The cruel story of baby Ann

At the heart of the 'Baby Ann' case are two couples who, through no fault of their own, have been placed in a position which can only attract sympathy and compassion. By Justine McCarthy

To call the child 'Baby' Ann is a misnomer. She is a bright, alert, friendly and affectionate little girl with friends of her own age. By the time of her second birthday last July, she was speaking three- and four-word sentences. She has been attending a crèche three days a week since the age of 13 months, when her aspiring adoptive mother, Eileen, returned to part-time work after taking 11 months of adoptive leave. She goes swimming and to the playground and frequently sees Eileen's mother, whom Ann regards as her grandmother.

It took her four or five weeks to adapt to the crèche. At first, Eileen used to bring her down for an hour each day. Whenever she left, in those initial days, Ann became distressed, though she could be distracted in time. She was baptised in the Roman Catholic faith in December 2004, a ceremony attended by Eileen and her husband, David – a married couple in their 30s with no children – along with their friends and relatives. According to the evidence, Ann is a contented and happy child, although wary of strangers.

At Christmas 2004, Ann's first Christmas, a card arrived at the house where she lives with Eileen and David. It was from Catherine and Brian, Ann's biological parents. "Hope you have a wonderful Christmas and New Year," went the greeting. "This will be the start of many joyful and happy years together. Know that you are in our thoughts and prayers every day. Lots of love and kisses to Ann."

A letter written by Catherine was enclosed in the card. "I am so happy that you have our little bundle for Christmas," she wrote, "because having children around creates a whole new excitement... Well you have another year at least until that happens! I hope Ann's christening went well. It's hard for Brian and myself not to think of Ann every minute of every day but we felt much better after meeting you both. It was a weight off our shoulders that you are so perfect – a future version of Brian and myself (not meaning to be offensive!). We were very relieved and happy for you both that you were getting such a perfect and beautiful baby – God, I am so proud and boastful of her and you should hear Brian!... Hope to exchange photos in the New Year with you... Hope Christmas goes well. Love Catherine and Brian."

Ann's story is a tragedy wrought by the overwhelming and consuming love she inspires in two sets of would-be parents, Catherine and Brian, her biological mother and father, and Eileen and David, who want to be her adoptive parents. "At the heart of this case, there are two couples who, through no fault of their own, have been placed in a position which can only attract sympathy and compassion," said Judge John MacMenamin in his 107-page High Court ruling last June, following 23 days of hearings.

The desperation of both couples has been searingly evinced. Eileen felt compelled to hire a private detective to gather information about Catherine and Brian, hoping it might convince a judge that Ann's welfare would be best served by staying with them. Catherine, meanwhile, was obviously in turmoil about the pain Ann could suffer if she was to be sundered from her established life. In the summer of 2005, around the time of Ann's first birthday, Catherine was reading a book entitled, A Child's Journey Through Placement by Vera I Fahlberg. She underlined passages dealing with attachment and bonding with children around the age of one. Other underlined sections of the book dealt with "the grief process" which well-attached children go through when they are separated from their carers.

Catherine and Brian had met in March 2002 when they were both students. Their relationship flourished and, a year later, they started living together, sharing a house with a mutual friend. When Catherine, who had an honours science degree and was studying for an MA, discovered she was pregnant in October 2003, the couple dealt with it on their own. Neither felt they could confide in their parents. Brian's family had been coping with recent personal problems and Catherine's parents believed in a strict moral ethic. Though Catherine and Brian were intelligent, well-educated and in their early 20s, they did not want to shock their parents and, up to this week, Catherine's younger siblings were still unaware of Ann's existence.

At first, Catherine and Brian discussed the option of abortion but quickly ruled it out as something they could not accept. Both were studying for exams at Christmas and the following April. Together, they attended a medical social worker and, at subsequent counselling sessions, they discussed and ultimately decided to have their baby adopted.

In the final three months of Catherine's pregnancy, once the couple had sat their exams, they were very happy, according to the evidence. In the last month, they prepared for the baby's arrival, buying babygros and other small items of clothing. Brian attended the birth. The next day, they agreed to pre-adoptive foster care and were introduced to the foster carer. When Catherine and Ann were discharged from the hospital, they and Brian spent one night together at Brian's sister's house before Ann went to live with the foster carer.

In August, two months after Ann's birth, Brian told his parents about Ann but had not informed Catherine he intended doing so. His mother made a number of offers of support to the couple and Ann, which appear to have been retracted afterwards. The following month, September, Catherine signed the consent-to-placement form and, in April 2005, she signed the final form giving her consent to the adoption. When this latter form was mislaid, Catherine signed a duplicate form in July 2005, around the time of Ann's first birthday. Brian phoned a social worker saying he and Catherine had photos and cards they wanted to pass on to Ann. He inquired if they could see Ann more often than once-a-year and if his own family could see her on occasion.

