Home  

Trade of Children (Voice of Children)


Sunday, June 13, 2010 

Trade of Children (Voice of Children) 

Some Disturbing Allegations from Voice of Children

"What seems confusing here is that one can still make fake papers to show that a child is an orphan, and it can be adopted in the same way as has been practiced earlier."


English translation of an article published in Voice of Children -- July 2008

Trade of Children in the Name of Protection

Rajesh Sharma

Kathmandu

Most of the Children Homes established to protect the orphan children have been involved in trade of these children. These homes are buying children from Agents. They make fake documents to prove them "orphan" and send them abroad with foreigners as Adopted Child.

It has been found that there is a huge flow of money in this business, and persons with high social status like politicians, lawyers, retired police officers, journalists, government officials, and individuals from the tourism sector are also involved.

It's been found that owners of such children homes are earning a minimum of 10,000 Euro by sending a child abroad in the name of Adoption. The real parents of such children get only Rs 20,000, and the agents who bring children to these homes get Rs 5,000 to 25,000.

Smaller the children higher the price

Agents have admitted, in research conducted by Voice of Children, a child magazine, that they are involved in supplying children to these homes. Rita Bhandari (name changed), living at Putalisadak Kathmandu, admits that she's been supplying children to the children homes for more than 7 years. She has so far taken 63 children to the various children homes. She said, "Price is set according to the age and health of the child; higher price is paid for the children of smaller age. So, I prefer to seek newly born babies."

She once took a pregnant lady to the maternity hospital and sent the newly born baby to the children home. "Last year, I made Rs 20,000 for giving a newly born baby to Bal Samanwaya Samiti," she says. More than 20 such female agents have been found active in the capital alone. They manage to take children from the women working in garment factories, restaurant, massage parlors and labor women. These agents say that they provide money to the parents on condition that they do not reclaim their children once they have been given. After that, these children are turned into orphans by preparing fake documents. Like Rita, some other agents are Ramlashi Lama, Kalpana Rana, Krishna Gurung, Tara Shahi, Buddhalaxmi Baraili, Rima Shrestha (all names changed).

"We just get Rs 5,000 to 10,000, but they make up to Rs 800,000 to 1,000,000 by sending a child abroad," says Krishna Gurung. She has been supplying children to the homes like Sagarmatha Children Home, Buddhist Children Home, Sanjivani Children Home, World Nepal. She says, "Whenever I see a pregnant lady in a poor economic condition, I follow her. If you can persuade her with a sum of money, she readily gives you her child."

Rima Shrestha of Dhumbarahi, Kathmandu says that she supplies children to whichever home pays her the most money. She says "there is a big demand among the children homes for newly born babies." According to her, when she was not paid the promised amount of Rs 15,000 for supplying a 6 months old baby to Ms Mani Joshi, chairman of Prayash Nepal, she ceased to deal with her anymore. Now she is giving babies to Nepal Asahaya Children Home. But Mani Joshi declares that she is not getting babies from agents.

Mani says that whenever police inform her about finding children, her organization publishes notices in newspapers to claim the children if they belong to anyone, but if no one claims, we go into the process of proving the children are orphans. Rima says that she has so far supplied 9 children to Mr Hemanta Rijal of Asahaya Children Home. She says, "Most of the children have been sent to Italy." Another agent, Ramlashi Lama, says that Mr. Lokendra Khatri of Bharosha Nepal promised to pay high price if she brought children, but she didn't get paid. Shila K.C., a worker in a garment factory, earned Rs 15,000 by giving her 20 days old baby to Mani Joshi through an agent. "My husband didn't care to support me and our baby, and I was not able to manage alone to nurture my baby. Then I happened to meet Rima Shrestha at that time; she took the child and paid me. Now I hear that my child is in Italy with a well-to-do family."

Most of the persons working in these homes didn't want to come into contact with this reporter. If called on mobile, they would promise to call back and arrange time to meet the following day. But the mobile would kept switched off the following day.

