Illegally adopted man says meeting birth mother ‘a blessing’

Patrick Farrell is suing State and Catholic adoption agency for alleged deceit, conspiracy

Tressa Donnelly Reeves  and her son Patrick Farrell (also known as Andre Donnelly). Photograph: Niall Carson/PA Wire.
Tressa Donnelly Reeves and her son Patrick Farrell (also known as Andre Donnelly). Photograph: Niall Carson/PA Wire.

A man who is suing the State and a Catholic adoption agency over his illegal adoption has said he would never have had to come to court “if people had done their jobs” when he was born in 1961.

Patrick 'Paddy' Farrell said he would not have suffered a fraction of the distress he has had to endure if he was legally adopted.

He said he did not know his adoptive mother was contacted by St Patrick's Guild from 1997 concerning his birth mother's attempts to find him and had opposed him being told about that or the fact that he was adopted. She was told he had moved to Australia, when this was not the case.

Mr Farell was cross-examined on Tuesday, the third day of an action by him and his birth mother Tressa Donnelly Reeves against St Patrick's Guild (Incorporated) Adoption Society and the State.

READ MORE

He said that meeting his birth mother, sisters and other family members was “a blessing”. He should have had knowledge about matters long before he was informed by an official from the Adoption Authority of Ireland in late 2012 that he was illegally adopted, he said.

Placed

Mr Farrell, also known as André Donnelly, was born to Ms Reeves at on March 13th, 1961. Days later, he was placed with a family at Liscolman, Tullow, Co Carlow and given the name Patrick Farrell by the now deceased Jim Farrell, whom he alleges regularly physically abused him, and his adoptive mother, Maeve Farrell.

Ms Reeves spent decades looking for him and they were reunited in 2013.

Mr Farrell told Felix McEnroy SC, for the guild, that Ms Farrell had been contacted by St Patricks from 1997 onwards regarding his birth mother’s search.

When John Rogers SC, for the State, said what happened in this instance was a “legacy of the past”, Mr Farrell said what occurred was “morally wrong”.

Mr Farrell accepted the findings of a medical report that he had suffered something similar to Post Traumatic Stress Disorders after being told about being illegally adopted. He said he was doing as well as could be expected in the circumstances.

He accepted Ms Farrell voiced strong opposition to a nun at St Patrick’s to him being told about his true origins or that his birth mother was searching for him.

The nun had recorded details of contact she had with Ms Farrell informing her that Ms Reeves wanted to make contact with him. Correspondence between the guild and Ms Farrell noted his adoptive mother had described Mr Farrell as as being vulnerable, was against telling him he was adopted and had said he had moved to Australia. Mr Farrell said he has never been to Australia.

Mr Farrell said it appeared to him that Mr Rogers was trying to put all the blame for what happened on Ms Farrell, which he did not accept t was the case.

Put blame

Mr Rogers said he was not trying to put the blame on Ms Farrell but was putting questions based on the evidence before the court.

Counsel said internal Garda documents from 2003, which arose out of complaints from Ms Reeves and the Adoption Authority of Ireland, showed the DPP opted not to prosecute anyone in relation to Mr Farrell’s illegal adoption.

The documents stated, while there was evidence of a possible fraud in relation to the ‘adoption’, the main suspects were dead and the only person alive at the time who had any involvement was then 84-year Ms Farrell.

In reply, Mr Farrell said he would not have wanted gardaí to call to his mother’s door in 2003. He said people “should have done their jobs” in 1961.

Ms Reeves and Mr Farrell are seeking damages for alleged false misrepresentations by St Patrick’s concerning his location and alleged conspiracy, deceit and failure to provide them with information about each other in a timely manner. It is also claimed their family rights were not protected and the Farrells’ suitability was never assessed. The claims are denied.

The case continues.