Albert Fritz~ Western Cape minister of social development

2

“The proposed third amendment allegedly aims to make adoptions ‘more accessible’, but the real outcome will be a total shut down of all adoptions in South Africa.”

~Albert Fritz~

Western Cape minister of social development

“The likely outcome will be fewer opportunities for adoption, not greater accessibility.”

~Robyn Wolfson Vorster~

Adoption activist

“We can foresee that there will be a backlog with cases not attended to due to inexperienced and not committed social workers. Adoption figures in our country are relatively low in

comparison to other alternative placement options. At the moment adoptive parents sometimes feel the process is too lengthy and we foresee that adoption figures will drop

even more because people will have to wait too long for services.”

~Annette van Loggerenberg, Dorothy Ramapuputla, Marietjie Hattingh~

Christian Social Council (CMR) North

“The proposed amendments to specifically sections 249 and 250 of the Children’s Act, 38 of 2005, will in my opinion not achieve the aforesaid ideal objectives.”

~Advocate Riani Ferreira~

Member of the Pretoria Bar

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 4

2. Contextualisation ... 5

2.1 Child protection statistics ... 6

2.2 Current state of adoption in South Africa ... 8

2.2.1 Decrease in adoptions ... 9

2.2.2 Adoption fees ... 10

3. Consequences of amending section 249 of the Children’s Act ... 11

4. Conclusion ... 11

5. Addenda ... 13

Addendum 1 ... 14

Addendum 2 ... 17

Sources consulted for this report ... 21

List of figures

Figure 2: Registered adoptions in South Africa from 2004 to 2018 ... 9

4

1. Introduction

The proposed amendments to the Children’s Act, No 38 of 2005 (henceforth the “Children’s Act”), caused a general stir. Experts agree that these amendments will not result in larger numbers of adoptions but rather in a drastic drop in the number of adoptions.

In this report the proposed amendments to the Children’s Act are discussed extensively, with specific reference to the fees clause, and put in the context of South Africa’s current child protection landscape.

The objective of the study is to determine what impact the amendment of section 249 of the Children’s Act will have on a) private accredited social workers and non-profit organisations currently specialising in adoption and b) the child protection landscape of South Africa.

5

2. Contextualisation

Section 249 of the Children’s Act, No 38 of 2005: No consideration in respect of adoption

Current provisions (1) No person may—

(a) give or receive, or agree to give or receive, any consideration, in cash or in kind, for the adoption of a child in terms of Chapter 15 or Chapter 16; or

(b) induce a person to give up a child for adoption in terms of Chapter 15 or Chapter 16.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) the biological mother of a child receiving compensation for—

(i) reasonable medical expenses incurred in connection with her pregnancy, birth of the child and follow-up treatment;

(ii) reasonable expenses incurred for counselling; or (iii) any other prescribed expenses;

(b) a lawyer, psychologist or other professional person receiving fees and expenses for services provided in connection with an adoption;

(c) the Central Authority of the Republic contemplated in section 257 receiving prescribed fees;

(d) a child protection organisation accredited in terms of section 251 to provide adoption services, receiving the prescribed fees;

(e) a child protection organisation accredited to provide inter-country adoption services receiving the prescribed fees;

(f) an organ of state; or

(g) any other prescribed persons.

Proposed amendment

Deletion of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of section 249(2).

6

On 10 January 2019 the department of social development (henceforth “the department”) published a press release on the proposed abolishment of adoption fees (section 249) in the Children’s Amendment Bill.

In this press release the department argued that no fees should be payable for adoption services, like all other child protection services, because the facilitation of adoptions should not be a business. According to the press release the state already has assumed financial responsibility for all child protection services and this should include adoptions. The department also explained that there had been instances where the best interests of the child had not been taken into account because not enough had been done to consider alternative options (family care, foster care, guardianship, etc) provided for in the Children’s Act.

Furthermore, parents who are interested in adopting a child but cannot afford it, are prevented from doing so because of fees. Another reason for this amendment, according to the department, is the case where adoption fees amounted to R600 000, but according to Blackie (2019) and Wolfson Vorster (2019b) the department has not been able to produce evidence of the organisation or person who charged R600 000 for an adoption.

According to the press release, the consultation process regarding the amendments to the Children’s Act started as early as 2016. Discussions resumed in 2017, and in 2018 these amendments were discussed extensively at the national child protection forum (NCCPF).¹ The department also argued that several provincial consultation processes had been conducted during August and September 2018 and that the combined inputs of these consultation processes had been published in the Government Gazette from 29 October to 29 November 2018. Furthermore, according to the department, a lot of time had been spent discussing the proposed amendments to the Children’s Act at the national child protection forum that took place on 20-22 November 2018.