Real Orphans or Fake Documents

Nepal government has formulated a law in B.S. 2057 regarding the Adoption process. According to it, a 21-day notice has to be published calling on the guardians or parents, if any, of the support-less child to reclaim. If no one claims the child, the District Administration Office declares such children as "orphan." The final decision regarding adoption of such child is made by the Recommendation Committee of the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare. This 5-member committee consists of co-secretary of Home Ministry, co-secretary of Ministry of Law, a legal officer of Ministry of Women and Children and a representative from CNFN. A foreigner can adopt a child after getting approval from this committee.

According to a source from the CNFN, children are brought to the homes through agents. At first, the parents of such children are induced by offering a sum of money. Then with the help of police, a fake report is prepared stating that the child is support-less and found in a helpless state. On the basis of that report, a 21-day notice is published for re-claiming the child by its guardians, if any. In 2007, 387 and in 2008, 118 such notices have been published. What is interesting here is that no phone numbers have been included in such notices published by 58 organizations; instead only P.O. Box and the location of these organizations were given. It has been found that, in some cases, the photos of the children have been blurred in the notice, and they are not properly distinguishable.

According to a new provision recently formulated by the government, a notice has to be forwarded to the CCWB and Center for Finding Missing Children within 7 days of bringing a child to a children home, and a notice with a recent photo has to be published in newspapers. The re-claiming period has now been extended to 35 days.

According to Bijay Sainju, former chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Children Homes, the notices produced in newspapers about the children may not always be true. "How can you find a support-less child alive under Bagmati Bridge, in the jungle of Bankali, Swoyambhu, Katunje and along the river bank of Bishnumati river? This is all ridiculous."

According to Upendra Keshari Neupane, a member of the Recommendation Committee, once a child is proven to be an orphan, the committee cannot question anymore. "We know that there is a lot of non-transparency, but what can you do when they show you a document of proof?" says Mr Neupane. "It's completely impractical, in today's context, to claim your missing child from P.O. Box," says Mr. Dharmaraj Shrestha of the CCWB. But according to Mr. Binod Kumar Adhikari, co-secretary of Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare, it's very difficult for the children home to approach the Ministry with a fake document, because the file is not forwarded if it is found to be a fake.

A Big Flow of Money

There is no legal provision for the payment when a foreigner adopts a child. But most of them have been paying 20,000 to 100,000 Euro. They pay half of the amount, during the publication of the 21-day notice, for agents, parents, registration and for other legal processing, and the remaining half is paid when they finally take the child with them. According to sources, foreigners have to pay even for the help of other children living in the homes in the form of donation which is normally 10,000 Euro. According to CNFN's (Child NGO Federation Nepal) rule a children home may charge up to USD 5,000 for the whole process of adoption. "CNFN takes Rs 5,000 from the children homes for its daily functioning of CNFN," says Mr. Govinda Adhikari, coordinator of the Advisory Board of CNFN, "If the money is taken from the children homes as a contribution to run CNFN, why should other children homes which are not involved in the Adoption program be included in the network of CNFN? The process is not transparent because there is no legal basis also as to how much one should pay for adopting a child."

According to Mr Bijay Sainju, advisor of CNFN, taking Rs 5,000 from the children homes means that the CNFN is protecting the illegal organizations and without any legal basis CNFN cannot charge that amount. Likewise, there is no legal basis for paying 300 USD to Nepal Children's Organization during the adoption process. According to the rules of Nepal government, an adopting parent has to pay the expenses for monitoring the situation of the children once they are adopted. This sum of money is used for the plane tickets of Minister, his/her P.A. and other officials. According to sources at the Ministry, all other expenses including lodging and food are incurred by the foreign organizations. But once the delegation returns, they again forward the bills to the Ministry. Last year, Minister for Women and Children Mrs. Urmila Aryal, after returning from monitoring, spoke out that she had to face a shameful situation there because of the lack of transparency in the process. She also said that there was lots of embezzlement in the monitoring process. After her remark, the Ministry postponed all processing of Adoption.

