An 18-year-old mother of one is desperately trying to have her young son returned to her care, almost a year after he was taken to the United States following an adoption process which she now claims was flawed and skewed in the favour of the adopted parents.
The teenager, who was just 15 years old when she became pregnant and later gave birth to a baby boy, has now moved to the court through her lawyers Simone Morris-Ramlall and Abiola Wong-Inniss seeking to have the February 2015 adoption order revoked.
The teen approached this newspaper in tears describing the pain of not having her son whom she last saw in August 2015. “I know people would say he better where he deh, but is me son and I would work and mind he. I want me son…” she said, sobbing uncontrollably.
She believes that because of her age she was manipulated by the child’s adoptive parents and that the Child Care and Protection Agency (CCPA) did not offer her the support afforded to her under the Adoption Act.
The teen said she had initially consented to the adoption on the basis that her son’s adoptive mother had promised to support the continuance of her academic pursuits and to send the child to spend time with her every two years. However, she had subsequently taken over the care of her son after she visited the home of a woman identified by the then prospective adoptive mother to foster him pending the adoption, and discovered him unwell. The two had bonded.
She recalled that she was told via text message that her son had left for the US and she commenced a desperate battle to have him returned here.
With the help of her lawyers she moved to the court on October 1, 2015 seeking to have the adoption revoked and the child returned to her care within one week.
However, she lost count one when then acting Chief Justice Ian Chang (now retired) ruled that the application was misconceived as it should have been made by way of Writ Summons rather than by Summons or by Originating Summons in view of the fact that the order being sought was final and that the grounds for the application were fraud and undue influence among other things.
Undaunted the teen’s lawyers have now filed a notice of appeal against Justice Chang’s decision, notwithstanding the absence of written reasons for the decision made on December 15, 2015.
Among the grounds for appeal was that Justice Chang’s decision was unfair and unjust and that he failed to consider the provisions of Section 40 (2) (g) of the Adoption of Children Act 2009, which provides for the revocation of an adoption order for any other serious cause that the court may think justifies the revocation of such order. Also, according to the notice of appeal, Justice Chang failed to give due regard to the modern judicial position of ensuring that the interest of justice is the overriding concern and also he failed to consider all material evidence.
The teen approached this newspaper after having waited for months for a date for the appeal to be heard and is now questioning whether the court system is also against her, as for her each day that passes is a day that her son is not where he belongs.
According to the legal arguments the adoption process was noncompliant with Section 21 (4) (b) of the Adoption Act 2009. The lawyers are also arguing that the Adoption Board has no authority under the said Act to make or sanction arrangements in relation to adoption of a child.
‘Never neglected’
The teenager in court documents, which have been challenged by the adoptive parents and the CCPA, said her child was in her care from October 2014 to August 2015 and for her this cannot be disputed since only one home visit was conducted during that process. She said she did not abandon her child and had in fact developed a bond with him and had indicated to the child care worker at the time that she no longer wanted to go proceed with the adoption. She said she was told, ‘Nothing can be done, it gone too far.’
“…I never neglected [name of child] but was merely financially challenged,” she said in the court document claiming that the respondents misrepresented the issue to the court at all material times. She said she is now prepared to do anything in the best interest of her child including receiving parental skills but made it clear that she was taking good care of him up to August 2015 and she is in a position to continue to do same.
During the interview with this newspaper, the teenager also questioned the suitability of the adoptive parents, stating that the man was accused of domestic violence in the past.
According to the adoption documents, the child’s adoptive father was charged on three separate occasions, although the cases were all dismissed or not prosecuted. In 2000, he was charged with assaulting his then wife causing physical injury. In 2007, he was accused of violating a Domestic Violence Protective Order and in 2008, he was charged with aggravated menacing and terroristic threatening to commit a crime, likely resulting in death/injury.
The adoptive parents met in 2002 and were friends. In 2006, the woman married someone else, but divorced in 2011. The man was married from 2000 to 2013, when his reported abusive marriage ended in divorce. The couple then got married in January 2014. The man is also father of a 14-year-old daughter, who now lives with the couple, though prior he had played no part in her upbringing.
