Family – S. 49(2) Adoption Act 2010 - Hague Convention - Pre-existing Thai adoption - Domestic adoption 

Facts: In the present case stated, the respondent had referred various questions of law to the Court. The issue arose as to the authority of the respondent to make an adoption order in favour of the applicants being the adoptive parents as the children were already adopted by the applicants in Thailand, whose adoptive procedures were not recognised under the Hague Convention. The respondent stated that they were restricted by the Adoption Act, 2010, and could not make a domestic adoption order in the present case as it would contravene the provisions of the Hague Convention. The respondent submitted that according to s. 49(2) Adoption Act, 2010, the children who had already been adopted could not be re­adopted unless their adoptive parents had died and hence the children were not eligible to be adopted as there was an existing Thai adoption in place. The applicants contended that the children were habitually resident in the State and therefore the respondent had jurisdiction to make an adoption order in the present case. The applicants stated that the proposed domestic adoption order would not amount to re-adoption as there had been no adoption order within the meaning of the Adoption Act, 2010. 
Held: Ms. Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon answered all the questions of law referred by the respondent and held that the respondent had jurisdiction to make the adoption order without the direction of the High Court. The Court held that Thai adoption was not recognisable in Ireland under Part 8 of the Adoption Act, 2010. The Court held that there was no bar to an adoption in the present case as the children had not been adopted in the State and hence the issue of re-adoption did not arise. The Court held that it was not necessary that the law laid down under M.F. v An Bord Uchtala remained good, specifically the incorporation of Hague Convention into the Irish law. The Court held that the original status of the children would remain irrespective of the fact that the Thai adoption was not recognised in the State. The Court held that the best interests of the children would be served by making an adoption order in favour of the applicants. While answering the last question of the respondent, the Court held that the children were eligible for adoption under s.23 of the 2010 Act. The Court observed that the Adoption Authority in Ireland had been given wide powers in relation to adoption procedures. 
B (C) and P B v Údarás Uchtála Na hÉireann and anor
25/11/2016 No. 2016/325 SS [2016] IEHC 738