21 March 2023
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. 

All Member States have national provisions governing the recognition of adoption orders, but legal procedures differ significantly across the EU. As legislation currently stands, there is no legal protection or guarantee that domestic adoptions carried out in one EU Member State will be recognised in another. This means that European families who move to another Member State after adopting a child may face significant practical problems, and may be obliged to go through national recognition procedures or even to re-adopt their child. The situation leads to legal uncertainty and may harm children’s rights, including the right to family life, non-discrimination, inheritance rights and the right to nationality.

Substantive family law is an area of national competence, but the EU may adopt measures on aspects of family law with cross-border implications. Parliament adopted a resolution on improving adoption law in 1996. In 2009, the European Commission and the European Parliament both issued studies showing that there was public support and further scope for EU action on adoption of children and putting forward concrete recommendations. The European Parliament subsequently adopted a Resolution on international adoption in the European Union, which called for consideration of coordinated European level strategies and mutual legal recognition of the documents necessary for adoption. This EP Resolution has not so far been followed by a legislative initiative by the European Commission.

During the European Parliament’s eighth term, its Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) issued a legislative initiative report on cross-border recognition of adoptions with specific recommendations to the Commission (rapporteur, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, EPP, Poland). The preparatory work highlighted that whilst the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption requires automatic recognition of adoptions, it only applies to situations where adoptive parents and the adopted child come from two different countries and does not cover domestic adoptions, i.e. situations where the adopters complete the adoption procedure in one Member State, and then later, decide to move to another EU Member State with the child. In addition, the Brussels II Regulation does not cover adoption or the recognition of adoption orders. Therefore, at the EU level, there is currently no legal instrument, which regulates the recognition of an adoption order made in another Member State.

The European Added Value Assessment (EAVA) accompanying the report analysed possible policy options and the potential additional value of taking legislative action at the EU level. It estimated that, as well as the social, health and fundamental rights consequences for individuals, the cost of the lack of EU rules on automatic recognition of adoption decisions is approximately €1.65 million per annum. It argues that EU legislation would reduce administrative and legal costs and allow for better protection of the interests of the child and of the fundamental rights of adoptive parents. Any EU legislation should cover: issues of jurisdiction and conflict of law; a uniform certification process and adoption certificate, as well as the effects of certification; conditions for recognition of adoption orders; a principle of mutual recognition as a default principle; and grounds for non-recognition.

The subsequent European Parliament resolution of 2 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on cross border aspects of adoptions, based on the own-initiative legislative report:

Cape Town – Four people are expected to appear in the Botshabelo Magistrate's Court, in the Free State, on Monday on charges of illegal adoption and fraud.

According to the provincial spokesperson for the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks), Warrant Officer Fikiswa Matoti, the first two suspects were arrested on Friday, March 17, and the other two the following day

Matoti said the two suspects arrested on Friday were arrested by the Botshabelo police for illegal adoption and fraud.

The suspects are aged 35 and 51.

“It is alleged that two females, a Lesotho national and a South African, went to Botshabelo Home Affairs for late registration applications for two children, aged 5 and 15.

The Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation announced that it was looking for caregivers for eight orphans who are living at the National Maternal and Child Health Centre (NMCHC) and Battambang Orphanage Centre I in Battambang province.

Four of the eight children are disabled, according to a March 9 notice from the ministry released this past week.

The ministry’s General Department of Technical Affairs director-general Touch Channy said that it was not unusual for them to announce the availability of children for adoption and they are now checking all of the application forms submitted to the ministry.

“When we have children to be adopted, we notify the public so people know about it and whether they wish to adopt the children. The reason why the ministry has always announced adoptions is because when children have no relatives we must look for guardians or foster parents for them to take care of them.

“But after the ministry does its best to inform the public, if no one comes forward to care for them then the ministry will take the children to [orphanages],” he continued.

A couple has been arrested by local police for allegedly torturing and sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl, who was admitted to the Cantonment Board

Hospital with brutality injuries.

A case was lodged against Arun Sinha, a teacher by profession, and his wife Anjana based on the complaint made by Newa police outpost in-charge Preet

Pandey for digital rape, assault, and other relevant sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act, said officials.

According to police, primary investigations have revealed that the accused couple, originally from Patna, were living in an apartment in Preetam Nagar locality of Prayagraj.

A senior US politician has praised the Scottish first minister’s decision to make a formal apology over the historic forced adoption scandal.

Nicola Sturgeon is expected to deliver an apology this week to the estimated 60,000 Scots women forced to give up their babies but Congressman Jim McGovern urged her to also voice official regret for the use of cancer-causing drug Stilbestrol.

McGovern, who is pushing for an apology in America, said Scotland was showing the world how to address the scandal of the synthetic oestrogen hormone given to around 10 million women.

Scots campaigners have led the way in questioning the damage done by Stilbestrol, also known as DES, which was given to unmarried mothers during the forced adoption era to dry up breast milk after their babies were taken.