Agents' Mischief

There are international agents who coordinate among the Nepalese children homes and the organizations for adoption in foreign nations. These agents are appointed by the organizations there. It has been found that there are 20 such agents from 8 different countries. Children homes provide the documents of a child to these agents. The agent forwards the files to his main office abroad. Those organizations then seek a family there. Such families study the files, and if they like the children, come to Nepal. Once they are in Nepal, the agents and the children homes bargain for the price on the basis of the child's age and health status. Once the price is fixed, the foreigners go to the children home. Then the children home initiates the legal procedure. According to sources, an agent makes up to USD 15,000 for arranging all of these things.

This reporter talked to all 20 of these agents; 19 of them admitted that they were involved in this business. MrRamesh Khatiwada is an agent working for Namaste Saludo Nepal with its office in Spain. He says that he coordinates among the children homes and his main office and takes only 10,000 to 15,000 Rupees for his service. Another agent, Mr. Basanta Rijal, working for AIPA, Italy, says that he is working on fixed salary basis. "I manage everything here and get the salary from my main office."

Another man, Mr. Uttar Tamata, working for Faith International, U.S., says that he was just "helping" his office, but not as an agent. These agents are not legally registered. "According to the new rules formulated by the government, 13 child adoption agencies have applied for registration," says Mr. Prakash Kumar Adhikari, a legal officer at the Ministry for Women, Children and Social Welfare.

How did the Adoption Process stop?

The adoption business formally started in Nepal in 1976 A.D. There is no authorized number of children sent abroad for adoption between the years 1976 to 1981. Before the formulation of the Ministry for Women, Children and Social Welfare, 532 children were adopted between 1976 to 2000 A.D. according to the Home Ministry. 2275 children have been adopted between April 2000 to January 2007 A.D.

Nepal Children's Organization, Bal Griha, Bal Sewa Griha, Prayash Nepal, Nepal Asahaya Ghar, Community, Environment and Children Development Organization Nepal, Swastik Bal Griha have sent greatest number of children so far. Those children were sent to Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and America.

After learning that one can make big money in Adoption Business, people from various sectors became involved in it. Former members of Coordination Committee of Nepal Children's Organization, ex-government officials, and peons have opened children homes; except for 2 members, all of the members of the Coordination Committee of the CNFN have their own children homes. There is a big network of agents, police, lawyers, politicians and ex-officials of Nepal Children's Organization and journalists. According to sources, 56 children homes in the capital and 2 in mofussil (*) are involved in this business.

442 files postponed in 2007 due to lack of transparency have been forwarded again on the basis of the same law, and 402 children were sent abroad according to Mr. Binod Kumar Adhikari, co-secretary at the Ministry. There was big diplomatic pressure from the prime ministers of 3 European nations (France, Spain and Italy) to the Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to open the ban on Adoption. An amended law was formulated thereafter in May.

What the Law says?

(i) Old provision

Before the formulation of the Adoption law in 2057 B.S., children were adopted according the Muluki Ain, 12b. In the new law of 2057 B.S., it was clearly stated the two conditions for adoption of any child: either the child has to be an orphan, or the birth parents should give their consent for adoption. For proving a child as an orphan, the children home should publish a 21-day notice for claiming the child by its guardians. If no one claims the child, the District Administration Office declares the child to be an orphan, and the file goes to Recommendation Committee where the final decision is made at the Ministry. In the second case, if the birth parents want to give up their child, a legal paper has to be prepared stating their consent. One of the parents has to prove that he/she has applied permanent family planning methods. After consideration of the file, if it is proved correct, permission is granted from the Ministry.

(ii) New provision

After finding various weakness and loopholes in the existing laws, the government formulated a new law in 2065 B.S. It was believed that the law would come into effect immediately after its formulation, but in practice, all procedures are going ahead according to the old laws. According to the new laws, the files registered in the D.A.O. till B.S. 2064 Jestha, would be processed on the basis of the old law. The new law though seems more effective but is not complete. There is a provision for a child psychologist or a doctor on the Recommendation Committee as recommended by the CCWB. Formerly, children homes used to seek the family for adopting a child, but now it should be done by a committee consisting of a legal government officer as coordinator, director of CCWB as a member, and a representative from the Ministry of Law as a member. The new law clearly states the role of Nepal Children's Organization. According to the new law, a child can be adopted if she/he is proved an orphan, or if the child is provided by the birth parents at their consent. What seems confusing here is that one can still make fake papers to show that a child is an orphan, and it can be adopted in the same way as has been practiced earlier.

