The Supreme Court has agreed to urgently hear an appeal concerning the recognition of foreign adoptions here.
The appeal raises issues of national and international importance with the potential to affect “quite a number of cases”, the court said.
The Adoption Authority of Ireland had sought a direct or “leapfrog” appeal to the Supreme Court, rather than the Court of Appeal, for reasons including the importance of the issues raised and because the case immediately affects the status of two children adopted in another country by a couple.
The appeal arose after the High Court ruled the foreign adoption was not recognisable here but that the Adoption Authority still had jurisdiction to make an adoption order, along with various ancillary orders.
The authority wants to appeal the High Court decision, made after it asked the High Court to decide a number of legal issues concerning the implications for Irish adoption law of the incorporation into Irish law, as a result of the 2010 Adoption Act, of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children.
The foreign country involved is among the signatories of the Hague Convention.
Mandatory obligations
The central issue in the case concerns the extent to which the obligations of the Adoption Authority and State under the Hague Convention are mandatory such as to affect the authority’s jurisdiction when the particular adoption was not carried out in accordance with the convention.
The Supreme Court will have to decide whether, even if a foreign adoption is not carried out in accordance with the convention, the Adoption Authority here can still make an adoption order.
In a recently published determination, a three-judge Supreme Court, comprising Mr Justice Frank Clarke, Mr Justice John MacMenamin and Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, said it was convinced the need to have certainty as quickly as possible over the status of the particular children, and that the area of law generally provided the necessary "extraordinary" circumstances justifying a leapfrog appeal.
As well as the requirements of urgency, the issues are purely legal ones although “undoubtedly important and potentially complex”, it said.
While there was always an advantage in obtaining the views of the Court of Appeal, it was clear that advantage may be outweighed because this matter was likely to ultimately be the subject of a Supreme Court appeal in any event, the determination said.
This was a case where urgency outweighed other considerations and it would hear the appeal, it said.
The appeal was before the court on Thursday for case management purposes. The appeal is expected to be heard as soon as possible.
