Revocation of adoption.
ECLI: NL: RBNHO: 2018: 5426
Authority
District Court of North Holland
Date of judgment
27-06-2018
Date of publication
01-08-2018
Case number
C / 15/268684 / FA RK 18-67
Jurisdictions
Person-and familyright
Special characteristics
First instance - multiple
Content indication
Revocation of adoption. Excessable time limit. Revocation is apparently in the applicant's interest and the court is happily convinced of the reasonableness of the request. Request has been granted.
Locations
Rechtspraak.nl
Enriched pronunciation
Statement
COURT NORTH HOLLAND
Family & Youth Section
location Alkmaar
case / petition no .: C / 15/268684 / FA RK 18-67
decision of 27 June 2018 regarding revocation of adoption
in the case of:
[applicant],
residing at a secret address in the jurisdiction of this court,
hereinafter referred to as: the applicant,
lawyer: mr. CWM Neefjes, with offices in Purmerend,
--against--
[the adoptive mother] ,
residing in [residence],
hereinafter referred to as: the adoptive mother,
lawyer: mr. DA Segbedzi, with offices in Amsterdam,
and
[the adoptive father] ,
residing in [residence],
hereinafter referred to as: the adoptive father.
1Procedure
1.1
The course of the procedure is evidenced by:
- the petition, with appendices, from the applicant, received on 22 December 2017;
- the letter from mr. DA Segbedzi, in which she presents herself as the lawyer of the adoptive mother, received on April 30, 2018;
- the messages from the Applicant's lawyer, received on January 24, 2018 with appendices, on February 7, 2018, on February 15, 2018 and on February 27, 2018 with appendix;
- the e-mail messages from the applicant, received on March 22, 2018, on March 27, 2018, on March 28, 2018 and on April 10, 2018;
- the letter from the adoptive father, received on May 23, 2018.
1.2
The case was dealt with at the hearing on 29 May 2018. At the request of the applicant, the parties were heard separately. At 9.15 am appeared: the adoptive mother assisted by mr. DA Segbedzi and the attorney of the applicant, mr. CWM Neefjes. The adoptive father did not appear with notice of unavailability.
At 11.15 am appeared: the applicant assisted by mr. CWM Neefjes and the lawyer of the adoptive mother mr. DA Segbedzi.
2Facts and circumstances
2.1
The applicant was born on [date of birth] in [place], Bangladesh. Her biological mother is called: [biological mother] and her biological father is called: [biological father].
2.2
By judgment of the Alkmaar District Court of 11 October 1978, the adoption of the applicant was pronounced by the adoptive mother and the adoptive father. According to the certified copy of the registrar of births, deaths and marriages of the municipality [place] (hereinafter: ABS) dated 12 December 2017, the aforementioned judgment, which became final on 12 April 1979, was registered on 15 August 1979 in the registers of the registry office of the municipality [place]. As a result of this adoption, the applicant obtained the family name “[family name]”.
2.3
By order of the Alkmaar District Court dated 9 May 1979, the applicant's first names were changed to: [first names].
3The request
3.1
The applicant has requested, as far as possible enforceable on stock, to revoke the adoption pronounced by the Alkmaar District Court on 11 October 1978.
3.2
In support of the request, the applicant put forward the following. Her adoptive parents divorced when she was about 2 years old. The Applicant had an excellent relationship with the then new relationship of the adoptive mother, [stepfather], unlike her adoptive mother. After [stepfather] died on [date], her relationship with the adoptive mother deteriorated even further. Since 2013 there is no longer any contact between them. Because of the adoption, but especially because of the way in which she has been treated by the adoptive mother since her earliest childhood, she has developed serious psychological problems, as a result of which she has been partially incapacitated for work for some time. She was mentally and physically abused by the adoptive mother, who felt overly concerned and did not allow the applicant to interact normally with her classmates. For years the adoptive mother persuaded the applicant and her environment that the applicant had serious medical conditions, which later turned out to be incorrect. On 21 December 2016, the applicant sent the adoptive mother a registered letter stating that the adoptive mother may not contact her in any conceivable way for the next 25 years, because the applicant wanted to be sure that the adoptive mother would not live in her life. return. The Applicant has had psychological help in connection with all this since 2012. On 21 December 2016, the applicant sent the adoptive mother a registered letter stating that the adoptive mother may not contact her in any conceivable way for the next 25 years, because the applicant wanted to be sure that the adoptive mother would not live in her life. return. The Applicant has had psychological help in connection with all this since 2012. On 21 December 2016, the applicant sent the adoptive mother a registered letter stating that the adoptive mother may not contact her in any conceivable way for the next 25 years, because the applicant wanted to be sure that the adoptive mother would not live in her life. return. The Applicant has had psychological help in connection with all this since 2012.