An agent says:

"I am Rita Bhandari. I live at Putalisadak. My husband is a taxi driver. 7 years ago, a girl named Sita B.K. working in a garment factory at Boudha gave birth to a baby without a legal father. She was my neighbor. I was confused as what to do with the baby; then at that time I met one staff of Nepal Asahaya Balghar. I requested him to keep the child in the home. He replied that he would accept the baby, but it might be sent abroad also and tried to ask for the mother's consent. Sita decided that that there was no problem in sending abroad her child who didn't have a legal father, and hence left the baby there at the center.

A month later, Mr Hemanta Rijal of the same children home called me and promised to pay if I brought more children. With the help of Sita, I found other children. I used to get Rs 5,000 then. I even persuaded some parents not to reclaim once their child was sent to the home. I then started working for other homes also.

2 years ago I took a newly born baby from a mother at the Maternity Hospital and gave it to Mr. Binod Karki of Balgriha Samanwaya Samiti (Children Homes Coordination Committee). The sum of Rs 20,000 I earned at that time is the biggest amount I have ever earned. I have supplied children to several children homes. Women working in garment factories, restaurants, slums, hotels and labor industry give me children. I take them to the children home. I charge the price on the basis of the child's age. I can make up to Rs 20,000 to 25,000 from smaller children and Rs 5,000 to 15,000 for other bigger children."


LIST OF THE INTERNATIONAL AGENTS

Representative
Organization
Country

1 -- Mr. Manoj Kandel
Choices Adoption
Canada

2 -- Ms. Mani Joshi
----------
Germany

3 -- Mr. Tej Kumar Subba
ANPAS
Italy

4 -- Mr. Basanta Rijal
AIPA
Italy

5 -- Mr. Sanu Prajapati Maharjan
N.A.A.A.
Italy

6 -- Mr. Sharad Raj Gautam
AdopsJons Forum
Norway

7 -- Mr. Ramesh Khatiwada
Namaste Saludo Nepali
Spain

8 -- Mrs. Mukta Shrestha
Consul Lluis Belvis
Spain

9 -- Mr. Kiran Shahi
ECAI Bal Balika
Spain

10 -- Mr. Dil Pahari
Mani Watch / Victor
Spain

11 -- Mr. Arun Kumar Gurung
Children's Without Frontiers, Madrid
Spain

12 -- Mrs. Maya Tamata (Jaya Ram Tamata)
ASEAN
Switzerland

13 -- Mr. Binod Karki
Commonwealth
USA

14 -- Mr. Kiran Man Shrestha
Adoption Associates
USA

15 -- Mr. Uttar Tamata
Faith International
USA

16 -- Mr. Keshav Regmi
----------
USA

17 -- Namita Lamsal
Holt International Children's Services
USA

18 -- Kedar Dahal
----------
Belgium, USA

19 -- Mr. Bhraman Shrestha
1. Florida Home Studies, 2. Amici Trenti
USA, Italy

20 -- Jaya Rajbhandari
Florida Home Studies and Adoption
USA

Voice of Children -- July 2008

Translation by Purushottam Lamsal for Voice of Children.

Voice of Children is a leading child rights magazine in Nepal. It is supported by international donors.

* definition of mofussil (for readers outside of South Asia):

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mofussil 
France, Spain, Italy, Nepal
Basanta Rijal, Hemanta Rijal, Uttar Tamata, Ramesh Khatiwada
Nepal Asahaya BalGhar (Nepal Helpless Children’s Home) Godawari, Child NGO Federation Nepal (CNFN), Prayas Nepal

Blog: Please Pray

12 june 2008

Please Pray

(photo by David Blumenfeld)

For those of you that aren't involved in the Ethiopian adoption community, or don't know already, many families are in crisis right now because of the suspension of adoptions by MOWA (the Ministry for Women's Affairs) for children coming out of Enat Alem orphanage. Rumors about the why's and wherefore's and how long it may take to get sorted out are all over the map. Basically, no one knows all the details, and we may never know the whole story.

