A 67-year-old man was sentenced by the Essonne Assize Court on Wednesday . He was found guilty of an assassination attempt on his niece, which occurred on October 23, 2019 in Juvisy, reports Le Parisien .

12 years in prison

That day, the man, who is also his adoptive father, gave him a violent blow with an axe. Touched at the base of the neck, the victim was able to get out thanks to the computer which was in his backpack and which absorbed the shock. She had been injured in the vertebrae but survived.

In bad terms with the victim, the accused had taken action because he had not digested his refusal to resume contact with him a few months before the facts. The man, of Indian origin , suffered in particular from depression after his eldest son was diagnosed with mental disorders. The latter had been sent to France for his studies, just like his daughter whose adoption had been made without his consent, according to him. The man had also tried to interrupt his schooling twice, without success.

German citizen thanks his mother for never giving up searching for him

By Lee Hyo-jin

Benjamin Joon went missing in January 1981 at the age of three at Suwon Bus Terminal in Gyeonggi Province, while travelling with his father. The two were holding hands, but the next minute, they were separated.

That is the only memory Joon has of Korea.

"My blind father was unable to find me and didn't inform my mother, who was living apart from him at that time. Someone must have found me at the terminal and brought me to the city hall of Suwon," Joon, 45, told the Korea Times in a recent interview.

Vous pouvez partager un article en cliquant sur les icônes de partage en haut à droite de celui-ci.

La reproduction totale ou partielle d’un article, sans l’autorisation écrite et préalable du Monde, est strictement interdite.

Pour plus d’informations, consultez nos conditions générales de vente.

Pour toute demande d’autorisation, contactez syndication@lemonde.fr.

En tant qu’abonné, vous pouvez offrir jusqu’à cinq articles par mois à l’un de vos proches grâce à la fonctionnalité « Offrir un article ».

As an organisation, we reognise and work with adoptees and adoption organisations recognising the impact of forced adoption practises and the continued need for transparency and support throughout the adoption process.  Below is a letter sent to members of parlament raising the concerns of the wider adoption community we have signed, 10 years on.

We wish to express our unreserved support for those impacted by forced adoptions in Australia, and our recognition of the immense courage, determination, energy, and grief entailed in coming forward and sharing their experiences. We commend the Australian Government’s recognition of past harms and abuses, and the offerings of formal apologies to communities who bear the lifelong impacts of forced family separation. Gillard’s formal apology in 2013 and Australia’s commitment to increased openness of records and provision of support services was closely watched by adoptee communities overseas and in Australia and is viewed by many as an example to which governments around the world should aspire.
Concerns were raised in the lead up to the 2013 National Apology, regarding the lack of acknowledgement of intercountry adoption and adoptees. Ten years later, we urge you to consider whether it is possible to justify viewing intercountry adoption as exempt from the issues identified in domestic adoption practices. Like domestic adoption and its impacts, which were so poignantly articulated in Gillard’s Apology, issues of consent, coercion, mistreatment, and stigma surrounding single motherhood are also embedded in intercountry adoption practices. 
While there are some safeguards in place, such as the Hague Convention, there are no guarantees that intercountry adoption practices are exempt from the harms identified by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee in 2012. For example, child trafficking has been identified in the cases of Australian intercountry adoptions from Taiwan, India, and Ethiopia. The UN’s Joint Statement on Illegal Intercountry Adoptions in 2022 is testament to ongoing concerns around vulnerabilities in the intercountry adoption system and human rights violations. 
Responding on behalf of the Australian Prime Minister,  a recent letter to Ms Lynelle Long of Intercountry Adoptee Voices, was sent from Tim Crosier (Branch Manager of Children’s Policy Branch), advising  that the government is prioritising a focus on preventing and responding to illegal and illicit adoption practices, expatriate adoption and concerns about past ICA practices. This is a welcome and critical development in acknowledging intercountry adoption practices and their impacts. However, Australia has been historically slow in appropriately responding to the victims of these past practices in intercountry adoption and we would like to see Australia commit to investigating intercountry adoption practices with the intention of providing a formal apology and including appropriate remedies, particularly around support to our human right to identity and origins.
Our concerns are not limited to a handful of intercountry adoptees. In the years since the 2013 Apology, numerous receiving countries have launched investigations into intercountry adoption including Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, and France – with Norway commencing an investigation in 2023. 
On the 10th anniversary of the National Apology for Forced Adoptions, we kindly request that:

• Intercountry adoption no longer be considered separate from Australian adoption more broadly;
• Intercountry adoptees be recognised as facing, along with their domestically adopted peers, struggles with identity, belonging, uncertainty, and loss, which can be painful and lifelong; and
• The Australian government commits to an investigation into intercountry adoption practices given Australia’s legal and ethical commitment to ensuring intercountry adoption respects fundamental human rights under the Hague Convention for Intercountry Adoption and the United Nations Conventions: specifically the conventions on the Rights of the Child, Enforced Disappearances, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, and All forms of Discrimination against Women.
• Where it has been proven that an adoptee was stolen from their country of origin, a redress must be considered, as has been done after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

