Adoption of Jima Komasi, Re [2019] SBHC 87; HCSI-CC 71 of 2019 (5 December 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Adoption of Jima Komasi, Re
Citation:
Date of decision:	5 December 2019
Parties:	Jima Komasi, Mark Roosens, Dorothy Roosens
Date of hearing:	15 October 2019 (Written Submissions) 27 November
Court file number(s):	71 of 2019
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Keniapisia PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Adoption application is hereby granted Mr. Mark Roosens and Mrs Dorothy Roosens do jointly adopt Jima Komasi born to late Bently komasi and his deceased wife
Representation:	Mr. W Ghemu for the Applicants
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Adoption Act 2004, Adoption Amendment Act 2017
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 71 of 2019

BETWEEN

JIMA KOMASI
Child

AND

MARK ROOSENS
Husband Applicant

DOROTHY ROOSENS
Wife Applicant

Date of Hearing: 15 October 2019 (written submission) and 27 November 2019 (Child interview)
Date of Decision: 5 December 2019

Mr. W Ghemu for the Applicants

GRANT OF ADOPTION ORDER

1. Applicants are a couple – Mr. Roosens and Mrs. Roosens. Applicants are citizens of Australia, residing in Brisbane. Applicants also call Solomon Islands, their home. Applicants got married in Honiara. Applicants used to live in Honiara, before moving to Belgium and eventually to Australia. Wife applicant, Mrs. Dorothy Roosens, is a Solomon Islander, by birth. Mrs. Dorothy comes from Ambu village, Auki, Malaita Province. As I glean from the materials, Mrs. Dorothy Roosens is from the Ne’e family. Mrs. Dorothy owns a property in Auki. In other words, applicants have strong family connections to Solomon Islands. Applicants’ connections to the Ne’e family, wife applicant owns property in Auki, applicants’ marriage celebrated here and applicants’ two children were born in Solomon Islands, before moving overseas.
2. Child, Jima Komasi, is a close relative of Mrs. Dorothy Roosens, from the Ne’e family. Child Jima is the daughter of late Bentley Komasi, who died in 2016. Late Komasi’s wife died 2 years earlier in 2014. Late Komasi is Mrs. Dorothy Roosen’s brother, from the Ne’e family. Locally, child Jima will call Mrs. Dorothy her mother – being born to Dorothy’s brother. But in English language, Jima will call Mrs. Dorothy her aunt – being born to Dorothy’s brother. This is a very close family relationship. The arrangement to adopt the child is very much a family thing. Child Jima, since her parents died, has been in the guardianship of Esther Ne’e Turagaluvu, whom I understood is another biological sister of Mrs. Dorothy Roosens and late Komasi. Since Komasi’s death, Jima has been living with Esther and supported by the applicants (in their care and possession). Application is not objected. For Esther, Jima’s guardian (aunt) consents to adoption. Application, not objected, means, there is a pre-determined outcome. Nonetheless, I must still consider, the materials against the law on adoption. The law is the Adoption Act 2004 (No. 4 of 2004), as Amended in 2017 – Adoption Amendment Act 2017 (No. 4 of 2017). The said Act laid down stringent requirements for making of adoption orders. I will highlight the stringent requirements.
3. I need to consider more vigilantly, the requirement that the applicants must be “ordinarily resident” in Solomon Islands^[1]. And if not, then applicants must supply report from the adoption authority in the country, that applicants are “ordinarily resident”, certifying applicants’ suitability to adopt a child. Such report will then be attached to a report from our local social welfare office. My considered view is that, this will apply to an applicant, who is coming from overseas, just to adopt a child, without any attachment to this country. Court has to be careful in seeing a report from the adoption authority in the overseas country. Here, the applicants are residents of Australia. But have family connection to Solomon Islands. That is possible today, because the globe is like a village. Solomon Islanders can marry to overseas residents. And can make overseas country of their spouses their home. They can also make this country their home.
4. Solomon Islanders can migrate overseas for work, marriage, residence and some may eventually end up changing their citizenship. This is what has happened here. Applicants are Australian residents/citizens. Wife applicant was born and raised in Solomon Islands, prior to marriage, prior to moving abroad and prior to obtaining Australian citizenship. Applicants have family here and in Australia. Wife applicant owns a property in Auki. Applicants move between Solomon Islands and Australia, for family, business and holiday purposes. Applicants used to live here and got married here before moving overseas. These inter-country connection aspects of the applicants’ marriage life, led me to conclude that they have strong attachment to Solomon Islands. I am satisfied applicants have family connection to Solomon Islands. The world is a village. And people’s cross-border connections/linkages like in marriage and family, should be enhanced and not forbidden. The 2017, amendment do recognise inter-country^[2] adoption. So I can dispense with the requirement for a report from the adoption authority in Australia. I do have a local social welfare report produced for the child, which highly recommended adoption, in favour of applicants.
5. One other important requirement is whether application is for the welfare and best interest of the child. The answer must be in the affirmative, in view of the social welfare report. Applicant husband is a high income earner in Brisbane. Applicants own a private house in Brisbane. Applicants and child also have love and bonding, despite of the physical separation by distance. Other requirements are consent of child’s parents, good health of applicants and child, child be in the continuous care and possession of the applicants 3 months prior to adoption order and no inducement by payment. Materials before me speak affirmatively in all these stringent requirements.
6. In all that I say, I am satisfied applicants have family attachment to Solomon Islands. And above all, this adoption application, is for the welfare and best interest of the child. Child looks forward to this. Applicants have educational plans for the child in this adoption application. Applicants have send their own 2 children to school and attained tertiary/university qualifications. This experience will work well to Jima’s future in education.
7. Jima is currently enrolled in Form 4 at King George. Jima has big plans, goals and aspirations in her schooling. She told me in interview, she wants to become a pilot. And Jima sees good future prospect in this adoption, to empower her to achieve her dreams. One of the applicants’ intentions in this application is to support Jima to attain education in Australia. Applicants are currently supporting Jima’s schooling at King George, since her parents died few years ago. Jima will continue to pursue her education aspirations under applicants’ education plan for her. That plan is to send Jima to school in Australia. Jima looks forward to all of this with great vigour. Jima impressed on me, at interview, that she is developing some kind of bonding with the applicants. For Jima told me that the applicants are kind to her, treat her as their own child, talked nicely to her and that the applicants are “like family to her”. That family Jima described as closely woven together, because Jima’s own father, late Komasi was brought up as a child with the Ne’e family. All these confirmed the materials that were filed in support of this application. So I grant this adoption application as follows:-
   • 7.1. Adoption application is hereby granted.
   • 7.2. Mr. Mark Roosens and Mrs. Dorothy Roosens do jointly adopt Jima Komasi born to late Bentley Komasi and his deceased wife.

THE COURT
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

---

^[1] Section 25 (1) (5) of the Adoption (Amendment) Act 2017 (No. 4 of 2017).
^[2] Section 25 (5) of the of the Adoption Amendment Act 2017.