Keegan v. Ireland
European Court of Human Rights
290 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Joseph Keegan (plaintiff) and Miss. V. were an unmarried couple who cohabitated and planned to have a child together. Keegan and Miss V. became engaged after Miss V. became pregnant. Keegan and Miss V. then ended their engagement after two years together, and Miss V. decided to place the child for adoption. A few weeks after the child’s birth, Miss V. placed the child in the custody of an adoption agency and notified Keegan of the placement. Irish law permitted a mother to place a nonmarital child in the custody of an adoption agency without the knowledge or consent of the child’s father, unless the father had been appointed as the child’s guardian. Keegan petitioned the circuit court for guardianship and custody of the child, and the petition was granted. The high court upheld the circuit court’s order, but the Irish Supreme Court held that if the child’s prospective adoptive parents could provide a substantially better quality of life than Keegan, Keegan’s objection to the adoption should be disregarded. The matter went back to the high court, which denied Keegan’s request to be named as the child’s guardian and ordered the child’s adoption. The European Convention on Human Rights (the convention), also known as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, contained a provision, Article 8, that (1) recognized that everyone had the right to respect for his or her family life and (2) prohibited public authorities from interfering with that right unless the interference was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. Keegan filed an application in the European Commission of Human Rights (the commission), claiming, among other things, that the Irish government (defendant) violated his Article 8 right by permitting the child’s placement for adoption without his knowledge or consent. The Irish government conceded that part two of Article Eight did not apply. The commission found for Keegan. The European Court of Human Rights then heard the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