It was impossible for the applicant to object to the claiming behavior of the adoptive mother, because the adoptive mother always distorted the situation in such a way that she could pose as a victim of alleged problematic behavior of the applicant.
The applicant is of the opinion that, with reference to the documents submitted by her, she has sufficiently demonstrated that the adoptive mother lied to her from an early age, underwent unnecessary medical treatment, spread all kinds of falsehoods about her health and in a penetrating and unremitting manner with her life has interfered.
Because the applicant is still unable to evade the influence of the adoptive mother, she has a complex chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. The fact that the adoptive mother is still her legal mother is a barrier to treatment, and as far as possible recovery, of the psychological complaints.
On the basis of the foregoing, the applicant argues that revocation of the adoption should be considered in her interest and that the request is reasonable.
Although the law prescribes that a request such as this must be made within five years after the adopted person has reached the age of majority, it can be concluded from case law that this provision is contrary to the ECHR. The applicant states that such a request can also be submitted and granted after five years and refers to ECLI: NL: RBSGR: 2011: BT8475.
4Position of adoptive mother and adoptive father
4.1
In summary, the adoptive mother put forward the following at the hearing. Although it is a very radical request, the adoptive mother does not oppose the petitioner's request. The termination of the contact is better for the health of the applicant and also for the well-being of the adoptive mother herself.
The applicant came to the Netherlands approximately two months after her birth. Until the moment that the applicant was operated in the hospital in her seventh year of life, she was a nice and sweet child and there was a good relationship. After that hospitalization, she became a different child, because that hospital period was a traumatic experience for her. At primary school, the applicant had difficulty entering into and maintaining social contacts. The Applicant is also super intelligent, but she has dyscalculia, which made calculations difficult. To her stepfather, [stepfather], the applicant was a princess. Since the adoptive mother was working then, he was always at home for her. His death was a second traumatic experience in the applicant's life. Much greater trauma than the first. The applicant has always been very closed. Although the adoptive mother did try to talk to her about it, they couldn't. The situation with the petitioner has drastically affected the life of the adoptive mother. She thinks there is something mentally wrong with the applicant. For example, after the break-up of her relationship in November 2013, the applicant kept calling and emailing the adoptive mother endlessly asking what she should do. Because the adoptive mother was concerned, she then approached the applicant's GP. Contrary to what the adoptive mother had expected, he informed the applicant of this. The applicant strongly blamed the adoptive mother for calling in the GP. They last saw each other on December 31, 2013. After that they only had a single contact by telephone and e-mail.
4.2
The adoptive father did not appear in court. In the aforementioned letter, he stated the following. He cannot be present at the oral treatment because he is recovering from a mild cerebral infarction. With a heavy heart, he does not object to the revocation of the adoption. This only so that the applicant can continue with her life in a calm and stable environment. The adoptive father respects the difficult decision taken by the applicant to submit the present application. The adoptive father had nothing to do with the events that took place. It has been a sad and tragic time for both involved. The adoptive father hopes that both will go well in the future and that they will settle down.
5Review
time limit
5.1
The request is based on Section 231 of Book 1 of the Civil Code (BW). In this article, the second paragraph provides that the request for revocation of the adoption must be submitted no earlier than two years and no later than five years after the day on which the adopted person has reached the age of majority. The applicant was 40 years old at the time the application was lodged. The term has thus been amply exceeded.
