The Department of Child and Family Services has come in for heavy criticism for its handling of an adoption application.

A Family Court panel chaired by magistrate Juan Wolffe lambasted the Department for dragging its heels in the case involving the adoption of an infant.

The court's ruling said: "Put simply, the history of the matter is absolutely pathetic and it has never been through any fault of the applicants.

"We are extremely perplexed as to why the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) has taken so long to process this matter and produce a...report."

The Department was told by the Family Court on April 29 last year to prepare a document, based on a study of the family's suitability, before an adoption hearing on May 29. It failed to do so and was given another six weeks by the court on June 1.

At a hearing on July 16, the Department admitted it still hadn't produced the study. The panel — which also comprised Joan Burgess and Eugene Ball — ordered the Department to meet a final deadline of August 10.

Elaine Charles, from the Department, was warned that non compliance could be deemed in contempt of court.

The panel said social worker Sharon Apopa's conduct "borders on being contemptuous" because she knew about the matter on June 9 but failed to contact the couple, represented by lawyer Shawn Crockwell, until July 10.

"This is absolutely reprehensible and while we could not tell the DCFS what to do, one would think that they would hold her accountable for her dilatory conduct," said a ruling by the panel. "After all, the parental status of a child is at stake."

The ruling begins: "May we say from the outset that we have a great deal of sympathy for the applicants, who virtually have had to put their life and that of [the child] on hold for what on the surface is a straightforward adoption application."

It concludes: "Effectively, this is the third time that this matter has been adjourned for hearing and this is totally unacceptable. In particular, the conduct of the DCFS is unprofessional and, while we make no finding in this regard, their conduct lends credence to Mr. Crockwell's submissions that they are intentionally thwarting and frustrating this adoption process.

"This, if true, goes to the very heart of non compliance with the proper administration of justice."

The Department, represented by the Attorney General's Chambers, got a temporary stay on the July 16 order from Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley in August.

But after a judicial review last Tuesday in the Supreme Court, the judge refused to quash the decision and said the matter must go back before the Family Court.

Mr. Justice Kawaley said it was understandable that difficulties had been encountered but added: "It is unfortunate and extremely stressful for the interested parties." He directed that the parents should not be identified in any press report.

Crown counsel Leighton Rochester, representing the Department, told the hearing there were no concerns about the suitability of the couple. He said nothing further had been done to produce the report since the stay was granted.

Attorney Venous Memari, for the Family Court, said the case was as much about the "proper administration of justice" as it was about the best interests of the child. She said if the Department had fulfilled its duty to protect the interests of the child and produced the report "we wouldn't be in this mess".

Mr. Crockwell said the orders handed down by the Family Court had "amounted to nothing". "To this day, the child has not been assessed and the interested parties' home has not been visited by anyone from the Department," he said.

Mr. Justice Kawaley released the written reasons for his decision on Friday. He dismissed the suggestion that Ms Apopa was guilty of conduct bordering on contempt, as there was no evidence she knew she could be breaching a court order.

But the judge, awarding costs on an indemnity basis to the Family Court and the couple, said the Department's inactivity for nearly six months since the stay was granted "only compounded the delays the Family Court was seeking to remedy...and accordingly constituted a misuse of the processes of this court in its public law jurisdiction".

He said if the Department was concerned about timelines imposed by the courts for producing reports it could "in consultation with the Judiciary establish suggested standard timetables".

The husband told The Royal Gazette he was pleased with the judge's decision and was hopeful that the Family Court would proceed with the adoption. He and his wife, he said, wanted fairness for the child. "It's just gone on forever," he added.

The Department is part of the Ministry of Culture and Social Rehabilitation. A spokesman said on Friday: "The Ministry does not comment on matters that are currently before the courts."