N. v. Health Service Executive

[2006] 3 I.R. 449 (2006)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

N. v. Health Service Executive

Ireland Supreme Court
[2006] 3 I.R. 449 (2006)

Facts

In 2004 in Ireland, an unmarried woman who wished to place her child for adoption was required to give a first and second consent. A mother could withdraw her second consent before the entry of an adoption order. If a mother gave a first consent and then refused to give a second consent or withdrew her first consent, the prospective adoptive parents could move the Ireland High Court to determine that the prospective adoptive parents should have custody and that adoption was in the best interest of the child. An unmarried father’s consent for the adoption of his child was required only if he married the child’s mother after the child’s birth, was appointed guardian of the child, or was granted custody. A child of married parents could be adopted only (1) in exceptional circumstances, (2) if the parents, for physical or moral reasons, had failed in their duty towards the child, and (3) the parents’ failure would continue throughout the child’s life until the age of 18. Brian and Catherine Byrne (defendants) were unmarried when they discovered that Catherine was pregnant, and they made arrangements to place the child for adoption. The child, Ann, was born in July 2004 and placed in foster care. Catherine signed a form granting her first consent. Brian and Catherine agreed that David and Eileen Doyle (plaintiffs) could adopt Ann, and Ann was placed with the Doyles in November 2004. In September 2005, Catherine withdrew her consent and asked the agency to return Ann. The Doyles refused and moved the high court to allow them to keep custody and adopt Ann. Brian and Catherine married in January 2006, and the following month they filed a writ of habeas corpus, seeking Ann’s return. At trial, experts established that transitioning Ann from one home to another would be extremely difficult for Ann but that it could be accomplished. The high court held that Catherine’s placement of Ann for adoption constituted abandonment and failure of duty, made Ann a ward of the court, and granted custody to the Doyles. Catherine and Brian appealed to the Ireland Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hardiman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership