A visiting Tongan couple from New Zealand who wanted to adopt a young girl, had their application rejected by the Supreme Court Family Jurisdiction on Friday, April 22.

The couple intended to take the 5 year-old to be raised in their home in Christchurch. However, the court concluded that the child was better off living in Tonga.

In his ruling the Chief Justice O. G. Paulsen recognised the good intentions of the couple, but reasoned that the girl was enjoying a good upbringing with her family in Tonga, and did not envision the couple being able to provide a better future for her in New Zealand. "The desires of applicants are not the focus of this Court's enquiry and all I am concerned with is what is in the best interests of [the child]," he stated.

According to Tonga Law, a child cannot be removed from Tonga by an adopting family unless all other means of caring for the child in Tonga have been exhausted.

The couple who are both employed and reside in Christchurch have no children of their own and had been in a long agreement with relatives in Tonga to adopt the girl - a niece of the woman. The court found that the relatives had agreed for the couple to adopt the girl before she was born and even permitted the couple to name her upon her birth. The couple were closely tied with their relatives and regularly sent money to support them. The girl’s natural parents were both employed and she had four other siblings.

The court stated that it had closely inspected all parties, an inspection which included an interview with the girl herself. "She is clearly a very shy and sensitive child," the ruling stated.

Despite all parties agreeing for the child to be adopted, the judge rejected the application. “It is in my view that the girl’s best interests are served by remaining in Tonga with her family and I would have arrived at the result to decline the application…,” he stated.

“Although the applicants appear to be in a more secure financial position as compared to the girl’s natural parents this is a relative matter. The applicants are not wealthy and live in rental accommodation in one of the poorer suburbs of Christchurch (Aranui). There was no evidence to satisfy that in terms of her education and future life prospects she could expect to do better being raised by the applicants than with her family in Tonga”

The judge however, expressed his sympathy for the couple and recognised their good intentions.

The Judge stated, “I feel much sympathy for the applicants who as I have said are genuine in their love for the girl and in their desire for a family. I accept that they believe that girl will ultimately be better off living with them in New Zealand and for that reason I took time to consider this application further before arriving at my decision."

The court suppressed the names of the applicants, the child and the natural mother.

Mr K. Piukala represented the applicants.