Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea Law Reports

TTB, an Infant, Re [1983] PNGLR 215 (8 November 1983)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1983

[1983] PNGLR 215 - Re TTB, an Infant 

[1983] PNGLR 215

N440

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

IN RE T.T.B. AN INFANT

Waigani

McDermott J

7-8 November 1983

INFANTS AND CHILDREN - Adoption - Adoption by one person - Exceptional circumstances - Applicant natural father - Father Australian returning to Australia - Natural mother consenting - Adoption of Children Act (Ch. No. 275), s. 7(2).

The applicant for adoption of a male child aged five years was the child’s natural father, an Australian citizen, who was about to return to Australia after sixteen years in Papua New Guinea. The child’s mother, a Papua New Guinean, had consented to the adoption believing the advancement of the child would be better served by the child being with his father.

Held

Although the statutory adoption order would destroy legally the family relationship between mother and child, “exceptional circumstances” made it desirable to make an adoption order in favour of one person pursuant to the Adoption of Children Act (Ch. No. 275), s. 7(2).

Application for adoption

This was an application for adoption of a male child by his natural father.

Counsel

B. M. Narokobi, for the applicant.

8 November 1983

MCDERMOTT J:  This is an application for the adoption of a male child, T.T.B., by the child’s natural father. The parents of the child, an Australian citizen father and a Papua New Guinean citizen mother lived in a de facto relationship and from this union the child was born on 15 August 1978. The parents separated in November 1980. Since then, the child was looked after in turns by each parent but at all times, the father provided financial support. Since February this year, the child has lived with the applicant.

The applicant has lived in Papua New Guinea and worked in the Government Service for almost sixteen years. He intends to leave permanently at the expiration of his contract of employment which will be in the near future.

The child’s mother has consented to this adoption, and has signed a consent pursuant to s. 16(2) of the Adoption of Children Act (Ch. No. 275) in favour of the applicant. Also before me is an affidavit of the mother which again sets out her consent for the adoption and her reasons for this. Basically, she considers the advancement of the child can be better served if he is with the father.

As a question of citizenship will arise later, the mother wishes her son to be in a position to choose for himself and therefore consents to his immediate residence in Australia. The child is a fine looking little boy and should be easily assimilated into the Australian community.

The child has been attending an international standard school kindergarten and is booked into a similar one in New South Wales for next year, in anticipation of the child being there. I take notice that international schools in this country adopt the New South Wales curriculum. The mother of the child, a well-groomed and well-spoken woman, has now returned to live at her place in Misima Island, a rather remote area where I can well understand that opportunities for advancement of the child would not be as great as in other centres of this country. Whilst many wonder if a traditional lifestyle is not, after all, best, nevertheless, a child in this country without education today is certainly penalized in many ways.

Whilst I do not wish to put too much emphasis on this aspect and lose sight of the overall paramount consideration for the “welfare and interests of the child” (s. 5), I mention it as important. It is clear from what is before me that the applicant is best able to provide for the child’s material needs.

The immediate future of the child is a little clouded by the uncertainty which faces the applicant on his return to Australia. I am satisfied that he is able to provide a home and with accumulated savings and assets together with payout and gratuity payments, will have no financial problems in the short term. The applicant gave evidence before me and I was impressed with his straightforward and no nonsense approach. His long service as a Kiap and in other branches of Government Service, should equip him with, if not immediate work skills, the ability and confidence to adapt and apply himself.

I am a little concerned about the applicant’s future matrimonial or other relationships which may develop. He has been divorced, had a de facto relationship and now may embark on a third relationship with another female citizen of this country with no clear prospect of marriage in the immediate future. However, with this in mind, I also note the mother’s consent to adoption is limited to the applicant father. The mother does not consent to the adoption being jointly with anyone else and she reaffirmed this before me.

What the ultimate effect of this relationship will be on the child, I cannot tell. He clearly knows his mother and father and has good relations with both. The applicant and mother appreciate that the child has a right later to choose his future citizenship. The applicant is prepared to make possible a continued association between mother and child. As the child and the applicant’s fianc‚e get along alright, I cannot therefore, conclude that my concern about the applicant’s relationship is such that the adoption should not take place.

From what I have outlined, it is clear to me “that exceptional circumstances make it desirable to ... make an adoption order in favour of one person”: see s. 7(2).

I am conscious that a statutory order will destroy, legally, the family relationship between mother and child, though there is every intention that this will not happen in fact but the court has no future control over this good intention. It is a matter for the goodwill of the natural parents and their relationship, through this child, appears to have ended on this note.

I am satisfied of the matters required by s. 9 of the Act and order that T.T.B. be, and is hereby adopted by P.T.B.

Order accordingly.

Lawyer for the applicant: B. M. Narokobi.