I'd like to ask you to pray for the families waiting for their sons and daughters whose adoptions are stalled (including our dear friends the Yateses waiting for baby D). My heart, and I know many of yours are too, is aching for the babies and children stuck in Ethiopia under a pile of red tape and for their Forever Families who've been on a journey to them for months and years now wondering how much longer the wait will be.

Enat Alem

Further steps towards the UN Guidelines on Children without Parental Care

Further steps towards the UN Guidelines on Children without Parental Care

11/06/2008 - In 2004 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child gave the impulse for the development of guidelines on the protection of children without parental care. A group of NGOs, including SOS Children's Villages, prepared the first draft guidelines and since August 2006 the guidelines are being discussed by government experts under the leadership of the Brazilian government.

On 6 June, we moved one step closer towards the adoption of the UN Guidelines on the appropriate use and conditions of alternative care for children by the United Nations. Brazil and the Group of Friends (member states who are engaged in promoting the guidelines) hold a high-level panel discussion at the Human Rights Council in Geneva to present the guidelines and to rally support of more countries for their adoption.

In addition to presentations of the four panelists, who included representatives of the Brazilian government, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF and civil society, SOS Children's Villages and the International Social Service (ISS), took the opportunity to provide the two interventions in the programme allotted to NGOs.

Kersti (left), Alan Kikuchi-White, representative of SOS Children's Villages in Geneva, and Christina Bagliotta (ISS) - Photo: SOS Archives

International Social Service (ISS), International Social Service (ISS) - Germany, Unicef New York, SOS Villages (SOS Kinderdorf), (UN) Guidelines on Children without Parental Care
Brazil

A couple's adoption plans hit a regulatory brick wall

A couple's adoption plans hit a regulatory brick wall

June 09, 2008|Erika Hayasaki | Times Staff Writer

NEW YORK — The 3-year-old girl was found two years ago starving, abandoned and covered in lice in a countryside home in the northeastern European nation of Latvia.

Her name was Kristina. Her parents had abandoned her. Her grandmother, who had taken her in, had frozen to death. Latvian officials classified her as an orphan.

Soon New York residents Ilze and Laurence Earner heard about the girl. Ilze Earner is a nationally renowned child welfare advocate, and she also happened to be a distant relative of Kristina. She had occasionally wired the family money, and Latvian officials came across Earner's name and phone number on a Western Union receipt.

Latvia

Small Children - Big Money

– UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION –

 One of Scandinavia’s largest adoption agencies has illegally adopted children.
In the early 1990s Norwegian Adopsjonsforum brought children from
Argentina, despite the fact that the South American country had banned
international adoptions. Several years later one of the children was
still reported as missing in his homecountry.

Who’s who?

Eva Giberti: Works in the Argentinian Home Office and is
the nation’s leading expert in adoptions.

 Alberto Mazzaroni: Argentine judge who is accused of abiding
to child trafficking.

Adopsjonsforum, Adoptionscentrum, Swedish Intercountry Adoptions Authority (MIA), Euradopt
Ketil Lehland
Argentina

Vaststelling begroting Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (V) voor het jaar 2008 - punt 16

Vaststelling begroting Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (V) voor het jaar 2008

31200 V 126 Lijst van vragen en antwoorden

Vergaderjaar 2007-2008

Nr. 126 Vastgesteld 12 juni 2008

De vaste commissie voor Buitenlandse Zaken1 heeft een aantal vragen voorgelegd aan de ministers voor Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en van Buitenlandse Zaken over de brief van 1 april 2008 inzake de opvang en rechtspositie van weeskinderen (Kamerstuk 31 200 V, nr. 84).

World Initiative for Orphans (WIO), (UN) Guidelines on Children without Parental Care, Unicef New York
Kees van der Staaij

Ripp off report CCI

Report: #346952

Report: Celebrate Children International - Sue Hedberg

Category: Adoption Agencies

Celebrate Children International - Sue Hedberg Verbally and Mentally Abusive towards families Oviedo Florida

*Consumer Comment:... Celebrate Children International-----Sue Hedberg not abusive

Sue Hedberg
Celebrate Children International

Bivolaru exposed (European Federation Yoga)

. 

