A Johannesburg couple had to dash to the high court to secure an order that their daughter, who turns four this month, remains in their care after the arrest of the social worker who was supposed to handle the adoption process.
The couple, in their application which came before Johannesburg high court acting judge Charlotte Oosthuizen-Senekal, said they had been shocked to discover the adoption had not been processed or finalised and feared losing the child.
According to news reports, Pretoria-based social worker Letitia van den Berg — cited as a respondent in the application — was arrested and appeared in the Pretoria specialised commercial crime court in early June on two counts of fraud.
The allegations relate to complaints from prospective adoptive parents that she offered the same baby to two different couples, taking money from both, and then “lied” to one that the baby had died.
During her bail hearing, she indicated she would plead not guilty and was voluntarily closing her practice.
She will appear in court again in October.
In the application before Oosthuizen-Senekal, the couple said they had been unable to conceive and approached Van den Berg during 2015/2016. She was an accredited adoption social worker practising since 2002.
She informed them the process was lengthy and they must be patient.
In September 2017 she told them she had a “possible match”. They were asked to contribute to the mother’s medical expenses, which they did. They were later told the mother had decided to keep the child.
On October 8 2018, Van den Berg told them she had again found a match.
The next day, after a brief meeting with the biological mother, the baby girl who had been born at the end of August was handed to them.
She told them there was a 60-day cooling-off period before any steps could be taken to finalise the adoption.
During 2019 and 2020, the couple sent her SMS messages inquiring about the status of the adoption, but she did not respond. Then the Covid-19 pandemic struck.
In November 2021 Van den Berg indicated she would start the paperwork to obtain a court order.
In May this year, she told them the adoption was finalised and she only had to collect the order.
After news of her arrest in early June, the couple contacted an official from the social development department who told them their adoption application was not among the files it had received from Van den Berg.
They engaged a lawyer and it was established that the adoption was never finalised and there was no court order.
Oosthuizen-Senekal said the couple’s counsel indicated they faced being “stripped of their parenthood”.
“As an interim measure, while they attempt to cure the issues that have arisen following the debacle with Van den Berg, they seek, in the interim, full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the child,” she said.
It was argued that they had looked after the child for almost four years and there was a “very real risk” she may be removed from them. This would not be in her best interests.
Her legal status needed to be addressed urgently, because, as matters stood, the couple could not consent to any medical examination or treatment and would find it difficult to enrol her at school.
Oosthuizen-Senekal said the overarching principle in matters involving children was always what was in their best interests.
She said the couple were the child's “mother and father” and if she was separated from them she would “suffer tremendously”.
“The [couple] have at all times acted in good faith during the adoption process ... I can fully appreciate the ‘fear’ they are experiencing. The fact that they launched this application is an indication of their commitment and love for her,” she said, ruling that it was in the child’s best interests to remain in their care until there was clarity regarding the adoption.
She granted an order giving them full parental rights and responsibilities and guardianship.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.