Reaction: Children's rights groups said yesterday's Supreme Court judgement highlighted the need for a change in the Irish Constitution to specifically provide for children's rights.
Meanwhile, the Adoptive Parents Association of Ireland said it was "outraged" that the two couples had been drawn into a legal battle that could have been avoided with legislation. Spokeswoman Helen Scott said this was "a heart-breaking case for all involved" but it would never have come to court if a simple piece of legislation had been introduced.
Currently birth parents must sign a "consent to placement" form and a "final consent" form, often months before the adoption order is made.
Ms Scott said birth parents should be asked to sign just one consent to adoption when the child is being placed with a prospective family.
"That consent should become absolutely irrevocable after six months," she said. "If the birth parents request the return of the child during that six months, then the prospective adoptive parents should be legally obliged to comply with that request."
She said adoptive parents never expected to find themselves in such a situation. "The emotional soul searching is heart-breaking and the decision to go to court will only be taken after all other options have been truly explored," she said. "Very simple legislative changes would ensure that no other birth parents or adoptive parents would find themselves in such circumstances in the future."
The Natural Parents Network of Ireland said it needed time to study all judgments in the case before giving a response.
However, the Irish Foster Care Association expressed concern at how this decision could affect the child. Co-ordinator Pat Whelan said the two-year-old would have bonded with her prospective adoptive parents "and breaking those bonds could do untold damage". She said it was "virtually impossible" to see how it could be managed without affecting the child.
"I absolutely feel that the child is the loser in this whole situation today."
The Children's Rights Alliance said the judgment was "a clear example of why we need to amend the Constitution to provide for children's rights".
Children's Rights Alliance chief executive Jillian van Turnhout said there were no winners in this case. "However, the child is the greatest loser as her rights were not and could not be taken into account by the Supreme Court."
She called for "urgent reform to ensure that when next the courts are faced with a decision on a child's welfare that they have the power to, and moreover are obliged to, put the child's best interest at the centre of the case".
Norah Gibbons, Barnardos director of advocacy, said that while both sets of parents had senior counsel to represent them, Baby Ann had no representative to state her case. "The Constitution is virtually silent on the rights of the child," she said.
She said she hoped the parents would get the support they needed to ensure that Baby Ann made the transition from one family to another in the most gradual way possible.
The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children described the ruling as a "landmark decision".
Paul Gilligan, ISPCC chief executive said the core of the ruling was about the Constitution's presumption that the best interests of the child were served by being with its natural parents in a family founded on marriage.
He said the judgment raised issues around who was best placed to advocate and protect a child. It also highlighted the need to amend the Constitution so that it did not discriminate against the rights of children of unmarried parents, he said.
Meanwhile, Labour's spokeswoman on children, Senator Kathleen O'Meara, said the judgment reinforced the argument in favour of a constitutional referendum to enshrine the rights of the child. "The decision reinforces the fact that, where there is a conflict, married parents have constitutional rights which can take primacy over the best interests of their children," she said.
