Baby was handed over to agency's proprietor four days after birth

In the early hours one morning in July, an exhausted High Court judge, Mary Laffoy, waited patiently for a new-born baby girl to be brought into her courtroom in Dublin. The previous day Ms Justice Laffoy heard an alarming account of how the baby, at just four days old, was handed over by its mothers' relatives to a middle-aged couple who ran a pregnancy advice agency. Individuals associated with the agency had close links with the anti-abortion movement.

Apparently horrified at the story outlined to her in court, Ms Justice Laffoy ruled that the infant was being unlawfully held by the couple, and ordered the child to be brought before her the next night.

The baby was produced at 1 a.m. and with bleary-eyed legal counsel looking on, Ms Justice Laffoy placed her in the care of the Eastern Health Board, instigators of the case of unlawful custody against the couple and the baby's mother.

For the young mother at the centre of this tragic story, it was every woman's nightmare. Unmarried and pregnant, the 21-year-old third-level student living in a provincial town found herself in the predicament thousands of young Irish women find themselves in every year.

Little is known about the kind of support the woman had had from family or friends but at the beginning of May, when she was seven months pregnant, she had reached a decision: she was going to give her baby up for adoption. It appears the father was no longer on the scene.

No one can guess at how isolated or confused the young woman must have felt when she picked up a copy of the Golden Pages directory to search for a list of pregnancy counselling services. She phoned the Aadam's Women Centre in Dublin. Its advertisement promised counselling on all pregnancy alternatives.

When she called Aadam's, it referred the student to its representative in her hometown. The young woman said she wanted to have her baby adopted and the representative said she knew of five couples who were seeking children, including the proprietor of the agency and his wife.

The student said it was her wish to have her baby born in Dublin and was advised to make telephone contact with a GP in Co Dublin. She called the GP in late May.

The young woman was evidently in a desperate and distressed frame of mind. She told the GP she wanted to have an elective Caesarean section so that she would not bond with her baby or see it after birth. The GP consulted a number of friends, other members of the medical profession, who shared the doctor's interest in "life issues". They were all of the view that the mother was in need of counselling.

The GP did not arrange counselling for the girl, but made an appointment for her to see a consultant obstetrician in a maternity hospital in Dublin for a date in June. The owner of Aadam's made an appointment to meet the young woman in Dublin on the same day.

She travelled to Dublin with her aunts and met the consultant obstetrician. She was in such a distressed state that he brought her to see the hospital social worker. After the consultation the idea of a Caesarean was abandoned.

After her hospital appointment the mother met the proprietor of Aadam's - alone - at lunchtime in a city-centre hotel. The question of adoption was discussed and he told her that she had a constitutional right to have her baby adopted publicly or privately, subject to the approval of the Adoption Board.

He said a public adoption could involve the baby being put into care for a time, whereas if she chose a private adoption she could leave the child with the couple of her choice.

He said he and his wife would be glad to adopt the baby, but until she made up her mind they would simply look after it. He told her that she did not have to make up her mind about adoption for six months after the baby was born and that in the meantime, she could keep in touch and see the baby whenever she wanted.

At this time, the agency owner and his wife were looking after another baby, a girl born to a 17-year-old second-level student in Dublin in April - the baby who eventually became known to Ms Justice Laffoy as Baby B. The pregnant mother liked the idea that her baby would have the company of another child.

Meanwhile, the young woman's plans to give birth in Dublin were overtaken by the call of nature: three days later, the baby who came to be known as Baby A, a girl, was born three weeks prematurely in a hospital in the provincial town. The mother was so upset during her four-day stay in the hospital that the doctors and nurses gave her priority status.

Staff found the new mother distraught and reluctant to talk about her plans for Baby A. They were under the impression that family members were exerting influence and making decisions for her. They were also unhappy that the mother or members of her family refused to avail of advice from hospital professionals.

HOWEVER, the mother felt that the nurses were intrusive and thought there was something wrong with her contemplating adoption. She was confused and bewildered at what she thought were conflicting signals from staff as to whether she could be discharged from hospital without Baby A. The mother felt her family, by contrast, were supportive of her decisions.

