The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul have won a High Court order halting a case against it over the alleged forced adoption 45 years ago of a woman's four-month-old baby. When the woman later tried to find her son, she learned he had died tragically in his 30s.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said, while he was satisfied the Daughters of Charity order was an “active participant” in a “highly questionable” informal adoption process, the woman’s claim against it was statute barred.
The 68-year-old woman claimed she was raped in 1968 and became pregnant at the age of 21 before being sent to the St Patrick’s mother and baby home on the Navan Road, Dublin.
She had to give the baby up for adoption as she was also a resident/worker in the Magdalene Laundry in Drumcondra, Dublin, and says she was warned by a nun there, if she did not sign the adoption papers, she would be put out on the street.
She sued in 2013 claiming duress, illegality and fraud over the adoption. It was claimed, because there was a breach of a six month statutory period before an adoption can be made, the Statue of Limitations should not be applied.
She sued the Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul in its alleged capacity as manager of St Patricks; the Sisters of Charity Refuge, who operated the Magdalene Laundry; and the HSE as successor to the original health authority for Dublin. All three defendants denied her claims.
In a pre-trial application to dismiss the case against it, the Daughters of Charity argued the health authority, and not them, were the managers of St Patricks.
They also claimed their right to a fair trial was prejudiced because the 44 year delay bringing the case meant important witnesses and information relating to the events of 1969, when the adoption took place, were no longer available.
In his decision, the judge agreed with the Daughters of Charity the woman’s claim against it was statute barred.
It was argued the Daughters of Charity concealed details of an informal adoption system which operated at the time in breach of the 1952 Adoption Act and that premature consent had been obtained from her, the judge noted. It had also been argued the Daughters of Charity’s role in the process only became known through third party disclosures.
The court was satisfied an informal process operated in this case whereby the woman was asked for and provided interim written consent, in May 1969, until such time as valid consent could be obtained in accordance with the Adoption Act.
The judge was satisfied the the Daughters of Charity order was “an active participant in this highly questionable process”.
However, it was clear the woman, who was an adult at the time, was fully aware of all the matters now complained of, including alleged undue influence and duress, he said.
In his view, there was no indication the Daughters had perpetrated a fraud or concealed anything from her such as would allow the Statute of Limitations not to run.
Even if the system in operation had not been known to her, he was satisfied, with reasonable diligence, documents which she later obtained could have been obtained before she got them in November 2014.
The case was commenced out of time and was therefore statute barred, he ruled.
There was also an inordinate and inexcusable delay in commencing the proceedings, he also said.
While the court sympathised with her predicament, the matters she complained of were known to her from the outset, he added.