Roger Singleton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Sir Roger Singleton CBE is chair of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.

He was Chief Executive of Barnardos for 21 years and was awarded a knighthood for his services to children in 2005. He has served on public inquiries into child abuse in children’s homes and is involved in the governance and management of various charities. Sir Roger is also Chairman of Perennial Gardeners Royal Benevolent Society (www.perennial.org.uk). Perennial is one of the UK's oldest charities which was created in 1839 helping horticulturists facing times of difficulty. Sir Roger is also an accredited mediator. Roger Singleton was universally seen as a balanced and liberal spokesman for children's rights. Indeed the only significant public criticisms made of him as a professional for the bulk of his career, prior to 2009, were accusations in 2003 that as chief executive of Barnardo's he had supported emotionally manipulative advertising campaigns used to raise the charity's profile.[1] In this case the UK advertising standards authority found decisively in Singleton's and Barnardo's favour.

Friday, 8 December 2000

By coincidence I had met a while ago a colleague, a human rights specialist, who had been responsible for the Romanian children file for a short while in 1999. I had asked her if she knew what the status of the UNCRC was. She thought it had a strong status, but found it wiser to ask this question to the Commission’s Legal Service.

Today she had indeed sent a note to the Commission’s Legal Service explaining why in her view the Convention should be considered acquis (the EUs legal basis) and requesting their opinion. When I had met her, she had also told me she had analysed law 3/1970. The law that according to De Combret was responsible for the high number of children in institutions. She had concluded it was a rather normal child protection law. It was not law 3/1970 that was the reason so many children were in institutions, but much more complex reasons related to poverty, discrimination of the Roma minority and the attitude towards single motherhood. Law 3/1970 regulated family placement of children without parental care, and as a last option placement in an institution. Her opinion at the time had been wilfully ignored and the Commission had preferred to follow the De Combret-line that because of Ceaucescu’s law so many children were in institutions.

Wednesday, 18 April 2001

Enrico had sent to the Romania Team, for information, the acquis list of DG Justice. And what did I see under Human Rights acquis, the UNCRC. I had forgotten about the note sent to the Legal Service end of last year, and to which no answer had been received. But this was clear: the UNCRC was acquis.

Woman claims adoption agency forcibly took child

Geldanlage Schweiz - 8% - 8% Rendite im Jahr - Euro frei - Ohne Risiko & 100% steuerfrei!sharewood.com/Schweizer-Rendite

Ads by Google

· STAFF CORRESPONDENT

COMMENT · PRINT · T T

'Baby racket at least 3 decades old'

Priyanka Dasgupta | TNN | Dec 11, 2016, 08.02 AM IST

KOLKATA: Arun Swanand Dohle was adopted as a month-old baby from Kusumbai Motichand Mahila Seva Gram (KMMSG) in Pune by Belgium-based Michael and Gertrud Dohle.Twenty years later, in 1993, Germany-based Dohle came to Pune to trace his roots. It was in 2010 that he reunited with his biological parents. Having worked extensively on child trafficking and adoption issues, Dohle insists that the Kolkata child-trafficking scandal is at least three decades old and was covered extensively by the international media.

Browsing through old records ahead of a BBC feature on the child trafficking racket in Kolkata, Dohle spoke about international media reports that date back to August 22, 1982."Having worked in this sphere for years, I know that adoption from Kolkata was under the scanner of the international media as early as 1982. The international media had reported on the dubious system of `babies for sale' that was allegedly conducted by International Mission of Hope (IMH) in Kolkata. Incidentally, Sree Krishna Nursing Home, which has been involved in the current scandal, used to be one of the suppliers of babies to IMH," he said.

In an article titled "The short tragic life of Nathan, the baby who was bought for £ 2000", The Mail had reported that Nathan was adopted by an American couple, Ron and Robbie Flanders from the small town of Oakfield, New York. They had paid £2000 to an American adoption agency. Nathan had fallen ill within a few days of arrival to America after a long journey. Controversy had erupted over whether Nathan would have died anyway or already underweight and sick, he was `killed' by being forced to undergo such a long and exhausting jour ney in the unnatural environment of a jet aircraft.Fingers were also pointed at an international airlines for shipping "unwanted Indian children 9,000 miles to America".

Guest Post by Mara Zebest

Update on BCFS: Recall that Baptist Child and Family Services was behind the Federal Government deal for $50M to buy a resort hotel for illegals as The Gateway Pundit reported here and here.