But, a month later, after a supervised access visit with Ann, Catherine wrote to the Adoption Board stating she no longer wished to proceed with the adoption and seeking to regain custody of Ann. Prior to that access visit, Brian had protested to two social workers against what he believed were excessively rigid conditions, taking particular exception to their presence during the visit. At one stage, Catherine left the room in tears. When she returned, she discussed it with Brian and said Ann ought to be their priority. Ann's aspiring adoptive parents, Eileen and David, were unaware of the disagreement with the social worker before the visit.

After the visit, Catherine and Brian went on holidays. They discussed issues which had been going on between themselves for months. Their decision was to commit themselves to each other and to seek Ann's return. In preparing their legal claim to have Ann returned to them, Catherine and Brian were advised they would have a stronger constitutional case if they got married, forming a family in the eyes of the law.

In early December, Catherine signed a document giving Brian guardianship rights to Ann. Six days later, Brian phoned a district registrar's office in Northern Ireland and, later the same day, two completed marriage-notice applications were submitted by fax to the office. (In the North, only 14 days notice is required to marry.) About half-an-hour before the proposed wedding on the scheduled day, Brian phoned the registrar's office to postpone the ceremony and seek an alternative date. A day in January was agreed but the marriage again failed to take place as Catherine had wished that a close friend would attend but that friend was unavailable on the date in question.

A third date was set in late January 2006. Though the couple had been informed they needed two witnesses over the age of 16, they arrived alone and had to ask two strangers to be their witnesses. For reasons of economy, they said, they did not have engagement or wedding rings, nor did they have photographs taken after the ceremony. Though Brian's parents were in the vicinity of the registry office that day, they did not attend the wedding and the newly-married couple went to dinner alone afterwards.

The circumstances in which they made their marriage vows indicate how desperately Catherine and Brian wanted to get Ann back. The sooner they were married, the sooner they could constitute a family in the eyes of the law.

In February, Catherine and Brian commenced High Court proceedings. The hearings lasted 23 days in May and June. Judge John MacMenamin emphasised that the parenting capacity of both couples was not a fundamental issue.

A number of psychologists gave expert evidence, agreeing that the child was secure and happy in the company of David and Eileen and had bonded well with them and their extended family. They also agreed there would be dislocation for the child in the event of custody being transferred to her natural parents.

There was a consensus that if the transition to the natural parents were handled on a phased and sensitive basis, any harm to Ann would be minimised. But some of the psychologists thought it unlikely that such a transition could be managed smoothly because of the trauma that would be caused to David and Eileen on losing the child.

However, others believed it could be managed. One psychologist told the High Court: "...I think that this distress may not have enduring negative sequela if it's done in the way that professional opinion regards how such a transition might be made."

In June of this year, MacMenamin ruled that Ann should stay with the prospective adoptive parents, Eileen and David, because he found there was a (non-culpable) "failure of duty" by the biological parents that displaced the normal constitutional presumption in favour of the family unit. "I would not wish that any of the description of events, that must be made, should detract from the fact that these two young people were trying in a deeply confusing situation to do their utmost to make truly difficult decisions at a stressful time for them," he said.

Catherine and Brian appealed his decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held unanimously that there was no "failure of duty" on the part of the natural parents and dismissed the contention there had been an "abandonment" of Ann. They said, given the constitutional status of the family, the only circumstances in which custody would not be granted to the married natural parents (who now constituted a "family" with special rights under the constitution) was if there were "compelling reasons" for not doing so.

The judges found there were no such reasons as there was clear evidence the natural parents and family would be capable and loving carers. They felt that whatever harm and distress might be caused to Ann would be minimised by a phased transition. They were confident David and Eileen would cooperate in such a transition once an order had been made, given their solicitude for Ann.

No other decision, they felt, could meet the constitutional entitlements of the natural parents who now formed a family since the time of their marriage. Some of the judges were also critical of the social workers and the Adoption Board in delaying the change of custody once the natural mother had withdrawn her consent to adoption. 

The names used in this article are pseudonyms given to the parties involved by the courts

The effects of broken bonds

Our early developmental experiences have a huge effect on our later life. Our early relationships form the foundations and are the protocol for our future relationships. The consistency of the carer at this important stage is vital for our emotional growth.

British developmental psychologist John Bowlby was instrumental in recognising the importance of emotional bonds. These bonds expressed the baby's need for security and safety. Bowlby's theory on attachment is based on the interactions of the child and the carer during infancy and early childhood. To feel attached is to feel safe and secure.

Newborn babies cannot distinguish one person from another, yet they are highly responsive to human contact. The smiling response at around five to six weeks marks the beginning of the interaction that characterise the relationship between the baby and the carer. The baby's smile evokes a mirroring response. The carer's mirroring response is the first link for the baby between what is perceived out there and what is felt inside.

