In re Sabrina Stickel (an infant) [2001] SBHC 138; HC-CC 169 of 2001 (31 August 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No: 169 of 2001

MARK CHRISTOPHER STICKEL & MARINA KUANA STICKEL

-v-

IN THE MATTER OF SABRINA STICKEL AN INFANT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION ACT 1958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(FRANK O. KABUI, J)

Hearing 30th August 2001
Judgment: 31st August 2001

Mrs M. Bird Samuel for the Applicants

JUDGMENT

(Kabui, J): This is an application for the adoption of Sabrina Stickel by Mr and Mrs Stickel of Honiara. Mrs Stickel was a Solomon Islander before her marriage. Mr Stickel is a former Peace Corps Volunteer from the United States of America. They were married in Honiara in Solomon Islands on 16th September 1989. They moved to Hawaii in the United States of America after their marriage. They returned to Solomon Islands in October last year 2000 and took Sabrina Stickel into their care. The subject of this application is Sabrina Stickel born in Solomon Islands on 25th August 1998. She is a female child and is 3 years old. She was in Court at the hearing of this application. The mother of Sabrina Stickel is a Solomon Islander being unmarried at the time Sabrina Stickel was born. Sabrina Stickel's natural mother appears to be the sister of Mrs Stickel because Sabrina Stickel would call Mrs Stickel her aunty. At least, Mrs Stickel is a close relative of Sabrina Stickel. Mr and Mrs Stickel took her into their care 7 months ago. She has been in their care since the date they took her into their home. Sabrina Stickel's natural mother has consented to Sabrina Stickel being adopted by Mr and Mrs Stickel. Sabrina Stickel assumed her name soon after her birth. In fact the name Sabrina Stickel appears in Sabrina Stickel's birth certificate. Mr & Mrs Stickel do not have a child of their own and are only too willing to adopt Sabrina Stickel as their own.

I have read the application of Mr and Mrs Stickel and all the documents filed in support of this application. I have also read the Social Welfare report produced by Mr Olofia on Mr & Mrs Stickel and their suitability for the adoption of Sabrina Stickel. I am satisfied that Mr & Mrs Stickel are able to provide for the needs and welfare of Sabrina Stickel. I have no doubt about their ability in that regard. Although Sabrina Stickel was in the care of her uncle Mr Tenai whilst Mr and Mrs Stickel were in Hawaii, they supported her continuously until they arrived back in Solomon Islands in October last year. However, one aspect of this application is of concern to me. It is the question of the domicile of Mr. & Mrs Stickel. The law requires that any person wish to apply for an adoption order must be domiciled in Solomon Islands. Before their marriage in Solomon Islands, Mrs Stickel was obviously domiciled in Solomon Islanders and Mr Stickel, likewise, was domiciled in the United States of America. On marriage in 1998, Mrs Stickel's domicile changed to that of her husband. From then on they were both domiciled in the United States of America. Here, there is evidence to suggest that Mr & Mrs Stickel do intend to live in Solomon Islands permanently. They had bought a house in Honiara with the intention to live in Honiara. Have they acquired a domicile of choice? The law on this issue is complex but the basic general principles are settled. The application of these principles would however depend largely upon the facts of each case. The first principle is that domicile by choice can be acquired by the combination of residence and intention of permanent or indefinite residence. The second principle is that any circumstance which is evidence of residence or intention to reside permanently or indefinitely in a country must be considered in determining whether domicile by choice has been acquired. The third principle is that in determining whether a person intends to reside permanently or indefinitely in a country, the Court must have regard to (i) the motive for taking up residence (ii) whether residence was not acquired by force or for some other motive such as taking up duties of office, demands of creditors or relief from illness, and (iii) the fact that residence was not by chance (see Dicey & Morris The Conflict of Laws by Morris, 1980, Vol. 1 at 110-122). The evidence in this case is that Mr & Mrs Stickel had bought a house at Mbua Valley. They did so recently and are awaiting transfer of title to the land. They are currently residing in that house. Mr Stickel is a carpenter by trade and is self-employed. Mrs Stickel being a former Solomon Islander does have family connection with Solomon Islands. Although Mr & Mrs Stickel are intending to travel to the United States of America, they will return to Solomon Islands. They say they are going there to sort out family matters. They say they are not staying in the United States of America for long. It is a short visit to the United States of America. The obvious motive for the choice of Solomon Islands is the fact that Mrs Stickel was a native of this country and if her husband is willing to follow her to reside in Solomon Islands who can doubt the genuineness of that decision? I think they both have acquired domicile of choice in Solomon Islands. The requirement of section 1(1) of the Adoption Act 1958 has, in my view, been satisfied. I am therefore satisfied that Mr & Mrs Stickel can adopt Sabrina Stickel as their child to be a member of their family. I grant the order sought. The application is granted.

The effect of this Order is that Sabrina Stickel is the lawful child of Mr & Mrs Stickel as though Mr & Mrs Stickle were her natural parents. She is entitled to be included in her parent's passport for traveling purposes. I do not think the American Immigration Authorities would reject American Passports. Iam obliged to say this because Counsel for Mr & Mrs Stick, Mrs Samuel, asked me to make it a term of the adoption order that Sabrina Stickel was abandoned or deserted by her natural mother. First of all, I cannot do that under the Adoption Act 1958 of the United Kingdom, which is applicable here under Schedule 3 to the Constitution. Secondly, Sabrina Stickel will most likely assume the nationality of Mr Stickel being an American citizen upon adoption subject of course to any domestic law in the United States of America on this matter in terms of recognition of foreign adoption order such as this. I assume that Mr Stickel is an American citizen. There is no direct evidence on this point apart from the fact that he was once an American Peace Corps residing in Solomon Islands up to the date of marriage in Honiara. In this case, the adoption order of this Court is the evidence of a lawful adoption under the law of Solomon Islands, which is the Adoption Act 1958 of the United Kingdom. It is valid for all time until set aside.

F.O. Kabui
Judge