RIGHTS OF ADOPTED CHILDREN.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 458, 17 March 1909, Page 9

RIGHTS OF ADOPTED CHILDREN.

IN ACCIDENT CASES. POINT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME During tho sittings of tho Court of Arbitration yesterday, argument was heard C m .regard to the caso of the Public Trusd"u?htoi NeVl ' S and h ° r adopted 1 h J h io f ™ ts '" this 1 / «w° n 'er° that in Septem- {' ber, .1903, a stevedore named Charles Novi3 i who was in the employ of tho Shaw, Savili , owl Albion Company, sustained injuries a which resulted in his death. On behalf of ( tho company the maximum amount of com- 1' pensation had been handed over to tho Pub- tl lie Irusteo. Application was now made to ■ apportion tho moneys between tho depend- a ents, and further for an order as-to whethor ? an adopted daughter was entitled to tho „ bonclits under the Act. ■ n Mr. Macdonald, who* appeared on bohalf „ fflrtho Public Irustec, said that the caso 0 was brought to obtain a ruling on a point t which was of considerable importance. Dnr- c pg the past five years Mrs. Nevis had by o her own efforts raised £200 to pay for a house which she had entered into ail agree- ° ment to purchase. She now desired to havo s the compensation moneys paid to her in a f lump sum so tbat she- could complete tho \ purchase of the property. Tho Court might c wish to make- an order investing tho pro- <: perty in the Public Trustee. h.

His Honour: In a case at Ch'ristchurch recently the. widow took only a lifo interest in a property and left the remainder to hor children. Continuing, Mr. Mncdonald said that another question which was raised was as to whether a child which had been legally •adopted by both Mrs. Nevis and her lato u husband was a "dependent" within tho n meaning of the Act. Counsel quoted Clause i) 11 of tho third schedule- of the Workers' t _ Compensation for Accidents Act, which reads as follows:—"No money paid or payablo in respect of compensation under this Act shall <- bo capablo of being assigned, charged, taken o in execution, or attached, nor shall the same 0 pass to any othor person by operation of law nor shall any claim be set oil' against tho • same." i Mr. Nielsen, for tho adopted child, said that ho believed the point as to whethor an adopted child came within tho benefits of tho Act had not previously been raised. He submitted that under the Workers' Compeni sation for Accidents Act "daughter" included' an adopted daughter. Tho words "nor shall any'compensation moneys pass to , any other person by operation of law" had been deleted from the now Act and in their placo other words, which showed tho real ' intention of tho Logislaturo, had been inserted as follow:—'.'Nor shall it bo assets in '' tho bankruptcy of tho person entitled ■ thereto." _ Counsel then read Clause 7 of ' tho Adoption of Children Act, 1895, which is • as follows:—"When an order of adoption • has been mado, tho adopted child shall for 1 all purposes civil and criminal, and as regards all legal and equitable liabilities, ' rights, benefits, privileges, and consequences 1 of the natural relation of parent and child, 1 be deemed in law to bo the child born in lawful wedlock' of tho adopting person." Ho submitted that an adopted child must bo included in tho list of members of a worker's family, who were entitled to a share of any compensation moneys. With regard to tho disposal of the money, ho thought tho proposal which had been suggested would bo in tho interests of herself and the child. He thought the title might be held by the Public Trustee for both the mother and the ' child. It would only be rignt if it wero provided that tho child should havo an interest '■ in tho property. The Court said that the question at issue was the effect of tho adoption order. The answer depended on tho construction of Section 7 ' of the Adoption of Children' Act, 1895. Tak- ' ing tho languago of tho statute the effect ] of the adoption order was to make tho child ■ a child of the' adopting parents for all pur- ( poses, civil and criminal. It was clear that '• an adopted child was entitled to be treated J as a "dependont" of a worker in exactly < tho same way as if it had been born in wedlock. Authority in support of that finding was to bo found in tho caso of King v. Stanley, 23 N.Z.L.R., in which the Court i of Appeal hold that an adopted child must ! be treated as a child of tho adopting par- ■ ents for tho purposes of the Crimes Act. ' Then there was further authority for tho ( decision in the caso of in ro Carter, 25 c N.Z.L.R. With regard to the disposal of i money, tho Public Trustee should coriimuni- \ cato wjth Mrs. Nevis and see whether she i was willing to consent to an order vesting * the property in the Public Trustee, with a \ life interest to herself and then for tho \ property to go to tho child. If she would ; not consent to that course being adopted, tho matter would havo to bo re-considered. It could bo mentioned again on Friday next. 7