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

Adoption of Ezinta Rozma, Re [2019] SBHC 63; HCSI-CC 302 of 2019 (30 August 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 302 of 2019

BETWEEN

EZINTA ROZMA
Child

AND:

SAMUEL JOHN QUAN
Husband-Applicant

AND:

ERIN LAURA QUAN
Wife-Applicant

Date of Hearing: 21 August 2019
Date of Decision: 30 August 2019

Mr. E Toifai for the Joint Applicants

GRANT OF ADOPTION ORDER

1. Applicants are a couple – Mr. Quan and Mrs. Quan. Applicants are citizens of New Zealand. But they also call Solomon Islands their home. They have family connections in Solomon Islands. Applicant husband, Mr Quan is the son of a local business man, Mr. John Quan.
2. Child Ezinta Rozma has been in the care and possession of the applicants since September 2018. Child is the daughter of Mr. Samani and his de-facto wife Ms. Alu. Wife Ms. Alu, mother of child, Ezinta Rozma, is first cousin sister of husband applicant, Mr. Quan. Mr. Quan and Ms. Alu’s mothers, are blood sisters, from the longest island, Isabel. The arrangement to adopt the child is very much a family thing. Application is not objected. Hence would be a pre-determined outcome. Nonetheless, I must still consider the materials, against the law on adoption. The law is the Adoption Act 2004 (No 4 of 2004), as Amended in 2017 - Adoption Amendment Act 2017 (No 4 of 2017). The said Act laid down stringent requirements for making of adoption orders. I will highlight the stringent requirements.
3. I need to consider more vigilantly; the requirement that the applicants must be “ordinarily resident” in Solomon Islands^[1]. And if not, then the applicants must supply reports from the adoption authority in the country that the applicants are “ordinarily resident”, certifying the applicants’ suitability to adopt a child. Such report will then be attached to a report from our local social welfare office. In my view, this will apply to an applicant, who is coming from an overseas country, just to adopt a child, without any attachment to this country. The court has to be careful in seeing a report from the adoption authority in the overseas country. Here, the applicants are residents of New Zealand. But have family connections to Solomon Islands. That is possible today, because the globe is like a big village. Solomon Islanders can marry to overseas residents. And can make overseas country of their spouses their home. They can also make this country their home. Solomon Islanders can migrate overseas for work, residence and some may eventually end up changing their citizenship. This is what is happening here. Applicants are New Zealand citizens/residents. Husband applicant was born and raised in Solomon Islands, prior to obtaining New Zealand citizenship. Applicants have family here and in New Zealand. Applicants move between Solomon Islands and New Zealand for family and holiday purposes. These inter-country connection aspects of the applicants’ marriage life, led me to conclude that they have strong attachments to Solomon Islands. I am satisfied the applicants have family connections to Solomon Islands. The world is a village. And people’s cross-border connections/linkages like in marriage and family should be enhanced and not forbidden. The 2017 amendment do recognise inter-country^[2] adoption. So I can dispense with the requirement for a report from the adoption authority in New Zealand. I do have a local social welfare report produced for the child; which highly recommended adoption.
4. One other important requirement is whether application is for the welfare and best interest of the child. The answer must be in the affirmative in view of the social welfare report. The applicants both live and work in New Zealand. And their collective income is sufficient to sustain a family of 3 persons (applicants and child). The other requirements are consent of child’s parent; good health of applicants and child; child be in the continuous care and possession of the applicants 3 months prior to adoption order and no inducement by payment. Materials before me speak affirmatively on all these stringent requirements.
5. On consent, I interviewed the parents of the child. Parents loved their daughter. And felt uneasy, to see their daughter, detached from them. However parents also see a brighter future prospect for their daughter in this arrangement. They trust the husband applicant, whom they describe as caring, calm, understanding, easy to approach and a close family member. And so they are happy to give their daughter up for adoption, knowing that their daughter will be cut off from them. But will always come back to visit Solomon Islands, when she’s grown up. This is consistent with what the wife applicant expressed in interview. That the applicants will serve the wishes of the child in the future. So if the child should wish to go to University in Solomon Islands, applicants will be happy to facilitate as adopting parents. Court could see the wife applicant is inclusive in her intention to adopt the child. That the applicants, Samani and Alu will all be together to serve the best interest of the child, whether here in Solomon Islands or in New Zealand. Wife applicant has family in New Zealand. Husband applicant though is a New Zealand citizen, has families in Solomon Islands. Mother of child refer to husband applicant as “big brother” in interview.
6. In all that I say, I am satisfied the applicants have family attachment to Solomon Islands. And above all this adoption application is made for the welfare and best interest of the child.
   • 6.1 Adoption application is hereby granted.
   • 6.2 Mr. Samuel John Quan and Mrs. Erin Laura Quan do jointly adopt Ezinta Rozma born to James (Jr) Samani and Tanya Tricia Alu.

THE COURT
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

^[1] Section 25 (1) (5) of the Adoption (Amendment) Act 2017 (No. 4 of 2017)
^[2] Section 25 (5) (b) of the 2017 Amendment