Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • DSWD V. JUDGE BELEN Rules on Adoption Case Coordination

    Uploaded by

    Jennilyn Tugelida
    59 views1 page
    JUDGE BELEN granted an adoption petition for a niece without notifying the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or ordering them to conduct a home and child study report as required. The social welfare officer, ELMA VEDANA, prepared the reports herself instead of coordinating with DSWD as mandated. When the child later sought travel clearance, DSWD discovered there was no record of the case. The Office of the Court Administrator found JUDGE BELEN and ELMA VEDANA guilty of violating adoption procedures that require DSWD notification and coordination. The court held that not notifying DSWD and relying on the social welfare officer's recommendation alone instead of DSW

    Original Description:

    specpro

    Original Title

    Dswd v Judge Belen

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    JUDGE BELEN granted an adoption petition for a niece without notifying the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or ordering them to conduct a home and child study report as required. The social welfare officer, ELMA VEDANA, prepared the reports herself instead of coordinating with DSWD as mandated. When the child later sought travel clearance, DSWD discovered there was no record of the case. The Office of the Court Administrator found JUDGE BELEN and ELMA VEDANA guilty of violating adoption procedures that require DSWD notification and coordination. The court held that not notifying DSWD and relying on the social welfare officer's recommendation alone instead of DSW

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    59 views1 page

    DSWD V. JUDGE BELEN Rules on Adoption Case Coordination

    Uploaded by

    Jennilyn Tugelida
    JUDGE BELEN granted an adoption petition for a niece without notifying the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or ordering them to conduct a home and child study report as required. The social welfare officer, ELMA VEDANA, prepared the reports herself instead of coordinating with DSWD as mandated. When the child later sought travel clearance, DSWD discovered there was no record of the case. The Office of the Court Administrator found JUDGE BELEN and ELMA VEDANA guilty of violating adoption procedures that require DSWD notification and coordination. The court held that not notifying DSWD and relying on the social welfare officer's recommendation alone instead of DSW

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    DSWD V.

    JUDGE BELEN (Rules 99-100 Procedure)

    Facts: Spouses SORIANO filed a petition for the adoption of their niece- ZHEDELL BERNARDO IBEA at the RTC of Pangasinan. JUDGE BELEN granted the petition. JUDGE BELEN based his decree primarily on the findings and recommendations of the DSWD, thus dispensing the trial custody of ZHEDELL BERNARDO IBEA. The said DSWD findings and recommendations are contained in the Adoptive Home Report and Child Study Report prepared by ELMA VEDANA as the social welfare officer of the court. JUDGE BELEN presumed that it was routinary for the social welfare officer to coordinate with the DSWD regarding the adoption proceedings. However, when ZHEDELL BERNARDO IBEA sought to obtain a travel clearance from the DSWD, DSWD uncovered what it considered as an anomalous adoption decree of ZHEDELL BERNARDO IBEA. It turned out that DSWD did not have any record in its filed regarding ZHEDELL BERNARDO IBEA and that there was no order from JUDGE BELEN for the DSWD to conduct a Home and Child Study report. Furthermore, there was no directive from JUDGE BELEN for ELMA VEDANA to coordinate with the DSWD on the matter of the required reports for ZHEDELL BERNARDO IBEAs adoption. DSWD filed an administrative complaint against JUDGE BELEN and ELMA VEDANA in violation of Article 33 of PD No. 603 and Circular No. 12 to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). OCA found JUDGE BELEN and ELMA VEDANA guilty. Issue: WON JUDGE BELENs failure to notify DSWD about the adoption proceedings is excusable. NO. WON ELMA VENDANAs recommendation is valid. NO. Held JUDGE BELEN must notify DSWD at the outset about the commencement of the adoption proceeding so that the corresponding case study could have been conducted by the DSWD which undoubtedly has the necessary competence as compared to ELMA VEDANA being a mere court social welfare officer to make the proper recommendation. It was the courts duty to exercise caution and to see to it that coordination is observed in the adoption proceedings, together with all the requirements of law. Moreover, ELMA VEDANA as a social welfare officer arrogated unto herself a matter that is pertained exclusively to the DSWD, her task being to coordinate with the DSWD in the preparation and submission of the relevant case study reports and not to make the same and recommend by herself the facts on which the court was to act.

    You might also like