If, contrary to the view I have come to, the mother gave a real consent, it is necessary to consider the nature of her decision and its consequences. It was a decision to give Baby A, of whom she is the sole guardian, when she was only four days old for an indefinite period into the custody of a stranger whom she had met only once and then through the medium of an advertisement in the telephone directory, a stranger who was not subject to any assessment or vetting process by a regulatory authority to determine his suitability to have custody of a newly-born infant, a stranger who was not going to be subject to any monitoring or supervision by any regulatory authority during the currency of the custody. The issue here goes to the nature and consequences of the mother's decision; not what was in the best interest of Baby A or whether the first and second named respondents are fit persons to be adoptive parents. On any objective appraisal such decision was irrational, even bizarre. It could have been downright dangerous.
In my view, it was a decision which seriously compromised the welfare of Baby A and it was a decision which the applicant, in fulfilment of its function under the Child Care Act, 1991, was bound to seek to negative.
On this basis also, I hold that the first and second named respondents' custody of Baby A was unlawful.