No independent legal advice
It is argued that the teenager was not afforded independent legal advice or counselling and the lack of these are fatal and, “Neither a portrayal of maturity nor the ignorance of the agency about the provision of counselling facilities by the minister excuse noncompliance with the statutory requirements.”
The child, the teen said, was never in the care of the second and third named respondents, whether directly or indirectly, for three months prior to the making of any of the orders but rather he was in her care.
In the adoption papers, the CCPA indicated that the young woman became pregnant after entering into a relationship with a fellow school mate who later denied paternity of the child. The agency said it caused publications to appear in a local newspaper requesting the presence of the father but there had been no response.
But the young woman told this newspaper that as far as she knows, no one by the name she provided to the agency exists. She claimed that she was advised by her son’s adoptive mother to give a fictitious name to the agency. According to her, the sexual event that resulted in her being pregnant was forced. However, even if it were not, the fact that she was 15 at the time meant that the man in question committed statutory rape.
“If Child Care did only do anything they woulda find that not even the address I give exist. But nobody didn’t do nothing everybody just think is better for me son to be with this woman. I love my son and I would work to mind he…,” the teen said in tears during the interview.
While the agency concluded that the adoption of the child was best since it would provide permanency, security and emotional fulfilment as he grows, the young woman questions this conclusion. Citing the alleged violent background of the adoptive father, she questioned whether the home environment would indeed be safe for her young son. According to the agency “The applicants have demonstrated the ability to provide adequate accommodation, parental and emotional support for the child’s total welfare.”
‘Best interest of the child’
In an affidavit in response, Attorney-at-law Dela Britton who represents the couple argued that the adoption should not be revoked; that the teenager is seeking the revocation eight months after the final order was made, having slept on her rights. She further argued that if the best interest of the child was uppermost on the mother’s mind, the application should have been made in a timely manner. Acknowledging that the said application was made within the statutory period, she also argued that the nature of the application warranted a timely prosecution.
It was also pointed out that money was sent to the teen and the caregiver of the child but not in the form of inducement and that the mother at all times readily accepted the money and understood that the funds were for the upkeep of the child and for her own use and benefit during the application process.
“Therefore, the applicant cannot rely on the promise of financial support as a basis for misrepresentation,” the affidavit in response said. It was pointed out that the fact that the mother stated that she was promised financial support after the adoption process and that she was promised that the child would return to Guyana at intervals to see her indicated that she consented to the adoption. It was also pointed out that she was present in court when the final order was made and voluntarily signed all the relevant documents including the consent of parent form and at no time was she coerced into attending, complying or signing the relevant documents.
While agreeing that section 19(2) of the Adoption of Children Act provides for independent counsel of a natural parent under the age of 18, the lawyer argued that the language of the section does not make such a requirement mandatory. It was also pointed out that under the Act, onus is on the minister with responsibility for the children to provide such independent counsel. It was further argued that the onus is on the young mother to establish that undue influence existed in the adoption process.
It was also pointed out that the child is now within the US territorial borders and as far as the couple’s attorney is aware there is no legislation to compel the US to release a child to return to Guyana.
The affidavit also pointed out that the child’s father’s name could not be mentioned in the advertisement placed by the CCPA, since his name was not on the birth certificate, neither was there any DNA or blood testing done to prove that the person in question was in fact the natural father.
The CCPA senior officer, who handled the case, in her affidavit in answer contended that the agency had offered counselling to the young mother. She admitted that the young mother was not advised to seek independent legal advice but that she “portrayed maturity in acquiring alternative care giver for the minor child and investigations to locate her parents proved futile.”
According to the affidavit, the teen had visited the agency in the company of the prospective adopted mother and indicated she wanted the child to be adopted as she wanted to continue her schooling and could not afford to care for him.
The officer denied pressuring the teen to continue with the process and said while she was unaware of manipulation by the adopted mother, she was aware that the teenager was indeed promised support to the furtherance of her education.
