In re Belo (an infant) [2003] SBHC 84; HC-CC 316 of 2003 (12 December 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

Civil Case No. 316 of 2003

IN THE MATTER OF: SHANONE JUNLY BELO (An Infant)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION FOR ADOPTION
PURSUANT TO SCHEDULE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADOPTION ACT 1958 (UK)

Summons for Adoption

Public Solicitor for the applicant

REASONS FOR DECISION

It is quite apparent the Court is not in a position to consider making an adoption order under the Adoption Act (UK) 1958. There is an almost total absence of material relevant to consider when deciding the matters necessary under S.7 (1) e (2).

What stands out is the ridiculous, conflicting statements between the grandmother of the infant, (in her affidavit where she says “The child will maintain close links to her natural parents and to her relatives in Solomon Islands, in fact she will visit them on this trip”), and the words required by S.7 (1) (a) used by the natural mother (the daughter of the adopting applicant) where she says “I shall have no right to see or get in touch with the infant or to have him/her returned to me.” The preparation of the application shows a lack of care and skill.

The applicant female Nelma McKay was born 10^th October 1962. She says she is married to one Phil McKay. Of whose family she is, where she comes from or anything else about her, I have no idea. In her undated affidavit she says “Immediately following her birth, Shanone was handed to me and my husband for adoption in accordance with the custom and practice of our family and our area generally. Since that date Shanone has lived with my husband and I.” [sic]. These facts are pretty well the only matters about these people the Court has to consider.

Quite frankly, this is not good enough. To press for an adoption order, with this sort of information followed by statements that failure to grant her application will be of inconvenience, rather misses the point of the Courts duty to be satisfied in relation to particular matters, especially the welfare of the child, who is apparently to go to live in a foreign country with people I know nothing about. Even were I to consider recognizing an adoption by custom, some evidence of where the woman was from and (or even that she was a Solomon Islander) a supporting affidavit by a chief for instance, evincing the custom and confirming recognition in this case would go some way to helping the Court.

The application is refused. It is wholly defective. To make an adoption orders for the sake of convenience, when it is clear the applicant seeks to take the child again from the jurisdiction of the Court, cannot be countenanced. Perhaps the applicant should consider seeking other representation.

BROWN J