Pound Pup Legacy

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

Persons: Uttar Tamata, Ramesh Khatiwada, Hemanta Rijal, Basanta Rijal

Countries: France, Italy, Spain, Nepal

Organizations: Child NGO Federation Nepal (CNFN), Nepal Asahaya BalGhar (Nepal Helpless Children’s Home) Godawari, Prayas Nepal

DF: Stop adoptioner fra Indien

21. jun. 2010 06.00 Politik

Efter 21 Søndag i aftes fortalte, at en indisk mand har fået franarret sine børn, som er blevet bortadopteret til Danmark uden hans accept, vil Dansk Folkeparti have stoppet for adoptioner fra Indien.

Både SF og de Konservative er også villige til at se på muligheden og kræver samtidig sammen med Socialdemokraterne, at det indiske adoptionsmarked bliver grundigt gransket.

- Dansk Folkeparti mener, at al samarbejde med de indiske adoptionsmyndigheder bør ophøre, og at al adoption fra Indien til Danmark bør indstilles, indtil adoptioner kan genoptages på betryggende vilkår, siger Marlene Harpsøe, Dansk Folkepartis medlem af retsudvalget.

Otte år uden sine børn
Udmeldingen kommer efter, at 21 Søndag i går fortalte historien om den indiske mand Ramesh Kulkarni, som har fået franarret sine børn, der nu er i Danmark.

Ramesh Kulkarni har nu ikke set sine børn i otte år.

I 2002 afleverede Ramesh Kulkarni nemlig sine børn til børnehjemmet Preet Mandir i Indien, der efterfølgende bortadopterede børnene uden faderens viden og uden hans accept.

Nu vil han have sine børn igen, siger han til DR Nyheder.

- Det er en dybt tragisk sag, som ikke må finde sted, lyder det fra Marlene Harpsøe (DF).

Sagen genåbnet
Men sagen om Ramesh Kulkarnis ikke nogen nyhed for de danske myndigheder. I 2007 dokumenterede 21 Søndag for første gang det indiske børnemarked - heriblandt Ramesh Kulkarnis sag.

Det betød, at Danmark lukkede for al adoption fra Indien. Men efter en undersøgelse slog fast, at faderen havde sagt ja til bortadoption, blev adoptionsgrænserne åbnet igen

Nu viser en undersøgelse, at Ramesh Kulkarni intet vidste, og at sagen ikke kun handler om en far, som er blevet snydt af et korrupt børnehjem, men om korruption helt op på statsligt niveau i Indien.

Korrupt indisk adoptionsmyndighed
- Det er frygteligt og fuldstændig uacceptabelt , at sådan noget kan ske, lyder det fra Vivi Kier, de Konservatives familieretsordfører.

Det indiske forbundspoliti - CBIs - nye undersøgelse af sagen har nemlig også fundet spor af korruption hele vejen op til de indiske adoptionsmyndigheder. Et centralt og meget farligt advarselssignal, som vi ikke kan ignorere, mener flere politikere herhjemme.

- Der skal straks iværksættes et tilbundsgående udredningsarbejde af hele området, siger Vivi Kier (K).

Flere partier villige til at lukke for indiske adoptioner
SF og Konservative er også parat til at se på, om der igen skal lukkes for adoptioner fra Indien. I hvert fald indtil reglerne er skærpet.

-Jeg syntes, at ministeren må gribe ind nu og sørge for midlertidigt at få bremset adoptionerne, i hvert fald indtil vi er sikre på, at der ikke foregår noget forkert, lyder det fra Vivi Kier.

Fra SF meldingen:

- Jeg vil høre ministeren ad, om det ikke er fornuftigt at få et stop for adoptioner fra Indien. Og derefter bliver vi nød til at have nogle skærpede krav til de organisationer, der foretager adoptioner fra Indien til Danmark, siger Karina Lorentzen Dehnhardt, retsordfører for SF.

Socialdemokraterne vil endnu ikke tage stilling til, om de mener adoptionerne skal stoppes, men understreger, at vi hurtigt muligt skal iværksætte en undersøgelse, siger Karen Hækkerup, Socialdemokraternes retspolitiske ordfører.