Gregorian Bivolaru aka Magnus Aurolsson
The Movement for Spiritual Integration into the Absolute (MISA) aka Natha-Denmark, Tara-US, Satya-India

Fachzeitschrift für Adoptivfamilien: Maulkorberlass für Adoptionsbewerber?

.. 

Zukunft fur Kinder e.V., Children and Parents e. V.
Germany
Wolfgang Gerts, Ursula von der Leyen

Courtcase NL: Indonesian adoption rejected

LJN: BD4808, Rechtbank Roermond , 77879 / FA RK 07-98 Print uitspraak
Datum uitspraak: 28-05-2008
Datum publicatie: 19-06-2008
Rechtsgebied: Personen-en familierecht
Soort procedure: Eerste aanleg - meervoudig
Inhoudsindicatie: Verzoek tot adoptie afgewezen. Door raad voor de kinderbescherming gedaan verzoek tot benoeming bijzondere curator afgewezen. Met gezag belaste perso(o)n(en) verke(e)r(t)(en) in de onmogelijkheid om het gezag uit te oefenen, derhalve benoeming van verzoekster tot adoptie tot voogdes.
Uitspraak
RECHTBANK ROERMOND
Sector civielrecht

Zaaknummer: 77879 / FA RK 07-98

Beschikking van 28 mei 2008 betreffende adoptie

in de zaak van: 

[verzoekster tot adoptie],
hierna ook te noemen [verzoekster tot adoptie],
wonende te [woonplaats], [adres],
procureur: mr. F.A. Dronkers,
advocaat: mr. M. Verheij, en

De raad voor de kinderbescherming,
gevestigd te 6041CB Roermond, Slachthuisstraat 57.

Als belanghebbenden merkt de rechtbank – naast de betreffende minderjarige [kind], geboren te [geboorteplaats] (Indonesië) op [geboortedatum] – aan:

[echtgenoot van verzoekster tot adoptie],
hierna ook te noemen [echtgenoot van verzoekster tot adoptie] ofwel de echtgenoot van verzoekster tot adoptie, wonende te [woonplaats], [adres];

en

[de "juridische moeder"],
hierna ook te noemen [de "juridische moeder"],
wonende te [woonplaats], [adres]. 

1.  Het verdere verloop van de procedure

1.1.  De uitspraak van deze rechtbank van 19 december 2007.

1.2.  De brief van de griffier van 19 december 2007.

1.3.  De brief van deurwaarderskantoor Van den Heuvel c.s. d.d. 3 januari 2008.

1.4.  Het proces-verbaal van het getuigenverhoor van [de ex-echtgenoot van de " juridische moeder"] op 31 januari 2008.

1.5.  Op 9 april 2008 heeft de nadere mondelinge behandeling met gesloten deuren plaatsgevonden. De griffier heeft daarvan een afzonderlijk procesverbaal opgemaakt.
Bij deze behandeling zijn verschenen:
-  [verzoekster];
-  [echtgenoot van verzoekster];
-  twee vertegenwoordigers van de raad voor de kinderbescherming,
-  [de broer van de “juridische moeder” ].
2.  De vaststellingen en overwegingen

2.1.  Het verzoekschrift van [verzoekster] strekt ertoe dat de rechtbank in het kennelijk belang van [kind] de reeds bestaande banden tussen [kind] en [verzoekster] zal bevestigen door deadoptie uit te spreken en zal bepalen dat de geslachtsnaam van [kind], [verzoekster] zal luiden.
[verzoekster] heeft – kort samengevat – gesteld dat haar ex-echtgenoot [de broer van de “juridische moeder” ] in 1999 [kind] vanuit Indonesië heeft meegenomen naar Nederland. Daaraan voorafgaand is er in Indonesië mede door toedoen van de moeder van [de broer van de “juridische moeder” ] – [naam moeder van de ex-echtgenoot] – een geboorteakte opgemaakt, waarin in strijd met de waarheid [de "juridische moeder"] als moeder van [kind] staat vermeld. Bij aankomst in Nederland heeft [verzoekster] van [de "juridische moeder"] vernomen, dat deze laatste niet betrokken is geweest bij de hele gang van zaken rondom de geboorteakte en dat zij daarvan niets weet. Sinds haar komst naar Nederland verblijft [kind] bij [verzoekster].

