Keegan v Ireland 18 EHRR 342 1994: Adoption: Child born out of wedlock
FACTS:
The applicant met his girlfriend in May 1986, and they began living together in February 1987. In February 1988, it was confirmed that she was pregnant. The conception was the result of a deliberate decision, and the couple had planned to marry. Shortly afterwards however, the relationship broke down and they ceased to co-habit. After the child was born, it was placed for adoption by the mother without the applicant's knowledge or consent. The relevant provisions of the Adoption Act 1952 permitted the adoption of a child born outside marriage without the consent of the natural father. The applicant applied to the Circuit Court, under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, to be appointed as the child's guardian, which would have enabled him to challenge the proposed adoption. He was appointed guardian and awarded custody of the child. The decision of the Circuit Court was upheld by the High Court, but on appeal by way of case stated the Supreme Court ruled that the wishes of the natural father should not be considered if the prospective adopters could achieve a quality of welfare which was to an important degree better. The case was remitted to the High Court. On the rehearing a consultant psychiatrist gave evidence that if the placement with the prospective adopters was disturbed after a period of over a year, the child was likely to suffer trauma and to have difficulty in forming relationships of trust. The High Court therefore declined to appoint the applicant as guardian. An adoption order was subsequently made.
Held unanimously:
- that it was unnecessary to examine the Government's preliminary objection concerning the applicant's standing to complain on behalf of his daughter;
- that the remainder of the Government's preliminary objections should be dismissed;
- that Article 8 applied in the instant case and had been violated;
- that Article 6(1) had been violated;
- that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant's complaint under Article 14;
- that Ireland was to pay, within three months, IRL12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, and in respect of costs and expenses, the sums resulting from the calculation to be made in accordance with paragraph 71 of the judgment.
Applicability of Article 8: whether relationship a "family".
(a) The notion of the "family" in Article 8 is not confined solely to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto "family" ties, where the parties are living together outside marriage. A child born out of such a relationship is ipso facto part of that family unit from the moment of his or her birth, and by the very fact of it. There thus exists between the child and the parents a bond amounting to family life even if at the time of the child's birth the parents are no longer co-habiting or if their relationship has then ended.
(b) The relationship between the applicant and the child's mother lasted more than two years, during one of which they co-habited. The conception was the result of a deliberate decision, and the couple had planned to get married. The relationship between the applicant and the child's mother had the hallmark of family life for the purposes of Article 8, and accordingly from the moment of the birth a bond amounting to family life existed between the applicant and the child.
Compliance with Article 8: whether interference; whether necessary in a democratic society.
(a) The fact that Irish law permitted the secret placement of the child for adoption without the applicant's knowledge or consent, leading to the bonding of the child with the proposed adopters and to the subsequent making of an adoption order, amounted to an interference with the applicant's right to respect for family life.
(b) The decision to place the child for adoption without the father's knowledge or consent, and the decisions taken by the courts concerning the child's welfare, were in accordance with Irish law, and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the child.
(c) However, the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. The essential problem was that Irish law permitted the child to be placed for adoption shortly after her birth without the applicant's knowledge or consent. The placement not only jeopardised the applicant's ties with the child, but also set in motion a process which was likely to prove irreversible, thereby putting the applicant at a significant disadvantage in his contest with the prospective adopters for the custody of the child. The Government had advanced no reasons relevant to the welfare of the child to justify this.
Compliance with Article 6(1): entitlement to a hearing.
(a) The applicability of Article 6(1) was not seriously contested by the Government.
(b) The adoption process had to be distinguished from the guardianship and custody proceedings. The applicant had no rights under Irish law to challenge the decision to place the child for adoption, and indeed had no standing in the adoption procedure generally. His only recourse to impede the adoption was to bring guardianship and custody proceedings. By the time these proceedings had terminated, the scales concerning the child's welfare had tilted inevitably in favour of the prospective adopters. His right to a hearing under Article 6(1) had accordingly been violated.
Just Satisfaction: damages, costs and expenses (Art 50).
(a) The Court awarded IR L2,000 for pecuniary loss incurred in respect of the guardianship and custody proceedings before legal aid was granted.
(b) The Court awarded IR L10,000 for non-pecuniary loss incurred in respect of the trauma, anxiety and feelings of injustice that he must have experienced.
(c) IR L42,863 (less 51,691.29 FF legal aid) was awarded in respect of costs and expenses, to be increased by any VAT payable thereon.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
1. MARCKX v BELGIUM (A/31) (1979) 2 EHRR 330.
2. JOHNSTON v IRELAND (A/112) (1986) 9 EHRR 203.
3. W v UNITED KINGDOM (A/121-A) (1987) 10 EHRR 29.
4. BERREHAB v THE NETHERLANDS (A/138) (1988) 11 EHRR 322.
5. ERIKSSON v SWEDEN (A/156) (1989) 12 EHRR 183.
6. POWELL and RAYNER v UNITED KINGDOM (A/172) (1990) 12 EHRR 355.
7. OPEN DOOR and DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v IRELAND (A/246) (1992) 15 EHRR 244.