We ask that you also consider what it means to continue to exclude intercountry adoption from a broader acknowledgment of forced adoptions and the message this sends: that overseas born adoptees and their original families do not face similar challenges, and that our experiences and the community-based knowledge we have patiently and painfully amassed over the years does not matter. At this significant historical juncture, we ask you to consider the impacts of this double standard on us, our siblings, families, partners, and our children, who also inherit the legacy of family separation.
Kind regards,
Australian Intercountry Adoptees
           Leah Hamilton, adopted from South Korea, residing in Queensland

1. Julie Colbert, adopted from Korea to QLD
2. Dr Indigo Willing, adopted from Vietnam and residing in QLD, Australia. Adjunct Research Fellow, Griffith University. Founder, Adopted Vietnamese International (AVI). 
3. Benjamin Kelleher, adopted from Brazil, residing in Queensland
4. Kim Faulkner, adopted from Indonesia, residing in NSW
5. Brooke Arcia, adopted from Sri Lanka to NSW
6. Kisharni Eggleton, adopted from Sri Lanka, NSW, Australia. Founder of Sri Lankan Adoptees in Australia
7. Emma Pham, fostered from Vietnam to NSW in 1973, adopted at 1990
8. Meg O’Shea, adopted from South Korea and residing in NSW, Australia US Korean Rights Group (AUSKRG)
9. Kisani Hayes. Adopted from Sri Lanka, NSW Australia
10. Samara James, adopted from South Korea, living in Sydney, Australia. 
11. Michelle Piper, adopted from Korea, residing in NSW, Australia. Committee member of Australia US Korean Rights Group (AUSKRG).
12. Damian Rocco, adopted from Vietnam to NSW
13. Linzi Ibrahim, adopted from Sri Lanka, NSW, Australia. Sri Lankan Adoptees Australia group 
14. Sara Vidler, adopted from Sri Lanka, Parkes, NSW, Australia 
15. Jaya Mather, adopted from Sri Lanka 1983, living in New South Wales Australia 
16. Dr Liz Goode, adopted from South Korea, residing in NSW 
17. Paula Park, adopted from South Korea to NSW
18. Joel de Carteret, adopted from the Philippines, residing in NSW
19. Dominic Golding, adopted from VietNam, residing in ACT
20. Hannah Brugman, adopted from South Korea, living in ACT, Australia
21. Jai Jaru, adopted from Thailand to South Australia 1981
22. Roopali Gulab Meshram (Paula Karvouniaris) - illicit adoption from Preet Mandir, India, adopted to Adelaide South Australia 
23. Lalitha Robinson adopted from Sri Lanka to South Australia 
24. Sumana Filmer adopted from Sri Lanka to South Australia. 
25. Kimbra Smith, illegally adopted from Taiwan, living in South Australia, Australia
26. Hilina Winkenweder, adopted from Ethiopia 2001, living in South Australia
27. Theodora Sullivan, adopted from Greece to SA, founder of Adopted from Greece
28. Kai Hambour, adopted from India to SA
29. Thomas Philp, adopted from Thailand to South Australia. Adelaide. 
30. Min Mednis, adopted from Thailand to South Australia 
31. Lynelle Long adopted from Vietnam to VIC
32. Ebony Hickey illegally adopted from Haiti to Australia, Victoria.
33. Catherine Robinson, adopted from Malaysia to Victoria Australia
34. Dr Jessica Walton, adopted from South Korea, residing in VIC, committee member of Australia US Korean Rights Group (AUSKRG)
35. Dr Ryan Gustafsson, South Korea, residing in VIC, member of Ibyangin International Network & Australia US Korean Rights Group (AUSKRG)
36. Geetha Keogh, adopted from Sri Lanka, Black Rock VIC, Australia 
37. A.Gale, adopted from Vietnam, living in Victoria
38. Jack Hamilton, adopted from South Korea, living in Victoria
39. Mya Ballin, adopted from China to the US, residing in VIC
40. Ché Stevenson, adopted from South Korea to US, residing in Victoria
41. Tia Brown, adopted from South Korea, Perth Western Australia.
42. Carly Reid, adopted from South Korea to Australia, residing in Perth, Western Australia
43. Meseret Cohen, adopted from Ethiopia, WA, Founder of Buna Chat
44. Chae Ryan, adopted from South Korea and living in WA, Australia US Korean Rights Group (AUSKRG)
45. Jasmine Eberhardt, adopted from South Korea to Tasmania
46. Jason Hardy, adopted from Vietnam to NSW, residing in NT
47. David Hopkins, adopted from Sri Lanka to NSW, living in Sydney 
48. Leanne Tololeski, adopted from South Korea, residing in Western Australia
    
    InterCountry Adoptee Voices (ICAV) - Australia wide & International  

Ibyangin International Network: Adopted Overseas Koreans Creating Change. Steering committee in Seoul, Melbourne, Montreal, Oregon, Idaho, and Copenhagen (https://www.ibyangin.org/)
Australian Domestic Adoptees
           Peter Capomolla Moore, domestic adoptee, President Adoptee Rights Australia Inc., NSW. 