Fakta om Ramesh Kulkarnis historie

I mart 2002 dør Ramesh Kulkarnis kone af gulsot få måneder efter, at deres sidste barn er født.
Efter nogle uger bryder Ramesh Kulkarni sammen. Han kan ikke give børnene mad, når han er på arbejde. Derfor forlader han sit job og flytter sammen med sin familie. Han indser, at han ikke kan tage sig af børnene, og cirka en måned efter sin kones død afleverer Ramesh Kulkarni sine børn til børnehjemmet Preet Mandir. Han får at vide, at han når som helst kan hente sine børn igen, når han er kommet økonomisk og mentalt overpå.
Børnehjemmet beder ham underskrive et papir. Papir, som han tror er indskrivningsdokumenter, men som i virkeligheden var bortadoptionspapirer.
En måned efter kommer familien for at hente børnene, men de er væk.
Børnehjemmet Preet Mandir forsøger at afpresse familien og kræver penge for at give børnene tilbage. Desværre har familien ikke pengene.
I foråret 2003 tror Ramesh Kulkarni stadig, at hans børn er på børnehjemmet Preet Mandir, men børnene er blevet bortadopteret til Danmark.
Ramesh Kulkarni nægter at give tilladelse til bortadoption og bliver forbudt at komme på børnehjemmet.
Faderen sætter gang i søgningen med advokat, men må give op på grund af pengeproblemer.
Først i oktober 2006 gør Ramesh Kulkarni endnu et forsøg på at se børnene sammen med sin bror. De tager til børnehjemmet, men børnehjemmet viser dem nogle helt andre børn, der ikke er hans. Protester fra faderen og broderen gør, at de bliver smidt ud af børnehjemmet.
I April 2007 beslutter hele familien at køre sammen til børnehjemmet. Her får de at vide, at børnene er i Danmark.
Familien melder sagen til det lokale politi i byen Pune, til kriminalpolitiet i Mumbai og børnerettighedsorganisationen Child Line. De vil have børnene tilbage.
Sagen bliver vist i 21 Søndag i juni 2007, og den får den konsekvens, at Danmark stopper midlertidigt for adoptioner fra Indien. Men efter at en undersøgelse fra Indien fastslår, at Ramesh Kulkarni godt vidste, hvilke papirer han havde underskrevet, lukker Danmark igen op for adoptioner fra Indien, og børnehjemmet Preet Mandir og AC Børnehjælp bliver frikendt for anklagerne.
I 2010 finder indisk politi ud af, at den politimand, som stod bag undersøgelsen i 2007, er korrupt og i ledtog med børnehjemmet Preet mandir. Han bliver fyret.
Ny undersøgelse iværksættes. Den slår fast, at Ramesh Kulkarni fik franarret sine børn. Samtidig finder CBI, Det Indiske Forbundspoliti, ud af, at der er korrupte embedsmænd ansat i CARA, den indiske adoptionsmyndighed, som også i ledtog med børnehjemmet i Preet Mandir.
Nu vil Ramesh Kulkarni have sine børn tilbage til Indien.

Countries: Denmark

Organizations: ACT CASE Ramesh Kulkarni

Indian children stolen for adoption

Shaikh Azizur Rahman, Foreign Correspondent

Last Updated: June 28. 2010 11:13PM UAE / June 28. 2010 7:13PM GMT

Nagarani, with her husband and two children in the background, at their home in Pulianthope slum in Chennai. Their bid for a DNA test to confirm whether a boy adopted by a Dutch family is their son kidnapped 11 years ago was turned down. Shaikh Azizur Rahman / The National

CHENNAI, INDIA // When Nagarani and her husband, Kathirvel, reached the Netherlands from India this month, the couple believed they would be able to prove that a 12-year-old Dutch boy was their son Sathish, who had been stolen from their home in a Chennai slum 11 years ago.

But a Dutch family court last week turned down the couple’s request for a DNA test on the adopted son of a Dutch ethnic Indian family, ruling that it risked inflicting severe emotional trauma to the minor.

“I am dead sure that Rohit is none but our Sathish. I went all the way to the Netherlands, I am disappointed that I was not even allowed to meet my son,” said Nagarani on her return to India last week,

“I am not angry with the Bissesars for taking my son into adoption. We felt very bad that the adoptive parents did not even want to meet us. I wanted to tell them that we became distraught after Sathish was lost. One day I hope Sathish will understand at least our pain we have lived through since we lost him.”

The struggle to retrieve their son by the couple highlights the plight of dozens of Indian parents who are searching for their children after they were apparently stolen by child traffickers and then sold into adoption in foreign countries, without the knowledge of their birth parents.

According to Bachpan Bachao Andolan, or Save Childhood Movement, an Indian child-rights non-governmental organisation, 45,000 children go missing in India every year. Most of the lost children end up as prostitutes, bonded labourers or among the homeless population in big cities. Some of the missing children land in orphanages, and a percentage of those reach their adoptive families in India and abroad.

One night in 1999 when Nagarani and Kathirvel, who only use one name each, were sleeping with their three children in front of their slum hut, one-year-old Sathish was snatched from their bed. Months of searching for the baby proved futile, but the couple suspected that Sathish had been stolen by child traffickers to be sold abroad.

Then in 2005, when police arrested a gang of child traffickers in south India, it was found that they had secretly supplied the children, Sathish among them, to the Malaysian Social Services (MSS), a Chennai-based orphanage that had the permit to send children for adoption abroad.

The investigation revealed that in the previous decade MSS had illegally sent at least 350 Indian children abroad for adoption.

From the office of the orphanage, police recovered in 2005 photos of scores of children who apparently had been stolen from their parents, and Nagarani and Kathirvel identified one child, sent for adoption in the Netherlands, as their son.

As India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) began investigating the case of Sathish, Against Child Trafficking (ACT), a Netherlands-based non-governmental organisation fighting for the prevention of child trafficking for international adoption, contacted the Dutch family in the city of Almere in 2006 and broke the news that their adopted son, Rohit Shivam Bissessar, may have been stolen from his original family in India.

The Bissessar family, who paid US$35,000 (Dh128,555) to adopt the child, have refused to take a DNA test, fearing that the child could be taken away. Nagarani and Kathirvel, with the help of ACT activists, last Tuesday filed a complaint with the Almere police against officials of the Meiling Foundation, the intermediary Dutch adoption agency that placed Rohit, and the Bissesars, accusing them of kidnapping.

In the complaint to Dutch police the couple alleged that Dutch courts and legal authorities were “shielding the Dutch kidnappers” and that “the Netherlands have been promoting kidnapping of children from other countries to their land”.

The Dutch police is of the opinion that the Bissesar couple had no role in kidnapping and trafficking the child. In a Chennai court India’s CBI, following its investigation in the case of Sathish, charged the child traffickers and Indian MSS officials with kidnapping, fabricating records and sending him for illegal adoption.

