That about sums up the case of Baby Ann in Ireland. Mummy and Da were unmarried students when they came together and created the baby. Unmarried, too young, and mummy agreed to give the child up for adoption. Better for the little girl, after all, to be raised by a two parent family where she could have all the advantages and where she was decidedly wanted. Unmarried Da, under the law, had no rights to the child since he was not united in holy matrimony to the mother, and one would assume that the couple would accept the consequences of an act that could have been avoided with the use of a single condom.
Not so. Baby Ann was born in July of 2004 and given to her prospective adoptive parents in November of that same year. In January of 2006, over a year later, the natural parents get married, and so they are become a real, honest-to-goodness, recognized by the Irish Constitution, family unit. So what does the newlywed couple do first off? Why, they go to court to get their little girl back. Didn't think of that in the first place, did they? But why should it matter that the baby was living with another set of parents who wanted to make her their own, who were giving her love and affection for over a year?
This past September, Mr. Justice John MacMenamin decreed that baby Ann would be psychologically damaged if she were to be torn from the only family that she has known. Anyone with children could pretty much figure that one out. It sounds like common sense, a no-brainer. Except to the five justices of the Supreme Court.
They overturned Mr. MacMenamin's decision yesterday, and Baby Ann is due to be returned, like a parcel from the Lost and Found. Why, you might ask? Because the natural parents went and got married. Doesn't matter that they waited, as far as the Supreme Court judges are concerned. Doesn't matter that they were not married when they made the baby. Doesn't matter that they were not married when they put the child up for adoption. All that matters is the here and now.
Wise Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly looked on the original findings as dangerous, since the lower courts ruled that the natural parents failed in their duty as parents, thus clearing the way for adoption. Why, with that sort of precedent, every single adoption must surely be based on a failure of duty. Huh? And then there's the Constitution, that says a child is best cared for by its natural parents. No time limit given, apparently, so no matter how long the parents took to decide that they wanted the baby back, it doesn't figure into the law.
Ah yes, the marriage, the 'metamorphosis' as the legal minds waxed poetically. Did no one mention that the metamorphosis occurred too late? This is a child we're speaking of, not a lump of carbon and water atoms that remains unchanging over time. Would their ruling apply if someone waited five years? Ten years? Thirty years?
The judge said Couple A were married in January 2006 and some of the events leading up to that civil marriage made "strange reading". Appointments for the marriage were twice cancelled. It seemed "reasonably clear" the birth parents
were acting on legal advice to the effect that their marriage would improve the prospects of their recovering the custody of Ann. However, this did not put in question the extent or genuineness of their long-term commitment to each other
and was irrelevant to the matters to be decided.
Clear that they got married to get the baby back, but there's no question of their commitment? When they get divorced, can the court revisit the case and decide Baby Ann can be returned to the adoptive parents? Are they mad, or just stupid?
None of that matters in this case. Baby Ann is to be handed back, under some undecided schedule that the psychologists and psychiatrists will fashion to minimize distress to the child. And if there's trauma, if Baby Ann is permanently damaged mentally, well, too bad for her. Too bad that her natural parents are more concerned with their own personal fulfillment and don't give a rat's arse about what is best for the child.
As for the justices, you might ask, 'What were they thinking?' It's more of a case of 'Why weren't they thinking at all?'
Technorati tag: adoption, Baby Ann
No comments:
Post a Comment