BABY Ann, the toddler at the centre of last year's adoption battle, has been returned to the care of her natural parents.

But the Irish Independent has learned that the infant's heartbroken foster carers will not be granted ongoing access visits to the child they hoped to adopt.

The return of Baby Ann, who is now "bedded in" with her birth parents, comes in the wake of concerns about Ireland's fostering laws and the Supreme Court ruling itself.

Yesterday, Information Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly urged the Health Service Executive to treat potential foster parents in a fair and proper manner.

Reform

Ms O'Reilly called for reform of fostering protocols following an investigation into the way a former health board treated a couple when they tried to foster three siblings whose birth parents are dead.

In the Baby Ann case, Supreme Court Judge Adrian Hardiman said the Constitution prefers parents to third parties.

Delegates at a seminar on the Baby Ann ruling, including officials from the Attorney General's office and the Department of Health, were told yesterday that foster parents are "merely third parties" under the ruling.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that Ann - who had lived with her prospective adoptive parents since she was three months old - was to be returned to her natural parents.

Farewell

Ann's natural parents conceded a final family Christmas farewell for their daughter's would-be adoptive parents, who had difficulty conceiving children of their own. It is understood the married couple had unsuccessfully attempted IVF treatment before deciding to adopt.

In the High Court action, Judge John MacMenamin ruled that the two-year-old would be psychologically damaged if taken away from the would-be adoptive couple. He said the case was complex, tragic and distressing and expressed regret that the court did not have the power to make any other decision, allowing some "middle ground".

Child law expert and Adoption Board member Geoffrey Shannon, told delegates at the Treoir Annual General meeting that to automatically prefer parents to third parties would allow the courts to ignore the rights of the child.

"The protection against interventionism is an important one, but this does not mean the court must always prefer parents to all third parties," said Mr Shannon. "It is misleading to say that parents will always consider the welfare of the child as paramount."

The Adoption Board, Personal Injuries Assessment Board, Vocational Education Committees and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority are just some of the bodies to which FOI applications cannot apply.

In her annual report, Ms O'Reilly said the continued exclusion of An Garda Síochána put Ireland out of kilter with the rest of the developed world where police forces have fallen under similar acts for some time.

She said there has been no negative impact on other forces as a result, and the establishment of the Garda Ombudsman's Commission provides an ideal opportunity for the force to come under the scope of the act.

Despite a fall in applications last year, the system is working but not as well as it could be, according to Ms O'Reilly.

She says the present fees in place are discouraging some people. Uptake of applications has fallen by 19% since 2005.

Download the survey in either MS Word of PDF format:

MS Word version
PDF version

The hearing, expected to last two days, will be in private with the media and public excluded, but the court's decision will be made public.

In the High Court last month, Mr Justice John MacMenamin ruled that the two-year-old baby Ann (not her real name) would be psychologically damaged if she was taken away from her intended adoptive couple and given to her natural parents.

Mr Justice 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.

The constitutional right of the child to the protection of her health and welfare must be vindicated, he said.

Ann's natural mother and father have brought an appeal to the Supreme Court, which has set aside two days for the hearing.

Five judges, with the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, presiding, will hear the appeal.

Mr Justice MacMenamin last month ruled the two-year-old girl should remain with the two people who want to adopt her and with whom she has formed an emotional bond.

The child was born in 2004 when the birth parents were unmarried students and they placed her for adoption. This was done in November of that year, and since then Ann has remained with the carer parents.

The natural parents married in January 2006, which constituted them as a family unit under the Constitution. They started court proceedings to regain custody of Ann a month later.

Mr Justice MacMenamin said there were compelling reasons why the child's custody should not be altered.

He found there was a "failure of duty" displacing the normal constitutional presumption in favour of the family unit, and Ann should remain with the intended adoptive parents.

The judge referred to the case as complex, tragic and distressing and expressed much regret that the court did not have the power to make any other decision in the circumstances which would have the effect of allowing some "middle ground".

He also ordered that the identities of those involved be protected.

© The Irish Times

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.

The natural parents are appealing the decision to the Supreme Court. The child was born in 2004 when they were unmarried students and they placed her for adoption. This was done in November of that year, and since then Ann has remained with the carer parents.

The natural parents married in January 2006, which constituted them as a family unit under the Constitution. They started court proceedings to regain custody of Ann a month later.

The judge said there were compelling reasons why the child's custody should not be altered and that there had been what was termed a "failure of duty", displacing the normal constitutional presumption in favour of the family unit. Thus the child should remain with the intended adopters.