From three months to six months old, the beginning of the attachment relationship becomes evident. The baby listens out for and responds differently to its mother's voice than to other voices. At around seven months the baby begins to show "stranger-anxiety", becoming clingy and silent in the presence of strangers. The baby starts to become more mobile, crawling and then walking.

The best test of the presence of an attachment is to observe the responses of the child to separation from the parents. Bowlby identified protest as the primary response produced in children separated from their parents. Crying, screaming, shouting, kicking – this behaviour is the normal response to any threat to the attachment bond. The purpose is to get the lost person back.

Attachment has profound implications for psychological development and psychopathology throughout the life cycle. Early, unresolved life experiences in childhood are carried into adult life. The quality of core relationships has a profound affect on our wellbeing.

Children have no control over becoming separated from their attachment figure and so can experience this as rejection or abandonment. The loss can be intense. For young children, parents are the all-powerful centre of their universe. They do not have the ability to assess and understand abandonment by their parents. Any traumatic severance of their attachment figure leads to anxiety and insecurity, making the world appear as an unsafe place. It may also lead to children feeling unlovable.

Patterns of attachment that develop in early childhood are thought to persist in adult life. They influence our feelings of security and our ability to develop and maintain close relationships.

Attachment bonds are often frayed or damaged in life when children are neglected, dismissed, ignored, unwanted, unloved and rejected. My work with children who have experienced sexual abuse has highlighted the huge difference in recovery between those who have a strong attachment bond and those children who struggle with attachment issues. If an early attachment relationship has to be broken for any reason, the best we can hope for is damage limitation.

Monica Murphy

Psychotherapist and acting head of therapy at CARI (Children at Risk in Ireland), western region

The wisdom of Solomon

Later two women who were prostitutes came into the King and stood before him.

The one woman said: "Please my Lord this woman and I live in the same house and I gave birth while she was in the house. Then on the third day after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth. We were together: there was no one else with us in the house, only the two of us were in the house.

"Then this woman's son died in the night because she lay on him. She got up in the middle of the night and took my son from beside me while our servant slept. She laid him at her breast, and laid her dead son at my breast.

"When I arose in the morning to nurse my son, I saw that he was dead: but when I looked at him closely in the morning, clearly it was not the son I had born.

But the other woman said: "No, the living son is mine and the dead son is yours."

The first said: "No the dead son is yours and the living son is mine."

So they argued before the King.

Then the King said: "The one says: 'This is my son that is alive and your son is dead,' while the other says: 'Not so, your son is dead and my son is the living one.'"

So the King said: "Bring me a sword," and they brought a sword before the King. The King said: "Divide the living boy in two then give half to the one and half to the other."

But the woman whose son was alive said to the King – because compassion for her son burned within her – "Please My Lord, give her the living boy, certainly do not kill him."

The other said, "It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide it."

Then the King responded: "Give the first woman the living boy; do not kill him. She is his mother."

All Israel heard of the judgement that the King had rendered and they stood in awe of the King, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to execute justice.

(1 Kings 3:16-28)

Giving Billy back

A woman who returned a child she had hoped to adopt 26 years ago vividly recalls the anguish of the transfer. Helen Scott, PRO for the Adoptive Parents' Association, had Billy for 11-and-a-half months when she received a phone call informing her that his biological mother wanted the child back. When the biological parents swore an affidavit that they intended to get married, Helen and her husband decided to give Billy back.

"We knew if they married we could never adopt him," she says of the child, who is now 27 years old. "I said, this woman wants this baby so badly she's prepared to marry to get him back. I don't want to put any woman under that sort of pressure. That was Tuesday. We gave Billy back on Saturday."

Asked how Eileen and David are likely to cope with handing Ann back to Catherine and Brian, she says: "It's Valium time for this couple. It's the biggest loss of your life, but it's not a natural loss. People don't know what to say to you, so they avoid you. People said to me, 'Don't worry, you'll get another one.' They didn't mean it badly. They just didn't understand. Nobody does until they go through it. We had neighbours telling me their children were asking them, 'Mummy, are you going to give me away as well?'

"I packed everything Billy had. I felt I was betraying him. I was putting his things in the back of the car and he was looking at me the same way as ever. He was looking at me thinking, Mum will feed me, Mum will clothe me, Mum will love me. And I was taking him away.

"His mother was a lovely girl. She corresponded with me for years after, until Billy was 12 or 13, but I think the father had a problem with that and the letters stopped. I met him once after, a year to the day. He had changed so much, but I could see he was happy. The mother knew that I would always be there to help if there was any problem with Billy. For years after, my husband kept him on the VHI, just in case."

In the case of 'Baby Ann', the courts will decide on a hand-over strategy in an attempt to minimise the pain for everyone, most of all for Ann.

Justine McCarthy