There are more than 11.5 million abandoned children in India, according to Bachpan Bachao Andolan, and authorities regularly urge western countries to adopt children from the country’s hundreds of orphanages. According to India’s Central Adoption Resource Authority [Cara], about 1,000 Indian children go for adoption abroad yearly with most going to the US.

Cara guidelines say that a foreign couple adopting an Indian child should not pay more than $3,500 to the Indian orphanage. However, in reality, foreign parents often are forced to pay up to 10 to 12 times that to private adoption agencies that act as middlemen, making adoption a lucrative business in India.

The Child Welfare Committee of Tamil Nadu (CWC) believes trafficking and selling children into adoption in foreign countries is still common in south India.

“Last week we discovered that one Chennai-based orphanage, having licence to send children for adoption abroad, had virtually stolen five babies by fooling their birth parents, apparently to sell them into adoption to wealthy families – possibly in foreign countries,” said P Manorama, the chairman of CWC in Chennai, referring to the adoption agency Guild of Service, which is currently under investigation for its role in illegal adoption.

“Children are continually getting lost and many are remaining untraced. We have reason to believe that kidnapping of children for business is still going on in the region.”

foreign.desk@thenational.ae

Organizations: ACT CASE Nagarani, ACT IN THE NEWS

Countries: India, Netherlands

Hassles of Adoption in Nigeria

Hassles of Adoption in Nigeria

By ETOKHANA ELEANOR, 06.29.2010

Most people who have lost hope of ever having children or those who have children but want to shower love and assume full parental responsibility towards other children who are mostly motherless, are faced with problems of adopting these children because of the ambiguous laws associated with adoption and the long and frustrating protocols one has to go through to adopt a child in Nigeria.

Adoption is a common practice throughout the world and has been a part of history from time immemorial, which has not been fully explored and embraced in our society. Adoption is a process by which people legally assume the role of parents for a child who is not their biological child. It is being frowned upon in Nigeria because of the misconceptions associated with it and most people who adopt are secretive about it because of the stigma.

According to Mr. Tunji Adelakun, a legal practitioner, “in some states like Abia, Akwa-Ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, Rivers and Lagos; the prospective adoptive parents must be at least twenty five years of age and twenty one years older than the child to be adopted.

Adelakun further explained that the current Lagos State Adoption Laws of 2003, Section I agrees to “adoption of certain juveniles under the age of seventeen, who are abandoned, or whose parents and other relatives are unknown or cannot be traced after due enquiry certified by a juvenile court.”

For an adoption to take place, the court has to grant an adoption order depending on the type of adoption taking place. The court also has the right to cancel an adoption process if it thinks or get reports that the adoptive parents applied undue pressure, favour or money to influence the adoption process. Section 2(2) states that “ an adoption order maybe made upon the application of two spouses authorizing them jointly to adopt a juvenile, but in no other case shall an adoption authorize more than one person to adopt a juvenile.” This clearly do not support single parent adoption especially that of opposite sex because of cases of sexual abuses except in rare circumstances where issues of blood ties can be firmly established in such case, the court may justify making such order.

The simplest form of adoption is one by relatives or step parents, in cases like this, if one or both parents are dead, the grand parents comes first before any member of the family in having the court consent to take custody of the child/children. While in issues involving step parent, the spouse of the biological parent adopt the child/children of his/her spouse to create a closer relationship and become their legal guardian. Since a biological parent lives in the household, background investigations are often waived. Adoption outside these is often complicated because detailed investigations into the background of the applicants will be conducted for history of child abuse, criminal activities, medical records, social lifestyle and financial status. This is to ensure the safety, comfort and proper well being of the child. If the applicants are cleared then they can proceed with the adoption process.

The adoptive parents are expected to meet and fulfill the basic rights and duties of the adopted child. And in disbursing of wills and settlements, the adopted child must be treated as a lawful child of the adoptive parents and the same way as the biological child and not as a stranger. This is due to the fact that there have been cases in the past whereby at the demise of the adoptive parent(s), the adopted child is not allowed to share in their inheritance.

Though there are laws against illegal adoption, most people are not aware of it because of lack of information on it and because of this reason, unscrupulous people cash in on it to make quick money and manoveur things to their own favour. Efforts to get the Lagos State Ministry of Youths, Sports and Social Welfare, Alausa, which oversees the regulation and supervision of all supporting agencies, and is in charge of implementation of adoption laws and procedure in Lagos State as well as the Welfare Juvenile Center and Children’s Home at Alakara Mushin to throw more light on the issue was met with stone wall.

Although some members of the public spoken to by THISDAY do not really have a grasp on the subject. According to Mrs. Lorentha Salihu: “Adpotion is when you shower love to a child that is not your own who is homeless and provide a home for them. But I do not know if there is a process involved to adopt.”

Also, Mrs. Onyinye Hillary also corroborated the first speaker’s response saying that she has not heard anything of such.
While Miss Amara Uche, said: “I know it is when you take a child home and make the child feel at home. Personally, I do not support it because you do not know if the child is a witch or if the parent is a prostitute, thief or drug addict and you will now bring problem on yourself because you want to be a good Nigerian. My sister, a child will always behave like his/her parents.”

Also, Mr. Chris Osigwe who was furious over the question asked: “Is there any law in this country that is working? Is there a law on adoption in this country? How many people have been arrested for illegal adoption or adoption racketeering? My friend, I just heard that from you for the first time. What I know is that you can buy a child anywhere from orphanage homes, hospitals or even in the street as long as you have the money.” When he was asked to name one of such places, he refused and walked way.
Another respondent, Mr. Lanre Aliyu said: “Am not aware of such stuff but if there is one you know how we are slow in things attributing all to protocols because of corruption in the system. And as you know, we are not patient at all.”