The department stated on several platforms that thorough public participation and consultation processes had been followed, but several community organisations agree that this was not the case. According to Dee Blackie (2019), founder member of the national adoption coalition of South Africa, Albert Fritz (2019a), Western Cape minister of social development, Katinka Pietersen (Bashiera, 2018), director of ABBA specialist adoption and social services, and Robyn Wolfson Vorster (2019a), adoption activist, child protection organisations had not been properly consulted. Although the proposed amendments were published in the Government Gazette on 29 October 2018, the adoption community was informed of the amendment of section 249 (the fees clause) only late in November 2018 – one week before the close of the public participation process (Wolfson Vorster, 2019a).

Since the announcement of the amendments to section 249 of the Children’s Act, many community organisations and adoption specialists have turned to the media to express their concern should these amendments be approved by parliament in accordance with a notice that appeared in the Government Gazette on 25 February 2019 (South Africa, 2019).

2.1 Child protection statistics

According to the annual publication The South African Child Gauge (Hall & Sambu, 2017; Hall, Richter, Mokomane & Lake, 2018) of the Children’s Institute at the University of Cape Town, child protection statistics in South Africa present a bleak picture:

1 The national child protection forum comprises 23 community organisations, including the national adoption coalition of South Africa (NACSA).

7

• Every year, 1 million children are born in South Africa.

• At present, there are 19 579 000 children in South Africa, approximately 35% of the country’s population.

• According to Shozi (2018), 3 500 children are abandoned every year.² Research shows that 65% of abandoned children are newborn babies and 90% are under the age of one year (Becoming a mom, 2019).

• It is said that many abandoned babies are never found.

• At present there are 2,8 million orphaned children in South Africa.³

• In 2016 there were about 12 million children receiving a child support grant⁴ and 470 000 children receiving a foster care grant.

• In 2018 the number of children receiving a foster grant dropped to 416 016 because of foster care grants lapsing.⁵

• It is estimated that there are currently 21 000 children living in 355 registered child and youth care centres in South Africa, while an estimated 2 000 children are living in 115 unregistered child and youth care centres.

• At any given time there are about 550 children recorded in the register for adoptable children and prospective parents (RACAP) waiting to be adopted.

From these statistics it is clear that South Africa is experiencing a child protection crisis.

Approximately 12 million children in South Africa are living in poor households.⁶ There are also a minimum of 2,8 million children in South Africa who have lost one or both parents or who have been abandoned by their parents. Only 416 016 of these 2,8 million were receiving a foster care grant in 2018, and about 23 000 were living in child and youth care centres.

Therefore, there are more than 2 million orphans who cannot be accounted for. It is true that some of these children are being cared for by family or community members, but research has shown that 1,8 million of these children could benefit from adoption. Yet only a fraction of these 1,8 million are in fact adopted.

The state argues that adoption is only one child protection option and that adoption specialists should also emphasise other options such as foster care and child and youth care centres.

Experts in this field, however, argue that adoption is the best option when the interests of the child are taken into account. According to Wolfson Vorster (2019a), most of the children who are adopted are in child and youth care centres prior to being placed with a family. Studies show that even the best of these centres could have a negative impact on a child’s neurological development. This makes it very difficult for the child to be integrated with a family at a later stage.

2 According to NACSA, 2 000 babies are abandoned in South Africa every year.

3 More than one million of these orphans have lost either a father (maternal orphans) or both parents (double orphans) (Wolfson Vorster, 2018).

UNICEF (2019) estimates there are 3,5 million orphans in South Africa at present.

4 A child grant amounts to R410 per child per month, while the amount of a foster care grant is R1 000 per child per month (Blackie, 2019).

5 In 2017 a court order dealing with the lapsing of foster care grants was given by the North Gauteng high court. The centre for child law had brought the case against the minister of social development. In terms of this order, the department is obliged to devise a comprehensive legal solution to deal with the backlog in foster care orders. Foster care orders lapse after periods of two years. The minister therefore must ensure that these foster care orders are renewed in time so as to avoid disruption for beneficiaries because of lapsed court orders (Mtshotshisa, 2019).

6 An unmarried caregiver whose annual income is less than R45 600 qualifies for a social grant, while married caregivers qualify if their combined annual income is less than R91 200.

8

The last-mentioned author also writes that it is very uncommon for older children to be adopted. The tendency is that the older one gets, the more difficult it is to be adopted.

Therefore, adoptions are time-sensitive.

If adoption is not addressed effectively, it will simply deepen the child protection crisis South Africa finds itself in.

The figure below is a graphic presentation of child protection statistics in South Africa.

