Court rejects British man’s bid to adopt disabled J’can boy

A British university lecturer who attempted to adopt a Jamaican child with severe medical complications has lost his appeal, after the Court of Appeal upheld findings that he was unfit and unable to meet the child’s welfare needs.

The ruling – delivered by Justices Paulette Williams, Marcia Dunbar-Green, and Georgiana Fraser – ends the lecturer’s five-year effort to adopt the now 13-year-old boy, whose name has been withheld to protect his identity.

The appellant, whose parents are Jamaican, said he first learned of the child after the boy’s mother posted on social media that she intended to give him up for adoption due to her inability to care for him. She handed the child over to the appellant in August 2016, and he applied for adoption in February 2020 in the Family Court in Montego Bay, St James.

In 2022, however, the Family Court found that the then 58-year-old applicant, identified as KAR, had failed to adequately address the child’s overall well-being, including both his educational and complex medical needs. These challenges include hydrocephalus (a buildup of fluid in the brain), meningomyelocele (a condition in which a gap forms in the bones of the spine), as well as clubfoot.

The child, who is not biologically related to the appellant, also had incontinence, a hearing impairment, allergic conjunctivitis in the left eye, rhinitis, and tinea (a skin condition).

Areas of concern

The court noted that the child missed crucial appointments at the Bustamante Hospital for Children, did not obtain recommended hearing aids or orthopaedic shoes. The court also learnt that the child had been sleeping in the same bed as the appellant in his home, which was said to be unhygienic. The appellant claimed the child was scared.

Based on reports from the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA), the absence of required background and character references, and the CPFSA’s call for a psychiatric assessment, the Family Court judge concluded that transferring the child to the appellant “would likely not serve the child’s welfare or best interests”. She identified roughly 20 areas of concern, mainly centred on the boy’s medical and educational care and gaps in the appellant’s background information.

The Court of Appeal agreed, stating that the evidence showed “woeful neglect” of the child’s long-term healthcare requirements.

Another major concern was the appellant’s inability to provide verifiable background details. His affidavits indicated he had not lived at a fixed address in the United Kingdom for more than 30 years and had moved frequently between jobs. His overseas employment documents were unverified, and he did not submit a home-study report from the Netherlands, where he had lived and initially planned to take the child.

An interim adoption order issued in 2021 gave the appellant temporary legal authority to secure medical care for the boy, but he did not act on it, claiming he did not understand it. The judge accepted that the written order was issued late, but ruled that this did not excuse his failure to address the child’s most critical medical needs.

Justice Williams, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the Family Court properly applied the welfare-first principle under the Children (Adoption of) Act.

“There was ample material to support her conclusion. There was no error of law or principle that would justify disturbing the Family Court’s decision,” she said.

The appeal was dismissed, and the refusal of the adoption was upheld. No order for costs was made. The child remains under state-supervised care to ensure ongoing medical, educational, and developmental support.

Attorney Deanna McFarlane represented the appellant, while Kaye-Ann Park appeared for the Office of the Children’s Advocate, the child’s court-appointed guardian.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com