Leeuwarder courant : hoofdblad van Friesland

26-11-1982

2

De waarheid

04-11-1982

2

Limburgsch dagblad

03-11-1982

2

Shareable link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hrU9WQgODBY9PvOPrQe0Yv9db0aYeotv

.

By Spencer Punnett

''What can a woman do with four children suffering from hunger, when she can't give them an education?'' asks Maria Cristina Bernat de Bonilla. ''To me it seems more unselfish - she's a better mother - if she gives up a child so it may have a better future.''

If you live in Colombia, as Mrs. Bonilla does, this is a controversial line to take. But it's a view this lawyer from the city of Cali defends with passion.

Mrs. Bonilla is talking about destitute Colombian mothers who sign release forms allowing their children to be adopted. Over the past nine years, she says, she has helped place some 150 Colombian children with adoptive parents throughout the United States - and about 300 with Europeans.

Although shifting government policies prohibit her from participating at present in the adoption process, Mrs. Bonilla still keeps in touch with the adoptive families she has brought together. During a recent visit to Boston, she described how some of the Colombian mothers who gave up children have come to her later for news.

Baby probe halts adoptions; could jeopardize lives

By RICHARD S. EHRLICH, United Press International | Aug. 29, 1982

Comments0 Comments

share with facebook

share with twitter

If German parents adopt a child abroad, the adoption in the Federal Republic is initially considered non-existent. Rolf Bach, head of the Joint Central Adoption Agency for the four northern German states, says “there is no legal basis in the Federal Republic” for the recognition of the adoption.

It makes no difference whether the adoption came about through dubious agencies, reputable aid organizations such as Terre des Hommes and the International Social Service or, as is now the case in hundreds of cases, on personal initiative, for example when the parents contacted the state "commissioner" of the youth welfare authority in Colombo themselves.

The parents are quickly confronted with the legal uncertainty of the German authorities after their return if - the normal process - they want to have their adopted child entered in the family register at the local registry office. The “responsible administrative authorities are often overwhelmed” when it comes to the question of whether foreign adoption can be recognized or not, according to legal experts Helga Gross and Ingrid Baer from the International Social Service.

With the introduction of the law on adoption in 1956, the legislature departed from two ideas, which in hindsight both not proved to be correct.

In particular, the introduction of adoption as being a child protection measure was strongly criticized in the literature. As noted rightly by Delfos and Doek, the characteristic of child protection is that it is never permanent, whereas adoption in principle is permanent. A measure of child protection is also characterized by the fact that in the interest of the child there is an intervention into the exercised authority over him. Parental authority is limited by that measure.

In contrast, adoption confirms legally the existing factual relationship between foster parents and the foster child and builds the authority of the foster parents who have custody into parental authority.

Also Red- Boer found that the "to consider adoption for political reasons as a measure child protection, leads to a lame comparison. "In that context, she pointed out that child protection measures such as exemption from the parental rights or withdrawal of the parental rights do not lead to the loss of familial ties, while adoption does indeed break the existing family ties indeed to then put new family relationships in their place.

From the development that the legal form of adoption after 1956 has gone through, and which this chapter will look at closer, will also show that this idea has been abandoned.

NRC Handelsblad

17-10-1981

1