H.K.L., Re, (1988) 91 A.R. 141 (QB)

• Judge: Gallant, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 28, 1988
• Citations: (1988), 91 A.R. 141 (QB)

H.K.L., Re (1988), 91 A.R. 141 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Re: H.K.L. (Adoption)

(No. T-CW03-41432)

Indexed As: H.K.L., Re

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Gallant, J.

October 28, 1988.

Summary:

A married couple petitioned to adopt the female petitioner's 12 year old niece. The child's parents and the child resided in India.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the adoption petition, where the material filed respecting the petition fell far short of satisfying the court that the adoption was in the best interests of the child.

Family Law - Topic 1447

Adoption - Considerations - International adoption - A married couple petitioned to adopt the female petitioner's 12 year old niece, who resided in India - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the "best interests of the child" in this situation - The court stated that it had grave concerns about the appropriateness of granting an adoption of a child who was and never had been in Canada - The court also referred to the conflicts of laws implications in such an adoption - In the result the court refused the petition, because the material filed fell far short of establishing that it was in the best interests of the child to grant the adoption.

Family Law - Topic 1447

Adoption - Considerations - International adoption - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the mere fact that the adoption would have the effect of altering the immigration status of the adoptee is not alone a reason to reject the adoption, but is merely a factor for the court to consider" - See paragraph 30.

Family Law - Topic 1448

Adoption - Considerations - Adoption of convenience - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "adoptions of convenience or 'accommodation adoptions' are not necessarily in the child's best interests and are not within the purposes of the [Child Welfare] Act" - See paragraph 28.

Family Law - Topic 1704

Adoption - Practice - Supporting documents - A married couple petitioned to adopt the 12 year old niece of the female petitioner - The child resided in India with her parents - Various affidavits, documents and a report prepared by a Child Welfare worker were filed by the parents and Alberta Social Services as required by the Child Welfare Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench was critical of many of the papers filed and discussed what these papers should have contained - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Minister of Social Services) v. G.C.C., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1073; 85 N.R. 10; 85 N.B.R.(2d) 252; 217 A.P.R. 252, refd to. [para. 27].

Re Rai (1980), 106 D.L.R.(3d) 718 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Re B(S)(An Infant), [1968] Ch. 204, refd to. [para. 35].

Paquette v. Galipeau (1981), 22 R.F.L.(2d) 192, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Child Welfare Act, S.A. 1984, c. 8.1, Part 6 [para. 2]; sect. 1(1)(i) [para. 7]; sect. 2 [para. 3]; sect. 2(a) [para. 29]; sect. 2(h) [para. 24]; sect. 49(1) [para. 22]; sect. 56(1), sect. 56(2) [para. 3]; sect. 56.1(2), sect. 56.1(3) [paras. 3, 13]; sect. 56.1(4) [paras. 3, 5, 7, 13]; sect. 56.1(5) [paras. 3, 13, 17]; sect. 60(1) [paras. 3, 14]; sect. 60(2) [para. 3]; sect. 60(3) [paras. 3, 16]; sect. 63(1) [paras. 3, 37]; sect. 63(1)(a) [para. 13]; sect. 63(1)(b) [paras. 13, 23]; sect. 64(1), sect. 64(2), sect. 65(5) [para. 3]; sect. 70 [paras. 3, 33]; sect. 87(2), sect. 87(3) [para. 7].

Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. D-37, sect. 47 [para. 22].

Family Services Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. F-2.2, sect. 1 [para. 25].

Immigration Act Regulations, sect. 4(1)(g) [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cheshire and North, Private International Law (11th Ed. 1987), p. 754 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Donna Mae Talbot, for the Crown.

This petition was heard before Gallant, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on October 28, 1988.