A judgement confirming the adoption of a child by her natural, single mother was yesterday dismissed as null and void after the Family Court noted that the child's father had not been involved in the adoption proceedings.

Mr Justice Raymond Pace, presiding over the Family Court, ruled that the mother had abused adoption proceedings before the Second Hall of the Civil Court when she used them for her benefit as opposed to her daughter's.

Moreover, the Second Hall had granted the adoption without first hearing the father's version and had relied solely on the mother who misled the court when she testified that the father never showed any interest in their child.

However, the judge noted that this was not true since both the father and the mother had testified that the father regularly saw the child until the mother stopped him from doing so.

"Adoption is not something to be taken lightly and the consequences of the ruling are very serious because they legally sever any ties we have with our natural parents," the judge said.

Mr Justice Pace heard how the child was planned for and born out of wedlock in 1999. He heard the father explain that so long as he was still with the mother he had access to the child but when they broke up he was denied access.

The mother explained that they had decided to have a baby because the father felt it would give him a purpose in life and an incentive to get over his drug problem. But after the child was born the father was arrested and jailed and when he was released from prison the mother started the adoption proceedings.

In a Second Hall judgment handed down on September 10, 2002, the father was granted access to the child. He legally recognised her as his on September 19, 2002.

But on September 18, 2002, the mother filed an application claiming that she had adopted the child, as a single mother, in a judgement handed down on February 13, 2001. Consequently, the September 10 judgement was revoked and access to the child denied.

Following this proceeding the father filed a case in the Family Court in which he explained that he had never been informed about the adoption proceedings. He requested the court to overturn the February 2001 Second Hall judgement and order that he be recognised as the child's father.

Reviewing the case, the judge noted that contrary to what the mother testified in the Second Hall, the father had shown interest in the child and this was corroborated by photographs and cards as well as the mother's testimony.

The judge ruled that the Second Hall should have listened to the father's version before approving the mother's request for adoption despite the fact that he had a drug problem or that he was not documented as her father.

The court upheld the father's request and revoked the Second Hall's ruling as null and void. It also ordered the director of the public registry to insert the father's details into the child's paternity section and delete the words "unknown father".

The names of the parents have not been published to protect the identity of the daughter.

Dr Joanne Vella Cuschieri appeared for the father and Dr Chris Cilia represented the mother.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.