Question NW26 to the Minister of Social Development
05 April 2017 - NW26
Bergman, Mr D to ask the Minister of Social Development
(1)Whether she is aware of any interference in the adoption process by employees in her department who have initiated direct contact with the child’s (a) biological parent(s) and/or (b) extended birth family members after an accredited adoption social service provider with delegated powers in terms of sections 251 and 259 of the Children’s Act, Act 38 of 2005, as amended, has proposed an adoptive family to best meet the child’s interest in terms of Article 17 of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, 1993; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (i) in how many cases has such contact been initiated, (ii) what is the intention of the employees of department in initiating such contact and (iii) to what extent does her department’s policy of reunification influence such decision-making; (2) whether she is aware of any instances where her department’s employees refused to accept the legal validity and status of (a) court orders terminating the rights of biological parents, (b) court orders confirming the adoptability of children and/or (c) the consent of biological parents that the court has verified as having been properly given before it; if not, in each case, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, what are the relevant details?
Reply:
1. (a) Yes,
(b) Yes
(i) 1 case
(ii) The officials are guided by national and International legislation in the execution of their duties. If and when is required officials will take longer to ensure compliance in all instances.
(iii) The Department complies with the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 and The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption with regard to children and families taking into account the Subsidiarity principle. According to The Hague Convention each State should take, as a matter of priority, appropriate measures to enable the child to remain in the care of his or her family of origin.
2. (a) No, the department’s employees did not refuse to accept the legal validity and status of a court orders terminating the rights of biological parents. The officials followed the guidelines and are obliged to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is adhered to. The department reserves the right to question any decision of any party in the context for the fulfillment and the realization of all Children’s rights.
(b) The department remains committed to the implementation of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
(c) The department remains committed to the implementation of The Hague Convention on Intercountry adoption, including the protection of the rights of all parties concerned including those of biological parents.