Teenager wants adopted child returned
FOR most young couples, raising their first baby is supposed to be a magical experience.
But a KwaZulu-Natal couple have been in and out of the Durban Children’s Court since October, fighting for custody of their two-year-old daughter, who was given up for adoption without their consent.
The child’s grandmother, a 35-year-old domestic worker, has been accused in an affidavit filed in the court of giving the child away to her employers. The child is still in their care.
The court docket contains official adoption forms, signed by the grandmother, giving her employers “voluntary consent” to adopt the child.
The distraught biological mother, 17, this week accused her mother of selling her baby.
“My own greedy and selfish mother gave my child away . . . She sold her own grandchild,” she said.
“I refuse to allow my baby to be sold and I told my mother that I want my baby back. She said whether I like it or not, she was selling the baby.
“The worst part is we are not allowed to see our baby. We don’t care about their money — we want our baby back. We want to see and hold our baby,” she said.
The teenage mother and her boyfriend, 22, laid a complaint at the Chatsworth police station in September.
Their lawyer, Gerhard Volschenk, declined to comment, saying the case was “very sensitive”.
The biological father, who earns R4 000 a month working for a home-renovation company, said: “We were shocked when our baby’s grandmother told us that our child was better off with the adoptive parents.”
The grandmother’s employers say they want to raise the child in their R2.8-million home in Broadway, north of Durban.
Their lawyer, David Randles said: “My clients are simply not prepared to compromise the rights of such a young person, nor are they prepared to jeopardise their position in making this very private matter public.”
However, in a letter dated March 13 and addressed to Jenny Langley, a senior administrative clerk at the Children’s Court, Randles said: “I am advised that at a recent hearing both the biological parents indicated that they wish to oppose the adoption and that the biological mother required legal aid representation.”
He said that he had asked social worker Robyn Shepstone to give evidence in the case.
Shepstone would not discuss the case, but in an e-mail, also dated March 13, she instructed Langley to withhold a report of the adoptive parents’ finances from the biological parents’ lawyer.
“The [adoptive parents] don’t want this to be about how well off they are in comparison to the biological parents and [rather] look what they can do for her,” the email said.
The biological parents, who claim to have been given the “runaround” by court officials, said although they had never signed any documents giving consent to the adoption of their baby, there was a post-adoption agreement, dated January 1 2013 and signed by the grandmother and adoptive parents.
The document has been seen by the Sunday Times and states that the adoption will be an “open” adoption.
The biological mother said she and the toddler’s father were unaware of the documents and agreements that had been signed. “Besides, even if I was aware of them I would have never signed these agreements. I want my baby back,” she said.
A court document, dated October 1 2012, states: “Upon interviewing the grandmother of the child, it became very clear that both the biological parents refused to give consent to the adoption. The court is not satisfied that enough has been done to get both parents’ consent. The application for adoption is dismissed for now.”
Another document, dated October 29 2012, states: “The child’s mother advises the court that she objects to the adoption of her child and has no intention to give the child up for adoption.”
The case is continuing.