Although there have been several cases in the media concerning illegal adoption deals in the country like that of Dr. Achichie Sunny-James Ezuma in Abia State who was running an illegal adoption process by housing mostly teenage pregnant girls and selling off their babies after delivery. Though he denied the accusation and has since sued the then Minister of Health, Babtunde Osotimehin and Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria at the Federal High Court Umuahia claiming one billion naira as damages and for portraying him in bad light.

Also, the case involving the proprietress of Good Shepherd Orphanage Home in Okota, Mrs. Gift in 2005 readily comes to mind. Gift ran an illegal adoption process in which she housed pregnant girls and sell their children to those who desperately need children and are ready to part with any amount. She later settles these girls with cash ranging from twenty five to thirty thousand naira after luring them with promise of goodies to the home.

Recently, the case of Mrs. Theresa Marques whose orphanage home, Ife- Oluwa Home, was closed down and her license revoked for engaging in illegal sale of babies with prices ranging from N250,000 – N500,000 depending on the urgency, has since debunked the claim saying the girls voluntarily give up their children to her after swearing an affidavit in court.
Analysts contend that if the government and all those saddled with the responsibility of adoption process can educate the citizens on the right way to go in adopting a child and create a lot of awareness and incentives on it, more people will go through the right channel to adopt a child.

http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=177046

Countries: Nigeria

Persons: Dr. Theresa Marques

Number of illegal child adoptions growing in ?R

LN: Number of illegal child adoptions growing in ?R

?TK |

30 June 2010

Prague, June 29 (CTK) - The number of adoptions of children from other countries is growing in the Czech Republic, Lidove noviny (LN) writes Tuesday and says there is no legal state-assisted way of gaining a child abroad.

The paper writes, for instance, that Czechs brought eight children from Congo last year, this year the figure was registered in the first six months already.

The Czech Office for International Legal Protection of Children (UPMOD) says people have goodwill and want to help the children, but thy do not realise the risks involved, LN writes.

UPDMOD says the respective legislation should be changed, or else the African children will soon end up in child homes, LN quotes office head Zdenek Kapitan as saying.

At present Czechs can adopt a child from Czech child homes only if they meet a number of conditions, such as a reasonable age of the future parents and other, LN writes.

Some of those who do not want to undergo the complicated procedure of preparation, including psychological interviews, give priority to adoption from abroad via various intermediaries for payment, LN writes.

Kapitan said there is demand for adoptions from abroad and therefore his office has been conducting negotiations with four states of The Hague Adoption Convention, namely Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, India and the Philippines in this respect.

He said, however, the adoptions will not be possible earlier than at the end of 2011.

LN writes that Kapitan has doubts about whether adoptions from exotic countries are the best solution for the children.

He said it is a costly matter. Translations, travel expenses and other necessary spendings involved cost about one million crowns.

If five such people, for whom the total of one million crowns is tolerable joined forces, they could pay good-quality care of the child in its homeland and "the assistance would be much more effective," Kapitan is quoted as saying.

LN writes that Czech parents adopted 500 children from Czech child homes last year. About 100 of them were returned in the same year.

International adoptions of Czech children from child homes were more successful. A mere three cases out of a total of 323 such adoptions in ten years had a bad end, LN writes.

Czech children go abroad if offices do not find suitable families for them in the country. Girls are adopted abroad more often than boys. They accounted for two thirds of all children adopted abroad in the past ten years.

Denmark with more than 40 percent of children led the receiving countries standings, LN writes.

Copying, dissemination or other publication of this article or parts thereof without the prior written consent of ?TK is expressly forbidden. The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content.

Countries: Democratic Republic of The Congo, Czech Republic

Court stays order on two children for adoption

Court stays order on two children for adoption

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: Justice T. Sudanthiram of the Madras High Court has stayed for four weeks the operation of an order of the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Kellys, directing the Guild of Service (Central) to immediately transfer to the Balamandir Adoption unit two children who were under the care and custody of two proposed adoptive parents.

In a petition, Gemma Bridget D'Silva of Pozhichalur said she was a spinster. The Guild of Service by a letter of February this year had given a female child Sweety to her in temporary custody prior to legalisation of the adoption.

Undertaking

The service organisation obtained a Pre-Adoptive Foster care undertaking from the petitioner. When she produced the child to the Chairman, CWC, on June 21, the committee gave a letter to the petitioner asking her to produce the documents as to how the child was taken in pre-adoptive foster care.

Simultaneously, it issued an order to the Guild of Service to transfer the child to another adoption agency. No show cause notice was given to the proposed adoptive parent. The child had been adopted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court, the petitioner said.

A similar petition had been filed by Thirunavukkarasu of Kalpakkam, a proposed adoptive parent of Thaneer, a male child.

Organizations: Guild of Service - Central (Sevasamajam)

Countries: India

Let's not treat children as pets: Bombay high court

Let's not treat children as pets: Bombay high court

Mayura Janwalkar / DNA

Friday, July 2, 2010 0:53 IST

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Thursday said that Indians have no right to brag about their culture and heritage, if their children in adoption centres are treated as “commodities”.

You may also want to see

· SSC schools set to follow CBSE, introduce grade system

· One Kurla rape culprit held, others at large

· Ashok Chavan wants ministers to 'connect' with aam admi via janata durbars

· Centre scheme comes to aid of failed adoptees

· Students in a spot over Mumbai university's late call on PhD selection

Related videos

· Heavy rains disrupt normal life in Mumbai

· D Sivanandhan takes over as Maharashtra's police chief

· Tadoba-Andheri Tiger Reserve officials happy with more space for tigers in reserve

The court was hearing a petition file by NGOs Advait Foundation and Sakhee, which had sought action against Preet Mandir, an adoption centre in Pune.