Figure 1: Child protection statistics in South Africa

2.2 Current state of adoption in South Africa

Adoption in South Africa is highly complex and technical and is strictly regulated by the department and other state institutions to protect the best interests of the child (Wolfson Vorster, 2019a). Some experts are of the opinion that adoptions in South Africa are being overregulated by the department (Blackie, 2019).

The process entails a thorough interview with prospective parents by an accredited social worker during which full medical records are drawn, marriage and psychological evaluations are performed and house calls are made, as well as verification of the prospective parents’

situation by the police.

Prospective parents are then placed on a waiting list until there is a child that fits the parents’

situation. Following an extensive legal process that is facilitated by the children’s court, the child is temporarily placed with the designated adoptive parents. If the social worker finds that the placement is in the best interests of the child, the adoption is finalised.

According to the organisation Add-option (2019), social workers are fully accountable for making decisions regarding the child’s path of life, which means that they are extremely exposed, and the world of adoption is a specialist field.

Furthermore, South African social workers have extremely high case loads. Fritz (2019a) says the average accredited adoption specialist has about 100 cases at any given time, whereas international standards suggest a maximum of 60 cases.

Children in South Africa Children receiving state grants Orphans in South Africa Children receiving foster care grants Children in child and youth care

centres

Children on RACAP

19,579,000 12,273,900

2,800,000 416,016

23,000 550

Child protection statistics in South Africa

9 2.2.1 Decrease in adoptions

In spite of the urgent need for adoption (see 2.1 Child protection statistics) and high case loads confronting adoption specialists every day, adoptions per year have decreased drastically:

from 2 840 registered adoptions in 2004 to only 1 186⁷ in 2017, a decrease of 58%.

Figure 2: Registered adoptions in South Africa from 2004 to 2018

Blackie (2019) ascribes the decrease in registered adoptions to the department’s inability to effectively deal with the cases. While private accredited social workers and non-profit organisations largely facilitate the process at present, the department is involved in several stages of the adoption process, and according to Blackie (2019) it is precisely the stages where the department is involved that frustrate social workers. The stages where the department is involved are the following:

• Accreditation of social workers doing adoptions.

• Managing the national adoption register.

• Formal letters of reference required from provincial representatives of the department.

• Finalisation of an adoption when a formal court procedure has been completed.

From this it is clear that the department can intervene at various stages should any irregularities occur in an adoption (Blackie, 2019; Day, 2019).

Wolfson Vorster (2018) agrees with Blackie (2019), arguing that further delays occur in obtaining Form 30⁸ from the department. In addition, the processes for declaring a child as abandoned and for withdrawing parental rights for the adoption of a child are highly cumbersome. Wolfson Vorster (2018) further says public servants take a very long time dealing with matters such as registration of births and finalising court dates. Even when an abandoned child finally is entered in the register for adoptable children and prospective parents, the time these children have to stay on the list has been increasing exponentially: in

7 1 033 of these adoptions were national adoptions and 153 were international adoptions (becomingamom.co.za, 2019).

8 An application form submitted to the department by prospective adoptive parents to declare that they do not abuse children or that their names are not listed on the national child protection register.

2840 2436

1448 1165 1186

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

1 April 2003 - 31

March 2004 1 April 2010 - 31

March 2011 1 April 2013 - 31

March 2014 1 April 2015 - 31

March 2016 1 April 2017 - 31 March 2018

REGISTERED ADOPTIONS IN SOUTH

AFRICA

10

2010 there were only three children who had to wait for more than 60 days on this list, but in 2017 there were 240 children who had to remain on the list for more than 60 days.

These delays with regard to the department’s involvement in the process of adoption could also be ascribed to the enormous number of cases of child protection services the department has to deal with (Van Loggerenberg, Ramapuputla, Hattingh, 2019). According to Wolfson Vorster (2019b), departmental social workers have 100 to 300 cases to attend to at any given time (these cases do not include adoptions), while the department also is experiencing an enormous staff shortage crisis. According to Nkosi (2018), 8 600 social workers graduated in 2018. The studies of these graduates were funded by the department, but because of budget limitations only 566 of these graduates could be employed by the department, thanks to an amount of R181 million made available by the National Treasury.

In a recent radio interview the department’s spokesperson said the department was providing training for 889 social workers to facilitate adoptions, but the department itself has not yet made regulations specifically regarding the qualifications social workers in the employ of the state should have to facilitate adoptions. Furthermore, social workers working for the state have been authorised to facilitate adoptions since the coming into operation of the Children’s Second Amendment Act of 2016 (Wolfson Vorster, 2019a en 2019b). Public servants therefore have had two years to facilitate adoptions, but according to indications the department has only finalised a few adoptions since 2017⁹. This is ascribed to the department’s ignorance in the specialist field of adoptions (Van Loggerenberg, Ramapuputla, Hattingh, 2019).

