Call for review of adoption process

Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro called for a review of the adoption process to check on deficiencies in the system and to take necessary action so that adoption procedures would not cause unnecessary hardship to prospective adoptive couples.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Civil Code (Amendment) Bill, Dr Coleiro Preca suggested that the agency Appoġġ set up an action committee to present proposals on the issue.

The Bill brings into force the provision of the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court in the case between Ruth Debono Sultana and Silvio Debono against Department for Social Welfare Standards and Minister for Social Policy in April, 2009. The Bill was unanimously approved.

Dr Coleiro Preca said that it was also Parliament’s duty to check on the people making recommendations on adoption from foreign countries, and investigate any suspicion of exploitation in the process.

She said that the amendments showed how democracy worked. It showed that citizens could challenge a law in the Constitutional Court if it created an anomaly. Parliament was now correcting this anomaly.

Although the Constitutional Court had recommended these amendments, the relevant government agency told other clients that the court judgement applied only to those who had contested the legislation.

This showed that delays in bringing these amendments before Parliament had serious consequences on people’s lives.

Those who started adoption procedures at Appoġġ had to pass through an emotional and psychological trauma. Procedures were often inefficient and ineffective with couples having to wait for months if not years.

She mentioned a case where a childless couple had to wait for about 10 years for the final home study report due to deficiencies in the psychological expert’s report and had suffered trauma. By the time, the couple had become too old to adopt. This did not mean that psychologists were not professional in their work. Clients were often uncomfortable with inexperienced social workers. Delays were also caused because time was wasted in appointing the members of the adoption board.

Dr Coleiro called for necessary action because couples were left on their own and were not given any assistance when they had to go abroad to adopt.

There were couples who had to pay €35,000 to adopt a child. Another couple had faced a number of difficulties in Moscow and was even threatened because it had not accepted to adopt a child with special needs. Another couple had phoned her from Moscow because they encountered problems on obtaining a visa for the child to be adopted. She added that communication was one of the main problems these couples had to face abroad.

Dr Coleiro Preca said adoption was a natural children’s right. She praised Mr John Role’ who, she said, could be considered as “Malta’s fostering father”. She welcomed the Budget increase in allowances to foster carers.

Referring to children who were brought up in Church homes, Dr Coleiro Preca showed her appreciation to the carers’ dedication to these children. However, she quoted Fr John Zammit McKeon who had said that these could not replace the family in bringing up children. She knew people who had spent their childhood in institutions. Despite being given all love and attention, these people often found it difficult in bonding. They also suffered emotional problems. Children in fostering found it also difficult to bond with their natural mother.

Dr Coleiro concluded one had to consider local adoption in cases where it could be proved that parents were incapable of bringing up their own children

Owen Bonnici (PL) said the Bill was the result of a constitutional ruling which held that a part of the Civil Code was unconstitutional. The courts in western societies were instrumental in creating new rights for citizens. This created checks and balances on Parliament.

The Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure stated that when the courts declared legislation or parts of it as unconstitutional, the Registrar of the Courts would send a copy of the judgement to the Speaker of the House. According to the code, the Prime Minister “may within six months” take steps to remove the unconstitutionality. But, Dr Bonnici argued, the word “may” should be changed to “must”.

He also pointed out that such a ruling as that in the case instituted by Ruth Debono Sultana and Silvio Debono against the Department for Social Welfare, would be only binding on the parties involved. This was incontrast to the Italian judicial system, where the ruling would cover all similar situations. The Constitutional Council in the France examined whether a Bill was constitutional or not before that Bill became law.

Dr Bonnici said that once legislation was declared unconstitutional, the House Committee on Consideration of Bills should propose the necessary amendments so that the Prime Minister would be obliged to remove the unconstitutionality immediately. Parliament should follow.

Earlier, Edwin Vassallo (PN) said children had an important place in Maltese society. However, he feared this importance was diminishing and society was just offering lip service to children’s rights rather than putting into practice the rights envisaged into the legislation.