Mr Justice MacMenamin first gave a 107-page judgment in camera in the case last June after a 23-day hearing.

Since then applications were made to the court including by An Bord Uchtála, the Adoption Board, to have the judgment made public providing the anonymity of the child and parties was protected.

Yesterday, the judge outlined the circumstances of the case. He referred to it as complex, tragic and distressing, and expressed much regret that the court did not have the power to make any other decision in the circumstances which would have the effect of allowing some "middle ground".

He also remarked on an apparent lack of support for the natural parents. He said this was not a reflection on any of the professionals involved in the case.

"Such a situation appears to me to be one where, procedurally or structurally, such support should be available on an organised basis." He ordered that the identities of those involved be protected.

"At the heart of this case there are two couples, who through no fault of their own have been placed in a position which can only attract sympathy and compassion. They are legally entitled to their privacy. More fundamentally, so too is Ann."

Yesterday, An Bord Uchtála chief executive John Collins said it had been advised not to make any comment pending the Supreme Court appeal.

© The Irish Times

THE biological mother and father of a baby girl have lost custody of their daughter to foster parents.

The landmark decision, announced in the High Court yesterday, could have wide-ranging implications for the rights of natural parents who are married.

Under the ruling, the bond between a child and its custodians may be regarded as stronger than any innate attachment an infant has to its birth parents.

It could also affect the rights of other so-called 'non-nuclear' families because child custody may in the future be decided on the basis of whom a child has bonded with, and not biological or marital parenthood. The nature-versus-nurture battle follows a tragic 'tug-of-love' battle for baby 'Ann', who was born in July 2004 to two unmarried students. In a major victory for the rights of 'temporary' parents, a High Court judge granted custody of the two-year-old to her would-be adoptive parents, despite a plea by her birth mother to have her child returned to her. The young couple, who married last January, had placed Ann in pre-adoptive foster care in April 2005.

But in September 2005, Ann's birth mother wrote to the Adoption Board saying she no longer wished the adoption to proceed and sought to regain custody of her daughter. But Ann's adopter parents objected.

Portraying themselves as the toddler's "psychological" parents, they argued that she would sustain lasting emotional and physical damage if her attachment to them was broken.

Judge John Mac Menamin, who expressed "deep regret" at being unable to find a "middle way" around the tug-of-love saga, agreed with Ann's foster parents.

In doing so, he turned on its head the unwritten, cardinal rule in Irish law that the birth mother is always granted custody in contested child-care battles.

The judge made his ruling last July, ordering that Ann remain with the couple who want to adopt her and have cared for her since she was four months old.

But the ruling was only publicised yesterday after a media ban on reporting the groundbreaking case was lifted.

Judge Mac Menamin's ruling has since been appealed to the Supreme Court by Ann's birth mother and father. This sets the stage for an epic constitutional debate over the definition of the family.

"If this decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will have major implications for Irish family law," lawyer and child-law expert Geoffrey Shannon said.

"The Supreme Court has consistently stated that some form of extreme and immediate threat to the constitutional rights of the child must be shown before the State can intervene in the case of the rights of marital parents.

"This is a hugely significant decision and it should be seen as an attempt on the part of the courts to adopt a more child-centred approach to custody.

"This case is, however, under appeal to the Supreme Court which will be the final arbiter on this particular issue."

Ann's birth parents have argued in pleadings to the Supreme Court that by virtue of their marriage they, as natural parents, had become a family unit within the meaning of the Constitution.

© Irish Independent

The National Contact Preference Register was launched a year ago to help Ireland's 47,000 adopted people make contact with their parents.

The Irish Independent has learned that in the 12 months since it opened 5,217 people have signed up.

Tom Joyce, spokesman for the Adoption Board, said they were "overwhelmed" by the numbers who came forward.

"We had 4,500 come forward in the first two months alone.

"It took us until January to input all the data onto the system and we're still getting eight or 10 new people coming to us every day."

A breakdown of the figures has shown that 3,771 adopted people have signed up to the register with the remaining 1,446 made up of parents and family members who wish to trace their family member.

A total of 1,015 mothers have come forward and 165 fathers.

The remainder are grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles who want to make contact with their family member.

The register only allows the individuals to meet if both the adopted person and a family member register. If one has registered and the other has not, no contact can be made.

To date 160 matches have been made.

"We usually let them know by phone that we've made a match," said Tom.

