The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a birth mother against the adoption of her child by her long-term foster mother.
The court found the adoption was in the best interests of the child and cemented the emotional bonds of family and security she needed.
The decision upholds a Court of Appeal decision allowing the adoption to proceed.
At a hearing last month, lawyers for the birth mother told the Supreme Court that an application for the child to be adopted by her foster mother was made at "the 11th hour" before she reached her 18th birthday.
The woman, who was a victim of domestic violence, had her three children taken into care while she was treated for an alcohol problem.
Two of her children were later returned to her and she raised them successfully. The third, who had a learning disability, remained in foster care but contact with her birth mother was maintained.
The adoption was challenged by the birth mother, who won her case in the High Court but lost on appeal.
The Court of Appeal allowed for the adoption and, because the girl was about to turn 18, the adoption order was allowed to proceed on the understanding it could be set aside should the Supreme Court find in favour of the birth mother.
Delivering judgment this morning, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said this was a case in which "human tragedy and hope were mixed".
He said there had been "plenty of human tragedy: appalling domestic violence, coercive control, alcohol abuse and foetal damage have never been far from the facts of the case."
He added "yet there is hope as well", saying the birth mother had turned her life around in an impressive fashion and looks after two of her children in "a manner which does credit to all concerned".
The making of an adoption order in Ms B's case was also a sign of hope, the judge said, adding that it "cemented the emotional bonds of family and security for which she doubtlessly subjectively yearns and objectively needs".
'Generous and altruistic'
He said there was hope too to be found in the "generous and altruistic" manner in which the foster mother had "opened her house and her heart for the needs and welfare of Ms B".
The judge said while none of these cases are easy, he found himself obliged to conclude that the adoption would satisfy the statutory and constitutional criteria that the best interests of the child should be paramount.
At last month's hearing Senior Counsel Mary O'Toole, representing the birth mother, had told the court it was a most unusual case in that the child, referred to as 'B', had been in foster care for almost all her life, but had maintained contact with her birth mother.
The woman had three children who had been taken into care while she dealt with alcohol problems.
Two of the children had been returned to her care soon after treatment and she had successfully raised them and put them through third level education without further incident, the court was told.
Ms O'Toole said the woman had been treated successfully for her alcohol problem and had never relapsed.
'Back from the brink'
She had pulled herself "back from the brink" having been the subjected to domestic violence around the time of her daughter's birth.
She had contact with the child at the centre of this case over the years but it became more sporadic when she moved to another county and there was a lack of finance provided by the Child and Family Agency to facilitate visits.
However, the contact continued and the foster mother often took the girl to meet her birth mother, allowing them to spend a few hours alone together without any concern.
She said it was their case that it was not proportionate for a court to grant an adoption order due to a number of reasons, including the nature and quality of the relationship between the birth mother and child, notwithstanding the fact that they had been in care.
She said there was a failure by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) to look at the issue of family reunification and there was "no real evidence that they ever did that".
She said her client had been told by social workers to concentrate on the two children who had been returned to her when she completed her treatment.
Ms O'Toole said perhaps uniquely in these types of cases the prospect of reunification "would have been pretty good".
She said there was nothing to suggest that an adoption order was necessary in this case and that a refusal of an order would not affect the child in any adverse way as there was no requirement for them to be returned to the birth mother.
She said from the time the other two children were returned to the birth mother the onus was on the CFA to explore options for family reunification and they "did the opposite".
A High Court judge who ruled in favour of the birth mother had previously criticised the CFA for failing to support a relationship between 'B' and her birth mother.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled there was no reasonable prospect that either biological parent would be able to care for 'B' in a way that would not affect her safety or welfare.
'Security, certainty and stability'
That court held that it was inevitable the adoption order would sever the legal relationship between birth mother and daughter but said on balance it would provide substantial security, certainty and stability for a young person who has a moderate learning disability.
It found the High Court had afforded excessive weight to the birth mother's claims that the CFA had failed to provide reasonable access support.
Lawyers for the CFA said every step possible was taken to reunify the girl with her birth mother.
Senior Counsel Dervla Browne said two critical windows of opportunity were missed by the birth mother, firstly when B was a baby and later when the mother decided to move to another county with her other children, who the mother says she had to prioritise.
She did this in the knowledge that her daughter was being well cared for by the foster mother.
Ms Browne said the Court of Appeal had correctly dealt with the case and said the birth mother's failure in her duties was "not a historical failing," but one that existed three years before the adoption declaration as she did not take action in relation to her child, she said.
That was "an immediate, continuing parental failure which is established in this case," she said.
There is "more than enough evidence before the court". The Court of Appeal was correct in finding adoption was proportionate.
The court was told the girl was in favour of the adoption. However, the court queried the level of evidence as to her mental capacity, noting there was no independent evidence about her capacity and understanding of the adoption.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a subsequent appeal as the case raised matters of profound public importance concerning a section of the Adoption Act dealing with court adoption orders for children whose parents had failed in parental duties.
The court also heard submissions from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Adoption Authority.
Mr Justice Hogan disagreed with the High Court judge who said he could see no particular advantage, ten weeks before the girl's 18th birthday, to adoption.
The High Court judge said the adoption would not make any difference to the girl's day-to-day existence.
It had been suggested the girl could instead be made a ward of court and if she wished, could change her name by deed poll on reaching her 18th birthday.
There was no proposal for the girl to return to live with her birth mother.
However, Judge Hogan said adoption was "an institution which is designed to meet the deep-seated human needs for family stability, security and ties".
He said adoption was more than simply a question of a name or a right to inherit or the entitlement to look to others for guidance in the making of important decisions.
He said adoption was a question of status which had lifetime consequences well beyond the issue of care while the person is a minor.
"The making of an adoption order reflects the fact that a new family relationship has been created and this is one which is underpinned and supported by the State and its legal system.
The ties created by an adoption do not cease when a child reaches adulthood, the judge said, adding there was a "lifelong value" to the relationship created by adoption.
