A couple will appeal to the Supreme Court today against a landmark High Court decision that their baby should remain with its prospective adoptive parents.
The hearing, expected to last two days, will be in private with the media and public excluded, but the court's decision will be made public.
In the High Court last month, Mr Justice John MacMenamin ruled that the two-year-old baby Ann (not her real name) would be psychologically damaged if she was taken away from her intended adoptive couple and given to her natural parents.
Mr Justice MacMenamin ruled that the psychological harm done by attempting to place the child in the custody of the natural parents, who were now married, displaced the presumption in the Constitution that the appropriate place for the upbringing of a child was within a family unit.
The constitutional right of the child to the protection of her health and welfare must be vindicated, he said.
Ann's natural mother and father have brought an appeal to the Supreme Court, which has set aside two days for the hearing.
Five judges, with the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, presiding, will hear the appeal.
Mr Justice MacMenamin last month ruled the two-year-old girl should remain with the two people who want to adopt her and with whom she has formed an emotional bond.
The child was born in 2004 when the birth parents were unmarried students and they placed her for adoption. This was done in November of that year, and since then Ann has remained with the carer parents.
The natural parents married in January 2006, which constituted them as a family unit under the Constitution. They started court proceedings to regain custody of Ann a month later.
Mr Justice MacMenamin said there were compelling reasons why the child's custody should not be altered.
He found there was a "failure of duty" displacing the normal constitutional presumption in favour of the family unit, and Ann should remain with the intended adoptive parents.
The judge referred to the case as complex, tragic and distressing and expressed much regret that the court did not have the power to make any other decision in the circumstances which would have the effect of allowing some "middle ground".
He also ordered that the identities of those involved be protected.