Parliament on Tuesday evening continued to debate the Adoption Administration Bill, a discussion that had begun before the Christmas recess.
Family and Social Solidarity Minister Dolores Cristina said the bill will bring Malta in conformity with the Hague Convention, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Inter-Country Adoption regarding the adequate treatment of children.
She then went on to explain some provisions in the law. Whereas before the only offence lay in monetary exchange for adoption to take place, now going through with adoption without the knowledge and references of the Central Authority, deceiving and taking advantage of the Adoption Board, using force and threatening to get the natural parents to consent to adoption, and using persons involved in adoption cases to garner personal support through the media, other than with the permission of the Central Authority, will also constitute offences.
The minister also highlighted how the age of prospective adopters shall be changed to the 28-60 age bracket for the parents to be between 21 and 40 years older than the child. Foster carers and natural parents may adopt a “child” over the age of 18 who has been living with them for a period of more than five years. A new development is also the inclusion of social workers and child advocates who will ensure adherence to the primacy principle – the best interest of the child. Also included is the adopters’ qualified right to obtain information regarding the adoption.
The opposition’s main spokesperson for social solidarity, Marie Louise Coleiro, in saying that the bill was long awaited, stressed that the rights of the child must always be safeguarded.
Asking several questions mainly regarding the competencies of and resources used for the Competent Authority and the Adoption Board respectively, Dr Coleiro Preca was particularly strong in expressing her doubts towards the Adoption Unit being transferred from Social Welfare Standards to Agenzija Appogg. She felt that there are not enough professional personnel that can deal with the present workload, let alone to deal with this new competency. She also felt that the bill could have been more “complete”, had further consultation been undertaken – not solely with those who provide for the process of adoption, but also with the judiciary, lawyers working with family related issues, and mostly children, those who have been adopted and have grown up, and children who are going through the process as well.
Labour MP Jose Herrera spoke against the legal principles promulgated in the bill – “if what is good, has been good over a period of time, why change it?” Lacing his intervention with case examples, he also believed that the legal concepts put forward were “non-starters” and did not make legal sense. In his opinion, the provisions also “undermined” the highest institution in the country – the courts and the judiciary’s competence.
While acknowledging his colleagues insights, Nationalist MP Mario de Marco did not agree that the aim of the bill was to eliminate the court’s discretion in adoption. It looked to aid the courts through recommendations made by the Adoptions Board, which however the court was not bound by. Appealing so as the adoption process would not be prolonged unduly, Dr de Marco brought 3 key points to the parliament’s attention.
A prospective adoptive parent can appeal to the recommendation made by the Board. He posited whether the recommendation could also be appealed to by the natural parent.
Children born out of wedlock need solely the mother’s consent for adoption; the father only has a right to be heard. This, he said, can go against the right to family life, if he has acknowledged the child.
The right of information is important. Adopted over-18s have a qualified right to obtain their original birth certificate.
The Various Laws on Civil Matters (Amendt) Bill’s 1st Reading was approved.