In a fraught and emotional case it seems to me that emotion has won out.
Baby Ann was offered up for adoption by her natural parents who were unmarried students at the time. They got married earlier this year and changed their minds about the adoption and withdrew their consent. At this stage Baby Ann had been with her adoptive parents for almost two years.
The reason the judge gave in the high court was that baby Ann had bonded so firmly with her adoptive parents that he felt it would be cruel to take her from them...
"Two-year old baby-girl Ann should remain in the care of her intended adoptive family as returning her back to her natural parents would damage her psychologically.' The hig court ruled a the time.
So now more time has passed and the bond between the baby and her adoptive parents will have deepened. What makes the courts rule like this?
I would question the thinking of the natural parents in this case too. What is best for the child? Their wants aside. This little girl does not know them, she does not recognise them as her parents. Ann is three or almost three now, she will be bereaved if wrenched from her parents. It could affect her for the rest of her life.
And waht of the adoptive couple, will they return to their home, sit in their daughter's bedroom, surrounded by her toys, her photos, her memories? Can you imagine the hearkbreak?
It is a tragedy and I feel very upset for the adoptive parents who adopted that little girl in good faith and loved her. They are now faced with the devasting task of handing over their daughter- who they have loved and raised as their own for two years- to another couple.
Their hearts must be breaking and I think this decision is disgusting.
UPDATE: Thinking behind the ruling can be found here...