The imposition of a child protection measure by the court is drastic for parents and children. Children and families must be protected if the government decides to intervene in family life. The government must therefore adhere to the principles of the rule of law and to the rules laid down in international treaties. Government decisions must include legal protection for children and families. They must therefore be able to challenge government decisions and actions.

Image of Adriana van Dooijeweert

Image: © Bas de Meijer

Concerns from the internet consultation

The internet consultation and the RSJ advice of 2021 show that there are concerns about the rule of law and legal protection, specifically with regard to the different organization of powers as proposed in the Future scenario for child and family protection. To investigate this, the clients; the Minister for Legal Protection, the State Secretary for Health, Welfare and Sport and Alderman Hendrickx, on behalf of the VNG, instructed the Advisory Committee on Legal Protection and the Rule of Law to issue an advisory report.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — A Swedish legal expert investigating the country’s international adoption practices said Tuesday she’s trying to determine whether Swedish authorities were aware of falsified child origins as they approved the adoptions of thousands of South Korean children.

Anna Singer spoke to The Associated Press during a weeklong trip to South Korea, where she plans to meet with officials from the government and a Seoul-based agency that handled adoptions to Sweden to gather details on how South Korea procured and documented children for foreign adoptions.

Many South Korean adoptees accuse their agencies of fabricating documents to expedite adoptions by foreigners, such as falsely registering them as abandoned orphans when they had relatives who could be easily identified, which also makes their origins difficult to trace.

Most South Korean adoptees were sent overseas during the 1970s and ’80s, when Seoul was ruled by a succession of military governments that saw adoptions as a way to deepen ties with the democratic West while reducing the number of mouths to feed.

“Our primary focus is the Swedish organizations and the Swedish actors — what did they do and what did they know? But in order to get a full understanding, we also need to know how (adoptions were) organized in the countries of origin,” said Singer, a law professor at Uppsala University who was appointed by the Swedish government to lead the investigation in 2021.

A Swedish legal expert investigating the country's international adoption practices said South Korea is vital in her probe into alleged falsified origins of children adopted in the 1970s and 80s.

Anna Singer will meet with officials from the government, and a Seoul-based agency that handled adoptions to Sweden to gather details on how South Korea procured and documented children for foreign adoptions on a week-long trip to Seoul.

Singer's investigation is aimed at identifying irregularities in the way Swedish parties handled international adoptions that came from around 80 countries, including whether they were aware that child origins were being fabricated in sending nations.

“Our primary focus is the Swedish organisations and the Swedish actors — what did they do and what did they know?" said Singer, a law professor at Uppsala University, who the Swedish government appointed to lead the investigation in 2021.

She said such findings would be vital in determining whether Sweden had effective safeguards or monitoring measures to ensure South Korean adoptees weren't wrongfully taken from their biological parents.

Hope and Homes for Children, together with ECPAT, Terres des Hommes the Netherlands, the European Disability Forum, Eurochild, Missing Children Europe, International Social Service, Child Helpline International, Child Identity Protection, LUMOS, Street Child and Save the Children, welcome the European Commission’s proposal to review Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims.

This revision is both timely and necessary. We see in this revision a long-awaited opportunity to further strengthen the Directive by adding a special mention of the phenomenon of institution-related trafficking and introducing specific measures to uphold the rights of all children, including children deprived of parental care.

The link between institutions and human trafficking was recognised by the United Nations and the Council of Europe. While the European Union has committed to supporting and promoting the transition from institutional to community and family-based care in its most relevant funding regulations and relevant policies, it has never officially recognised the connection between trafficking and institutionalisation in its policies or legislation.

Institution-related trafficking constitutes a threat to a broad range of children’s rights. Therefore, the European Union should recognise the link between child trafficking and institutions and address and prevent these grave human rights violations.

The activists have brought to the attention of the Chief Justice that the terms of the CWCs and the JJBs expired by the end of 2019

A group of Child Rights professionals has written to Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Prasanna Varale urging him to ensure that the government soon appoints members to the Child Welfare Committees (CWC) and Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB).

DH had recently published a report on how the CWCs in the state were crippled without adequate members.

The activists have brought to the attention of the Chief Justice that the terms of the CWCs and the JJBs expired by the end of 2019, putting children seeking justice in jeopardy.

"The CWCs are not functioning at all or taking additional charge of nearby CWCs, often taking decisions without the required quorum of members..." the activists have written in their letter. The situation is concerning as it puts vulnerable children at risk and leaves them without protection, they added.

Abraham Maddison believes little has been done to support people who were adopted out under forced adoption practices since the apology by Julia Gillard.(ABC News: Stephen Opie)

A decade on from a historic apology to thousands of Australians affected by the forced adoption era, survivors have headed back to Canberra to push for the support they say they were promised, but never received.

Key points:

Julia Gillard made the apology 10 years ago today

A host of support services were pledged and delivered at the time