Nigerian couple battles to recover five children from UK local council    21/12/2008
     





Charles and Ronke Tejaiye, a Nigerian couple is frantically battling to reclaim the custody of their five kids, ages between ten, eight, six, five and two years respectively, who were curiously taken by the social workers at Greenwich Council, London, for adoption by different families in the United Kingdom, reports Sunday Oguntola .

“They watched helplessly, agonising inwardly as their children were shared to complete strangers. For their previous protests, they were labeled aggressive and mentally-unbalanced. With all of these, they believe they are simply victims of racial and class prejudice.”

When Charles and Ronke Tejaiye lost a close relation back in Nigeria few years ago, they had no idea it was one loss that could be too many. That loss, unknown to them, would trigger off further family losses.

As the funeral rites of the deceased relation approached, the Nigerian couple had left their United Kingdom base to pay last respects for the departed back home in keeping with tradition.

With no foreboding of any trouble, the couple left with three of their kids at the time, leaving Anita, the eldest child in the custody of a sibling/in-law.

They were persuaded to leave their teenage daughter behind because they reckoned she was safe. And she was safe until her custodian and wife had a family brawl that necessitated the invitation of the police. When the police discovered the teenager with the feuding couple, they decided to take her into custody.

Attempts to reclaim their teenage daughter upon arrival in UK by the parents proved abortive. If anything, it complicated the plight of the couple. The agency curiously took over the remaining three kids, claiming the parents could not cater for them. All entreaties and pleas by the couple fell on deaf ears. Before they knew what hit them, two of them had been adopted by different families in the UK. Plans have reached advanced stages to adopt the remaining three.

They include: Benedicta Tejaiye, a female child born on December 24

th, 2003 whowas seized and fostered in July 2004. By February 2008, an application for her adoption was granted. Anita Tejaiye (Female, DOB; 13th November 1998), Matilda Tejaiye (Female, DOB; 13th April 2000) and Gladys Tejaiye (Female, DOB; 27thApril 2002) who were seized on 09thNovember 2005 still fostered and given only one contact to date while adoption plans are brewing underground.


The case of little Israel Tejaiye, a male born on 21st August 2006, is particularly damning. He was seized on 23rd August 2006, three days after his birth through Caesarean operation. Application for his adoption was granted on 13thOctober 2008.




As it is, the Tejaiyes are without any of their five offsprings, a development they said is as saddening as callous. In a save-our-souls appeal made available to our correspondent, the couple alleged that depriving them the custody of their children is wicked and heartless. ‘’What we are going through with the combination of the Social Workers of Greenwich Council London, United Kingdom and the Courts of Law is simply repugnant to natural justice equity and good conscience," they protested in the message titled: We are being killed softly by the system using the law as an excuse for wickedness.



They claimed that splitting their children in three different families without their consent and any record of abuse or negligence is abrasive and smacks of deliberate conspiracy to torture them unjustifiably. The Tejaiyes debunked insinuations by the agency and police that they intended to use the kids as a cover to regularise their stay in the UK and later dump them as absurd. "People don’t have five children if you never liked children. To the Social Services, we are just some numbers for statistical data. Family unity means nothing to them. Nobody can ever love our children more than we can. The fact that we are not as well off as they expected us to be should not give the System the right to treat us like animals or any less than a human being,’’ they countered.

Besides, they pointed out that four of the children were born in Nigeria, meaning they could never have conceived such plans when it never even occurred to them they would one day relocate to the UK.

They equally punctured the second suggestion that the children had settled well with their adopted parents and that the adoption was in their best interest. "Our children will soon or later look out for their split siblings and their real parents sometime in the future," they pointed out, adding, "Is it not better now for a mild disruption if at all there is to be any, when they can bear it more easily than the trauma as teenagers or older when they have stronger ties even in schools and the community only to realise they belong somewhere else?".

With no evidence of abuse or negligence, the Tejaiyes wondered why their children were whisked away from them for adoption. If there is nothing more to it, they wonder aloud why the state and adopting parents will be interested particularly in their kids since they never gave their consent. Why not the many other children from orphanages, motherless baby homes and the likes that could have benefited from their kind benevolence? Why cause another family so much pain and anguish by snatching and adopting permanently their children? What is there to gain by splitting one family unit scattered into four different units?’’ they queried.

The couple’s spirited battle to reclaim their children has exposed them to further pains. The council’s agency has carried out several insanity tests on them, which they claimed has been dehumanising. During the hearing for the case at the Appeal Court, they were prevented from uttering a word. They watched helplessly, agonising inwardly, as their children were shared to complete strangers. For their previous protests, they were labelled aggressive and mentally-unbalanced. With all of these, they believe they are simply victims of racial and class prejudice.

In the UK, The Queen though is seen as the protector of children and welfare of infants; the power is conferred on the Court of the Chancery under the Law Reform Act 1949, which the Children Act 1989 reaffirms. The position of the local authority/social services to ward a child has been minimised under section 100 of the Act  .Section 100(4) requires the social services to apply for court order before a child be warded.

Though the parents lack immigration status, section 17 and 20 of the Children’s Act 1989 actually allows the social services to provide help to the children and their families until they are 16 years. The only ground for taking over the children is the assumed inability of the parents to cater for them because they lack papers. This is why the adoption of the Nigerian kids remains a wonder. Already, the couple are contemplating an appeal against the rulings. They lost the first appeal and the hope of winning the second one remains strongly tied to paying £5,000 and £10,000. In the alternative, they would have to secure legal aid.

But Mrs. Tejaiye is anxious to reclaim her kids. According to her, she would leave UK provided her children are returned.

Plans are on to gather signatories against the forceful adoption. Pressure groups are being mobilised to lead the campaign for the release of the Nigerian kids to their real parents while legal processes are also being fine-tuned. But their best chance remains the intervention of the Nigerian government. "A little pressure on the British High Commission in Nigeria could make the Home Office Secretary exercise the prerogative for their release to Nigeria,’’ says a legal expert.


http://www.thenationonlineng.com/dynamicpage.asp?id=73072