Memorandum by Joe Horan

With reference to Mr. La Freniere's personal letter to me on 9/4/51 and the enclosure thereto, viz. - copy of a letter which the American Embassy here received from the Department of Social Welfare of the State of California, I telephoned Mr. La Freniere a few days ago and told him that I thought that the State of California, for its own protection, would do well to obtain the necessary consent from the mother of the child.

It is clear that the law of California requires the written consent of the parent or parents of the child to the adoption of the child by the persons petitioning to adopt the child. The consent of the parent or parents is not necessary if they have relinquished the child to a 'licensed or authorised Child Placing Agency in another jurisdiction pursuant to the laws of that jurisdiction'. It is clear that the Convent at Castlepollard is not an authorised Child Placing Agency and I so informed Mr. La Freniere. I explained to him that under the Public Assistance Act, 1939, the local authorities in this country are empowered to make provision in their jurisdictions for destitute persons and persons otherwise unable to maintain themselves, viz. in other words, people who, as we say, fall as a charge on the rates. The vast majority of illegitimate children come into this category and hence the local authority are obliged to make provision for their maintenance. The Convent at Castlepollard and similar Institutions are places where these children are put and where the local authorities give a grant in respect of each child. In addition, these Convents sometimes place the children out with families and, in that case, the families are given a small grant by the local authorities. I also informed him that the Convent at Castlepollard and similar Institutions are approved by the authorities and that the local authorities either arrange for the maintenance of the children in Institutions run by themselves or in 'approved' Institutions.

With regard to the question whether the Sacred Heart Convent, Castlepollard, is 'authorised to accept the surrender of a child', I told Mr. La Freniere as I saw it the Convent is neither authorised or unauthorised, but I referred him to the section dealing with the family in the Constitution and wherein the State recognises the family as possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights antecedent and superior to all positive law. In view of that section of the Constitution, I told Mr. La Freniere that it was our opinion that the mother of a child could not alienate her natural right to bring up her own child; that her surrender of her child to a convent or other institution was all right as far as it went but that if she was to take it back the Court in this country would almost certainly uphold her. However, I also pointed out that [in] our opinion, the foreign decree of adoption, valid in the country where it was given, would be recognised as valid by our Courts in the same way as a valid Foreign Decree of Divorce.