"We find out what kind of contact they want,or maybe no contact at all."

He added: "We strongly recommend they use some form of mediation."

Mr Joyce appealed for those who did not wish to contact the child they gave up for adoption to register.

"The section on medical information is particularly important.

"It's pretty much the second question the doctor asks you when you go to the surgery.

"People who have been adopted have no clue to the risks they may be facing and their family members are the only ones who can supply that information."

The register, open to over 18s, was launched last year by Minister for Children Brian Lenihan.

Mr Joyce said they have had many success stories with the families still working to get to know each other.

Further information on the register can be obtained by dialing freephone 1800 309 300.

The judgment was made in the context of the hearings involving Tristan Dowse, who, the court decided last week, should be maintained by the Irish couple who had adopted him until he reaches the age of 18, and who retains his inheritance rights to their estate.

These hearings were heard in private, but Mr Justice John McMenamin decided to make his judgment public, ruling that this was in the interests of Tristan's welfare into the future, including the preservation and protection of his right to maintenance.

He said that the full provisions of his orders should be published, if only for the practical reasons of correcting any false impression already created in this jurisdiction, and having regard to the possibility that the matter might come into the public domain in a way that might actually prejudice Tristan's interest.

Most matters dealing with family law are heard in private. However, judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court relating to divorce and separation are often published, usually in the official Law Reports, with names and other identifying details removed.

Matters dealing with child custody and welfare issues, including adoption, are also usually dealt with in private.

Referring to this case, Mr Justice McMenamin said the 1991 Adoption Act made it clear that the power to hear proceedings under Section 7 of this Act (rescinding an adoption order) was discretionary. It was a fundamental principle of Irish law that justice should be administered in public, he said.

He said that previous Irish judgments and the European Convention on Human Rights both made clear that courts must make their judgments public unless this would constitute a denial of justice.

Even if some portions of a judgment might amount to such a denial, they should publish such portions as did not do so.

He pointed out that in the High Court and Supreme Court judgments concerning a ward of court, who had been in a near-vegetative state for many years and whose family sought that she had the right to die, the hearings were in private but the judgments had been made public.

He also cited the English case involving former minister David Blunkett, who had sought a Parental Responsibility Order and Contact Order relating to a child born to a woman with whom he had an affair, where the judgment was made public.

He said that the situation of Tristan Dowse was already very much in the public domain, although he added: "This court cannot countenance a situation where the acts of some third party or persons have the effect of putting the issue of publicity regarding a case 'into play'."

In considering the issue of publicity, "the welfare of the minor must at all times remain paramount".

This consideration led him to the conclusion that the publication of the judgment, in this instance, would assist in the protection of Tristan's interests.

Carol Coulter
© Irish Times

The story would ultimately have a happy ending, but there would be many difficult turns and twists along the way for the star-crossed child.

At the time, the small boy with the Irish passport was unsettled and troubled in his new surroundings.

Only able to speak English, he cried "persistently and was very unsettled and withdrawn".

But at the time of his adoption in July 2001, Joseph and Lala Dowse had high hopes for their new child, Tristan Joseph. His second name came from his adoptive Irish dad, an accountant from Wicklow. In the Indonesian orphanage, he was renamed Erwin.

Bewildered

Last summer — still in an orphanage — the little boy was described as being hurt, confused and somewhat bewildered.

Yesterday, the High Court in Dublin moved to secure his future. Mr Justice John McMenaminalso revealed during his judgments the sequence of events that led to Tristan being placed in the orphanage in May 2003.

It was the Dowses' case, the judge said, that the adoption of Tristan "did not succeed" — unfortunately "very little or no bonding took place".

The couple claimed this became clear just one month after the adoption. They said Tristan did not react or bond in a positive way. He fretted and became aggressive and upset in the presence of Ms Dowse.

Mr Dowse informed the Adoption Board that Tristan's adoption and his name was entered in the Irish Register of foreign adoptions in September 2001.

But matters then took a turn for Tristan, and they were to have a life-altering impact on his future.

According to a letter sent to the board by the Dowses' solicitors on April 19, 2004, shortly after the entry into the Registry of Foreign Adoptions in 2001 the Dowses discovered they were expecting a baby. This baby girl was born in Indonesia on May 29, 2002.

The judge said it was stated in the letter that the adoption of Tristan had been "interfered with" by Lala's pregnancy and the subsequent birth of the girl.

"Thus proper bonding did not take place," Mr Justice McMenamin said, addding that this differed from earlier contentions about when the failure to bond had begun.

