IRISH couples have been given the go ahead by the High Court to adopt babies from China under Chinese law.
Mr Justice Flood held yesterday that the Irish Adoption Board's decision not to recognise adoptions effected under the law of China was not well founded.
He quashed its decisions not to recognise proposed adoptions by Brian and Joanna Brady, Shankill, Co Dublin Cyril and Suzanne Mulligan, Clonskeagh, Dublin; and David Byers and his wife Anne O'Connell, of Dun Laoghaire.
Judge Flood told their counsel Mr Peter Finlay, he would grant a declaration that adoptions under Chinese law would have the same legal effect, regarding the termination and creation of parental rights and duties, as under Irish law.
Directing the board to recognise the validity of adoptions effected under Chinese law, he held that the couples were entitled to obtain an adoption order from the board and to have the child's name entered lawfully on the register of foreign adoptions.
The Bradys told the court they had no children of their own and wanted to adopt a child from Chinese orphanage run by a Christian Aid organisation. They had been told a child was available and could be brought to Ireland in June.
The Mulligans told the court a girl, Peng xi Yu, born on February 9th, 1995, had been allocated to them by the Chinese authorities. But they were unwilling, to release her from the custody of the orphanage because of uncertainty concerning recognition of the adoption and the possibility of her being returned to China.
The Byerses said they had twin daughters and had decided to adopt a Chinese child long before recent controversy emerged concerning the care and management of certain orphanages in China.
"Our choice of country and decision is not based on a reaction to adverse publicity received by the Chinese authorities in this area recently," Mr Byers told the court.
He said a Christian Aid orphanage had accepted them as suitable parents to adopt one of its children.
Judge Flood said the Irish Adoption Board had written to all three couples - forming them it noted that an adoption under Chinese law could bet terminated by agreement between the parties and considered this to be fundamentally different from Irish law.
The board had turned down all their applications but said they could apply under Irish adoption law.
Judge Flood said the applicants satisfied each and every requirement as to suitability as adoptive parents required under the Irish Adoption Acts. Article 22 of the Chinese law was remarkably similar in content to the provisions of Section 24 of the Irish Act and in his view had the same legal effect on the termination, and creation of parental rights and duties.
"Nowhere in the Adoption Acts is there any statutory provision permitting the revocation of an adoption order, and research has failed to yield any incident in this jurisdiction of an or being revoked by act of any party to the adoption," he said.
The court heard that all the applicants had decided to adopt a child from China long before a television documentary critical of the care and management of children in Chinese orphanages was screened. The decisions had not been knee jerk reactions to the programme.