W. R. Duncan Supreme Court Case
Introduction I agreed with the judgment of Re JH, an infant [1985] IR 375 [1] when I first read the cases and my opinion on the specific case is unchanged even after reading an article by W.R. Duncan[2]. However W.R Duncan does detail some valid points about the case and the precedent that it may or may not have implied. In this essay I am going to evaluate and discuss Mr. Chief Justice Finlay’s judgment in the Supreme Court with regards to W.R. Duncan article.
Analysis
The J.H. case concerned a baby who had been placed into an adoption process by her then unmarried mother shortly after birth. The mother of this child subsequently married the biological father and wanted to halt an adoption process and have the child returned …show more content…
case had to weigh up the Constitutional rights of the natural parents and the constitutional rights of the child which in my opinion they did. Duncan article suggests that the court failed the child “…breaking the bond established between the child and its adopting family” [13] In fact Finlay CJ. Acknowledges “The key issue is whether the court is satisfied on the evidence that there are … “compelling reason or reasons” must, in my view, be clearly established” [14] No evidence was presented to the court in relation to the unsuitability of either natural parents. When reviewing this case in the present time one must appreciate the prejudice to unmarried mothers at the time which greatly influenced the mothers’ initial decision in the first place to put the child up for adoption. W.R. Duncan states “One result of the Supreme Court’s decision… a judge may be constitutionally required to make an order which places the welfare of the child, weather short or long term, at risk” [15] I do not believe that a court would put a Childs welfare at risk, and its welfare is protected within the Constitution. For the court to rule against the Constitutional family there must be exceptional circumstances and a burden of proof which I’m my opinion is the correct course of action and correct in line with the
Analysis
The J.H. case concerned a baby who had been placed into an adoption process by her then unmarried mother shortly after birth. The mother of this child subsequently married the biological father and wanted to halt an adoption process and have the child returned …show more content…
case had to weigh up the Constitutional rights of the natural parents and the constitutional rights of the child which in my opinion they did. Duncan article suggests that the court failed the child “…breaking the bond established between the child and its adopting family” [13] In fact Finlay CJ. Acknowledges “The key issue is whether the court is satisfied on the evidence that there are … “compelling reason or reasons” must, in my view, be clearly established” [14] No evidence was presented to the court in relation to the unsuitability of either natural parents. When reviewing this case in the present time one must appreciate the prejudice to unmarried mothers at the time which greatly influenced the mothers’ initial decision in the first place to put the child up for adoption. W.R. Duncan states “One result of the Supreme Court’s decision… a judge may be constitutionally required to make an order which places the welfare of the child, weather short or long term, at risk” [15] I do not believe that a court would put a Childs welfare at risk, and its welfare is protected within the Constitution. For the court to rule against the Constitutional family there must be exceptional circumstances and a burden of proof which I’m my opinion is the correct course of action and correct in line with the