2.2.  [de "juridische moeder"] heeft ter terechtzitting van 8 maart 2007 verklaard, dat zij destijds niet betrokken is geweest bij de hele gang van zaken rondom de overkomst van [kind] vanuit Indonesië naar Nederland en ook niet bij het opmaken van de geboorteakte. [kind] is niet haar biologisch kind.

2.3.  In het op 22 november 2007 binnengekomen rapport van 21 november 2007 heeft de raad voor de kinderbescherming geadviseerd om het door [verzoekster] gedane verzoek tot adoptievan [kind] af te wijzen. De raad heeft verder de rechtbank verzocht om een bijzondere curator te benoemen die namens de minderjarige zal zorgen dat de (Indonesische) geboorteakte wordt ingeschreven in de registers van geboorten van de gemeente Den Haag en die vervolgens namens [kind] een verzoekschrift bij de daartoe bevoegde rechtbank zal indienen waarbij verbetering wordt verzocht van de geboorteakte in die zin, dat [de "juridische moeder"] daarin wordt doorgehaald als moeder van [kind] en dat de biologische moeder van [kind] in plaats daarvan in de geboorteakte zal worden vermeld. Ten slotte heeft de raad de rechtbank verzocht om [verzoekster] te belasten met de tijdelijke voogdij over [kind].

2.4.  De vertegenwoordigers van de raad voor de kinderbescherming hebben ter terechtzitting van 9 april 2008 volhard bij de inhoud van het rapport en het daaraan verbonden advies van 21 november 2007. Het belang van het nakomen van de wettelijke verplichtingen en richtlijnen betreffende adoptie dient niet te wijken voor de positieve ontwikkeling van [kind]. Dit betekent dat de raad in de onderhavige procedure niet anders dan een negatief advies over de adoptiekan uitbrengen. De raad is verder van mening dat hij geen positief advies kan geven vanuit het oogpunt van zijn maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid ten opzichte van andere buitenlandse adoptiefkinderen. De raad is echter ook van mening dat in het belang van [kind] haar verblijf in het gezin van [verzoekster] gecontinueerd en gegarandeerd dient te worden, maar dat dit niet dient te worden gerealiseerd door middel van adoptie maar door middel van een wijziging in de huidige gezagssituatie. [de "juridische moeder"] heeft momenteel als juridische moeder het gezag over [kind], terwijl vaststaat dat zij niet de biologische moeder van [kind] is. Omdat de biologische moeder van [kind] niet bekend is en [de "juridische moeder"] te kennen heeft gegeven niets met [kind] te maken te willen hebben, is er sprake van een gezagsvacuüm, waarin volgens de raad kan worden voorzien door benoeming van [verzoekster] tot tijdelijk voogdes op grond van het bepaalde in artikel 1:253q lid 3 jo. 1:253r BW. 

In het belang van de toekomstige ontwikkelingen en identiteitsvorming van [kind] dient haar basis, te weten de gegevens van haar daadwerkelijke biologische ouders doch in ieder geval de gegevens van haar biologische moeder, geformaliseerd te worden in haar geboorteakte. Nu het de rechtbank onmogelijk is gebleken om de identiteit van de biologische moeder van [kind] te achterhalen, adviseert de raad de rechtbank om een bijzondere curator te benoemen, teneinde te trachten om met hulp van deze bijzondere curator alsnog te trachten, de verblijfplaats van de biologische moeder in Indonesië te achterhalen. 

2.5.  [verzoekster] heeft ter terechtzitting van 9 april 2008 volhard bij haar verzoek om deadoptie van [kind] uit te spreken. Volgens haar is dat in het belang van [kind]. Dat belang van [kind] is niet gediend met het benoemen van [verzoekster] tot tijdelijk voogdes. Omdat de kans dat de biologische moeder van [kind] nog achterhaald wordt praktisch nihil is, acht [verzoekster] het belang van [kind] het meest gediend met het uitspreken van de adoptie.

