Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mother granted right to sue over alleged forced adoption

Options
  • 01-06-2013 1:35pm
    #1
    the culture of deference
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭


    So here it starts now, how many will come forward and finally put the church out of our misery.

    A WOMAN who claims her baby was put up for adoption in the 1970s without her permission is entitled to sue for damages even though she is not contesting the adoption order, the High Court has ruled.


    The woman is suing a religious order and the HSE, as successor to the adoption agency, claiming the adoption was done without her knowledge while she was a resident with the order.


    She claims she was not even consulted when, as a teen mother, the baby was taken for adoption. She says she suffered psychological harm due to the defendants' alleged negligence, breach of duty and breach of her constitutional rights. She also claims fraud and undue influence in relation to documents she allegedly signed for the adoption.



    The claims are denied.


    The defendants had argued the woman was not entitled to claim damages without first challenging the validity of the adoption order. But Mr Justice Sean Ryan said it was not a precondition of seeking damages for her to include a claim that the adoption order was invalid. It did not follow as a matter of law or logic.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-granted-right-to-sue-over-alleged-forced-adoption-29312169.html


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Good for her, she's a brave woman to be doing this even in "modern" Ireland. Here's to hoping that any damages awarded are borne equally rather than the rediculous arrangement FF signed off on a few years ago.


  • Options
    #3
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,387 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Equally? Everything that happened was at the behest of the roman catholic church, let it pay 100%. When we had in the 1950s a taoiseach describe himself as a catholic first and an Irishman second it makes it clear how terrified anyone, particularly anyone whose job depended on public approval, was of going against the RCC.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #4
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,907 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    sounds like the state could have some responsibility; taking a child in for adoption without *any* input from the mother strikes me as potentially grossly negligent.


  • Options
    #5
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Gonna be hard to find any records of what happened back then. If there are any around they probably have a date with the shredder.

    Very interesting, however.


  • Options
    #6
    Ampolo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭Ampolo


    Withholding records from a court can result in contempt charges. It's not advisable!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Ampolo wrote: »
    Withholding records from a court can result in contempt charges. It's not advisable!!

    I'm sure the slippery fish in the church are well able to wriggle out of pesky secular things like court orders.


  • Options
    #8
    the culture of deference
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭the culture of deference


    Ampolo wrote: »
    Withholding records from a court can result in contempt charges. It's not advisable!!

    do you believe the RCC give a fcuk about withholding records........


  • Options
    #9
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ampolo wrote: »
    Withholding records from a court can result in contempt charges. It's not advisable!!

    Withholding maybe, but I wouldn't say there is much a court can do about 'unfortunately destroyed in an intense, but curiously specific, fire'.


  • Options
    #10
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kylith wrote: »
    [...]I wouldn't say there is much a court can do about 'unfortunately destroyed in an intense, but curiously specific, fire'.
    Or a curiously specific theft:

    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Priestss-gay-image-computer-is-robbed-from-parochial-house-147294355.html


  • Options
    #11
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,907 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Equally? Everything that happened was at the behest of the roman catholic church, let it pay 100%.
    just getting back to this again. if the state were running a deficient adoption system which did not have adequate checks and balances (to prevent something like this happening), then of course the state are somewhat liable for this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    just getting back to this again. if the state were running a deficient adoption system which did not have adequate checks and balances (to prevent something like this happening), then of course the state are somewhat liable for this.

    But they would, or should, be judged on what would have been reasonable and adequate at the time. So, if at the particular time the church was held in high regard and questioning it, how it operated or doubting its trustworthiness was simply not done, then it might not be appropriate for the state to be held jointly liable. Given what we know now it would be inexcusable. But back then...

    MrP


  • Options
    #13
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,907 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    MrPudding wrote: »
    But they would, or should, be judged on what would have been reasonable and adequate at the time.
    by that same token, you should be judging the church on what was reasonable and adequate behaviour at the time, thus lessening their responsibility.

    what i'm getting at is that this does not look like a solo run by the church. this required state adoption agencies (on the assumption that the claimant's claims are accurate) to have taken in children from religious orders, without adequate checks and balances.
    because you can be damn sure that if someone else had walked in off the street with a baby to put up for adoption, without any claim over the baby, it'd have ended up in court; but if they'd allowed the kid to be adopted, there would be murder over the adoption agency's behaviour.


  • Options
    #14
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    by that same token, you should be judging the church on what was reasonable and adequate behaviour at the time, thus lessening their responsibility.
    I am not sure it works quite like that. Surely during the time when this happened it was not reasonable to steal someone's child, whereas it might have been perfectly reasonable to trust a trusted organisation that was supposed to be the moral leader and the representative on earth of god himself?
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    what i'm getting at is that this does not look like a solo run by the church. this required state adoption agencies (on the assumption that the claimant's claims are accurate) to have taken in children from religious orders, without adequate checks and balances.
    because you can be damn sure that if someone else had walked in off the street with a baby to put up for adoption, without any claim over the baby, it'd have ended up in court.
    I see what you are getting at, but I think there needs to be a subjective element to a test for culpability for any bodies involved indirectly, that is to say involved in an administrative way but not actually involved in the stealing of the child.

    So, what I am getting at is this, at that particular time any person would or should have known that, irrespective of the status of the mother, it would not be acceptable to take that mother's child and put it up for adoption without her consent.

    At the same time, the status of the church was such that it was difficult, if not impossible, for anyone, including organs of the state, to hold the church to account, or even question its activities. Given this, it might be unfair to hold the adoption agency liable for the actions of the church in stealing children when all the did was treat the church with the respect it demanded and received from pretty much everyone else. That said, if the adoption agency knew how the children were acquired, then they would deserve anything they got and should be pursued to the full extent the law allows.

    MrP


  • Options
    #15
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,907 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    MrPudding wrote: »
    At the same time, the status of the church was such that it was difficult, if not impossible, for anyone, including organs of the state, to hold the church to account, or even question its activities.
    this is a failure of governance.


  • Options
    #16
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Equally? Everything that happened was at the behest of the roman catholic church, let it pay 100%. When we had in the 1950s a taoiseach describe himself as a catholic first and an Irishman second it makes it clear how terrified anyone, particularly anyone whose job depended on public approval, was of going against the RCC.
    No, I don't buy that. The State at the time and its agents actively colluded. This one you can't blame wholly on the church.


  • Options
    #17
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,387 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Yes, they did collude, what is interesting is WHY they did.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #18
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    I don't think it was because they were "terrified". I certainly don't think the President describing himself as a Catholic first is evidence of it. Lots of people were, I'm quite sure, lots of people weren't and went along with things because it suited their own moral framework. If we had evidence of conflicted gardai, doctors and social workers doing their jobs while having severe reservations, you might have a point. All the documentation points to the overwhelming majority being quite happy to do it.
    This is the other side of the coin to the religious orders trying to worm out of paying, I'm not happy to see people trying to get the State to do the same. We're the State, and we're better than that.


  • Options
    #19
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    this is a failure of governance.
    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    No, I don't buy that. The State at the time and its agents actively colluded. This one you can't blame wholly on the church.
    I apologise, I had not realised there was actual collusion. I thought it was merely good old fashioned stupidity in the form of, " it's the church, they wouldn't do anything wrong."

    MrP


Advertisement