In addition, the latest quarterly labour force survey (QLFS Q4: 2018) indicated that there was about 51 000 job losses in the field of social services during the last quarter of 2018.

2.2.2 Adoption fees

Adoption fees may vary from R0 to R15 000, according to a sliding scale that is used to determine what prospective adoptive parents can afford, so as to make adoptions as accessible as possible to all. According to Blackie (2019), Day (2019) and Van Loggerenberg, Ramapuputla and Hattingh (2019) this amount includes the following:

• Assessing the child.

• Searching for the child’s biological parents if the child has been abandoned.

• Medical examinations (not performed free of charge by the state).

• Assessing possible suitable parents.

• Lots of administrative work and fees.

• Supporting the family once the adoption has been finalised.

The fees per adoption usually do not cover all the expenses, and therefore non-profit organisations raise funds so as to make adoption more affordable.

It is important to state that adoption fees are regulated by the department itself; in other words, the department’s argument that there have been individuals charging exorbitant amounts for an adoption (see 2. Contextualisation), is invalid (Van Loggerenberg, Ramapuputla, Hattingh, 2019).

The department’s second argument is that the new legislation regarding fees would afford even women in rural areas an oppurtunity to adopt children, but Blackie (2019) argues that women in these areas are already caring for the children of their own blood relatives and that they are not really interested in legally adopting these children. Should they legally adopt these

9 New information came to light after the original publication of this report that the department has successfully facilitated a few adoptions since 2017.

11

children, they would forfeit a foster care grant of R1 000 per month, qualifying only for a child support grant of R410 per month. The department furthermore has not been able to produce any evidence of research conducted in black rural areas to determine whether the fees clause will be of any relevance (Van Loggerenberg, Ramapuputla, Hattingh, 2019).

3. Consequences of amending section 249 of the Children’s Act

The department contends that the clause on the removal of adoption fees will not prevent social workers, attorneys and psychologists from offering their services – they still are entitled to practise their profession (in terms of section 22 of the Constitution), but they will not be allowed to receive payment for these services.

According to Fritz (2019a) the department’s reasoning is absurd. Private accredited adoption specialists, attorneys, psychologists and non-profit adoption organisations have to be compensated one way or the other for services rendered, otherwise they simply will be unable to continue functioning. At present there are 59 registered social workers who facilitate adoptions and 93 accredited child protection organisations with a mandate to render adoption services (NACSA, 2019). Should the fees clause be revised, social workers at all these organisations will not be able to continue working in this specialist field.

Research conducted by the Shukumisa organisation shows that most child protection services are being rendered by non-profit organisations (Budlender, 2017), but in terms of the Children’s Act non-profit organisations are not allowed to receive private donations for rendering child protection services.

According to the department, child protection organisations may indeed apply for funding for rendering child protection services (in terms of section 105(1) of the Children’s Act), but the amounts are limited by the availability of funds.

Blackie (2019) says the department is already struggling to cover even a fraction of the costs of an adoption that is facilitated by private organisations. Wolfson Vorster (2019a) says it is well known that the department does not pay subsidies intended for accredited adoption agencies on time. Furthermore, research shows that the department has decreased the allocation of funds intended for non-profit organisations for social development by 3% since 2005, whereas salaries for social workers in the employ of the state have risen by more than the inflation rate. The department’s 2015/2016 budget also shows that 88% of the funds was allocated for social grants, while only 10% of the funds was earmarked for social development.

This is alarming, especially in view of the social crisis South Africa finds itself in at present (see 2.1 Child protection statistics).

4. Conclusion

In this report the proposed amendments to the Children’s Act were discussed extensively, with specific reference to the fees clause, and put in the context of South Africa’s current child protection landscape.

The department gives five reasons as rationale for amending section 249 of the Children’s Act. These reasons are as follows:

1. Adoptions should form part of the child protection services administered and facilitated by the department.

12

2. Adoptions should not be a business, and consequently adoptions should not involve any costs.

3. In the past, private social workers and non-profit child protection organisations did not consider other child protection options but were focusing mainly on adoptions.

4. Parents who are interested in adopting a child but cannot afford it, are prevented from doing so because of fees.

5. Private social workers and non-profit organisations charged exorbitant amounts for facilitating adoptions.

The department also contends that extensive consultations with all role-players have been held on the proposed amendments, but this is strongly denied by the adoption community. If the adoption community were consulted on these amendments, the department would have realised that it would not be in the best interests of the child if private social workers and non- profit organisations were not allowed to charge fees for services rendered.

If no fees may be charged, specialist knowledge and experience of the world of adoption in South Africa will be lost, in the midst of an enormous child protection crisis South Africa is experiencing. Although the department is making it clear that adoption is not the only child protection option, specialists in this field agree that a permanent home is the best option for the child (see Addendum 2).