Peeved at the state of affairs, the court said the government, which is obligated to place children from adoption centres with caring families, had done little to stop it from becoming a “corporate venture”.

“We are very colour-conscious. Adoption centres charge more for a fair baby, while an HIV-positive child is offered at a discount,” justice BH Marlapalle said.

Interestingly, a letter written by government secretary Vandana Krishna to the Central Adoption Resources Agency (Cara), stated: “Even if an adoption agency is run with a selfish or business motive to make money, it is not a crime or illegal. Many schools, colleges, educational institutions, hospitals are run as a business today.”

Krishna’s letter stated that it is not the government’s duty to ensure that NGOs operate on charitable basis, nor is it necessary that adoption agencies should operate incurring losses.

Expressing concern over the 450 children at Preet Mandir, the court had earlier asked Cara to take a decision about the rehabilitation of these children. However, counsel for Preet Mandir told the court that closing the adoption centre — facing allegations of malpractices — would not solve the problem.

“The children are young and attached to the staff of the adoption centre. Many attend school and their psychology needs to be taken into consideration. Children are not vegetables or cattle to shift them from one place to another,” the counsel said.

The court asked the state to frame guidelines on how it plans to monitor private adoption homes. There are 69 adoption centres in Maharashtra.

“The state will have to play a very vital role,” the court said. It also suggested that information regarding adoption homes should be centralised and available online.

Justice Marlapalle said the matter has to be looked at in its totality by the state government. “On the one hand, we must go by the reality — number of unwed mothers, number of families selling children owing to abject poverty. We only hope that these [adoption centres] will not be breeding farms. Let us not treat children as pets.”

Countries: India

Organizations: Preet Mandir, ACT CASE Preet Mandir

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appoints Ambassador Susan S. Jacobs

Washington, DC
July 1, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is pleased to announce the appointment of Ambassador Susan S. Jacobs as Special Advisor to the Office of Children’s Issues. A long-time advocate for children, Secretary Clinton has created this new foreign policy position to address intercountry adoption and international parental child abduction. In her work on these important issues, Special Advisor Jacobs will actively engage with foreign government officials to protect the welfare and interests of children.

Special Advisor Jacobs most recently served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. A former U.S. Ambassador to Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, she also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Issues in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. Her distinguished Foreign Service career has also included tours in Caracas, Tel Aviv, New Delhi, Bucharest, and San Salvador.

Special Advisor Jacobs graduated from the University of Michigan and later studied at Georgetown University Law School and the George Washington University. She has received numerous awards, including the Department of State's Superior and Meritorious Honor Awards, and the U.S. Embassy New Delhi’s Community Achievement Award.

The Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, located within the Bureau of Consular Affairs, assists parents, children, and families in matters related to intercountry adoption and international parental child abductions. It serves as the U.S. Central Authority for both the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
For more information about the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, please visit our websites at:www.adoption.state.gov, www.travel.state.gov/childabduction

Persons: Susan S. Jacobs, Hillary Rodham Clinton

Countries: United States of America

Der US-amerikanische botschfater in Rumänien ist dafür, dass Rumänien bald wieder Kinder ins Ausland vermittelt.

2.7.10 Rumänien

Der US-amerikanische botschfater in Rumänien ist dafür, dass Rumänien bald wieder Kinder ins Ausland vermittelt. Der Nachrichtenagentur AFP sagte er: “Ich würde es gerne sehen, wenn Rumänien seine Adoptionsgesetze bald ändert, damit Kinder schneller und einfacher adoptiert werden können. Ich glaube, dass es nicht gesund für die Kinder ist, wenn sie nicht so früh wie möglich in Familien kommen. Meine Frau arbeitet in einem Zentrum, wo die Kinder ihr erstes Lebensjahr verbringen. Sie sollten bereits in diesem Alter adoptiert werden. Denn je länger sie in solchen Institutionen bleiben, desto mehr sind sie in ihrer emotionalen und intellektuellen Entwicklung beeinträchtigt.“

Ambasadorul SUA la Bucure?ti Mark Gitenstein declar?, într-un interviu acordat MEDIAFAX, c? în România corup?ia este o problem? ?i c? sunt momente în care Guvernul pare prea lent în a lua decizii sau opac în explicarea lor, aspecte reclamate de investitorii str?ini.

· Politic

INTERVIU: Gitenstein:Corup?ia e o problem? aici; uneori Guvernul pare lent în a lua decizii sau opac (Imagine: Bogdan Stamatin/Mediafax Foto)

R. Alt subiect: scutul american antirachet?. România ?i SUA au început au început negocierile oficiale pe tema desf??ur?rii de elemente ale scutului antirachet?. Spune?i-ne, exist? un text de acord sau de tratat care se negociaz? în prezent ?i de fapt care sunt elementele acestuia?

M.G.: Da. Toate subiectele legate de un tratat sunt discutate. Am luat parte la discu?iile oficiale s?pt?mâna trecut?. Au avut loc o serie de inform?ri aprofundate acolo despre solicit?rile tehnice, despre toate aspectele juridice legate de tratat, dar nu a fost luat? o decizie final?.

R.: Statele Unite se gândesc la anumite loca?ii din România?

