The High Court has rejected an appeal by parents of a baby girl given up for adoption by co-habiting student parents to have her returned to them.
In a landmark judgment in which he spoke of his "deep regret" at being unable to find a "middle way" around the tug-of-love legal battle for two-year-old baby Ann, Mr Justice John Mac Menamin directed she remain with the couple who want to adopt her and who have cared for her since November 2004.
Her natural parents have appealed his decision to the Supreme Court.
Judge Mac Menamin, although hearing the 23-day battle for custody of the child in camera, conceded to an application by An Bord Uchtala to make public his judgment using fictitious names for the parties concerned.
He said he had conducted an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution relating to a claim for custody of the child by her natural parents.
The couple, now in their early 20's, had been unmarried at the time of her birth in July 2004. They had met in March 2002 when they were students and a year later had commenced living together.
In October, 2003 the girl found she was pregnant and neither she nor her partner wished to inform their parents of the pregnancy. They attended a medical social worker and after counselling sessions they ultimately decided on the option of adoption.
In April 2004 they had been referred to the Health Service Executive for the purpose of adoption and the day following Baby Ann's birth the parents agreed to place her in pre-adoptive foster care and attend further counselling Ann had been placed with her adopter parents in November 2004 and had remained in their care since.
In September, 2005, the natural mother wrote to the Adoption Board stating that she no longer wished for the adoption to proceed and seeking to regain custody of Ann.
A series of meetings and counselling sessions had taken place in October and November 2005 and ultimately the natural parents decided to marry and had done so in January 2006.
In February this year they had commenced the Article 40 proceedings while Ann remained in the custody of her adoptive parents.
Mr Justice Mac Menamin said that by virtue of their marriage the natural parents had constituted themselves a family unit within the meaning of the Constitution, creating a constitutional presumption that the appropriate place for the upbringing and education of a child was within the family unit.
He said his judgment had considered a number of legal authorities, in particular two dating from 1966 and 1985 and in which the courts had concluded that the child concerned should be returned to its natural parents.
Judge Mac Menamin said that in Ann's case he had heard psychological evidence regarding the issue of attachment - the extent to which a young child made and formed a close relationship or bond with adults. There had been evidence from psychologists and psychiatrists as to the extent to which a breaking of a bond of attachment at Ann's age could have long term serious emotional and psychological consequences for her.
He said the court considered that the evidence had established that the psychological harm which might be caused by attempting to place Ann in the custody of her natural parents was such as to displace the Constitutional presumption and that the Constitutional right of the child to the protection of her health and welfare should be vindicated.
"No wisdom can reduce the emotional stress and heartbreak inevitably involved in determining the issues between the (natural and adopter parents)," Judge Mac Menamin said. "All parties testified with great dignity and it is ironic that the very considerations which motivated the placement of Ann for adoption, that is concern for her welfare and upbringing, should now be the very issues which divided the parties in this most difficult and distressing case."