The Gazette 1974

General that the legislature, in conferring the right oi legal adoption, was entitled to provide reasonable re- strictions. "I do not agree that the restriction imposed was 3 reasonable one and, even if it were, it could not be valid if it infringed the Constitution, as I am satisfied it did." Decision on Costs After Mr. T. K. Liston, S.C., for defendants had asked that the costs be not granted against the Adop- tion Board, the Judge said he would not grant costs against them because he considered they had acted properly in the matter and had made the only order they could make in the circumstances. He awarded the costs against the Attorney General. When the decision was announced, Mr. T. J* Conolly, S.C., for the plaintiffs, said he wished to thank the press for having complied with the court's request not to publish the names and addresses of his clients- The Judge, endorsing this, expressed the hope that they would continue to exercise their discretion in this regard. With Mr. Conolly were Mr. Donal Barrington, S.C-> and Mrs. Mary Robinson. Note—Decision removes anomaly in Irish law Judge Pringle's decision in the Adoption Act case, removes an anomaly from Irish law, the subject of much comment and criticism since the passing of the Adoption Act in 1952. The Act provided that an adoption order should not be made unless the persons applying for the order were of the same religi° n as the child and his parents, or, in the case of an illigitimate child, of his mother. This meant that Protestant parents legally could not adopt the child of Catholic parents, or the illegitimate child of a Catholic mother. Similarly, Catholic parent* could not adopt legally the child of Protestant parents» or the illegitimate child of a Protestant mother. The Act said that parents of mixed religion legally could adopt a child, provided each of the spouses was a member of one of a number of named religions-' Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, Methodist, Quaker*» Baptists or Plymouth Brethern. This specifically excluded the case where one of the parents was Catholic and seemed to conflict with the constitutional guarantee of no discrimination on the grounds of religious profession, belief, or status (Article 44) and also of the guarantees of equality before the law and the protection, given in favour of the personal rights of the citizen. The Act also seemed to discriminate against th e child, who might be denied a good home and up* bringing and against the parents of a mixed marriage» who could not enjoy the privilege open to other parent* of being able to apply for an adoption order under the Act. Judge Pringles' decision introduces a more liberal note into the legal situation of parents of mixed marriage* It does not appear that any amending legislation i s necessary as a result of the decision. It means merely that the offending provisions of Section 12 of the Act go by the board. [J. McG. and W. McG. v. Adoption Board and Attorney-General; Pringle J.; unreported; 13 MaV 1974.] 162

the employers. The Association was a non-incorporated body which was brought under the scheme but under no circumstances were they employers.

Council's chance Even if the Association negotiated terms with the union and agreed on them as the law stood the decision could be over-ridden. On that ground alone it seemed to him that the Council had an excellent chance of succeeding when the action came for hearing. On the second point there was an arguable case that a County Council was not engaged in trade or industry. On both grounds there was no trade dispute between the union and the County Council but between the union and the Association. [Tipperary S.R. County Manager and another v. Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers; Kenny J.; unreported; 20 May 1974.] Part of Adoption Act preventing adoption of wife's illegitimate child ruled unconstitutional. A section of the Adoption Act, 1952, preventing a young Dublin couple from adopting the wife's illegiti- mate son, was held to be unconstitutional. In a reserved judgment, Mr. Justice Pringle held that the particular sub-section clearly had imposed disabili- ties and had made a discrimination of the grounds of religious profession or belief and, therefore, was invalid. The section impugned is section 12 (2) which states : " The applicant, or applicants, shall be of the same religion as the child and his parents, or, if the child is illegitimate, his mother". The couple, whose names were not disclosed, and who were married three years after the child was born in 1967, are of different religions, the husband being a Catholic and an Irish citizen, the wife, a member of the Church of England. The child was born in England, baptised in the Church of England but is being brought up a Catholic in Dublin. He is due to receive his first Holy Communion later this month. During the hearing of the action last week it was stated that the child had been reared by the couple since their marriage and that the husband was not the father. After the court had given its decision, the husband said : "We are happy with the decision. We were deter- mined to have the boy legally adopted since the Adop- tion Board rejected our applications on religious grounds. The Judge also made an order, declaring the decision of the Adoption Board, rejecting the couple's applica- tion to have the child adopted, to be invalid. Mr. Justice Pringle held that the provisions of the particular section of the Act, were clearly, on their face, in contravention of Article 44 (2) (3) of the Constitution for the reasons advanced by the plaintiff's counsel. If this was not so, he held that the plaintiffs had discharged the onus of rebutting the presumption of their constitutionality. The Judge said he could not accept the submission of counsel for the Adoption Board and the Attorney