It also is the opinion of the adoption community that adoptions are strictly regulated by the state. On the one hand, this regulation renders it difficult for private social workers and non- profit organisations to carry out adoptions effectively because the department does not have adequate knowledge of the process (Addendum 1), and on the other hand the department can act against individuals charging improper amounts for adoptions.

Notwithstanding an urgent need for adoption and the high case loads of adoption specialists, the number of adoptions in South Africa has been dropping. Experts are of the opinion that the proposed amendment of section 249 will result in the number of adoptions decreasing drastically and that adoption will become virtually impossible because of too few and untrained departmental staff and huge budget deficits.

The fact is that adoptions at this stage already can be provided by the department without any fees being paid, but according to authoritative sources the department has only managed to finalise a few adoptions in two years. Would it then not be irresponsible to leave the future of 1,8 million children (see 2.2 Child protection statistics) – and it is estimated that this number will increase drastically if the amendment is accepted by parliament – in the hands of the department?

Contending now that this function will be taken over seamlessly by the department, is dishonest and naive. In view of this, there is an enormous responsibility that rests with the adoption community, but also with the broader South African community, to strongly oppose this amendment.

13

5. Addenda

1. Inputs by the Christian Social Council North on the proposed amendments to section 249 of the Children’s Act, No. 38 of 2005.¹⁰

2. Legal opinion compiled by Advocate Riani Ferreira.¹¹

10 CMR North has been rendering adoption services as a specialist service since 1958. Over a period of 61 years the organisation has established itself as an organisation with an impeccable reputation, always acting as professionals who render services with passion, commitment and integrity.

11 Admitted as attorney in 1996. Admitted as Advocate in Court and became a member of the Pretoria Society of Advocates during 2003, after completing pupilage and passing the Bar exam. Practice specialising in Matrimonial and Child Law. Acted as speaker for the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, including Gauteng, Mpumalanga and Limpopo, on Family Law at several seminars per year since 2010. Acted as nationwide speaker for the Legal Education and Development division of the Law Society of South Africa since 2014. Lecturer at Advanced Advocacy Training Course at the University of Pretoria annually since 2010. Member of the Training Committee at the Pretoria Association of Advocates since 2009. Founding member of The University of Pretoria Institute of Advocacy. Member of Gauteng Family Law Forum.

14

Addendum 1

INPUT FOR SOLIDARITY INTO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 249 AND 250 OF THE CHILDREN’S ACT.

Question 1: How will this amendment impact on CMR North as a Non- Profit Organisation?

Answer:

• Adoption services in the organisation have always been rendered by professionals who have been in their adoption posts for a very long period, therefore ensuring an incredible amount of knowledge, experience and expertise. Should an adoption social worker have to vacate her post, the organisation goes to great lengths to ensure that the new social worker has sufficient time to shadow her colleague before taking over the post.

• Adoption social workers in the organisation have always been experienced social workers, which added additional costs to the organisation as the subsidy paid by the Department of Social Development is a flat amount irrespective of the experience of a social worker.

• CMR North will not be in a position to continue with adoption services as the organisation never made any profit from the professional fees charged for adoption services; we only covered the expenses incurred from an adoption process and not covered by the subsidy from the Department.

• CMR North already had to cut down on a lot of our services due to the deficit on our budget and will not be in a position to carry the expenses for an adoption as we can currently do.

• All the skills, knowledge and expertise on adoption services will be lost to the adoption field. Prospective adoptive parents often approach our organisation because they were referred by other satisfied adoptive parents.

• CMR North has committed to be available for aftercare adoption services to our adoptive families and biological parents. We also render heritage

counselling to adopted children and facilitate the process between the

biological parents and adopted children should they want to meet each other.

There are also cost implications for these services. We are also obliged to

ensure that the post-adoption agreement is adhered to, which also has cost

implications.

15

Question 2: How will these amendments impact on adoptions in the broader community?

• If all the organisations and social workers in private practice who currently render adoption services terminate their services, all the skills, knowledge and expertise built up over years will be lost.

• Rendering adoption services is about mutual trust between the prospective adoptive parents, the biological parents and the adoption social worker. Being an adoption social worker implies being prepared to work over weekends, public holidays and even in the evening when a baby is born and biological mothers and prospective adoptive parents have to be supported during the process at the hospital.

• Rendering adoption services is a calling, it is not a job. We can foresee that there will be a backlog with cases not attended to due to inexperienced and not committed social workers. Adoption figures in our country are relatively low in comparison to other placement options. At the moment adoptive parents sometimes feel the process is too lengthy and we foresee that

adoption figures will drop even more because people will have to wait too long for services.

