Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Talairamo v Iramu [2018] SBHC 73; HCSI-CC 278 of 2017 (20 April 2018)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 278 of 2017

EUGENE TALAIRAMO
Infant

v

PETER ADRAIAN IRAMU
Applicant- Husband

ELLEN TALAIRAMO IRAMU
Applicant- Wife

Date of Hearing; 11 April 2018
Date of Decision; 20 April 2018

Ms. Kohata for the applicants

GRANT OF ADOPTION ORDERS

1. The applicants for adoption are Mr. Peter Adrian Iramu and Mrs Ellen Talairamo Iramu. The infant, subject of this adoption application, is Eugene Talairamo. The applicants are a couple (husband and wife applicants).
2. The applicants are no strangers to the infant. The infant, a male who turned 17 years in October 2017, is the son of one named Ms. Rachael Talairamo. Ms. Rachael Talairamo is the sister of Mrs Ellen Talairamo Iramu (wife applicant). I saw Mrs Ellen Talairamo Iramu and her sister Ms. Rachael Talairamo in court. I thought that Ms. Rachael is the younger sister of Mrs Ellen. I may be wrong, but that’s no big deal. The big deal is they are sisters. The big deal is Ms. Rachael and her son, the infant, have been living with and supported by the applicants for a long time. I also saw the infant in court. I observed the infant is young, good looking and happy. He does not appear to be under pressure or stressed, but calm and smiling.
3. The infant has been in the care and protection of the applicants since he was 3 years old. He turned 17 years in October 2017. The husband applicant is a Papua New Guinea national. The wife applicant is a Solomon Islander. Applicants move in between Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Australia. Recently applicants have migrated to Australia and settling down for work related purposes.

Struck Out Adoption Application Re-Instated

4. Today, I also re-instated the adoption application; having struck out the same in November 2017, because counsel for the applicants was absent, when I listed the application for hearing of oral submissions. I am satisfied with the application for re-instatement. I had wished the counsel concerned had appeared toady. So that I could teach him some good lessons on being punctual to my Court.

The Law

5. Adoption is governed by the Adoption Act 2004 (No 4 of 2004) (“the Act”). The Act laid down stringent requirements^[1] for making of adoption orders. There are 5 conditions. First; the applicant (s) must be ordinarily resident of Solomon Islands (Section 3 (5) of the Act). However exceptions are provided under Section 12 (2) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act. Second; is consent of the mother or parents of the infant? Third; are various matters mentioned in Section 9 (1) (a) – (c) of the Act? Matters like: consent of child’s parents; that parents understood the nature and permanent effect of adoption; that parents will no longer be the parents after adoption; welfare of the child is guaranteed in the adoption application and that the adoption was not influenced by payment of money or other rewards.
6. The fourth; is good health of the applicants and wishes of the infant having regard to her/his age and understanding (Section 9 (2) of the Act). Evidences before the Court including the social welfare report, speak affirmative in all these matters.
7. Fifth condition; in Section 5 (1) of the Act that the child must be in the continuous care and possession of the applicants for at least 3 months immediately preceding the date of the order.

Court is satisfied

8. Having considered the materials; Court is of the considered view that this adoption application can pass the stringent conditions in the Act. The applicants are residing in Australia, but an exception can accommodate grant of adoption to them. Additionally, the applicants were residing in Solomon Islands at time of filing the application. Recently moved to Australia and settling down. There was 3 months’ notice issued to the relevant local authority (Honiara city council).
9. Consent was voluntarily secured, from the mother of the infant, who is a single mother. The mother and infant have been part of the applicants’ family. This adoption is indeed made in the interest and welfare of the infant. And I have no doubt Ms. Rachael is happy and aware of the effect of the adoption. Applicants are in good health – the wife applicant is a doctor by profession. Infant has been with the applicants for more than 14 years, being taken in at the age of 3 years.

Conclusion and Orders

10. Court is satisfied this application meets the stringent requirements of the Act and order as follows:-
    • 10.1 Application to re-instate the “struck out” adoption application is granted.
    • 10.2 The said re-instated adoption application is hereby granted.
    • 10.3 The applicants Mr. Peter Adrian Iramu and Mrs. Ellen Talairamo Iramu, do adopt jointly, the infant Eugene Talairamo, born in October year 2000 to Ms. Rachael Talairamo.
    • 10.4 No order on cost.

THE COURT
-----------------
JOHN A. KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

^[1] See Boboria-v-Sua (2014) SBHC 109;HCSI-CC 123 of 2013(9^th September 2014)