WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2007-06-11 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
Baby Ruth is only two years old, but her future could determine if and how South Africa’s abandoned children will find homes with foreign and expatriate South African families.
American couple Althea and Django De Gree’s attorney, Debbie Wybrow, has confirmed that they are considering taking their legal battle for custody of Ruth to the Constitutional Court, in a case which promises to shape SA’s inter-country adoption system.
An investigation by The Star has, meanwhile, revealed that hundreds of South African expatriates in Australia, New Zealand, the US and Britain are being blocked from adopting local children – even when there is little to no hope of their being adopted in SA.
While an estimated 3,4-million South African children are recorded as having lost one or both parents, local welfare authorities have rebuffed offers of help from their Australian colleagues.
| Welfare authorities have rebuffed offers of help from their Australian colleagues |
Welfare authorities are, however, sending local babies to Scandinavia, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Botswana for adoption – despite their expressed commitment to finding adoptive families that are as culturally similar to South African families as possible.
Asked to explain this decision, Johannesburg Child Welfare’s Jackie Loffell suggested it was made “on the basis of which countries were pro-active and made approaches (to South African authorities)”.
She did not dispute that Australian adoption authorities had sent a delegation to SA in September 2006, in the hope that they would be able to broker a working adoption agreement with local authorities.
Despite the fact that both Australia and New Zealand have implemented the Hague Convention governing inter-country adoption, their attempts were rejected.
“Recent advice from the South African Central Authority indicates that its priority is in strengthening local adoption services and embarking on public awareness campaigns in the whole of South Africa,” the Australian Adoption and Family Information Service stated in correspondence obtained by The Star. “They have advised that, because of this, they are not in a position to be embarking on new inter-country adoption working agreements at this stage.”
Should the De Grees succeed in their appeal bid, they could open the door for would-be adopters from countries not favoured by local authorities to argue for custody of local children in the High Court.
Wybrow said the De Grees were hoping to appeal against the divided Supreme Court of Appeal ruling which found that while they could provide Ruth with a loving and secure home, they should have applied for custody of her in the Children’s Court – despite the fact that many such courts have declined to hear international adoption cases.
The decision was slammed by two of the court’s own judges, who found that it compromised Ruth’s constitutional right to “family or parental care”.
Judge Jonathan Heher also found it was understandable, in light of the department of social development’s decision not to support inter-country adoptions to America, that the De Grees had gone to the High Court
Wybrow stated that a number of her American clients were repeatedly told by department of social development officials that adopting South African children through the High Court was “not possible”.
In an email that Wybrow placed before the court, Social Development’s Rose Mnisi stated: “There is enormous interest from people from foreign countries… to adopt children from South Africa.
“Our concern lies with the need of our children to be placed inside the country as far as possible before considering inter-country adoptions, and to ensure that all avenues to recruit adoptive parents locally are explored.”
But Centre for Child Law advocate Ann Skelton, who argued against the De Grees being allowed to take custody of Ruth through the High Court, admitted “there is no clear system relating to establishing whether there are any prospective South African adopters… and it is evident that the department of social development will need to establish clear procedures in this regard”.
Department of social development statistics reveal that 6 030 children have been adopted locally since 2004.
In his Children’s Day speech, Minister of Social Development Dr Zola Skweyiya stressed there were “scores of children in orphanages” and urged “families and eligible individuals to open their hearts to them, and give them a chance in life”.
But, in submissions opposing the De Grees’ application for custody of Ruth, Johannesburg Child Welfare social worker Pam Wilson claimed there was “no acceptable reason why a female baby should be placed out of the country when there is such a demand within the country”.
She later told The Star that there were 25 families on her organisation’s waiting list.