We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

High Court

Woman claiming son was illegally put up for adoption says she was encouraged not to look for him

Tressa Donnelly Reeves told the High Court that she had named her son Andre so that he would be easier to find.

Andre Donnelly adoption court case Tressa Donnelly Reeves, 79, and her son Andre Donnelly leave the High Court in Dublin. Niall Carson via PA Images Niall Carson via PA Images

A WOMAN WHO spent more than 50 years searching for her son has told the High Court she was informed by a nun during her quest that adopted children don’t want anything to do with their birth parents.

Tressa Donnelly Reeves, from Surrey in England, said that when she gave birth to a boy on 13 March 1961 she named him Andre, as he would be the only Andre in Ireland, in the hope of finding him.

He was placed with a family at Liscolman, Tullow, Co Carlow and given the name Patrick Farrell. They were eventually reunited in 2013 after a long battle for information they claim they were entitled to but were allegedly denied.

Giving evidence on the second day of her action against St Patrick’s Guild (Incorporated) adoption society which was run by Catholic nuns and the State, Reeves said she was encouraged not to look for Andre.

Her mother had told her it would be “disruptive for the child”. Her mother also told her not to tell anyone she had a baby, particularly a man as she (Reeves) would have been seen as “soiled goods”.

She was unmarried and aged just 21 years when she was sent to Ireland in September 1960 to have the baby. Her friends were told she was going to Dublin to learn ‘Cordon Blue Cookery’.

She accepted signing a consent for Patrick’s adoption days after he was born. In reply to her counsel Eanna Mulloy SC she said she sent letters inquiring about the infant to a nun with St Patricks, and in reply was told he was placed with an Irish family.

She said in the early seventies she returned to Ireland. At St Patrick’s office in central Dublin, she spoke to a nun there about her son, and gave her details relevant to the birth.

She said the nun “who wanted to get rid of me” told her St Patrick’s had “no details” about Andre’s birth, and that “adopted children never want anything to do with their birth parents, especially the boys”.

Reeves said she then left St Patrick’s office and returned to where she gave birth to Andre which was a clinic in Clontarf.

There she met the midwife who had delivered her son, who Reeves had been friendly with.

Reeves said when she asked the midwife about Andre she was told that he was among those babies that were sent to the US and that it would be impossible to trace him as there was “no paperwork” in regards those adoptions.

She said she was shocked by this as she had been informed in the correspondence she received from the nuns in 1961-2 that Andre was sent to a family “down the country”.

She renewed her search for her son in the mid-1990s after speaking to her Sligo based cousin who stayed at her then home in Belgium.

Her cousin told her that there had been programmes on TV about changes in regards entitlements to information concerning adopted children in Ireland.

In their action, Farrell and Reeves claim the ‘adoption’ was unlawful and was done without the legal safeguards provided under the adoption laws.

In their action against St Patrick’s and Ireland, and the Attorney General seeking damages, they claim the society made false misrepresentations concerning Patrick’s location.

It is also alleged St Patrick’s engaged in a conspiracy, deceit and failed to provide them with information about each other in a timely manner.

It is also claimed there was a failure to protect their family rights and that the son was placed with a couple, the now deceased Maeve and James Farrell, whose suitability was never assessed.

The State it is alleged failed to vindicate or recognise the mother and son’s rights.

The claims are denied.

The society says it did not make any false misrepresentations.

It denies keeping anyone in the dark regarding their entitlements or that it engaged in any conspiracies.

The society did not thwart or disparage any efforts by Reeves to trace her son.

The State parties say they are a stranger to the claims and are not liable for any wrongs committed against the plaintiffs.

In an application on behalf of St Patrick’s Felix McEnroy SC asked the court to strike out the claim on grounds including that based on the evidence put before the court the claim appeared to be one of personal injury.

Personal injuries actions are procedurally different from the claim is contesting.

The case counsel said should have been bought at the correct forum, namely the High Court personal injury list.

Both John Rogers SC for the State defendants and Mulloy for plaintiff’s said the action was a not a personal injury claim. Mulloy said the case should not be dismissed on that ground.

Mr Justice Denis McDonald said he would rule on the application at a later date, but has allowed the plaintiffs to continue with their evidence.

The case continues next week.

Comments are closed for legal reasons

Aodhan O Faolain