• The general public often do not have positive experiences of the commitment and efficiency of departmental officials and may decide not to consider

adoption as an option any longer.

Question 3: Does CMR North think the department has the capacity and efficiency to drive this process?

Answer:

•

and social workers in private practice gained over many years. The focus of the Department has always been on generic and not specialised services.

• The rendering of adoption services is a calling and not a job.

• Our experience with the Department thus far with their current involvement in our adoption services has been very negative, e.g.

- The Department based its decisions on assumptions and not on findings based on research. There is no scientific proof that professional fees have ever been a stumbling block for people to decide on adoption.

- In some provinces the Department insists on having panels on adoption cases before they are prepared to issue a letter of approval that an

adoption may continue. An adoption social worker sometimes has to travel

long distances to such panels, only to be bombarded by 15 departmental

officials with no understanding of the adoption process and focusing on

16

irrelevant issues. These processes are a waste of precious time and money.

- Departmental officials have different views/opinions on adoption. Some officials are very open about the fact that they are not in favour of adoptions.

- Adoption social workers have the responsibility to counsel biological parents about the different options if they experience a crisis with a

pregnancy, but they do not have the right to put any pressure on biological parents regarding the decision they take on the future care of their baby.

We even had an incident where a departmental official drove all the way to a biological mother’s home to interrogate her about her decision on

adoption. We regard such action as being totally insensitive for the feelings of biological parents. If it is their decision not to involve their extended family in their decision, this should be respected.

• Currently even if we request a background report from a departmental official, we have to wait for long periods; there is no track record of efficient service rendering by a large percentage of departmental officials.

• There is a constant move of departmental social workers within the

Department from one section to another. No effective adoption service can be rendered if there is no continuity of the adoption social worker.

• Departmental social workers currently have no skills or knowledge on

adoption services. They should stop their distrust towards the NPO sector and start seeing us as their equal partners. 99% of NPO social workers render their service with integrity and the department should refrain from distrusting all NPO adoption social workers because of the dishonesty of one or two adoption social workers. These dishonest social workers should be taken to task.

• If the NPO sector receives a decent subsidy for their social work posts, the NPO sector could continue with adoptions without asking any adoption fees.

Annette van Loggerenberg: Manager

Dorothy Ramapuputla: Adoption social worker Marietjie Hattingh: Senior adoption social worker Date: 18 April 2019

Avl/f: input for Solidarity on the Proposed Amendments

17

Addendum 2

Riani Ferreira

Brooklyn, 0181 Private Bag X480 Pretoria 0001 Tel: 012 424 4000/24 Fax: 012 424 4076 Cell: 083 677 2041 e-mail: rferreira@lawcircle.co.za

Advokaat/Advocate

Member of the Pretoria Society of Advocates

OPINION

1. The Government’s notice stipulates that the Bill seeks to amend the Children’s Act to address the: “…critical gaps and challenges in the underlying child care

order relating to foster care and seeks to provide a comprehensive legislative system in regard thereto.

2. The proposed amendments to specifically sections 249 and 250 of the Children’s Act, No 38 of 2005, will in my opinion not achieve the aforesaid ideal objectives.

3. The proposed amendment to section 249 entails that no person may receive

consideration in cash or in kind for the adoption of a child, which includes the

relevant services rendered by lawyers, psychologists, social workers and other

18

professional persons (as the list of the latter in the subsection stands to be deleted).

4. The amendment to section 250 is in the same line and provides that only an accredited child protection organisation and a social worker in the employ of the “Department” may provide adoption services. The subsection providing that lawyers and other professionals are not prohibited to render services in adoptions, also stands to be completely deleted.

5. It is to be noted that the former Child Care Act, 1983, rendered no objection to professionals such as lawyers and social workers in private practice, assisting in the adoption process against apposite remuneration.

6. The Government is already facing tremendous difficulties in rendering proficient services to the public and promote adoption, above foster care, in deserving cases. There are countless cases where adoptable children will not be given up for adoption as many families rely on the social grants they receive for foster care, where this grant falls away when the child is adopted. The general public already shies away from adoption and the process is already extremely cumbersome, only now to be restricted in resources even further?

7. It can unquestionably be argued that in our country, adoption is far under-used in comparison to foster care. With the limitation on fees and utilisation of services, this will in my opinion certainly exacerbate the problem.

8. On considering the provisions of section 229, which spells out the purpose of

adoption and states it is focussed inter alia: “… to promote the goals of

deletion of provisions allowing parties involved to turn to professionals to assist

19

in this process, against payment of their professional fees. Are the professionals not the persons who interpret, have the right networking in place and can promote and prioritise adoption? Are the social workers employed by the Department not already underresourced? Is the court process that follows not to be regarded as sufficient to monitor the process, and why are these professionals no longer trusted to assist in the process?