Well, just because the word “Baptist” is in the organization’s title, doesn’t make it a Church. The minimal amount of research brings a person to the BCFS website—home to Health and Human Services (displayed under the BCFS logo in the upper-left corner). Gee, that sounds more like an Obama agency than a Church. Check out the Partners page to find a who’s who list of Federal and State government agencies that are reminiscent of the ACORN complex ties for laundering taxpayer-funded money.

BCFS_Government-agency-ties

Apparently, many have been digging into the BCFS as well.

A countless number of children go missing every year. The category of missing children include a number of problems including abduction or kidnapping of children by family members and by non-family members, run-away children or those forced to run away by family and surrounding circumstances, children who are in a difficult or aggressive environment, trafficked children, and lost children. Missing Children Because of this wide array of problems it is hard to survey the number of missing children. Often cases are not reported to the police. In 2005 National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) informed that on an average 44000 children are reported missing every year. Of these, as many as 11,000 remain untraced.

Children who go missing may be exploited and abused for various purposes from camel jockeys in the Gulf countries to victims of organ trade and even grotesque cannibalism as reported at Nithari village in Noida. There are also a large number of children who run away from homes after dropping out of school or facing difficulties at home. They usually run away to the glamorous big cities where they fall prey to exploiters and are employed in tea stalls, brothels, beggary, etc. Most of the children come from poorer families who do not have access to police services or whose reports are not taken seriously.

When a child goes missing there no FIR filed as there is no cognizable offence committed. Hence only an entry is made into the General Station Diary at the concerned police office. Information of the missing child is forwards up to the Chief of police as well as locally police officers generate awareness through the media. The police headquarters of each state has a missing person bureau. A database of missing persons is maintained by the Missing Persons Wing at the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in New Delhi.

Some recommendations/suggestions of the NHRC Committee made to state and union governments:

Missing children should become a priority issue with state and union governments and law enforcement agencies.

Over the years Indian law enforcement agencies have been permitted, through evolving legislation, to collect material containing DNA as a way of providing additional evidence for the conviction of criminals in India. Starting in the 1920s, the collection and use of biometrics for identification of criminals legally began for India with the approval of the Identification of Prisoners Bill.[1] The object of the Bill is to “provide legal authority for the taking of measurements of finger impression, foot-prints, and photographs of persons convicted or arrested.”[2] The Bill is still enforced in India, and in October 2010 was amended by the State Government of Tamil Nadu to include “blood samples” as a type of forensic evidence. Other Indian legislation pertaining to forensic evidence is the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc) and the Indian Evidence Act. In 2005, the CrPc was amended to authorize investigating officers to collect DNA samples with the help of a registered medical practitioner.[3] Both the CrPc and the Indian Evidence Act fail to address the collection and testing of DNA effectively as they do not set procedures for how the DNA samples should be collected, stored, shared, accessed, secured, and destroyed.

Though India allows the collection of DNA samples by law enforcement agencies for identification purposes, it does not have a national law in force that regulates how governments collect, store, create, and use DNA profiles of accused persons. A DNA profile is created when DNA samples are taken from individuals and are analyzed in laboratories to produce a digitized representation of the sequence. Once created, a DNA profile is stored on a database with other identifying information from the individual and information from the crime scene. Creating DNA profiles and using them to solve crimes has been a growing global practice over the past two decades. Despite the lack of explicit safeguards and regulations, both governmental and non-governmental laboratories have been collecting, testing, and storing DNA samples/profiles for many years. These laboratories function off of internal policies and run DNA tests for both forensic purposes (identifying criminals, victims, etc., conducted by both private and public labs) and personal purposes (paternity and medical, conducted by private labs).

Proposed Legislation

In the past few years, two pieces of legislation that serve to regulate the use of DNA for forensic purposes have been drafted or proposed in India. The most recent legislation, titled the Privacy Bill 2011, was leaked to the public in the spring of this year. If passed, the Bill will allow for the collection of DNA samples only with the consent of an individual, and will prohibit the public disclosure of such information to the extent that it will adversely affect an individual’s right to privacy in a way that would amount to a civil wrong. Though the Bill creates an important standard by mandating consent, it fails to comprehensively protect and regulate the use of DNA data.[4] In 2007, a Bill known as the Draft DNA Profiling Bill was piloted by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, an autonomous organization funded by the Department of Biotechnology in India’s Ministry of Science and Technology. The Bill is pending in Parliament, and aims to legalize the collection and analysis of DNA samples for forensic purposes in order to “enhance the protection of people and administration of justice through analysis of DNA found at the crime scene, and establish identity of victim and offenders.” In its current state, the Bill would permit DNA to be collected and stored in a way that raises many concerns related to privacy and civil liberties.

