Wapai v Mayak [2003] PGDC 33; DC376 (6 March 2003)

DC376

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 48 OF 2003

Jack A. Wapai
Informant

V

Mr. and Mrs. Mayak
Defendants

Goroka
26th, 27th, 28th February
6th March 2003

JUDGEMENT

GERARD MAJELLA VETUNAWA. (Coram). This is Information laid under Section 112 Child Welfare Act causing the issuance of Warrant to Search and Arrest in relation to safety of Children regarding the safety of the male child Armstrong Adam. Section 112 (1) (a) (b) Child Welfare Act is in these terms; where it appears to a Magistrate on Complaint made before him on Oaths by a person who in the opinion of the Magistrate, is acting in good faith in the interest of a Child, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that the said Child -

(a) is a neglected child or

(b) has been or is being ill-treated or neglected in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or to be injurious to his health or Welfare.

The Magistrate may issue a Warrant authorizing a Welfare Officer or a Commissioner Officer of the Police Force name in the Warrant- -

(c) to search for the child and take him to and detain him in a place of safety until he can be brought before a Court and

(d) to apprehend any person whom the Welfare Officer or Officer of the Police force believes on reasonable grounds to have committed an offence in respect

As the facts of the Case are, on the 25th December 1999, the informant who is the biological father of the child Armstrong Adam was unable to look after the Child. The child was previously left with some people at Watabung. These people brought the Child to Goroka to look for the father Jack Wapai. They wanted to give back the child to him and that's what they did. Coincidentally on that day Jack Wapai went to the Goroka main market with Michael Mayak, the son of the defendants. Michael Mayak saw the child being very weak due to lack food and parental care and love. For the interest of the child, Michael Mayak told Jack to bring the Child to his parent at the Liturgical Catechetical Institute, North Goroka, so that the Mayak family could give him the care and love he deserves by the law of the State and moral law of man's being. This was when the child Adam ended up with the defendants who had been taking care of him ever since the 25th December, 1999.

The biological father Jack Wapai promised the Mayak family to come back early January 2000, but never came back for his child. The biological mother Lynda Ambaiye had totally failed to look after the child. In fact, she had forgotten all about his existential as if she never gave birth to the child.

What is the basis of the parent duty to take care of and love their children? As I see it the fundamental basis such a duty is the natural law of man's being that is to say morality. The law of the State is only complimentary to the natural law of morality. This simply means human beings have reason for taking Care of and loving their children. Other creatures too take Care of their offspring but they have no reason to do that. They do it by instinct.

Reason makes human beings different from other beings in the cosmic order. It is therefore mandatory for human beings to take Care of and to love their children no matter what situations we are in. In this Case, I find that the biological parents of Adam have absolutely failed their legal and moral duty to love and Care for their child. They have demonstrated they are not capable to meet the Welfare of the child Adam. Right from the beginning, they have neglected their child to the point of death. The defendants saved the child Adam from dying. They are not ill -treating and neglecting the child Adam. It's the biological parents, who have been ill-treating and neglecting the child. The defendants have been loving the child Adam and bringing him up as a lovable human being who has a place in history, space and time and a bright hopeful future.

By neglecting the child Adam, the biological parents have committed an offence jot, under the Child Welfare Act and Moral Law and the United Nations Convention on Children's rights to which Papua New Guinea is a Signatory-

Section 94 Child Welfare Act says:-

A person (whether or not he is the parent of the child) who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide adequate and proper food, clothing, lodging nursing aid and medical aid for a child in his Care, is guilty of an offence.

Penalty:

A fine not exceeding K4, 000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.

The biological parents of the child Adam could be charged under this Section and to be severely punished for ill-treating and neglecting their child. They have failed to care for and love Adam whom they have brought into existence as Co-Creators of the primordial Creator. This Court shall refuse to pardon them for their failure to perform their parental duties which, they owed to the child Adam. They owe Adam a lifetime of apology.

When God in his eternal goodness opted to share his existence by creating beings other than himself, he not only created, but he keeps on sustaining by divine providence, and by providing the availability of resources, and by giving man the knowledge and authority to harvest for his material and spiritual sustenance. Likewise in the same token men when Co-Creating must do the same to supplement divine providence by taking care of and loving their children.

The defendants have been fulfilling the parental legal and moral duties as Co--Creators. They have been doing justice to the child Adam where as the biological parents have been doing injustice to him. Jack Wapai and Lynda Ambaiye as biological parents of the child Adam have demonstrated that they are not fit to take care of and love their child and so this Court can not grant them Custody of the Child Adam.

The defendants Mr. and Mrs. Mayak have demonstrated that they care for and love the child Adam and for all the reasons stated.

I hereby grant the Custody of the child Adam Armstrong Mayak to Mr. and Mrs. Mayak until a Court of competent jurisdiction, in the future rules otherwise.

In Person: Informant
In Persons: Complainant