The Bill was introduced after the present clauses in the Civil Code were considered discriminatory in a constitutional case decided last year. It was proposing to change the wording “who have been married for not less than three years and are living together” to “who have been married to each other and are living together”. The choice of words showed the importance government still gave to families who were still living together.

Mr Vassallo said the stability of the family would be presumed from the fact that it was married and living together. Children had a fundamental right to live and grow up in a family but, he said, there was the feeling that society was putting aside this principle. He said that this transpired in the public consultation on the family.

The present legislation permitted single individuals to adopt. He said that a discussion needed to start on this issue because he felt the need to question this legal position because of the effect this had on the child. This was a contradiction.

It was evident, Mr Vassallo said, that the Civil Code was being used to serve other interests, “maybe adults’ sentimental interests”, rather than to benefit the child. Politicians should respect social reality and legislate according to this measure even if it meant losing popularity with the electorate. It was the legislator’s responsibility to enact laws which were based on the common good.

Mr Vassallo said family break-ups were terrible. It was a shame that various lawyers and the social workers were adopting the motto “split up and be better off”. He stressed that what was good and in the interest of society’s well being could be measured and used as a pointer. Personal needs and interests did not necessarily benefit society.

Nationalist MP, Charlò Bonnici noted that it was the Church that for 400 years took care of children in Malta. Unfortunately in the last few years there had been negative publicity regarding sexual abuses which took place in such institutions years ago.

He was happy to note that children’s homes today were very well managed and that children were advancing in their education.

It was Parliament’s responsibility to discuss how children could best be protected. The Budget announced initiatives that would offer benefits to encourage more families to consider fostering. The sum of €400,000 was being invested to help children benefit from fostering services.

Mr Bonnici said the Bill valued the family and acknowledged that married couples offered certain stability.

There were situations where parents passing through difficult situations did not treat their children well enough. Such cases did not always find their way to the support agencies and thus children were suffering. It was important to protect such children but it was also essential that parents shouldered their responsibilities.

Winding up the debate, Family Minister Dolores Cristina said adoption in Malta had spread during the last years. Social services had also improved, but these could never be enough. However, the adoptive parents can best assured of the government’s solidarity.

Mrs Cristina said that it was not only childless couples who were adopting but also those with children who wanted the adopted child to have a family environment.

While she favoured that adoption procedures would not encounter undue delays, she emphasised that the interests of the child had to be safeguarded.

She pointed out that one of her biggest heartaches was when children in residential homes of foster parents could not be adopted for various reasons and called for freeing children for adoption.

She spoke about difficulties faced by prospective parents in inter-country adoptions especially where these travelled on their own. One of the logistical problems they encountered was that of communication.

Minister Cristina spoke about children in residential homes and said that although people running these homes made their utmost to give these children the best possible upbringing, only the family was the ideal place for raising children giving them stability and a future.

There were cases where children remained in foster care up to 18 years of age. The law also gave the possibility to the foster carers to adopt these children. The Civil Code gave the right of adoption to children who were in residential homes or in foster homes, where this was in the children’s best interest.

Clause 117 of the civil code stipulated that where the natural parents did not show any tangible interest in their children for more than 18 months, the court had the right to give permission for adoption. She wished that this term could be decreased to 12 months. She said that this part of the law was not being utilised. She called on lawyers and the judiciary to free these children for adoption.

Mrs Cristina said that one had to focus on this issue because there were about 300 children living in residential homes. Others were in foster care.

The adoption process in all countries was a long process because professionals had to ascertain themselves that prospective parents were the ideal persons for adoption. They had to be prepared for adoption.

Concluding, Minister Cristina said one had to look at adoptive structures which were not perfect and which could be strengthened. She thanked Fr Zammit Mckeon who gave sterling advice to the Ministry on children in church homes.