Independent civic consultation · Mauritius

Child Adoption Bill 2026 – Government Consultation Draft

Independent civic discussion

The Ministry’s announced deadline for official observations is 6 November 2026. Send official submissions to childadopt@govmu.org. A comment here is not automatically sent to the Ministry. Mauritius.name discussion may continue after that deadline.

Government texts are consultation drafts, not enacted law. The independent alternative is a separate proposal by Dave Kissoondoyal LLM, MBA.

Government consultation draft

Child Adoption Bill 2026 - Government Consultation Draft

Domestic and intercountry adoption, the proposed adoption authority, eligibility, matching, monitoring and safeguards.

Download the original Government PDF Comment or propose an amendment

Explanatory memorandum and introductory material

43 clauses available

Clause 1 - Short title
Clause 2 - Interpretation
Clause 3 - Application of Act
Clause 4 - Best interests principles
Clause 5 - Other principles applicable in adoption matters
Clause 6 - Principle of subsidiarity
Clause 7 - The Authority
Clause 8 - Objects of Authority
Clause 9 - Functions of Authority
Clause 10 - Powers of Authority
Clause 11 - The Board
Clause 12 - Meetings and powers of Board
Clause 13 - Director
Clause 14 - Staff of Authority
Clause 15 - Certificate
Clause 16 - Application to Judge in Chambers
Clause 17 - List of children who may be adopted
Clause 18 - Matching of child with prospective adoptive parent
Clause 19 - Approval of proposed adoption
Clause 20 - Compliance with Convention
Clause 21 - Mauritius as receiving State in intercountry adoption
Clause 22 - Mauritius as State of origin in intercountry adoption
Clause 23 - Monitoring of pre-adoption placement
Clause 24 - Post-adoption monitoring
Clause 25 - Appeal Committee
Clause 26 - Proceedings of Appeal Committee
Clause 27 - General Fund
Clause 28 - Estimates
Clause 29 - Annual report
Clause 30 - Audit report
Clause 31 - Access to adoption order or adoption records
Clause 32 - Powers of Minister
Clause 33 - Protection from liability
Clause 34 - Execution of documents
Clause 35 - Exemptions
Clause 36 - Donations
Clause 37 - Confidentiality
Clause 38 - Offences
Clause 39 - Regulations
Clause 40 - Repeal
Clause 41 - Consequential amendments
Clause 42 - Transitional provisions and savings
Clause 43 - Commencement
Schedules and prescribed forms

Your voice matters

Choose a category and identify the clause or Civil Code article where relevant. Please do not include children’s names, identifying family details or confidential case material.

Respectful disagreement is welcome. Contributions are moderated before publication. Privacy notice. Submitting here does not send an official submission to the Ministry.

Approved public contributions

Dave Kissoondoyal, LLM, MBA - Former President, Save the Children Mauritius · 28.10.2026

Comment on this Bill

As former President of Save the Children Mauritius (1994 and 1995), I welcome the initiative to modernise adoption law. I submit these observations in my personal capacity, drawing on my longstanding commitment to children’s welfare. I do not speak on behalf of the organisation today.

The Bill contains important advances: the paramountcy of children’s best interests, a dedicated authority, judicial adoption orders, attention to siblings, monitoring and prohibitions on buying consent. These foundations deserve support. They also require stronger safeguards before enactment.

First, clauses 3–6 should expressly reflect the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, particularly Article 24, alongside the UN Convention and the Hague Adoption Convention. Poverty, disability or temporary placement in care must never, by themselves, establish abandonment or justify adoption. Family support and safe reunification must be genuine obligations. Intercountry adoption must satisfy the applicable last-resort safeguards in the child’s country of origin.

Second, clauses 5 and 17–19 must guarantee the child an accessible hearing, independent representation where interests conflict, and protection against pressure. A child’s participation must not depend on whether the biological parents first consent. Administrative listing and matching must never substitute for a lawful determination of adoptability and valid consent.

Third, clause 2 must use the Hague Convention’s habitual-residence and cross-border movement framework rather than an arbitrary one-year residence test. Clauses 15 and 21 must distinguish local applicants from applicants abroad, reconcile residence requirements and remove ambiguous references. The 18-month waiting rule for Mauritian applicants seeking adoption abroad needs a clear child-welfare justification and a reasoned review mechanism.

Fourth, the First Schedule’s demand for certification that an applicant has no chronic, contagious or life-threatening disease is excessively broad. Suitability should depend on an individual assessment of parenting capacity, actual risks and available support. The relative’s undertaking required from a single applicant must not be treated as automatically appointing a future guardian. Consultation with an applicant’s existing children should be distinguished from a statutory veto.

Fifth, clauses 11–14, 25–26 and 32 should strengthen professional independence, transparent appointments, conflicts rules and effective appeals. Clause 11(4)(c) is broad enough to exclude experienced employees and board members of child-welfare organisations. Genuine conflicts should be managed without unnecessarily excluding their expertise. General ministerial directions must not determine an individual child’s placement or adoption.

Sixth, clause 24 must distinguish support and protection after a final adoption from measures applicable before adoption. Hague Article 21 addresses a placement where adoption will occur after transfer; it is not a general power to undo an adoption already completed. Family status and citizenship require clear judicial safeguards. Clause 21 must also preserve Convention recognition rules and the narrow public-policy exception.

Seventh, clause 38 needs urgent redrafting. Its wording can reach a child’s contact with prospective adopters, attempts to “influence” an official, and publication of a wish to adopt. Those provisions must target coercion, trafficking and unlawful solicitation, while protecting lawful advice, complaints and public-interest discussion. The general maximum of Rs 1 million and ten years’ imprisonment must be differentiated according to the offence. Clause 39 should not leave penalties of comparable severity to broadly framed regulations.

Finally, clauses 10, 27–31 and 33–43 need transparent fees and donations, funded post-adoption support, secure lifelong records, appropriate access to origins, proportionate confidentiality rules and meaningful accountability. Existing proceedings, child protection, registration and citizenship must remain secure during transition. Numbering and cross-reference errors must be corrected throughout both reform texts.

I support reform that provides safe and lasting family relationships for children. I therefore recommend substantive amendments before enactment, supported by a published response to consultation submissions and meaningful participation by adoptees, families, child-protection professionals and civil society.

Dave Kissoondoyal LLM, MBA
Former President, Save the Children Mauritius (1994 and 1995)