M.G.: Nu. Este de datoria românilor s? decid?. Noi le-am prezentat românilor cerin?ele tehnice care trebuie îndeplinite pentru plasarea interceptoarelor. Românii vor trebui s? vin? cu o propunere, dar nu am v?zut nimic deocamdat?.

R.: ?i de câte loca?ii a?i fi interesa?i?

M.G.: Cred c? discu?iile sunt despre o singur? loca?ie, va fi aleas? una singur?.

R. O loca?ie. ?i, odat? cu interceptoarele, vor fi adu?i ?i militari americani pentru a le manevra?

M.G.: Va fi personal care va lucra la ele.

R.: Alte detalii nu ne pute?i oferi?

M.G.: Nu, acum nu.

R.: Raportul Departamentului de Stat privind situatia drepturilor omului a indicat, în ceea ce prive?te România, cazuride discriminare la adresa comunit??ii evreie?ti. De asemenea, au fost plângeri legate de ritmul lent al restituirii propriet??ilor confiscate. Ce crede?i despre acest subiect?

M.G.: În primul rând, vreau s? spun c?, întorcându-m? aici, ca evreu ai c?rui str?buni au plecat din aceast? ?ar?, m-am bucurat s? particip la inaugurarea Memorialului Holocaustului aici în octombrie 2009. Este un monument bine realizat ?i m-am bucurat c? a fost construit. Am acordat mult timp vizit?rii comunit??ilor evreie?ti din România. Cred c? unul dintre cele mai minunate lucruri f?cute de România dup? Revolu?ie este înfiin?area Comisia Wiesel ?i a Institutului Wiesel, eforturi concrete de asumare a trecutului.

În ceea ce prive?te restituirea propriet??ilor, principalul subiect care m? preocup? este Fondul Proprietatea. De aceea am felicitat-o pe pre?edinta Roberta Anastase, pentru c? una din cele patru legi pe care le-a trecut prin Camera Deputa?ilor la începutul acestei s?pt?mâni este una care permite Franklin Templeton s? înceap? gestionarea acestui fond. A existat mult? îngrijorare legat? de Fond, dac? este bine gestionat ?i dac? bunurile sale nu sunt risipite, pentru c? de fapt ace?tia sunt banii din care se vor realiza retroced?rile.

Mul?i americani în vârst? care au fost victime ale comunismului sau fascismului ?i ale c?ror bunuri au fost confiscate încep s? moar?, îmb?trânesc tot mai mult ?i accept? s? primeasc? sume derizorii în contul desp?gubirilor fiindc? se tem c? nu vor primi nici un ban de la Fond. Cred c? de aceea este important ca valoarea acestui Fond s? fie asigurat? în continuare.

Am acordat de asemenea mult timp modului în care este rezolvat? problema Bisericilor greco-catolice. Am acordat de asemenea timp problemei victimelor comunismului ?i a confisc?rii propriet??ilor acestora de c?tre comuni?ti. Este un subiect important pentru Statele Unite pentru c? exist? 400.000 de americani de origine român? ?i mul?i sunt preocupa?i de acest subiect. A?a c? aud foarte des aceste probleme.

R.: Recent, Curtea Constitu?ional? a României a declarat neconstitu?ional? legea lustra?iei. Care este opinia dumneavoastr? despre aceast? decizie ?i, mai ales, la 20 de ani dup? Revolu?ie crede?i c? mai este necesar? o lege a lustra?iei?

M.G.: Nu cunosc argumentele constitu?ionale pe baza c?rora a fost dat? decizia. Nu sunt expert în Constitu?ia României. Dar no?iunea de lege a lustra?iei nu este complet necunoscut? în Statele Unite. Poate c? nu ?ti?i dar dup? R?zboiul Civil, Guvernul a pus interzis sudi?tilor secesioni?ti s? de?in? func?ii. De fapt, ei aveau legi mult mai dure decât cea din România. În cele din urm?, acele prevederi au fost relaxate. Legea aici, din câte în?eleg, nu a fost niciodat? implementat? pe deplin.

Deci cred c? este foarte important s? î?i asumi trecutul. Îl admir mult pe Nelson Mandela ?i tot ceea ce a f?cut el în Africa de Sud. Gra?ie Comisiei Wiesel, România a reu?it foarte bine s? î?i asume Holocaustul. Probabil c? ar trebui s? investi?i timp ?i energie pentru a v? gândi cum s? v? asuma?i trecutul comunist. Este o parte important? a istoriei României, pe care trebuie s? v-o asuma?i deschis. Nu trebuie s? presupun? m?suri punitive, dar trebuie asumat?.

R.: Strategia Na?ional? de Ap?rare trimis? s?pt?mâna aceasta la Parlament men?ioneaz? campaniile de pres? menite s? discrediteze sau s? creeze presiuni asupra institu?iilor, printre vulnerabilit??ile ??rii. Crede?i c? asta ar putea afecta libertatea de expresie în România?

M.G.: Depinde ce se întâmpl? ca urmare a acestei prevederi. P?rerea mea este c? presa din România nu difer? de presa din Statele Unite ?i în multe cazuri este subiectiv?. Finan?atorii institu?iilor de pres? au propriile interese. ?i în Statele Unite este la fel. E suficient s? te ui?i la posturi precum MSNBC ?i Fox News ?i vei vedea acela?i lucru. Copia?i destul de bine situa?ia din Statele Unite.

