A High Court hearing in a case to determine the legal status of a child born through surrogacy and later discovered to have no genetic link to the commissioning parents has been adjourned.
In what is believed to be the first case of its kind, the court will be asked to make the child a ward of court at a full hearing in January.
The case arose after an Irish couple who used a surrogate outside the State applied to bring the child back to Ireland.
The couple needed to prove the child had a genetic connection to one of its Irish parents in order to secure the appropriate travel documents.
However, at that stage it was discovered there was no genetic link. The child was allowed into Ireland on humanitarian grounds.
The usual procedure in cases of surrogacy would be for parents to apply for guardianship and a declaration of parentage.
However, the couple was told that because of the absence of evidence of a genetic link they would have to apply to have the child made a ward of court.
Interim orders were granted in September bringing the child into wardship and the protection of the High Court. The couple was also appointed interim guardians.
Today the court was told that more time was needed for the State to provide sworn statements on its position in the case.
Senior Counsel Gerard Durcan told the President of the High Court Justice Peter Kelly that further investigations were under way to establish if further DNA testing could be used to establish the parentage of the child.
Where there was no difficulty with establishing the mother, there could be a difficulty establishing paternity, he said.
Justice Kelly said the actual parents of the child would need to be notified of any application in this country regarding the welfare of the child.
The judge was told that a letter had been received from a legal representative confirming that the surrogate mother had been notified of the proceedings here and had consented to the child being made a ward of court.
However the judge was told that further clarification or confirmation may be required.
The court was also told that Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, has carried out an assessment on the child and there were no concerns regarding welfare.
Therefore the agency did not need to remain involved in the case.
The case will return to court next month before a full hearing in January.
Strict reporting restrictions remain in place to protect the identity of the family.