April 18, 2024, 11:22:12 PM

Author Topic: COURT ROW OVER FOSTER BABY  (Read 1569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rotatopoti3

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2057
    • View Profile
COURT ROW OVER FOSTER BABY
« on: March 09, 2014, 02:29:01 AM »
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,191634.html

A Carapichaima foster mother who was given the responsibility of taking care of a three-month old abandoned baby girl one year and three months ago, is now fighting tooth and nail to get legal guardianship of the infant child on the grounds of compassion.

Cindy Rakhal and her husband Donald, are waging a legal battle with the Adoption Board of Trinidad and Tobago, as well as the Foster Care Unit, in a bid to keep the baby who now refers to them as “Mummy” and “Daddy”.

The Rakhals, seeking to adopt, became foster parents in 2010, satisfying all the necessary criteria .

Three years ago they could not contain their joy when they were asked to take care of a seven- month-old baby girl. The couple subsequently applied for legal guardianship and were successful. Their life became complete with the arrival of this baby girl.

One year later, in March last year, they were elated when the Foster Care Unit approached them asking if they were interested in taking care of another abandoned baby girl.

The Rakhals, who are devout Christians, seized the opportunity to take on the responsibility of caring for another infant. And as with any newborn , they spent many sleepless nights caring for this new baby girl, soon developing a bond with the child.

Members of Cindy’s extended family helped the couple take care of their two foster children .

The Rakhals could not be happier. But all that changed last Thursday when Cindy, a bank employee, received a telephone call from the director of the Foster Care Unit, Vidya Pooransingh, informing her that the Adoption Board had decided to place the baby (her second foster daughter) up for adoption and that a couple who was first on the list of people waiting to adopt, will get the baby.

Said Cindy:

“I was shattered, it was as if my whole world had come tumbling down. I immediately alerted my husband as to what was said to me.”

She said that she told the director of the Foster Care Unit that she was at work and there was no way she could make the arrangements to hand over the child, and that she wanted the Adoption Board to hold their hands until she had time to seek legal advice on the matter.

She said she was informed by neighbours that police officers had gone to her home asking about her whereabouts. This, she said, caused her a lot of embarrassment.

Cindy said she contacted attorney Kent Samlal who sought further advice from attorneys Gerald Ramdeen and Abdel Mohammed and others.

She said when the lawyers heard of her predicament, they became so involved that she felt a sense of relief because of their understanding.

An injunction was filed in the High Court to prevent the Adoption Board from proceeding with the decision to take away the baby from Cindy and her husband. The injunction was not granted. The devastated couple filed an immediate appeal to another High Court judge at exactly 5 pm last Thursday. The second injunction was granted; the couple’s prayers were answered.

Cindy and her husband Donald returned to their Carapichaima home and hugged the baby girl whom they have grown to love as their own.

But now they must wait, not knowing if, they will get to keep their second foster daughter.

Cindy told Sunday Newsday:

“I feel hurt because of the way we were treated. The Adoption Board together with the Foster Care Agency should take time off to accept the application of foster parents for legal guardianship of children in cases where they have developed a close bond with children who have been placed in their care.”

Cindy told Sunday Newsday that the baby is the light of her life and that she was upset when she was told by an official of the Adoption Agency that one of the reasons why the baby was being taken away from her was because she was of a different race. Cindy said she was asked the question, “How do you think the child will feel when she grows up and realises that she does not look like you all?” The baby is Afro-Trinidadian while Cindy and her husband are Indo-Trinidadians.

Cindy said there is no race where love is concerned and this should not be used as an excuse to snatch her baby away from her.

She said she did sign a document with the Foster Care Unit to keep the child temporarily but said love knows no boundaries and she is now fighting to keep the baby on grounds of compassion. She said when she took on the responsibility of caring for the child, she did enquire subsequently whether anyone had come forward to claim her and that in September of last year, she was contacted by the Foster Care Unit with the information that the child would be placed for adoption.

“I wrote to the Minister of Gender, Youth and Child Development Clifton De Coteau requesting that he intervene on the grounds of compassion. He said that according to the Adoption Act he could not respond but that there was a provision in that Act which says we could appeal to the High Court.

“We applied to the Adoption Board requesting that, seeing we are already on an approved list and asked that as we had formed a bond with the child, they give us first priority. The Board will not agree for us to keep the baby because we are not number one on the list...

“I then requested a meeting with the director of the Foster Care Unit and she was adamant that the child will be removed from our care and placed for adoption.

“It is unfair that we took the child (as foster parents) and now they are treating us like this. I am very disappointed at the way we were treated and continue to be treated,” said Cindy.

“I cannot bear the thought of her being taken away from me, I hug and cuddle her every day thinking about her being taken away from us,” said Cindy, her voice choking with emotion.

“It is also very difficult for my husband because she calls him Daddy, and I will do everything within my power to keep this child, I believe in God.”