9. There seems to be no conceivable reason why the categories of persons and entities eligible to provide adoption services should be limited even further.

10. The already restricted category of professionals in the current legislation addresses a concern which has existed over the years regarding inappropriate

“brokering” of adoption arrangements by unqualified persons, who may stand to benefit financially from such practices.

11. However, the professionals, now to be excluded, must in any event meet the conditions of integrity, professional competence, experience and accountability required by their relevant councils and governing bodies. As with surrogacy agreements, any court process requires special skills and a person should be entitled to enlist the services of a competent professional to ensure the proper administration of justice, which is a right enshrined in our Constitution.

12. It can also be said that professionals such as those to be deleted from the provisions of the relevant sections can sometimes operate more efficiently, flexibly and certainly more swiftly than officials appointed by the Department.

They can also more easily employ other experts when necessary.

13. Limiting the parties involved in the formal process, the use of only Departmental

officials or accredited organisations is certainly no guarantee against abuse or

bad practice.

20

14. The Children’s Act is supposed to ensure that in all matters concerning a child, the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration. The best interest of the child is also highlighted in the Constitution. Children, as also adults, are the bearers of a range of rights in the Constitution. We will now, in my opinion, neglect the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves or whose voices are often only heard through the experienced lawyer, psychologist, social worker in private practice or other professionals. It is not desirable to limit the rights of any person by limiting their rights to the services of these professionals and treating an adoption as an isolated process only through government officials.

DATED AT PRETORIA ON THIS THE 23

DAY OF APRIL 2019

ADVOCATE RIANI FERREIRA

21

Sources consulted for this report

Adoption. (2019). Adoption. Available at: https://adoption.org.za/

Adoption Coalition. (2019). National Adoption Coalition. Available at: https://adoptioncoalitionsa.org/

Adoption in South Africa: The basics. (2012, July). Parent24. Available at:

https://www.parent24.com/Family/Adoption/Adoption-in-South-Africa-the-basics-20150826

Almost 1000 children awaiting foster care placements in Gauteng. (2019, March). ENCA. Available at:

https://www.enca.com/south-africa/almost-1000-children-awaiting-foster-care-placement-in-gauteng Becoming a mom. (2019). Becoming a mom - statistics. Available at: http://becomingamom.co.za/

Blackie, D. (2019, January). Why adoption is a problem in South Africa. Daily Maverick. Available at:

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-01-17-why-adoption-is-a-problem-in-south-africa/

Budlender, D. (2017). Post subsidies in provincial Departments of Social Development. Report prepared for the Shukumisa Coalition. Available at: https://shukumisa.org.za/wp-

content/uploads/2018/05/Shukumisa-report-post-subsidies-in-provincial-DSD-1.pdf Children’s Act, No 38 of 2005.

Children’s Institute. (2019). Children’s Institute. Available at: http://www.ci.uct.ac.za/

Day, E. (2019, April 15). Telephone conversation with Elke Day, ED.

Department of social development. (2019). Social Development on proposed removal of adoption fees in Children’s Act Amendment. [Media release]. 10 January. Available at:

https://www.gov.za/speeches/adoption-fees-10-jan-2019-0000

Ferreira, R. (2019). OPINION. Available at Circle Chambers Advocates, 570 Fehrsen Street, Brooklyn, 0181).

Fritz, A. (2019a, April). We cannot stop fighting for adoption. Politicsweb. Available at:

https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/we-cannot-stop-fighting-for-adoption

Fritz, A. (2019b, April). Amendment bill for children’s act will see adoptions in SA grind to halt. IOL.

Available at: (https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/opinion/amendment-bill-for-childrens-act-will-see- adoptions-in-sa-grind-to-a-halt-19025207)

Fritz, A. (2019c, April). Citizens must lobby against anti-adoption bill – Albert Fritz. Politicsweb.

Available at: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/politics/lobby-against-antiadoption-bill--albert-fritz

Gerrand, P. (2018). Adoption of abandoned children in South Africa: Why black citizens are difficult to recruit as prospective adopters. Adoption and Fostering, 42(3):295-308. Doi:

10.1177/0308575918790436

Government proposes amendment to adoption laws. (2019, January). ENCA. Available at:

https://www.enca.com/news/government-proposes-amendment-adoption-laws

Hall, K. & Sambu, W. (2017). Demography of South Africa’s children. In South African Child Gauge 2017: 100-104.

Hall, K., Richter, L., Mokomane, Z. & Lake, L. (eds.). (2018). South African Child Gauge 2018.

