News / National
Families stopped from registering adopted children
10 Sep 2024 at 07:24hrs | Views
The High Court has dismissed a request by two families seeking to register adopted children under their names for birth certificates, citing that the matter raises constitutional issues.
Taonga Edson Masendeke and his wife Fortune, alongside Stephano Gudukeya and his wife Loice, had petitioned the court after the Registrar-General listed the children's parents as "unknown" on their birth certificates. They sought to compel the Registrar-General and the Ministers of Home Affairs and Social Welfare to issue full birth certificates reflecting them as the adoptive parents.
The families argued that the current birth certificates failed to acknowledge their legal status as adoptive parents, despite having secured adoption orders from the Children's Court. They contended that the omission violated their constitutional rights, emphasizing that the adoption orders should render them the children's legal parents.
In their case, the families argued that Section 64 of the Children's Act, which outlines the rights and obligations of adoptive parents, was being ignored. They also claimed that the Registrar-General's practice of issuing birth certificates to adopted children with "unknown" parentage discriminated against them, violating sections 51, 56(1), and 81(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protect rights to equality and dignity.
However, the government argued that the issuance of short birth certificates without adoptive parents' names was a protective measure, ensuring that adopted children could explore their origins if they chose to in the future. They maintained that the children's identity rights were upheld since they had valid birth certificates.
Presiding over the case, Justice Mary Zimba-Dube emphasized that the families had prematurely approached the court without exhausting available domestic remedies, noting that constitutional challenges require careful deliberation. She ruled that the application was improperly before the court and dismissed the case, with no order for costs.
The judgment underscores the need for careful navigation of constitutional issues in matters of adoption and parental rights.
Taonga Edson Masendeke and his wife Fortune, alongside Stephano Gudukeya and his wife Loice, had petitioned the court after the Registrar-General listed the children's parents as "unknown" on their birth certificates. They sought to compel the Registrar-General and the Ministers of Home Affairs and Social Welfare to issue full birth certificates reflecting them as the adoptive parents.
The families argued that the current birth certificates failed to acknowledge their legal status as adoptive parents, despite having secured adoption orders from the Children's Court. They contended that the omission violated their constitutional rights, emphasizing that the adoption orders should render them the children's legal parents.
In their case, the families argued that Section 64 of the Children's Act, which outlines the rights and obligations of adoptive parents, was being ignored. They also claimed that the Registrar-General's practice of issuing birth certificates to adopted children with "unknown" parentage discriminated against them, violating sections 51, 56(1), and 81(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protect rights to equality and dignity.
However, the government argued that the issuance of short birth certificates without adoptive parents' names was a protective measure, ensuring that adopted children could explore their origins if they chose to in the future. They maintained that the children's identity rights were upheld since they had valid birth certificates.
Presiding over the case, Justice Mary Zimba-Dube emphasized that the families had prematurely approached the court without exhausting available domestic remedies, noting that constitutional challenges require careful deliberation. She ruled that the application was improperly before the court and dismissed the case, with no order for costs.
The judgment underscores the need for careful navigation of constitutional issues in matters of adoption and parental rights.
Source - newsday