2.6.  De rechtbank overweegt als volgt.

Naar Indonesisch recht ontstaan de familierechtelijke betrekkingen tussen moeder en kind door geboorte. Gelet op de in het kader van de adoptieprocedure overgelegde geboorteakte is op [geboortedatum] te [geboorteplaats] (Indonesië) een kind van het vrouwelijk geslacht, genaamd [kind], geboren. Vaststaat dat in de betreffende akte [de "juridische moeder"] ten onrechte als moeder is vermeld. Op basis van de inhoud van de processtukken en met name de inhoud van de processen-verbaal van getuigenverhoor is de rechtbank van oordeel, dat als biologische moeder van [kind] de in de stukken als moeder [naam] aangeduide persoon dient te worden aangemerkt, wier verblijfplaats thans onbekend is. Nu vaststaat dat [de "juridische moeder"] niet de biologische moeder van [kind] is en dat zij niets met [kind] te maken wil hebben, terwijl moeder [naam] feitelijk in de onmogelijkheid verkeert om het gezag over [kind] uit te oefenen, is op grond van het bepaalde in artikel 1:253r lid 2 BW het gezag over [kind] geschorst. Nu er sprake is van iemand die met het – weliswaar geschorste – gezag over [kind] belast is, staat dit, gelet op het bepaalde in artikel 1:228 eerste lid, aanhef en sub g BW, aanstonds in de weg aan de adoptie van [kind], nog daargelaten de hiervoor door de raad genoemde redenen om het adoptieverzoek af te wijzen en het feit dat naar Indonesisch recht de ouder(s) van de te adopteren persoon moet(en) instemmen met de adoptie. Gelet hierop is de rechtbank van oordeel dat het door [verzoekster] verzochte dient te worden afgewezen. 

Het verzoek van de raad voor de kinderbescherming om een bijzondere curator te benoemen, die onder meer dient zorg te dragen voor inschrijving van de geboorteakte van [kind] in de Nederlandse registers van geboorten in Den Haag zal de rechtbank afwijzen, nu vaststaat dat de geboorteakte van [kind] in strijd met de waarheid is opgemaakt. 

Nu [de "juridische moeder"] niets met [kind] te maken wil hebben en moeder [naam] feitelijk in de onmogelijkheid verkeert om het gezag over [kind] uit te oefenen, is op grond van het bepaalde in artikel 1:253r lid 1 BW het bepaalde in artikel 1:253q BW van overeenkomstige toepassing. Gelet op lid 2 van laatstgenoemd artikel zal de rechtbank [verzoekster] tot voogdes over [kind] benoemen, omdat dit naar het oordeel van de rechtbank het meest in het belang van [kind] moet worden geacht. 


3.  De beslissing

De rechtbank:

3.1.  wijst af al het door [verzoekster tot adoptie] verzochte;

3.2.  wijst af het door de raad voor de kinderbescherming gedane verzoek tot benoeming van een bijzonder curator;

3.3.  benoemt [verzoekster tot adoptie] tot voogdes over [kind], geboren te [geboorteplaats] (Indonesië) op [geboortedatum].


Deze beschikking is gegeven door mr. J.J.M. Wassenberg, mr. G.P.C. Dijkshoorn-Sleebe en mr. R.H.A.M. Beaumont, allen kinderrechter en ter openbare terechtzitting van 28 mei 2008 uitgesproken, in tegenwoordigheid van de griffier.


Type: JvdK





Tegen deze uitspraak kan beroep worden ingesteld door indiening van een beroepschrift bij het gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch door verzoeker en degenen aan wie een afschrift van deze uitspraak is verstrekt of verzonden, binnen drie maanden na de dag van deze uitspraak; door andere belanghebbenden binnen drie maanden na de betekening van de uitspraak of nadat de uitspraak hun op andere wijze bekend is geworden.
Netherlands, Indonesia
« first ‹ previous100010011002100310041005100610071008next › last »