The Dowses said they called in a psychologist and the advice was that continuing the adoption was not in Tristan's best interests. They considered fostering or finding the natural mother, and legal advice in Indonesia suggested the boy could be re-adopted there.

In May 2003, the Dowses went back to the court in South Jakarta for an order relinquishing care of Tristan to nominated third parties.

Tristan was placed in an orphanage in the Bogo district of South Jakarta. He was one of only two children under the age of five in the home.

The court had heard how the Dowses were married in Azerbaijan in June 2000. Ms Dowes, who is from Azerbaijan and is a doctor, met Mr Dowse while he was working in Baku.

A senior social worker with the Irish Adoption Board, Patricia Smyth, who visited Tristan in the orphanage, found him to be a bright and communicative child.

"Ms Smyth's view is that the attachment between Tristan and his adoptive family would have been firmly established and consolidated during the period of residence with them," the judge said.

Tristan spoke only English. He had to get used to using Indonesian when he moved to the home and, in addition, had to adapt to his change of name.

"It is probable that Tristan developed a mistrust of adults as a result of what occurred to him," the judge said.

In May 2005, Tristan was moved to the State orphanage where conditions were not the same and he had to sleep in the same room as 34 other children.

The judge said: "In a form signed by the applicants for the purpose of the original adoption on July 25, 2001, they wrote that they wished to raise Tristan as if he was their 'own flesh and blood'. What occurred is difficult to reconcile with that statement. It is hard to conceive of the effect which these traumatic changes must have had on this young child."

Surrender

After Tristan's placement in the orphanage, the couple returned to Ireland with their two other children for 10 days; but the judge said no attempt was made to inform the adoption authorities.

Mr Dowse said while it was easy now to look back in hindsight, what he and his wife had been trying to do was to make the best decision they could at the time in Tristan's interest. They felt if they could bring about his re-adoption while avoiding the matter becoming public then the child's best interests would be protected.

Mr Dowse testified he gave a total of $1,900 to the orphanage while the boy was there. Last year, the Dowses filed in the South Jakarta court to surrender the child.

Tristan now lives in Tegal with his natural mother, Suryani, in the north coast of Java, 350km from Jakarta. He lives with her in a house owned by his great grandmother along with two stepsiblings from Suryani's earlier marriage.

The judge said the evidence suggested Suryani's family was above the level of poverty but was nonetheless far from well off.

The Irish Ambassador to Singapore and Indonesia, Hugh Swift, who travelled to Tegal on the request of the High Court on October 17, 2005, said Tristan was in apparent good health and humour. At last, it would appear the little boy has finally found happiness.

Ann O'Loughlin

© Irish Independent http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent & http://www.unison.ie

He described the ruling as "realistic" and said his department would maintain contact with the Indonesian authorities to make sure all is well with Tristan.

The boy had been returned to the orphanage in Jakarta when Joseph Dowse and his Azerbaijani wife, Lala, decided the adoption was not working out.

In the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice John McMenamin ruled that the Dowses had breached their constitutional duties and must support Tristan until he is 18.

The boy retains his Irish citizenship and rights of succession to the estates of his adoptive parents.

His adoptive parents will pay an immediate lump sum of €20,000 and a monthly payment of €350 until Tristan reaches 18.

Half of the monthly payment goes directly to Tristan's mother, and the rest into an account for his benefit.

The payments will increase with inflation. This has been a good day's work by the State for Irish children The court also ordered an additional lump sum payment of €25,000 when the boy reaches 18 years.

Mr Justice McMenamin said that if there was one redeeming feature from the evidence, it was the knowledge of Tristan's current wellbeing and the fact that he has been happily restored to the custody of his natural mother.

Childrens' Minister Brian Lenihan said that an important precedent had been set by yesterday's judgment.

"This has been a good day's work by the State for Irish children," Mr Lenihan said. "The Irish State and court system has demonstrated that it will take all necessary steps and has ample powers to ensure that Irish citizens who adopt in other jurisdictions must meet their obligations."

Welcoming the court ruling, the minister said: "It will ensure that Tristan's future is protected, that he will continue to live with his natural mother and that Joseph and Lala Dowse will be obliged to provide for Tristan throughout his childhood."

© Irish Independent http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent & http://www.unison.ie

Yesterday, the solicitor for the Dowse family, Gus Cullen, said the couple were very satisfied with the outcome of the case. Mr Dowse is from Co Wicklow.

