‘Very vulnerable individual’, who is now a pensioner, settles case in High Court
A woman who says she was forced to give up her child for adoption as an unmarried mother in a mother-and-baby home has reached a settlement in her High Court case.
Conor Power SC, representing the woman and instructed by McGuigan Solicitors, told the High Court on Thursday that the now pensioner is “a very vulnerable individual.” He informed Mr Justice Paul Coffey that the court had allowed time for both sides, and the matter was resolved through mediation.
The woman, whose child was reportedly adopted in 1980, was not present in court when the settlement was announced.
The case is thought to be the first of several similar claims expected to come before the courts.
Sources indicate that several cases are pending relating to alleged forced or illegal adoptions, with incidents dating back to the 1940s and 1980s.
In this instance, the woman had filed proceedings against her former employer—a financial institution—as well as the State, the HSE, Tusla, a nominee for the religious order that ran the mother-and-baby home, and the Adoption Authority of Ireland. All defendants filed full defenses, denying all claims.
Mr Conor Power SC told the court that the case could potentially be struck out against all defendants, with costs awarded against the financial institution and the religious order that ran the home.
The proceedings alleged that the removal of the baby in 1980 had lifelong adverse effects on the woman, who is said to suffer from complex post-traumatic stress disorder. She claimed the taking of her baby against her will caused profound anguish and sadness, describing the experience as frightening and heartbreaking.
The State parties named included the Ministers for Justice and Children, the Attorney General, and statutory bodies HSE, Tusla, and the Adoption Authority of Ireland. The woman alleged that the religious order running the home had controlled a system of forced adoptions for unmarried mothers and failed to safeguard her constitutional rights.
It was further claimed that the woman had an unplanned pregnancy in 1980, and that her employer held a position of authority over her at a time when being a single mother carried significant stigma. She alleged that a manager at the financial institution told her her child would have to be given up for adoption, leaving her with no real choice.
After giving birth, she reportedly refused to leave the hospital and did not want to surrender her baby, experiencing profound distress at the removal of her child. It was claimed that although she signed a certificate of surrender, it was done involuntarily, without informed consent or legal advice.
Additional allegations against the financial institution included a failure to protect her from repeated upsetting comments and behavior.
All claims were denied by all defendants.
Leave a Reply