look after him or her, if the child has been left to the care of the State, he or she should not be excluded from adoption if it is in the child’s interests. One good aspect of this Bill is that it absolutely and totally states that the care of the child is the central and most important thing. That is as it should be. We all know a child is better off in a loving home than in an institution. There should be no barrier. I ask the Minister of State to consider this question. I am interested to hear his opinion. Should children who have been abandoned be ineligible for adoption simply because their parents are married? Senator Corrigan also spoke about the procedures that should be in place when those who claim to be the parents of unaccompanied minors come to collect them. She made the good point that if the stories of those involved tally, that is reason enough to release a child into the hands of whoever has come to collect him or her. It is easy to determine whether somebody is genuinely a child’s parent. DNA testing can be carried out, for example. Children deserve that care. If a child is in the care of the State, he or she should be given the best available care. We know that all children do not necessarily get such care. We have the strongest obligation to such people. We need to ensure children left in the care of the State grow up in the most loving environment possible. It is better to facilitate adoption in such circumstances, naturally, because it is better to bring children into a loving home. Senator Walsh will not be surprised to hear that I wish to respond to some of the comments he made earlier. The Minister of State made it clear that any decision that is made must be in the best interests of the child. That is as it should be. I argue that there is no room for making judgments about certain arrangements in a home. We all need to reflect on this point. In an ideal world, life would be as uncomplicated as it was when everyone was born into a family with a mother and a father. As we all know, life is a little more complicated now than it was when the family norm tended to be a heterosexual couple. I am not addressing the question of whether homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. One’s sexual orientation does not reduce one’s capacity to rear a child in a loving environment. I do not think it should be a factor. I understand that such matters might not be to everyone’s taste. I do not think the State should take it upon itself to have the right to interfere in people’s homes in this manner. Naturally, everyone should be equally subject to the normal forms of rigorous testing or screening — the correct term escapes me — that apply to any couple or person who wishes to adopt a child. Being heterosexual does not make one a better parent. The case in Roscommon that came to light last month proves that point. No parent, even a biological parent, has a prerogative in terms of good care and the ability to cherish a child. There are failures everywhere and we need to be cognisant of that and accept that family life is different now than it was in the past. We should not necessarily take religions into account. There are cultural interests but we are already dealing with inter-country adoptions where children from African or Asian cultures have come to live here and have adapted well. What a child needs most is love and it does not matter where it gets it. If it can be placed in a loving home, regardless of the parental arrangements, that is as it should be. I commend the Bill. As we go through Committee Stage we might consider extending and improving it; I am sure the Minister of State will be interested in that. I thank him for bringing it to the House and I look forward to its passage. Senator Jerry Buttimer: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit and I thank him for bringing the Bill, on behalf of thousands of parents, before the House. The Minister of State is aware this is an emotional issue for many people. The trauma of the adoption process is extraordinary. I say that as someone who has two personal friends who have gone through the process, which, thankfully, ended in great joy. Senator O’Malley referred to children needing love. My two friends’ families are now complete with love and the children are at the centre of the family. The fundamental point is that this debate is about children. I welcome the Bill but I want to address some issues about which concern has been expressed by some of the groups I have met and some parents with whom I have spoken. The process is extraordinary. I have seen the effect on people of the paperwork and missing the opening times at the embassy. I recall on two occasions pacing up and down outside the Russian embassy waiting for officials to arrive and making sure that cheques were paid, the t’s were crossed and the i’s dotted. The image of my friend, Derek, pacing up and down outside the Russian embassy and being fraught with tension and worry remains with me. This is a man who wanted to adopt and bring a child back to a loving, warm home in Ireland. That waiting is replaced by the excitement of getting the approval to travel to Russia to adopt and then the joy of returning home with the child. Having witnessed the love brought to those two families and the integration, it illustrates for me the importance of this Bill and the joy of families being able to adopt. We must always keep that in mind. It is important we have a set of standards in place and that children are at the core of this Bill because, as many speakers said, the adoption process has changed and the method of dealing with children has altered, thankfully, for the better, but some issues remain unresolved. Many Members received e-mails this morning from the International Adoption Association, IAA, and I was somewhat alarmed at the tone of the introduction in the e-mail which stated that the IAA is still preparing a summary, that this is quite a long and complex Bill and that it underestimated the effort required to digest it. Are we rushing ahead with the Bill? I ask the question based on the e-mail; it is not a criticism. I listened with interest to the previous contributions here and on the monitor, and I found common ground with many of them. I even found commonality with Senator O’Malley’s contribution, with whom I would spar a great deal. I liked Senator Walsh’s story and I could associate with it, but I have a fundamental difference regarding some of his comments, which I will leave to another day in a different forum. Those of us who spoke in the debate so far have put the issue of children to the forefront. It is important that we recognise the value of children, enhance the role of family and ensure that all children who are adopted have a loving, caring home. I agree with Senator O’Malley. We should not put in place barriers to adoption. We hear frequently about the nucleus of the family and the composition of family having changed. People said that when divorce was introduced Irish society would fall apart, but that has not happened. As Senator Walsh stated, I am aware that many single parents are raising children in warm, loving relationships. I have seen gay couples in America who are raising children in loving relationships. We have seen families torn apart by strife and children’s lives being decimated as a consequence. I saw that when I was in school. In many of our communities today there are children who are victims of families that are falling apart, but that is an issue for a different debate. The fundamental point is that love, care and respect are vital and the Bill goes a long way in that regard. I want to raise a number of issues that were raised with me by parents and groups. The first is in regard to the lack of provision in the Bill for post-placement supports and the issues of speech therapy, early intervention support and child psychological support. As we are all aware, children who have been adopted have often experienced difficult circumstances early in their lives. I will not detail the litany of those now but some of them have suffered traumatic developmental delays and that can lead to institutionalisation and so on. Early diagnosis and subsequent intervention is of absolute importance to the future well-being of the child and as educationalists we must ensure that is provided for in the Bill. I ask the Minister of State to address that in his concluding remarks. Many speakers mentioned the age differential. No age limit or differential is specified in the Bill. I will not go into that issue other than to say I would be interested to hear the Minister of State’s remarks on that because there are issues that must be addressed. The issue of the grandfather clause has been raised by me and other speakers in the House. If the child is to be at the centre of this Bill, the issue of reuniting siblings and allowing families to adopt siblings must remain part of our focus. My cousins in America who adopted children from Russia were able to go back and reunite young children with their brothers and sisters. I would encourage the use of the grandfather clause and ask the Minister of State to have an open mind on that. |