Durban - A KwaZulu-Natal couple are embroiled in a desperate battle to stop social welfare officials from removing their adopted and foster children because of “untrue and subjective” allegations that they are involved in child trafficking.
An advocate appointed by the high court to represent the eight children, who range in age from 12 to 3 years old, says the children love their parents very much, are legally placed with them and it is the Department of Social Welfare’s social workers who are traumatising them.
Advocate Stuart Humphrey, in his affidavit filed with the Pietermaritzburg High Court, says he has been reliably informed that the department is adopting an anti-cross-cultural adoption policy - black children being adopted by white families - and is building more children’s homes to place those in need in institutional care.
But the department has dismissed “with contempt” any “racial motivation” - saying many white families adopt black children - and accused him of being biased.
It also made a similar allegation against Judge Johan Ploos van Amstel, who ordered that the children should be legally represented.
The child trafficking allegations were apparently made recently by a group of illegal occupiers of land owned by the couple after the couple tried to evict them.
In affidavits provided by department officials, reference is made to the fact that three children who once lived on the farm were adopted by couples living overseas.
Social workers tried to get an ex parte court order (without notice to the other side), authorising the immediate removal of the children, at 5pm on a Thursday in May, but no judge was available.
The next day they got an order that they be allowed to interview the children and, the next month, a further interim order for their removal.
Judge Ploos van Amstel then stayed both these orders, and appointed Humphrey. In his report, Humphrey said the six older children had been adopted by the couple and the younger two, who were twins, were fostered.
Regarding the couple, he said they were “decent, loving and caring and the thought that all or any of their children could be removed from them is unimaginable”.
“They have enormous love for them. They have provided them with a safe, secure and idyllic home life.”
He said he had perused all the adoption orders and the foster care orders. He said the children were all home-schooled and the couple had been criticised because they had not registered them.
“When this was brought to their attention, they enrolled the older children in a local school and have made the relevant applications,” he said.
The children, he said, showed great affection to their parents. They said they were “terrified” when the social workers arrived, unannounced, one day.
He said because the couple had refused to allow them to interview the children, the couple were now being accused of “having something to hide”.
“It is quite apparent that this is not a case of child trafficking. The allegations are baseless, indeed how the department managed to institute this application and have it heard on an ex parte basis and get a (removal) order is incomprehensible.
“It is most disconcerting that social workers, whose job it is to protect children from harm, have contributed to their trauma.”
In reply, social worker Fortunate Xulu accused the couple of “moving and hiding” the children and said there was “good reason” to remove the children.
She said there were discrepancies in the adoption and fostering documents.
She also claimed to have contacted some of the children’s families who were unaware that they had been adopted and were opposed to it.
She said Humphrey was not qualified to interview children, while social workers had taken “toys, paint and brushes” so they could feel comfortable and talk freely without their parents being present, “a totally acceptable and standard practice”.
“All we want to do is investigate properly. We want to ensure the children are receiving care and treatment. We have a court order, but we are being denied access to them,” she said.
“If the children are well looked after then there is no reason to hide them.”
The matter came before Judge Rashid Vahed on Friday and was adjourned for more affidavits to be filed. The earlier orders were again stayed and the department was restrained from making any further court applications without giving the couple proper notice.
The Mercury