Court backs women’s right to choose adoption after social workers blocked their choice

After social workers obstructed two women's attempts to place their children for adoption, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the Department of Social Development's appeal. South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed the government’s bid to overturn a ruling against officials who obstructed two women’s decisions to place their children for adoption, according to the Women’s Legal Centre (WLC). The centre said the court upheld findings that social workers violated the women’s rights and that the Department of Social Development’s (DSD) adoption guidelines unlawfully imposed requirements beyond those set out in the Children’s Act. How the dispute began The case arose after two women, identified as TT and BM, voluntarily decided to place their children for adoption. According to the WLC, government social workers delayed the adoption process, pressured the women to consider childcare arrangements they had rejected and shared private information with people the women did not want involved. The centre said officials also arranged alternative care for the children without the women’s knowledge or consent because they disagreed with their decisions to choose adoption. The women challenged the department’s conduct in the High Court, which found that officials had acted unlawfully and violated their rights to privacy and dignity. Department cannot add its own legal hurdles The Department of Social Development minister submitted an appeal, which was dismissed. According to the centre, the appeal court confirmed that the department could not use its Practice Guidelines on National Adoption to introduce requirements that parliament had not included in the Children’s Act. The WLC said the guidelines were unlawful and unconstitutional because they imposed those additional requirements. The centre said the ruling carried consequences beyond the two women’s cases. “This judgment is significant beyond these two cases as it makes clear that the department must act within the authority given to it by law and that its officials cannot use administrative practices to undermine lawful adoption processes or the constitutional rights of the people involved,” the WLC said. Family connections do not automatically come first The WLC said the court also rejected the argument that a child’s connections to biological relatives, culture or community must automatically take priority in adoption decisions. Those connections may matter, but officials must assess each child’s circumstances rather than apply a fixed rule, the centre said. Quoting the judgment, the WLC said: “The overarching consideration is the best interests of the child. The focus is on suitability, rather than relation, marital status or income.” The distinction matters because the ruling, as described by the centre, does not remove the need to consider a child’s welfare. Instead, it requires officials to follow the law while assessing the child’s individual needs and relationships. Protecting women’s privacy and choices The WLC welcomed the judgment as an affirmation of women’s reproductive autonomy – their ability to make personal decisions about reproduction, including a lawful decision to place a child for adoption. “The state cannot override those choices simply because officials believe that a different family arrangement is more preferable to the state… Nor can the best interests of the child be used to circumvent lawful processes and justify unlawful interference or a failure to follow the law,” the centre said. The centre advocated for stronger calls for legal protection for birth mothers who choose adoption and want to do so privately and confidentially.