Solu?ia din punctul meu de vedere este ca media s? relateze cazurile de abuz al statului asupra unei institu?ii de pres? sau al unor institu?ii de pres? asupra concuren?ei. Relata?i despre ele! Cred c? solu?ia este s? se scrie mai mult despre astfel de situa?ii, s? se fac? mai mult? lumin?, institu?iile de media s? se critice mai mult una pe cealalt?, pentru c? oamenii sunt mult mai inteligen?i decât v? imagina?i ?i în?eleg ce se întâmpl?. Cu cât relata?i mai mult, cu atât deciziile lor vor fi luate mai în cuno?tin?? de cauz?.

R.: Când a?i venit în România, a?i vorbit cu pl?cere de r?d?cinile române?ti pe care era?i hot?rât s? le cerceta?i. V-a?i g?sit rude?

M.G.: Am g?sit rude în Republica Moldova. Am fost la Chi?in?u de dou? ori ?i m-am întâlnit cu membri ai familiei Gitenstein. Este vorba despre o tân?r?, o veri?oar? îndep?rtat?. Înc? nu în?eleg exact care este rela?ia de rudenie. Se nume?te Sonia Gitenstein, are 30 de ani ?i se ocup? de cimitirul evreiesc de acolo ?i conduce o organiza?ie care protejeaz? cimitirul acesta. L-am cunoscut ?i pe tat?l ei, care este de vârsta mea. Se nume?te Daniel Gitenstein. Numele lor se scrie exact ca al nostru ?i în mod clar de înrudim, pentru c? nu sunt prea mul?i Gitenstein în lume. Iar noi provenim din Chi?in?u. Încerc?m s? clarific?m lucrurile.

Cât despre rudele mele din Boto?ani, familia Bralower... cred c? nu mai exist? urma?i. Nu am ajuns înc? la Boto?ani, dar am un document de 400 de pagini cu genealogia familiei de la un v?r îndep?rtat al meu din Statele Unite, care arat? exact când au plecat ?i cine era str?- str?bunica mea. Am ?i o fotografie cu str?-str?bunica mea, care a locuit din Boto?ani ?i a imigrat în SUA. Str?bunicul meu a adus-o la el. A?a c? am s? m? duc acolo ?i am s? încerc s? caut posibile rude. M? tem c? nu voi g?si pe nimeni. Exist? foarte pu?ini evrei în acea zon? a României ?i a? fi surprins s? mai descoper rude în via??.

R. : Trecând la un alt subiect, în timpul audierilor dumneavoastr? în Senat, anul trecut, a?i spus c? o prioritate a mandatului dumneavoastr? va fi reluarea adop?iilor interna?ionale.

M.G.:Da

R.:Ce pute?i spune acum despre acest subiect?

M.G.: Abordarea mea în leg?tur? cu subiectul adop?iilor este c? mi-ar pl?cea s? fie reluate adop?iile interna?ionale. ?i am f?cut eforturi pentru aceasta. Preocuparea mea este legat? de copii ?i vreau s? m? asigur c? ajung în c?minul potrivit. Am identificat 300 de copii care pot fi adopta?i. Guvernul român mi-a oferit câteva informa?ii despre situa?ia lor. Cred c? doar 40 din ace?ti copii nu au fost adopta?i. Încerc s? aflu care este starea lor de s?n?tate, cât de bine sunt trata?i.

Apoi, mi-a? dori s? v?d o schimbare în legisla?ia român? privind adop?iile, astfel încât copiii s? poat? fi adopta?i mai u?or ?i mai repede, indiferent dac? sunt adopta?i de români sau de altcineva. Pentru c? eu cred c? nu este un lucru s?n?tos faptul c? ace?ti copii nu sunt în mijlocul unor familii cât mai repede. So?ia mea lucreaz? ca voluntar? aici la un centru dintr-un spital unde stau în primul an din via??. ?i atunci trebuie adopta?i, cât mai repede cu putin??. Deoarece cu cât stau mai mult în institu?ii cu atât mai mare va fi impactul asupra dezvolt?rii lor emo?ionale ?i intelectuale. ?tiu c? exist? oameni care doresc s? fie schimbat? legea a?a încât procesul s? fie mai rapid iar acesta este un lucru extrem de important. ?i ?ti?i, cunosc oameni - americani - care locuiesc aici, în România ?i care încearc? s? adopte ?i au multe probleme.

Ace?ti copii merit? o familie exact a?a cum am avut noi.

R.: Tot la momentul numirii dumneavoastr? ca ambasador în România a?i fost criticat de pres? - m? refer la Washington Times - pentru activit??ile dv de lobby. S-a scris de asemenea c? în cariera dumneavoastr? a?i reprezentat Lockheed Martin, compania care acum a fost selectat? s? livreze României avioanele F16. Ce le r?spunde?i celor care spun c? ar fi un conflict de interese aici?

M.G.: Regulile privind conflictul de interese sunt foarte dure în Statele Unite. ?i sunt ?i foarte clare. Sunt probabil reguli mult mai dure decât în România. Eu de exemplu nu am voie s? reprezint sau s? am vreo influen?? asupra vreunei companii în care am investi?ii personale. De exemplu, dac? a? avea ac?iuni la Lockheed Martin, nu a? putea face niciun fel de munc? în favoarea Lockheed Martin. Nu am ac?iuni la Lockheed Martin ?i sunt absolut sigur c? nici nu am avut vreodat?.

Dac? a? fi reprezentat Lockheed Martin în ultimii doi ani prin firma mea de avocatur?, nu a? fi putut face niciun fel de munc? în favoarea Lockheed Martin pân? la împlinirea termenului de doi ani.

