Weird. Dumb people have rights too. Why do they think they can take away her child? Without any evidence of maltreatment or anything?
F-ing Communist. Dictating everything.
From what I have read of the matter so far, it seems that the Government is acting entirely upon its judgment that the only thing that is valid is the certificate of marriage, which, being lacking in this case, renders the child a ward of the State regardless of the fact that there is an apparently legally-competent father who is willing to raise the child as well as a legally-competent grandmother. These aspects of the matter are not considered relevant because of the lack of the marriage certificate.
I had thought that a 'social services' agency is one that is tasked with helping to do what is truly best for society...finding a human solution to a matter when the law may be unclear or inappropriate for a complex circumstance. It seems that in this case, the 'social services' should be renamed as a law enforcement agency as it appears that they are only considering the strict interpretation of the law from only one viewpoint...that of the State.
I don't know how legitimate this South African blog is, but it raises interesting questions and concerns as to the motivations of an apparent incentive to social workers in increasing adoption numbers. If the assertions made in this blog are even partially true, it certainly raises troubling concerns. Perhaps our friend Manc is familiar with the notion of 'incentives' for social workers placing more and more children into the adoption / foster home system?
Britain stealing children for higher adoption numbers Fromtheold