• You are here:
• Home /
• Reports /
• Investigation Reports /
• October 2007 - Complaints against the General Register Office

October 2007 - Complaints against the General Register Office

The Complaints

Complaints received in my Office concerning the GRO have tended to centre on issues involving the correction or amendment of entries in the registers and the recognition of foreign divorces prior to re-marriage of divorced persons. The cases which are the subject of this investigation were received in recent years from the following complainants:

Cases involving the correction or amendment of entries in registers

Ms A

Ms A, a single parent, had registered the birth of her daughter in March 1996. At the time of the birth, Ms A was estranged from the father of the child and no paternity details were included in the register entry. The daughter's surname, as entered on the birth certificate which Ms A received at the time of the birth, was that of her mother. In 2003, Ms A discovered that, five years earlier and without her knowledge or consent*, the father of the child had re-registered the birth of the child. The re-registration included paternity details and, as a consequence, the father's surname became the registered surname of her daughter

* Since 2001, it is the practice of the GRO in situations like this, to notify the other parent of the proposed re-registration and to allow 21 days for the receipt of the other parent's observations.

Ms A did not wish to have the father's surname assigned to her daughter and asked the GRO to make the appropriate arrangements to reinstate her daughter's original surname. The GRO advised that this could not be done and that the re-registration of the birth had been undertaken in accordance with the governing legislation. It added however, that if Ms A could secure the co-operation of the father and provide relevant documentation, the surname could be amended. However, Ms A was unable to secure the co-operation of the father for this purpose and the registered details remained unaltered.

Ms B

In this instance Ms B had, in October 1970, given birth to a son who was adopted eight months later. In August 2000, she was reunited with her son and decided to have his original birth certificate amended, so as to have all the factual details, which pertained at the time of his birth, entered on the Register of Births. The relevant documentation was submitted to the GRO in April 2003. However, on the form which she had to complete for this purpose, she found that her current address and occupation were required and not her address and occupation which applied when her son was born. Her current address and occupation were included in the re-registered entry.

She was dissatisfied with this as she felt that her son's new birth certificate did not record all the details in an accurate and true manner. She contacted the GRO to see if the register could be amended to include her address and occupation which applied when her son was born. She was advised that there was no provision currently in legislation which would allow for the inclusion of former addresses or occupations and that the re-registration had been carried out in accordance with the governing legislation. (I understand from the GRO that new procedures are now in place to ensure that, in respect of all registered events, the actual details applicable at the time of the event are recorded in the register).

She contacted my Office in November 2003 and, following my examination of the matter the GRO agreed, in February 2005, to amend the re-registered entry to record Ms B's address and occupation which applied when her son was born .

Mrs C

Mrs C gave birth to her son on 25 December 1979. When he needed a passport for a school trip, his mother obtained a copy of his birth certificate only to discover that his date of birth was recorded in the register as 24 December 1979 and his sex was entered in the register as female. Through her public representative she sought to have the original entry in the register amended. The public representative spoke with the Registrar General and was advised that a marginal correction had been made to the register but that a complete renewal of the register entry could not be made. The public representative said that he was advised that the mother could, if she so wished, have the constitutionality of the governing legislation tested in Court.

Mr & Mrs D

This complaint concerned the failure of the GRO to issue a corrected version of the couple's Marriage Certificate in the Irish language. They finally received the amended certificate two years and three months after the application was made and after protracted correspondence and the involvement of my Office. The couple then wrote to me seeking compensation for the time and trouble taken in seeking the copy of the certificate in Irish. I took this matter up with the GRO, a process which involved a further lengthy period of extended communications. Two years and six months after the matter had been broached with the GRO, it finally agreed to compensate the complainants.

Recognition of foreign divorces prior to re-marriage

These complaints revolve around the concept of domicile. Under the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act, 1986, a foreign divorce could be recognised in Ireland if at least one spouse was domiciled in the State that granted the divorce when the proceedings commenced.

Domicile is a complex legal concept based upon the notion of the individual's permanent home. Generally speaking an individual is born with a domicile known as his domicile of origin. A domicile cannot be lost by a mere abandonment. It can only be lost by the positive acquisition of a domicile of choice. A domicile of choice is the domicile which a person can acquire by a combination of residence and intention. To acquire a domicile of choice an individual must establish a physical presence in the new jurisdiction and have an intention to reside there indefinitely. A domicile of choice can, in turn, be abandoned. This involves either the acquisition of a new domicile of choice or the revival of the domicile of origin.