Now campaigners are hoping Sturgeon’s statement on historic adoption practices to the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday will also include an apology for the use of the drug, now known to cause vaginal and breast cancer, reproductive organ defects and infertility among women and their children and grandchildren.

The latest government statistics show that approximately 6,000 children in Romania are adoptable. In 2021, 1,655 children were adopted, and in the first six months of 2022, 418 children under the care of the state were adopted, 100 more than in the same period last year. For those interested in becoming adoptive parents, the National Authority for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Children and Adoptions (ANDPDCA) has compiled a list of 17 questions and answers . The ANDPDCA thus explains who can and cannot be an adoptive parent, as well as the adoption rules for those who meet the conditions to be adoptive parents.

1. Where do we go to adopt a child? In order to adopt a child, you must contact either the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Child Protection in whose administrative-territorial radius you have established your domicile or to an authorized Private Organization (OPA). The list of authorized OPAs can be consulted on the ANPDCA website in the "National adoption" section ( http://www.copii.ro/activatie/adoptie/adoptie-nationala/ ).

2. Do members of a couple have to be married to each other in order to adopt? No, both families (married persons between husband and wife) and single persons (unmarried) who obtain the certificate of family/person capable of adopting can adopt. In the case of spouses, Romanian law allows, in addition to adoption by the certified family, also adoption by one of the spouses, in which case the other spouse (in addition to consenting to the adoption) will also give a statement regarding the reasons for not joining the adoption application. They can also adopt people of the opposite sex who live in a stable relationship and live with the (unmarried) parent of the adopted child, if the new adopter participated directly and directly in raising and caring for the child for an uninterrupted period of at least 5 years .

3. Can we choose the children/child we want to adopt? The adoption procedure is governed by the principle of identifying the most suitable family for an adoptable child and does not focus on finding a child for a family. Consequently, for each adoptable child in the RNA records, the specialists of the General Directorate of Child Protection and Social Assistance will select the adopter/adoptive family that best meets the child's needs. In order to facilitate the adoption of difficult-to-adoptable children, the law provides for the existence (at the level of each direction) of a "profile of difficult-to-adoptable children" database accompanied by photos and information, which can be consulted by adopters. On the occasion of consulting the public profile, the adopters who are certified for adoption, have the opportunity to decide whether they will continue the adoption procedure with a certain child.

4. When can we access the profile of difficult to adopt children?)The certified family/person can access the profile of the difficult-to-adopt child at any time, but only from the headquarters of the home directorate.

Central Adoption Resource Authority Recruitment 2023: Monthly Salary 218200, Check Post, Application Process

Central Adoption Resource Authority Recruitment 2023: The Secretariat of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has invited Applications from the Candidates Eligible for Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (Joint Secretary Level) in the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) through this MoWCD Recruitment 2023 Official Notification.

According to the Ministry of Women and Child Development Recruitment 2023 Official Advertisement, there is 01 Vacancy for Chief Executive Officer Post under Pay Level 14 (Rs.144200-218200) on Deputation Basis for 05 Years. According to the Ministry of Women and Child Development Recruitment 2023 Official Advertisement, Willing Officers with Eligibility may apply in the Prescribed Application Proforma with the Enclosure through Proper Channel. Duly completed Applications with Enclosures should be transmitted through Email Before or On 10.04.2023. The Cadre Controlling Authority should route the Nominations of Eligible Office through DoPT Online Interface.

Table of Content

Post and Vacancy in Central Adoption Resource Authority Recruitment 2023:

In the 1970s and 1980s it was relatively easy for couples with an unfulfilled desire to have children to adopt a child from abroad. Today these children are grown. When they search for their biological parents, they often find out that their adoption was illegal and documents were forged.

Isabel Fuhs wants to know who her mother is. "I keep asking myself that. But I can imagine that she's somewhere.” Isabel Fuhs was adopted from Brazil in 1985. She was not even two months old then, a little baby. But she knows almost nothing about her first weeks of life. The biological mother is said to have been only twelve years old when the child was born. A Brazilian lawyer arranged the adoption to Germany.

“The story about my adoption is really very strange. There's nothing, no records, what hospital was I born in? Nothing to say about the birth parents either, nothing about the mother, no name. This is really very dirty. You can't understand much today."

It's an agonizing blank in her biography. Psychologists have long known how important knowledge of one's biological origins is for the formation of one's identity. The Federal Constitutional Court ruled in 1989 that it is part of a person's personal rights to know their own origins. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also contains the right to identity. Not knowing anything about their birth family plunges some adoptees into deep crises.

Right to know one's parentage

Bought children, doctored files… A generation of adoptees in search of the truth

By Agnes Leclair

Published on 03/17/2023 at 19:45, updated on 03/17/2023 at 19:45

Listen to this article

00:00/11:33