IN RE F.R. (AN INFANT) [1972]DLHC2226

Date	1972-03-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2226

OSEI-HWERE J.

MENSAH BONSU FOR THE APPLICANT.

KALEO BIOH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT INFANT. K. A.

T. AMANKWAH FOR THE RESPONDENT MOTHER.

[1972]DLHC2226
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >IN RE F.R. (AN INFANT) <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1972] 2 GLR 61<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
24 MARCH 1972.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MENSAH BONSU FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

KALEO BIOH, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE RESPONDENT
INFANT. K. A. T. AMANKWAH FOR THE RESPONDENT MOTHER.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for the adoption of F. R. an infant aged three years. The
applicant is the natural father of the infant and he brings this application
alone. The facts disclose that the applicant is employed by the Mim Timber
Company as their production manager on a very attractive salary. In August
1968, he married under our customary law Miss Felicia Dwira, and on 10 March
1969, they had an issue, the subject of this application. In July 1971, the
marriage broke down and Miss Dwira had to leave the matrimonial home. The
marriage was subsequently dissolved.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In September
1971, the applicant got married to one Miss Helena Grace Hagan who now lives
with him at Mim. The infant has been living with the applicant since July 1971.
The applicant who is an expatriate (and not a citizen of Ghana) brings this
application to adopt the infant to enable him to bring her up in a deserving
manner. Even though the mother has withheld her consent the applicant prays the
court to dispense with her consent as it is being withheld unreasonably. The
applicant gives as some of his reasons in inviting the court to dispense with
the mother’s consent the fact that the mother is not in any gainful employment
and that the environment of her living condition will not be conducive to the
proper upbringing of the infant who has, since her birth, been accustomed to
living in a bungalow and being fed on European diet. The mother, not
unnaturally, opposes the application and maintains that her consent has not
been unreasonably withheld. It has been urged on her behalf that she is now
trading with her mother and that with her family background she will be capable
to bring up the child in a fitting manner.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the applicant referred the court to section 7 of the Adoption Act, 1962
(Act 104), and submitted that it is mandatory on the court to postpone the
determination of the application and make an interim order for a period of six
months in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of Act 104. Counsel,
therefore, invited the court to make an order giving the custody of the infant
to the applicant for a period of six months. I do not think that section 7 of
Act 104 imposes any mandatory obligation on the court to make an interim order
in all cases merely because the applicant is not a citizen of Ghana. Section 6
of Act 104 under which section 7 draws its strength is itself discretionary. It
seems to me, therefore, that it is only when the court has thought it fit to
make an interim order that it will be required to make the order for six months
in the case of the applicant. The making of such an interim order is under
section 6 (3) subject to the overriding provision that all such consents as are
required for an adoption order shall be necessary.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
documents filed it is clear that the applicant qualifies to apply for an
adoption. Section 5 (1) of Act 104 enjoins the court that before it makes an
adoption order it shall be satisfied that every person whose consent is
required under section 3 of the Act and whose consent is not dispensed with,
has consented to and understands the nature and effect of the adoption order
for which the application is made, and in particular in the case of any parent
that such parent understands that the effect of the adoption order will be
permanently to deprive him or her of his or her parental rights.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is for
this reason that it has been recognised that an adoption order is of momentous
and grave effect and it should not be lightly made. The law requires that an
adoption order shall not be made except with the consent of every person who is
a parent of the juvenile. Miss Felicia Dwira, who is the mother of the
juvenile, withholds her consent and that should normally settle the
application. The court, however, is empowered, as noted before, to dispense
with the consent of any parent of the juvenile if that consent is unreasonably
withheld. The applicant invites the court to rule that the consent is
unreasonably withheld.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span</main>