The Registrar of the Adoption Board, Kieran Gildea, said the entry of the name of Tristan Dowse on the Register of Foreign Adoption would be deleted as directed by the High Court judgment.

In one of his judgments yesterday, Mr Justice John McMenamin said it is a fundamental principle of Irish law that justice should be administered in public, and that the administration of justice in public is an essential feature of a truly democratic society. The court, he said must have regard to the fact that the position in regard to Tristan Dowse is already very much in the public domain in this country.

"His circumstances have already been the subject of extensive public discussion and comment. This renders the position quite distinct from the ordinary realm of family law cases which are heard in private and where judgment are issued protecting the anonymity of the parties," the judge said.

The welfare of the minor, he said must at all times remain paramount. He said he did not think there is any reality to the exclusion of the names of the parties in the proceedings as the matter has also received a very considerable amount of publicity here and elsewhere.

He ruled that the full provisions of the order should be published if only for the purely practical reason to correct any false impression created here and having regard to the possibility that the matter might come into the public domain in a manner which might be prejudicial to Tristan's interests.

Ann O'Loughlin

© Irish Independent http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent & http://www.unison.ie

In August 2001, two-month old Tristan was chosen to become the first son of Joe and Lala Dowse. He lived with the family until he was almost two years old, when the couple decided he wasn't the son for them.

Joe, a Wicklowman, is an Irish citizen; Lala, a professional in her own right, was from Azerbajian where she had already given birth to a daughter by another father. She'd reportedly thought she couldn't become pregnant again but after they adopted Tristan, she did. The family then returned from Indonesia to Azerbaijan where they live with Lala's daughter and their infant son.

Rather like a fashion statement that went wrong, Tristan was returned to an Indonesian orphanage. The Dowses blamed him for not bonding, but a child bonds no matter what, for better or worse, if brought into a family at so young an age as two months.

Without the only parents he'd known, without his big sister, Tristan must have felt absolutely abandoned. He couldn't even communicate with his carers because he only spoke English and they did not. He cried constantly when he was sent back, Mr Justice McMenamin pointed out yesterday.

The High Court decision to maintain Tristan's status as an Irish citizen, to appoint his natural mother as legal guardian, to oblige the Dowses to compensate him, pay maintenance and honour his inheritance rights is a wise outcome to this private and public scandal.

The natural mother is taken out of poverty and given a direct interest in raising Tristan herself.

Yet the case provokes serious questions about the ethics and management of inter-country adoption. Yesterday's judgments ease but don't solve them.

Why did the Irish Adoption Board recognise Tristan's adoption when no inter-country agreement existed and no checks had been done as to the Dowses' suitability or otherwise as adoptive parents?

Other Irish couples have to endure a three-year waiting period, 12-week training course and up to eight meetings with a social worker, where they are obliged to answer deeply personal questions, including questions about their sex life.

How ethical is it to remove a child from its birth culture and transplant it to a richer place? In so doing, are wealthier first-world families provoking a demand-and-supply reaction which risks turning vulnerable third-world areas into baby farms for the rich? A UNICEF review found that inter-country adoption can be a positive measure because children benefit by being removed from unsatisfactory care situations into permanent family environments. But, they added, large-scale adoptions also signal a failure by birth-states to care adequately for their most vulnerable members - they wondered whether alternatives such as foster care, domestic adoption and programmes to help birth families keep their children were being neglected.

Change has happened in Ireland since Tristan's story — specifically the Dowses actions — risked damaging the many positive cases of inter-country adoption here. Under Minister Brian Lenihan, such adoption is now limited to countries who've signed up to the Hague Convention, which puts the rights of the child centre stage.

What hasn't changed are the long lists of desperate people with real love to give who are still waiting to be assessed, who will mortgage the rest of their lives to the hilt for the sake of having a child.

Or the greater numbers in the third-world with just as much love but not enough money to spare children like Tristan such dreadful loss.

© Irish Independent http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent & http://www.unison.ie

But first, the players who brought this extraordinary saga to a just conclusion are to be congratulated.

The perseverance of the Attorney General, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern and the principal whistleblower, journalist Ann McElhinney, culminated in wise and humane rulings by Judge John MacMenamin.

The couple who adopted and then abandoned the four-year-old Indonesian boy have been ordered to pay more than ?100,000 to secure his future.

Joseph Dowse and his wife Lala must pay an immediate lump sum of ?20,000 to Tristan and a further lump sum of ?25,000 when he reaches the age of 18.

