Ruling in line with policy that both parties agree

Mr Justice Smyth's judgment will be seen as a setback for many adopted people who are seeking information on their birth parents…

Mr Justice Smyth's judgment will be seen as a setback for many adopted people who are seeking information on their birth parents.

However, while State policy has changed greatly in recent years, and the maintenance and eventual disclosure of such information is now encouraged, it has never been accepted that contact can be made without both parties wanting it.

The National Adoption Contact Preference Register, inaugurated by Minister of State at the Department of Health, Brian Lenihan two months ago, allows adopted people and their birth parents to register for contact.

Contact through the register can only be initiated where both parties register for contact. Adopted people, natural parents and any natural relative of an adopted person can apply to join.

READ MORE

Register applicants are asked to choose from preferences that include: a willingness to meet the other party; a willingness to exchange letters or make contact via telephone or e-mail with the other party; a reluctance to make contact but willingness to share medical information or personal information; or a preference for no contact.

What the High Court has overturned is a decision of the Information Commissioner to release edited records concerning a woman's adoption.

The commissioner had argued that the health board records, as edited, would not identify the birth mother who opposed the release of the information. The case was taken by the South Western Area Health Board.

The mother had told the health board she did not wish to be contacted.

The judge remarked that she had been assured details she had disclosed would be kept confidential. The court was told that the information sought breached her constitutional right to privacy and the protection of her family and marriage.

It heard that she had been unmarried when she gave birth to the applicant, but had long since married and had a family.

In his judgment Mr Justice Smyth said that the persistence of the inquiries had angered the mother's husband, and she was concerned for "the harmony of her marriage and stability and cohesion of her family."