The Supreme Court has granted the State’s bid to overturn a previous High Court finding that the word “child” in the International Protection Act could extend beyond biological and adopted children for family reunification purposes.

The definition of “child”, as used in the relevant provision of the 2015 Act (section 56.9.d) “can only be a reference to a biological/adoptive child of the sponsor”, the court ruled on Tuesday.

That is “the literal and ordinary meaning of the word”, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne said, when giving the five-judge court’s judgment.

This was reinforced by the legislative history of the 2015 Act which, unlike earlier legislation, excluded grandparents, wards or guardians, from the definition of “member of the family”, she said.

It is not clear what implications there may be for the definition of parenthood in cases of donor IVF and surrogacy where the concept of intention, rather than nature or adoption, establishes parenthood.