5.2
When asked at the hearing, the applicant put forward the following reasons for this. Since she was 20 years old, she has had help from the General Social Work. Since 2003/2004, the applicant has already been busy in her head with the possibility of revoking the adoption. Initially, however, she did not feel the need to continue this process. From 2014 to the end of 2015 she followed online therapy. Because, in the applicant's words, her autonomy was dead, she started looking for professional help in November 2016. She now has the help of a psychotherapist. From the moment she has professional help, it has become clear to her that there is a need to revoke the adoption. The solution to coping with the trauma of her childhood lies in the revocation of the adoption. Her psychotherapist also supports this, she stated at the hearing when asked. Since the adoptive parents do not contradict the request, their interests are not harmed. Finally, the applicant argues that there are no other reasons for not including the applicant in the application, because legal certainty is not in dispute.
5.3
The adoptive mother's lawyer stated at the hearing that the adoptive mother agrees if the petitioner is received in the application, because no interests are harmed. In doing so, it points out that in the event that the applicant would not be received in the application, there would be an unjustified interference with the right to 'family life' protected by Article 8 ECHR.
5.4
The court considers as follows.
In principle, setting time limits is not an unjustified interference with the right to 'family life' protected by Article 8 ECHR, since the time limits set by law are necessary in a democratic society in order to guarantee legal certainty and furthermore to protect the interests of the parties involved in the applicable legal provision. In this case, the applicant's interest lies in breaking the legal family relationship between her and the adoptive mother and the adoptive father. In view of the aforementioned circumstances in this case, the court considers application of the term set in said article unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness. The fact that the time limit is very long does not alter this. A request for withdrawal is a very radical choice, of which it is quite conceivable that this choice cannot be made at a young age and where it cannot be ruled out that an adoptee in the first years of adulthood is insufficiently able to oversee the scope of such a choice. Distancing yourself from the adoptive mother and the adoptive father can be a lengthy process and therefore lead to a - long - term overrun, as in this case. The court is therefore of the opinion that application of the aforementioned term in this case constitutes an unjustified interference in family life within the meaning of Article 8, second paragraph, ECHR. Nor is legal certainty at stake. Since the adoptive mother and the adoptive father do not contradict the request, weighing up the interests of those involved does not lead to a different judgment. The court therefore disregards the term in this case. The applicant is admissible in her request.
revocation of adoption
5.5
In view of the documents and the proceedings at the hearing, the court is of the opinion that revocation of the adoption is in the apparent interest of the applicant. In doing so, the court took the following into account. The applicant and the adoptive mother have completely different perceptions of how their relationship has developed, whereby the applicant indicates that she has never experienced emotional security from the adoptive mother. At the hearing, the court found that the confrontation with the given summary of what the adoptive mother stated at the hearing caused strong negative emotions in the applicant.
5.6
On the basis of the foregoing, the court is confidently convinced that the request is reasonable. The applicant's request will therefore be granted.
6Decision
The court:
6.1
revokes the adoption of [applicant] , born on [date of birth] in [place], Bangladesh, by [the adoptive father] and [the adoptive mother];
6.2
orders the registrar of births, deaths and marriages of the municipality [place] to add a later statement of the revocation of the adoption to the relevant deed;
6.3
orders the registrar to send a copy of this decision to the registrar of births, deaths and marriages of the municipality [place] not earlier than three months after the date of the decision on this decision - and if no appeal has been lodged against it.
This decision was given by mr. ME Allegro, chairman, mr. JL Roubos and mr. AR ten Berge, all juvenile judges, in the presence of AM Bergen, registrar and pronounced in public on 27 June 2018.
If a final decision has been taken against this decision, an appeal can be lodged with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal through the intervention of a lawyer. The requesting party and any interested parties appearing must file the appeal within three months from the date of the decision. Other interested parties must lodge the appeal within three months of the notification of this decision or after it has become known to them in some other way.
.