Children, Families and the State: Collaboration and Contestation. Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town. Available at:

http://webcms.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/367/South%20African%20Child%20Gau ge%202018%20-%20Nov%2020.pdf

22

Head, T. (2019, February). Children’s Amendment Bill: Critics fear new law could “end adoption in SA”. The South African. Available at: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/childrens-amendment-bill-end- adoption-fears-why/

Kynaston, J. (2019, January). OPINION: “Amendments to the Child Care Act will have a damaging effect on adoption in South Africa”. Parent24. Available at:

https://www.parent24.com/Family/Adoption/opinion-amendments-to-the-child-care-act-will-have-a- damaging-effect-on-adoption-in-south-africa-20190121

Martin, P. (2010) Government-funded programmes and services for vulnerable children in South Africa. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Mokomane, Z. Rochat, T.Y. & The Directorate. (2012). Adoption in South Africa: Trends and Patterns in Social Work Practice. Child and Family Social Work. 17:347-358. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-

2206.2011.00789.x

Mtshotshisa, L. (2019). Children’s Act Amendment Bill 2019. [Email].

Nkosi, B. (2018, Maart). Thousands of social work graduates still unemployed. IOL. Available at:

https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/thousands-of-social-work-graduates-still- unemployed-14097150

OPINION: Why we cannot stop fighting for adoption. All4Woman. Available at:

https://www.all4women.co.za/1724939/parenting/parenting-articles/we-cannot-stop-fighting-for- adoption

Parker, B. (2018, December). Everything you need to know about adoptions in 2018. Parent24.

Available at: https://www.parent24.com/Family/Adoption/everything-you-need-to-know-about- adoption-in-2018-20181206

Pieterse, K. (2019, January). Understanding proposed amendments to the Children’s Amendment Bill of 2018. iAfrica. Available at: https://www.iafrica.com/understanding-proposed-amendments-to-the- childrens-amendment-bill-of-2018/

Rochat, T.J., Mokomane, Z., Mitchell, J. & The Directorate. (2016). Public Perceptions, Beliefs and Experiences of Fostering and Adoption: A National Qualitative Study in South Africa. Children and Society, 30:120-131. Doi: 10.1111/chso.12122

Schmidt, M. (2019, January). “It will deny thousands of orphaned and abandoned children permanent families”: Concerned psychiatrist on the proposed amendments to adoptions in South Africa.

Parent24. Available at: https://www.parent24.com/Family/Adoption/it-will-deny-thousands-of- orphaned-and-abandoned-children-permanent-families-concerned-psychiatrist-on-the-proposed- amendments-to-adoptions-in-sa-20190116

Shozi, P. (2018, August). Abandoning of children a rising issue. Hillcrest Fever. Available at:

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Local/Hillcrest-Fever/abandoning-of-children-a-rising-issue- 20180731-2

Statista. (2019). Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/

Statistics South Africa. (2016). Community Survey. Statistical Release P0301. Available at:

www.statssa.gov.za

Statistics South Africa. (2018). General Household Survey 2017. Statistical Release P0318. Available at: www.statssa.gov.za

Statistics South Africa. (2019). Quarterly Labour Force Survey – QLFS Q4:2018. [Media release]. 12 Februarie. Available at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=11882

South Africa. 2019. Notice of intention to introduce the children’s amendment bill, 2019 into parliament in terms of rule rules 271 and 276 of the national assembly. (Proclamation number 422, 2019). Government Gazette, 25 February 2019. (No. 42248).

23

UNICEF South Africa. (2019). Orphans and vulnerable children. Available at:

https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/protection_6631.html

Van Heerden, B.J. (2019, March). Children, abduction and adoption – conference will explore vital areas. Daily Maverick. Available at: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-03-29-children- abduction-and-adoption-conference-will-explore-vital-areas/

Van Loggerenberg, A., Ramapuputla, D., Hattingh, M. (2019). Input for Solidarity into the proposed amendments to sections 249 and 250 of the Children’s Act. (Available at the Christian Social Council North, cor. Middel & Melk Streets, New Muckleneuk, Pretoria, 0181).

Wolfson Vorster, R. (2018, August). The state of adoption in South Africa. Adoption Coalition of South Africa News. Available at: http://adoptioncoalitionsa.org/Aug18_News/article_2.html

Wolfson Vorster, R. (2019a, February). Access to adoption will decline if Children’s Act amendments are passed. Daily Maverick. Available at: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-01-07- access-to-adoptions-will-decline-if-childrens-act-amendments-are-passed/

Wolfson Vorster, R. (2019b, February). Adoption-related amendments to the Children’s Act: The arguments and the elephants in the room. Daily Maverick. Available at:

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-02-18-adoption-related-amendments-to-the- childrens-act-the-arguments-and-the-elephants-in-the-room/