Meanwhile, the mother's aunt-in-law notified the proprietor of Aadam's of the birth. The mother's mother and aunt-in-law handed the baby over to the man on the day the mother and baby were discharged from hospital.

At that stage the mother was happy with the decision and was sure that this was what she wanted. She understood that it was an interim measure and it was her final decision if she wanted to place the baby for adoption.

On the day they were handed Baby A, the proprietor of Aadams and his wife drove to a house in Co Dublin they said they were minding for friends who were on holidays. They were under a lot of stress because during their stay in this house they had to hand back the other baby, Baby B, to her grandmother after the Eastern Health Board alerted gardai.

Baby B's mother had discharged herself from hospital the night following the birth in April. Three days later the proprietor of Aadam's contacted a social worker in the hospital to say Baby B had been placed with him and his wife.

The social worker informed him that private placement for adoption to a non-relative was illegal and that she intended notifying the Eastern Health Board of the situation.

The GP who dealt on the telephone with the mother of Baby A examined Baby B on behalf of the couple. A public health nurse informed the GP that private adoptions were illegal since last year.

A barrister friend of the Aadam's proprietor spoke with the mother of Ms B who was having reservations about giving her baby to the couple. The barrister said the middle-aged couple would make suitable adoptive parents. When the mother of Baby B said she wanted to use the normal adoption process, the barrister became forceful and said the natural father could be charged with statutory rape and that the health board had to report things like that.

Shortly after the couple took custody of Baby A, they handed back Baby B after the Eastern Health Board expressed their concerns to gardai. A file on this case is being prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

A FEW days after Baby B was handed over, a social worker contacted the aunt-in-law of the mother of Baby A wanting to know the baby's address. The agency's owner gave his mother's address in a Dublin suburb where he said he planned to stay after finishing house-sitting. He was advised by the social worker that his mother's house was unsuitable for a small baby so the couple moved to a rented house on the north side of the city where they stayed for only five days.

The couple then moved permanently to a town in Munster. They felt they would have a better chance of adopting in the Southern Health Board region and were considering adopting through an adoption agency under the patronage of a member of the hierarchy the man knew. While in the Munster town they took the baby to the local health centre and gave details of her birth, her natural mother, and their address and telephone number.

But two weeks later, the couple were on the move again when they returned to Dublin for what they described as a business visit. They stayed in the rented house on the north side of the city and, because of a family illness, stayed longer than they had planned. The couple were at this address when they were ordered to hand the baby back by Ms Justice Laffoy in July.

The case of Baby A was brought to the attention of the authorities when the father learned of his daughter's birth at the end of June. He had solicitors write a letter to the mother indicating that he was anxious to have joint guardianship of the baby.

Concerned, the mother sought reassurance from the proprietor of the agency that everything was legal and above board. He arranged for her to meet his barrister at the Four Courts in Dublin - the same barrister who had spoken with the mother of Baby B. This was four days before the case came to the attention of Ms Justice Laffoy.

The mother of Baby A told the High Court, through her counsel, that if she had known as much about Aadam's as she discovered through the legal proceedings, she would not have been happy to give custody of her baby.

She said she assumed because the agency was advertising publicly in the Golden Pages that it was well versed in the relevant laws. She said she was completely misled by the owner of the agency. Ms Justice Laffoy was scathing of the couple and described their actions as both "reprehensible and inappropriate".

She said: "It is hard to imagine a more glaring situation of conflict of interest than one in which a person who assumes the role of counsellor and adviser to a young girl in the later stages of a crisis pregnancy, proposes himself and his wife as prospective adoptive parents of the baby and proposes taking custody of the baby within days of the baby's birth."

Ms Justice Laffoy accused the agency and its proprietor of involving professionals, such as the GP and the barrister, in the mother's affairs with the intention of "bolstering his influence over the mother".

"The fact that a similar involvement has been established in the case of Ms B and Baby B strongly suggests that the mother was the victim of the deliberate design to "ring fence" her and her baby."

Baby A is now with a foster family in the Eastern Health Board area.

Baby B is living with her mother's family.

The proprietor of Aadam's and his wife are understood to be living in Munster.