A Supreme Court judge has refused to approve the adoption of a 17-year-old girl in a case in which he said the Child and Family Agency (CFA) had “completely failed” to establish a relationship between the child and to support her natural mother.
Judge Max Barrett said in his ruling on Monday that the girl’s natural mother had proven herself to be a “demonstrably capable” parent to her other children and “literally begged” for a relationship with her daughter, referred to as Miss B.
If the CFA “just did its job” and acted on the woman’s plea six years ago for greater access and information about Miss B, “who knows” what kind of progress could have been made towards family reunification, he said.
The judge listed a number of “multiple and serious shortcomings” on the part of the CFA, including that it failed to support appropriate access visits and to the relationship between Miss B and her natural mother, who objected to the adoption application, to support.
Mr Justice Barrett noted that the girl’s foster mother had done a “remarkable job” caring for the girl since she was just months old. There is a huge amount of mutual love between the two, he added.
Miss B has developmental delay related to fetal alcohol syndrome and a moderate learning disability, the judge said. She indicated her desire to be adopted by her foster parent, whom she refers to as “mother”.
However, after the judge met her, the judge was “not entirely convinced” Miss B fully understood the importance of adoption.
In setting out the background of the case, Mr Justice Barrett included submissions from the girl’s biological mother, who claimed she had been repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband, with whom she is no longer.
Before Miss B’s birth, the family moved to a rural, secluded area of a city, where the mother was surrounded by family members.
The woman said that over time she drank more alcohol to deal with the abuse and she did not realize she was pregnant with Miss B for up to four months together. By this point, she said, the fetal alcohol damage had occurred.
The woman said social workers told her she was not in a position to care for Miss B, who was very ill, and she signed a voluntary care order.
She said she had not drunk since completing a short rehabilitation period when Miss B was a toddler. At the request of the department of social work, the woman said, she also participated in two parenting courses, a psychological assessment, two years of therapy and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
Access between her and Miss B became more difficult when the woman, then a single mother, moved back to town to be close to her family. She was notified, due to the financial collapse, that train tickets to visit her daughter at that time could not be funded by the state, the judge said.
She claimed that in the three years when no social worker had been appointed in her case, it had become much more difficult for her to see Miss B or ascertain how she was doing and access was arranged directly with the foster carer.
Because of her concern, the mother wrote a letter to her alleged social worker six years ago and “literally begged” for more access, saying she felt “excluded” from Miss B’s life, the judge said. She was not informed that her social worker was no longer assigned to her case, and she received no meaningful response to her letter, he added.
Mr Justice Barrett did not believe that adoption would be in Miss B’s best interest. He said he sees no benefit in breaking the natural mother and child legal link when Miss B is on the verge of adulthood.
When she turns 18, she will be able to apply to change her surname by deed and she can continue to stay with her foster mother, if she wishes, he added.