They also have to pay maintenance of ?350 per month until he is 18 years of age.

These are fortunes in Indonesian terms. They were based on the middle class lifestyle that the Dowses could have given Tristan.

Even though half the ?350 each month will go into a fund controlled by the High Court until Tristan is 18, and even though Tristan has been given the protection of the Irish High Court as a ward of court, there must be concerns about what will happen in the years ahead. Are the child and his mother to be left to handle their future on their own?

Little is known about Tristan's mother, Suryani, except that in the past she has proven vulnerable to unscrupulous people. She allegedly sold her son before he was born. She is a single mother with two other children. Now reunited, mother and son live in a working class area of Tegal, an industrial city north of Jakarta.

It appears obvious that Suryani is in need of advice and personal guidance in light of the awards to her son. It has even been suggested that perhaps some of the moneys awarded might have been directed towards direct support by qualified carers.

Happily, the Irish Ambassador to the region was able to report to Judge McMenamin that the four-year-old is in good health and good humour. Long may he remain so.

© Irish Independent http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent & http://www.unison.ie

Tristan Dowse was adopted in 2001 at the age of two months by Joe Dowse, an accountant from Wicklow, and his Azerbaijan-born wife.

But the couple returned the boy to an orphanage in Jakarta two years later on the grounds that the adoption was not working out.

Judge John MacMenamin said the couple had failed in their duty under the Irish constitution to provide and care for their son, Tristan.

He ordered that Tristan's adoption should be struck off the Register of Foreign Adoptions held by the Irish Adoption Board and that Suryani, his natural mother, should be appointed his sole legal guardian.

He ordered the Dowses to pay an immediate lump sum of €20,000 to Tristan and a further lump sum of €25,000 when he reached the age of 18. The couple will also have to pay maintenance of €350 per month until he is 18.

Judge MacMenamin ordered that Tristan be made a ward of court, should remain an Irish citizen and enjoy all the rights to the estate of the Dowses as if he had remained their lawful child.

In his judgment on the case, Judge MacMenamin recounted how Tristan only spoke English when he was placed back in the orphanage by the Dowses and cried constantly.

He referred to a form signed by the Dowses at the time of the original adoption in which they wrote that they wished to raise Tristan as if he was their own flesh and blood.

"What occurred is difficult to reconcile with that statement. It is hard to conceive the effect which these traumatic changes must have had on the young child," said Judge MacMenamin.

"The court found that there was clearly a breach of the constitutional duty owed to Tristan by his parents," he said.

He presided over two judgments in relation to the adoption and abandonment of Tristan - one between the attorney general and the Dowses and the other between the Dowses and the adoption board.

The Dowses were not in court for the judgment but their family solicitor, Gus Cullen, said they were satisfied with the decision. He added the couple would comply with the court's order to provide for their son.

© The Irish Times

The primary topic of discussion was the forthcoming legislation. While primarily designed to ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, the Bill will also establish the Adoption Authority and provide for the appointment of adopted people to the authority. It will also give legislative backing to the Contact Register and Adoption Information & Tracing Service.

This Bill was originally scheduled to be introduced this autumn, but has now been put back until the spring. The Minister reassured us that it was very much a priority for him and the government (it is listed as such on the Oireachtas website) but there is a shortage of parliamentary draughtsman at present. The Minister is still open to proposals and submissions at this stage and if members have any on the areas covered by the Bill, they can be submitted through us or directly to the Department of Health & Children.

The issue of the Indonesian child, Irwin (formerly Tristan Dowse) was also discussed. We proposed that measures be taken to ensure that the Adoption Board never again rubber stamps an Irish recognition of what appears to have been an illegal adoption conducted abroad. We also proposed that a sponsorship programme be set up specifically for Irwin and Suryani — pointing out that a year's sponsorship would cost significantly less than one barrister's fees in the forthcoming High Court case surrounding Irwin's adoption. The Minister promised to examine this.

In typical KMO fashion, committee Martin, Colin, Tom, and Delores, along with ardent supporters PeeJ and James, showed their gracious hospitality and welcomed many new faces to the family fold. Said one attendee, summing up the event, "If [KMO] organise even the opening of an envelope, we'll be there!"

These "brothers and sisters, doin' it for themselves" provide the oft-needed support and "home" for many who feel disenfranchised by the experience of adoption, as well as with the tools to restore their dignity and identity. AdoptionIreland is proud of its close affiliation with KMO and wish them many, many more successful years.