Most concerning, through a list that outlines the circumstances in which DNA can be collected, the Bill allows for the DNA of innocents who are not related to a crime scene, are not victims, and are not criminals to be added to DNA databases.[5] This list can be expanded by the DNA Board as they deem appropriate.[6] Furthermore, the Bill does not specify at what point exactly DNA can be collected e.g., whether the DNA can be collected on arrest or on charge, whether the DNA has to be directly relevant to the offence, whether the police decide this for themselves, and what are the oversight mechanisms for these decisions. Permitting the collection and storage of innocent people’s DNA is dangerous for many reasons and extends the core rationale of collecting DNA far beyond “for forensic purposes.” As noted by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, by adding the DNA data of individuals with no discretion to these databanks, the governmental intent is presumptively changed from one of criminal investigation to population surveillance.[7] The debate over holding an innocent person’s DNA is key to understanding the core of what can and should be protected when formulating safeguards and regulations. Does the state ever have an interest in DNA aside from criminal identification? If so, should the government collect the DNA explicitly for that purpose?

1. Short title.—This Act may be called the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882. Local extent.—It applies to the whole of India 1 [except the State of Jammu and Kashmir];

(Commencement) —And it shall come into force on the first day of May, 1882.

2 [1A. Definition.—In this Act, “Power-of-Attorney” includes any instruments empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it.]3[1A. Definition.—In this Act, “Power-of-Attorney” includes any instruments empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it.]"

2. Execution under power-of-attorney.—The donee of a power-of-attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any 3 [***] instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every 3 [***] instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof. This section applies to powers-of-attorney created by instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into force.

3. Payment by attorney under power, without notice of death, etc., good.—Any person making or doing any payment or act in good faith, in pursuance of a power-of-attorney, shall not be liable in respect of the payment or act by reason that, before the payment or act, the donor of the power had died or become 4 [***] of unsound mind, 4 [***] or insolvent, or had revoked the power, if the fact of death 4 [***] unsoundness of mind, 4 [***] insolvency or revocation was not, at the time of the payment or act, known to the person making or doing the same. But this section shall not affect any right against the payee of any person interested in any money so paid; and that person shall have the like remedy against the payee as he would have had against the payer, if the payment had not been made by him. This section applies only to payments and acts made or done after this Act comes into force.

Susan Soon-keum Cox, right, poses with other Korean adoptees in front of a “baby box” in Seoul where unwanted babies are given up for adoption. / Courtesy of Susan Soon-keum Cox

By You Soo-sun

A Korean adoptee wants to make international adoption a more viable option for orphans.

close

Every year, Susan Soon-keum Cox visits Korea to change negative perspectives about the adoption practice and push policymakers to ease regulations that make the work of adoption agencies extremely difficult.

1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in the matter of appointment of guardian of the person of female minor Babita an inmate of Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah (founding home) conducted by Rajasthan Social Welfare Department of Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The application filed by the appellant for appointment as guardian of the above mentioned minor child was dismissed by the Family Court vide its judgment dated August 12, 1986.

2. It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that the Inter-country Adoption Agency "Juthika" (hereinafter called as "Juthika") of Netherland, which is one of the recognised agency of Government of India, approached the Director of Social Welfare Department and Superintendent, Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur through its power of attorney holder to give minor Babita, a destitute child in Guardianship of the petitioner. The Director, Social Welfare Department gave permission for adoption of the child to a foreign parent since no Indian citizen came forward for taking the child in adoption. Petitioner through its general power of attorney holders Mrs. Hem-lata Mirazkar, 208, Olympus, Altamount Road, Bombay-4000 26 and Shri Sandeep Saxena, D-2, 'Moti-Kunj', Malviya Marg, Ashoknagar, Jaipur moved an application before the Family Court for granting Guardianship to the petitioner. This application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard both the parties and gone through the documents.on record.

4. It is contended by Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has erred in not considering the certificate of Professor of Dutch Law in Nether-

land that a Dutch man living in Netherland can take in guardianship of any child and can also adopt as many children as he likes. It is also submitted that the direction was given by the learned Judge that the State Government and Shanti Devi Shishu Grah should publish in newspapers and also publicize on television to seek persons willing to adopt the child, it is contended that this is against the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 469. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has not cared to look at the Annexure 5 which satisfied all the requirements regarding appointment of guardianship of the petitioner. It is also contended that the trial Court has overlooked that it was for the paramount benefit of the child to appoint petitioner as guardian who will eventually adopt he,r in accordance with the law of Netherland. It is also pointed out that Director of Social Welfare and the Superintendent of Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah have stated that it is in the interest of the child that she should be given in guardianship of the petitioner.