The case comes up for hearing on Tuesday March 11.
Ah say it, how ah see it

Offline weary1969

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 27225
    • View Profile
Re: COURT ROW OVER FOSTER BABY
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2014, 10:46:19 AM »
Extension granted
Baby remains in foster parents care...
By Rickie Ramdass rickie.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com


FOR close to five hours yesterday, attorneys representing the foster parents of a 15-month-old baby girl, the Adoption Board of Trinidad and Tobago, and the Foster Care Unit engaged in legal battle at the High Court in Port of Spain as the parents sought to prevent the baby from being taken away from them and put up for adoption.

The foster parents, Cindy Rakhal and her husband Donald, have been caring for the child since March of last year.

At yesterday’s hearing, they were seeking an extension on an injunction which was granted last Thursday, preventing the Foster Care Unit from taking the baby girl. That injunction was to expire yesterday.

However, members of the media and other people who did not have a direct interest in the matter, including other attorneys, were not allowed to enter the courtroom.

The only information released was that the extension was granted, meaning that the child will remain in the care of the Rakhals pending the outcome of a judicial review application filed by the couple.

They are challenging the Foster Care Unit’s intention to have the baby taken away from them.

That application will be heard this morning at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain.

At the conclusion of yesterday’s hearing, attorneys as well as the Rakhals refused to divulge any information on what transpired in court, based on the advice of Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, who presided over the matter.

The judge, they said, issued a gag order preventing them from speaking about the matter.

Rajnauth-Lee was also the judge who granted the injunction last week after it was denied by another judge.

The Rakhals, who live in Carapichaima, are seeking legal guardianship of the child.

In March of last year, the foster parents were contacted by the Foster Care Unit and asked if they were willing to care for the abandoned baby, who was only three months old, to which they agreed.

However, last week, Cindy Rakhal was again contacted and told she needed to hand over the child as there was another couple who was willing to adopt her.

The Rakhals are arguing that they should get legal guardianship of the baby on the grounds of compassion.

They are also the legal guardians of another baby girl who was put into their care by the Foster Care Unit in 2010, when the baby girl was seven months old.

Today you're the dog, tomorrow you're the hydrant - so be good to others - it comes back!"

Offline weary1969

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 27225
    • View Profile
Re: COURT ROW OVER FOSTER BABY
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2014, 12:29:27 PM »
Battle for ‘Baby X’: judge to rule by June
By Susan Mohammed susan.mohammed@trinidadexpress.com


THE ADOPTive parents of a 15-month-old baby girl will know by June if the child will remain in their care.
Cindy and Donald Rackal of Carapichaima, who are challenging the Foster Care Unit’s intention to terminate their parental rights in relation to the infant, appeared in the San Fernando High Court yesterday where the matter came up for hearing of the judicial review.
The child has been in the care of the Rackals since March last year.
Justice Frank Seepersad, during a hearing in the San Fernando Supreme Court yesterday, said given the circumstances of the case, the court intends to treat with the matter urgently and give a decision before the end of June.
On Tuesday, Justice Maureen Raj­nauth-Lee presided over a related hearing in the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain.
Rajnauth-Lee granted an extension of an injunction granted on Feb­ruary 27, preventing the State from taking the baby girl away from the Rackals while they engage in a legal battle over foster care.
Seepersad said pursuant to the consent position adopted before the Court of Appeal in the Hall of Justice on Tuesday, infant X is to remain with the Rackals until the determination of the case.
Seepersad directed the infant to be referred to as “Baby X” in all subsequent proceedings and all previous court documents that actually contained the name of the infant to be sealed.
Directions were also given for the filing of an amended claim form and affidavits, all before April 30.
The judge will subsequently make a decision as to whether cross-examination will be necessary.
The court also heard the Rackals have filed an application for bud­geted costs of the legal action in the sum of $250,000, to be paid by the State if they are successful in the case.
However, Seepersad ruled on the application and found a reasonable sum was $94,500. If the Rackals lose the case, they will be ordered to pay that sum to the State.
The next hearing of the case was fixed for May 1 at 9 a.m.

Today you're the dog, tomorrow you're the hydrant - so be good to others - it comes back!"

Offline rotatopoti3

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2057
    • View Profile
Re: COURT ROW OVER FOSTER BABY
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2014, 05:59:08 PM »
Weary thanks for these posts...

Ah cant imagine the mental anguish these people feeling...

Cindy (foster mother of the child) said she was asked the question, “How do you think the child will feel when she grows up and realises that she does not look like you all?” The baby is Afro-Trinidadian while Cindy and her husband are Indo-Trinidadians.

If this was really said to her..I'm at a loss for words..I can't comprehend this reasoning. I use to think only in d U.S. yuh would see this kinda case, not a small island like Trini where I would have assumed that since  d child is ah trini and parents are trini..that would be a good argument due to d cultural ties of being TRINI first and that would take precedence over whether d parents are of Indian or African descent..

Hope d people get tuh keep d child....
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 06:05:37 PM by rotatopoti3 »
Ah say it, how ah see it

 

1]; } ?>