E.D. v. IRELAND



                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 25054/94

                      by E.D.

                      against Ireland

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 18 October 1995, the following members being present:

           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 G.B. REFFI

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 E. KONSTANTINOV

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

           Mrs.  M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 1 March 1994 by

E.D. against Ireland and registered on 1 September 1995 under file

No. 25054/94;

     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

     The applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1952 and has a contact

address in Cork, Ireland. He is represented before the Commission by

Niall Browne, a solicitor practising in Dublin.

     The applicant is the father of two children, E and P, born on

11 August 1985 and 1 April 1987, respectively. He and the mother of the

children are not married and do not live together but continue to be

on good terms. Both are members of the travelling community.

     On 6 October 1985 the mother took E from hospital in Dublin

despite warnings as to E's frail health and the need for special

feeding. On 7 October 1985 the mother was located with E on a street

begging and homeless. E was reported as cold, hungry and bleeding. The

mother refused to go to a mother and baby home but was willing to allow

E to be admitted to hospital. On 8 October 1985 the Southern Health

Board obtained a place of safety order in relation to E.

     On 4 November 1985 the District Court adjourned a hearing, in

relation to a care order in respect of E, because the father had

attended the court intoxicated. On 5 November 1985 the District Court

committed E to the care of the Southern Health Board under section 58

of the Childrens Act 1908. The applicant attended the hearing but was

not represented. The mother did not attend any of these hearings. On

30 October 1985 E was placed in long term foster care with a married

couple living in Cork who were not travellers.

     In the period which followed neither the applicant nor the mother

were in a position to seek the return of E and were content that E

remain in foster care.

     On 15 July 1987 P was committed to the care of the Eastern Health

Board by order of the District Court under section 58 of the 1908 Act.

P was also then placed in long term foster care with a married couple

living in Dublin.

     In or around 1991 the foster parents of E applied to the Adoption

Board for an order for the adoption of E. The Adoption Board decided

that, if the High Court made an order under section 3(1) of the

Adoption Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"), the Adoption Board would make the

necessary adoption order. On 15 September 1992 the Southern Health

Board therefore applied to the High Court for an order under

section 3(1) of the 1988 Act which would authorise the Adoption Board

to make an order for the adoption of E by his foster parents.

     A social work report (which was completed in 1989 by the social

worker dealing with this matter on behalf of the Southern Health Board

and submitted to the High Court) chronicled the mother's ongoing

alcohol problems and her involvement in prostitution from a young age.

She was often homeless and she had a chronic glue sniffing problem. The

applicant was also described as being violent and disturbed with a

severe drinking problem. Both the applicant and the mother were

reported as being in prison in September 1988. The same social worker

recorded in a letter to the Adoption board dated June 1992 (which

letter was also submitted to the High Court) that the natural parents

had asked for a meeting between them and E on three occasions. The

natural parents failed to attend two of these visits and the applicant

was intoxicated during the other visit. That social worker reported

that the applicant and the mother were intoxicated and incoherent

during most of his meetings with them. It was also recorded in the

latter social work report that photographs of the children had been

sent to the applicant and the mother, that E and P had met on two

occasions in 1991 and 1992 and that the respective foster parents had

agreed to arrange about three meetings each year between E and P.

     The case was heard by the High Court in July and October 1993.

The applicant and the mother were represented at the hearing by a

solicitor and two barristers and their legal costs were paid by the

Southern Health Board, pursuant to an order of the High Court of

5 February 1993.

     Oral evidence was given to the High Court by the applicant, the

mother, social workers and a doctor as to, inter alia, the applicant's

and the mother's past and current personal circumstances. The applicant

had spent the greater part of the previous nine years (namely, the

duration of his children's lives) in and out of charitable institutions

for the homeless and had a chronic drinking problem (though he had

joined Alcoholics Anonymous prior to the hearing). The mother had been

admitted many times to an adult psychiatric institution and to another

hospital, the latter relating specifically to her ongoing solvent

addiction. She was, at the time of the hearing, serving another prison

sentence. Evidence was also given as to the public support services

made available to the applicant and the mother in relation to their

problems over the past years.

     The applicant and the mother objected to the proposed adoption

on the grounds that family rights would cease permanently and E's name

would be changed. E would lose his traveller identity, his right of

access to his traveller heritage and contact with his brother. In

addition, they would lose their right to educate their child in

traveller culture, history and identity.

     The decision of the court, allowing the application of the

Adoption Board, was delivered on 5 November 1993. Mr. Justice

Geoghegan, in delivering the judgment of the court, held as follows:

     "The application is opposed by the natural parents on the grounds

     that the adoptive parents are from the settled community, whereas

     they the natural parents are from the travelling community. It

     is submitted that the proposed adoption would damage the child

     by depriving him of his true culture. Essentially there is no

     other objection taken to the adoption.

     Most importantly both natural parents acknowledge that neither

     of them is capable within the foreseeable future of rearing the

     child. Both suffer from severe alcoholism problems and in the

     case of the natural mother, there is a further problem of solvent

     abuse. The mother is currently serving a prison sentence. Each

     parent however, when giving evidence in court has expressed the

     hope that the child at an older age might be able to live with

     them or either of them and enter fully into his cultural

     heritage, being that of the travelling community.

     Both natural parents are happy, that in the meantime the child

     should remain with the foster parents but they do not want an

     adoption. I am satisfied on the evidence which I have heard that

     an application under section 3(1) of the 1988 Act has been

     properly made by the Health Board. Before I can accede to it, I

     must be satisfied as to the fulfilment of the requirements set

     out in