SA
Justin Pearce
Adriana Naude knew her baby son would be taken
out of South Africa immediately after being
adopted. This was revealed this week by a
private social worker, Riekie van der Berg,
who organised the adoption granted in February
against the wishes of the child’s natural
father, Lawrie Fraser.
Speaking to the press for the first time since
the adoption controversy blew up, Van der Berg
said the adoptive parents were South African
citizens who would be away for two years on a
work contract.
Naude was referred to Van der Berg, a
registered social worker in private practice,
by the Neo-Birth Pregnancy Crisis Centre. The
centre is a Section 21 company founded by Van
der Berg in conjunction with the born-again
Hatfield Christian Church, which aims to find
alternatives to abortion.
While the adoption took place according to the
letter of existing laws, the removal of the
baby from South Africa has so far frustrated
Fraser’s attempts to challenge the adoption in
terms of constitutional provisions which could
give unmarried fathers a say in their
children’s future.
Advocate Brenda Neukircher, the curator
instructed by the court to establish the
child’s whereabouts, faces the task of
locating a child who is in all likelihood
outside South Africa. Van der Berg said the
adoptive parents had ”had to leave South
Africa as soon as possible”.
It would have been impossible for the adoptive
parents to obtain travel documents for the
child between the granting of the adoption on
February 23 and their departure on February
24. Naude must previously have given the
necessary written permission to take the child
abroad. Fraser’s consent was not required
under the present law.
Fraser says trustworthy informants have
confirmed his earlier suspicions that the
child is in Malawi, and that the adoptive
parents are missionaries. Neukircher is
understood to be preparing to visit Malawi to
interview the adoptive parents.
According to a source at the Pretoria North
Children’s Court, which granted the adoption
order, the adoptive parents’ plans to leave
the country would have no bearing on the
decision to grant the adoption. Although
Fraser’s opposition to the adoption was by
that time known to the court, it let the
adoption go ahead on the basis that only a
child’s natural parents may appeal against an
adoption order — and that in the eyes of
the law, an unmarried father is not a natural
parent.
Van der Berg said a social worker would select
a shortlist of suitable adoptive parents, from
which the mother would choose a family. ”Adri
chose a couple. She was led by the Lord,” Van
der Berg said.
Van der Berg claimed Fraser had had the
opportunity to adopt the child but had
initially shown no interest in doing so, and
had accepted Naude’s decision to let the baby
be adopted by another couple.
Fraser strongly denies this, saying the choice
of adoptive parents was well under way before
the child was born, and before he knew of it.
Van der Berg is confident Fraser’s attempts to
overturn the adoption will not succeed. ”The
truth will come out. God is in control,” she
said.
Unless delayed, Fraser’s appeal will continue
on May 7.