In the cases which are the subject of this report the divorced person was living in Ireland and the recognition of the divorce depended on whether the domicile of the ex-spouse was in the State which granted the divorce, at the time the divorce proceedings were initiated

Mr E

Mr E and his former wife had separated in 1985. She subsequently left Ireland to live in the UK - he remained in Ireland. She applied for, and was granted, a divorce from Mr E by the High Court in London in 1996. In March 2003, he wished to remarry in Ireland but before he could do so, it was necessary for him to have the divorce recognised under Irish law. For this to happen the GRO required evidence that his ex-wife was domiciled in the UK at the date of the institution of divorce proceedings

The complainant submitted what he considered was relevant evidence to effect recognition i.e a signed affidavit from his ex-wife regarding her intention to remain in England permanently at the time of the divorce. However the GRO did not consider the evidence was sufficient for the divorce to be recognised under Irish law. The reasons for this was that although she had signed an affidavit that it was her intention to remain permanently in England, she took leave of absence from her job and returned to Ireland in 1996 to look after her mother who had become ill. In May 1997 she decided to remain in Ireland.

With no other option open to him, Mr E was obliged to apply to Circuit Court to have the divorce recognised. The Court was presented with the same documentary evidence which had been submitted to the GRO. Mr E advised that the issue was dealt with in the Court in a matter of minutes and the judge made an order directing that the divorce be recognised in Ireland. Mr E was aggrieved that he had to incur considerable expense in applying to the Circuit Court for recognition of the English divorce when, as he saw it, the GRO had sufficient evidence to enable it to recognise the divorce.

Ms F

Ms F's partner was a divorced person. He had married a French national in 1986 and emigrated to Australia in 1991. The couple had two children there and became Australian citizens in 1995. The marriage broke down in 2000 and Ms F's partner returned to Ireland in 2002. Later that year divorce proceedings were finalised by the Family Court of Australia.

In 2003 Ms F and her partner applied to get married. Her partner sought to have the divorce, granted by the Family Court of Australia, recognised in Ireland. He was advised by the GRO that his divorce would be recognised in Irish Law if, at the date of the institution of the divorce proceedings, he could establish that his then spouse, was domiciled in the jurisdiction of the foreign court which granted the decree, i.e Australia.

The GRO said that it would accept as evidence of domicile in the jurisdiction of the foreign court which granted the decree, an affidavit or sworn statement in the matter. Ms F's partner submitted a sworn court document, stamped with the seal of the Family Court of Australia and witnessed by a qualified Justice of the Peace of the Australian State Department of Justice formally confirming that her partner's former wife was compliant with the requirements for acquiring a domicile of choice in that country i.e that she regarded Australia as her home, ordinarily lived in there and intended to live indefinitely there. However the GRO refused to accept the sworn statement as meeting the requirements for recognition of the divorce.

Ms G

Ms G married in July 1994. Her previous marriage had ended in divorce in the UK six years earlier. Six months before the date of her second marriage she completed the relevant forms and sent these with papers relating to her previous marriage and divorce to the local Registrar. A year later she needed to get a copy of her marriage certificate for Social Welfare purposes and applied to the local Registrar. A copy of the certificate was issued to her. Later she needed to get a further copy of the certificate for a mortgage application. On this occasion she was advised by the Registrar that her marriage was not valid and she was referred to the GRO. The GRO advised that she should have sought a direction as to whether her UK divorce was recognised in the State. For the next five years she and her solicitor sought clarification on the status of her marriage. When she wrote to me, she said that the delay in the receipt of clarification about her marriage had caused her extreme distress. She said that registering the births her two children had been problematic and she feared that if anything happened to her, her husband might not be recognised as her spouse.

I took up the matter with the GRO. It indicated that it had advised Ms G and her solicitor what was required in order for the marriage to be validated. The complainant submitted additional material and the GRO subsequently issued the marriage certificate to her solicitor seven years after she had originally been referred to the GRO.

Ms H

Ms H married in Birmingham in 1976 but the marriage ended in divorce in 1981. In 1983 she returned to Ireland with her daughter. In 1998 she advised the GRO of her intention to marry her partner but was advised that her divorce was not recognised. Ms H sought clarification on the matter but found it difficult to obtain any from the GRO. Her solicitors advised bringing the matter to the High Court for judicial review but she decided to pursue other avenues to see if the matter could be resolved. She went to her public representative in 1998 but he did not receive any response until 1999 This response reiterated the position as previously outlined to Ms H.

In 2004 when the matter still had not been resolved, Ms H was diagnosed with a serious illness. She decided to apply to the Courts to have her divorce recognised as she was concerned that as things stood, her ex-husband could have a claim on her home in the event of her death. In July 2005, the divorce was recognised in the Family Court in Ireland. In granting recognition the judge apologised to Ms H for what she had been through. She married her partner two months later. The costs incurred by Ms H in pursuing the matter through court amounted to €7,400.

Back to contents