Eu nu am reprezentat Lockheed Martin în ultimii doi ani. Am reprezentat Lockheed Martin acum zece sau 15 ani, nu mai îmi amintesc, a fost acum mult timp, în anii '90. ?i nu a avut nimic de-a face cu achizi?iile.

În al treilea rând, eu nu am nicio influen?? asupra decizia Guvernului american de a sponsoriza F-16 sau Lockheed Martin pentru programul românesc de avion multirol. A?a c? nu am avut nicio influen?? asupra aceastei decizii.

În schimb, nu am voie s? fac anumite lucruri care au leg?tur? cu Brookings Institution. Nu am voie s? fac nimic care ar influen?a Brookings Institution, pentru c? am lucrat acolo. Nu am voie s? fac nimic care s? aib? impact direct asupra firmei mele de avocatur?. Adic? dac? firma mea de avocatur? ar veni aici ?i ar spune "Am vrea s? ne aju?i cu firma aceasta sau aceasta", eu le-a? spune "Nu v? pot ajuta pe voi sau acea companie".

Deci exist? mult? lucruri pe care nu am dreptul s? le fac, dar Lockheed Martin nu figureaz? printre ele.

R.: Diploma?ii români lucreaz? pentru o vizit? a pre?edintelui Traian B?sescu în Statele Unite.

M.G.: Lucr?m la acest aspect.

R.: Se va întâmpla anul acesta? Anul viitor?

M.G.: Cine ?tie?! Adic?, pre?edintele Statelor Unite este o persoan? cu un program destul de înc?rcat, a?a c?... dar lucr?m la asta.

R. Deci lucra?i la o întâlnire bilateral? a lor?

M.G.: Asta încerc?m s? facem.

R.: Anul acesta?

M.G.: Nu ?tiu când se va întâmpla. Eu am încercat... Mi-ar pl?cea s? se întâmple mâine. Mi-ar pl?cea s? vin? pre?edintele Obama aici chiar mâine. Dar l-am adus pe vicepre?edinte aici.

R.: Apropo, l-am putea vedea pe pre?edintele Obama aici, la Bucure?ti?

M.G.: V-am spus c? mi-ar pl?cea s? vin?, dar nu se ?tie. Fiecare ?ar? din lume vrea acela?i lucru, iar el nu este decât o singur? persoan?.

R.: Spune?i-mi domnule ambasador, cum vi se pare via?a în România?

M.G.: Îmi place aici. Este cea mai bun? slujb? pe care am avut-o vreodat?. Iubesc locul, oamenii, munca mea, echipa cu care lucrez. Singurul lucru care nu este bun este c? m? aflu la 8.000 de km de nepo?ii ?i de copiii mei.

R.: Nu v? viziteaz??

M.G.: Ba da, m? viziteaz?. Dar a? vrea s?-i v?d în fiecare s?pt?mân?.

R.: Le-a pl?cut în România?

M.G.: S-au îndr?gostit de România. ?i vor s? revin? aici. De fapt, fiul meu, so?ia lui ?i nepotul meu se vor reîntoarce aici în jurul datei de 6 iulie, cred. Vom petrece cam o s?pt?mân?-zece zile aici ?i apoi vom pleca pentru înc? o s?pt?mân? în Turcia, la Istanbul. Abia a?tept.

R.: Deci v? ve?i petrece vacan?a în Turcia?

M.G.: O parte aici ?i o parte în Turcia.

R.: A?i recomanda România ca destina?ie turistic??

M.G: Absolut!

R.: În pofida infrastructurii?

M.G.: În pofida infrastructurii! Am avut ni?te prieteni foarte dragi care au venit aici acum zece zile ?i i-am încurajat s? mergem la Oradea. A fost foarte frumos acolo, în zona montan?. Apoi - el este pescar, ca ?i mine - am mers împreun? în Delt? ?i am stat într-un hotel plutitor. A fost foarte cald, dar ne-am distrat grozav. Am v?zut multe p?s?ri, n-am prins prea mult pe?te. Eu am prins unul singur, dar i-am dat drumul înapoi în ap?.

N-am fost în Maramure?, dar vreau s? m? duc acolo.

?ti?i, din p?cate, fac multe drumuri dar când ajung undeva sunt foarte multe obliga?ii oficiale de care trebuie s? m? achit. Iar eu vreau s? m? relaxez. De exemplu îmi place s? pictez ?i a? vrea s? pictez. Sper s? avem o s?pt?mân? doar Libby ?i cu mine undeva, în Transilvania în august, f?r? întâlniri oficiale. Doar pentru pictur? ?i plimb?ri.

R.: Deci pescui?i, picta?i... Ce altceva mai face?i?

M.G. Dorm foarte mult în weekend. E un alt hobby al meu.

http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/gitenstein-coruptia-e-o-problema-aici-uneori-guvernul-pare-lent-in-a-lua-decizii-sau-opac-6451795/?p=3

Countries: Romania, United States of America

About Martin Caminada

Martin Caminada

Research Associate

martin.caminada@uni.lu

Martin Caminada has as main research interests formal models of human argument and argumentation as a form of nonmonotonic reasoning. In 2004 he obtained a Ph.D. in computer science with his thesis For the Sake of the Argument; explorations into argument-based reasoning. From 2004 to 2007 he worked at the Utrecht University on an EU-funded project called ASPIC (Application Service Platform with Integrated Components). Since August 2007 he works at the University of Luxembourg as a senior postdoc on the AASTM project (Advanced Argumentation Services for Trust Management). Martin's publication record includes the AAAI, ECAI and AIJ. His educational tasks include giving a Master course on argumentation and the supervision of a PhD student.

Persons: Martin Caminada