NRC Handelsblad

18-12-1985

5

Adoption of children from the third world, 1 - Het Spoor - VPRO

In fifteen years, the Netherlands adopted fifteen thousand third-world children: development work in their own country. For years, adoption has been enveloped by a pink cloud. Then came the scandals: long waiting times, high costs, illegality, child trafficking, out-of-home placements. Series of two documentaries on foreign adoption, which were positively approached for years. Until the problems came: frustrations of eternally waiting adoptive parents and financial scandals. And then the practices of very lucrative child trafficking in third world countries and the involvement of Western rogue adoptive associations. In this part we focus on successful adoptions. Interviews with, among others: - journalist and mother Helma van der Berg; - Mr Walenkamp from Wereldkinderen; - mother Geertje; - clinical psychologist Dr. Wolters; - Jan and Sylvia Jongepier; - Prof. dr. Dr. Hoksbergen; - parent and journalist Alexander Munninghof, who adopted a child in Sri Lanka four years ago and of which Ronald van den Boogaard made recordings in Sri Lanka at the time. Now, four years later, Lida, Michel and Ronald are visiting Alexander again.

Dutch:

In vijftien jaar tijds adopteerde Nederland vijftienduizend derde-wereld-kinderen: ontwikkelingswerk in eigen land. Jarenlang is adoptie gehuld geweest door een roze wolk. Daarna kwamen de schandalen: lange wachttijden, hoge kosten, illegaliteit, kinderhandel, uithuisplaatsingen.
Serie van twee documentaires over buitenlandse adoptie, die jarenlang positief werd benaderd. Tot de problemen aan het kwamen: frustraties van eeuwig wachtende adoptief ouders en financiële schandalen. En dan de praktijken van zeer lucratieve kinderhandel in derde wereldlanden en de betrokkenheid van westerse malafide adoptieverenigingen.
In dit deel vooral aandacht voor goed verlopen adopties.
Interviews met o.a.:
- journaliste en moeder Helma van der Berg;
- De heer Walenkamp van Wereldkinderen;
- moeder Geertje;
- klinisch psycholoog dr. Wolters;
- Jan en Sylvia Jongepier;
- Prof. Hoksbergen;
- ouder en journalist Alexander Munninghof, die vier jaar geleden in Sri Lanka een kindje adopteerde en waarvan Ronald van den Boogaard indertijd in Sri Lanka opnamen maakte. Nu, vier jaar later, gaan Lida, Michel en Ronald weer op bezoek bij Alexander.

Samenstelling: Lida Iburg en Michal Citroen

The Hague incest (grand) child died

In February 1985 Panorama brings the disconcerting story of the then 35-year-old Corrie S. from The Hague: "I had four children from my own father". From her early childhood she was abused by her father, nine times she became pregnant, and four children survived. Corrie told her story after she caught her father with one of those four children, the then 14-year-old Zarah. Almost thirty years later, this Zarah wants to tell how things went on at the time. How the assisting The Hague abandoned her and after the article she was abused for five years by her father.

“I remember that you came to us, I was then 14. You wanted to make an article about fathers who have to raise their children on their own. And then you all started asking questions about my mother. He was a lizard! "

Zarah S. remembers the visit of the Panorama reporter at the end of 1984 as yesterday. The report about her mother and the incest children struck the emergency services in The Hague like a bomb, but in 2009 it is staggering to find that it didn't help much: father S. just kept going. The judges and child protectors did not reach out and Zarah was abused until her father's death (in 1996).

When the article appeared in February 1985, the originally S. family from The Hague lived in The Hague again. Corrie S. (35) had fled from home and lived on the Bierkade, father S. lived with the children Renata (18), Zarah (14) and Eduard (11) in Westlandsestraat. The previous residence of the family was Leeuwarden: father S. was reluctant to relocate if social workers were too concerned with him. That had been the case in Friesland.

Amigoe

16-02-1985

5

Leeuwarder courant : hoofdblad van Friesland

14-02-1985

5

drie geadopteerde Haïtiaanse meisjes

* Immacula Bongard (Moumoune), geboren in Haïti in 1977 en in 1985 geadopteerd

* Immacula haar Haïtiaanse broer heet Ason

* Marie Narcisse Lauture (Miyou), geboren in Haïti in 1980 en in 1984 geadopteerd

* Jesumene Gere, geboren in 1982 in Haïti en in 1987 geadopteerd

Madras High Court

P.K. Subramani vs Paster Mani And Anr. on 4 April, 1984

Equivalent citations: AIR 1986 Mad 181

Author: S Natarajan

Bench: Natarajan, Venkataswami

Equivalent citations: AIR1986MAD181, AIR 1986 MADRAS 181, (1985) 17 LAWYER 36, 1985 LAWYER 17 36, (1985) 98 MADLW 339, (1985) 1 MADLJ208, (1985) 2 HINDULR 457, (1985) WRITLR 134

1. This petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for causing the production of a minor boy by name Amba Shankar alias Jayapaul has come to be filed on account of a gross and total misconnection of the circumstances under which a petition of this nature can be filed. The facts of the case are briefly as under.

The petitioner is the father of a minor by name Jayapaul. He had entrusted the custody of the child as early as in the year 1978 to the first respondent herein who is running an institution known as "Prayer House". it is said to be an association registered under the Societies Registration Act and to be enaged in running an orphanage as well is maintaining a home for aged persons and for destitute widows. According to the first respondent., the petitioner informed him that after the ,death of his wife, he had married again and his second wife was averse to bringing up the minor child born to his first wife and therefore, the child may be taken care of in the orphanage run by the first respondent. Some months thereafter a Belgium couple expressed their desire to adopt an Indian child. The first respondent would say that the petitioner was contacted and he gave his consent to the child being taken in adoption by the Belgium couple; but the petitioner would deny it. Be that as it may, the first respondent filed a petition O. P. No. 500 of 1978 on the Original Side of this Court under Ss. 3, 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act. After the formalities regarding publication of notice etc. were observed, a learned Judge of this Court passed an order on 10-12-1978 declaring the first respondent, to be the lawfully appointed guardian of the minor child Jayapaul and permitting the first respondent to entrust the custody of the minor child to the foreign couple Mr. Raucy Claude Roger and Mrs. Raucy Alberte Champenois residing at 18 Anenue De La Victoire Virton, Belgium, through their power of attorney agent Miss Alma Philips, English Professor, Cultural Academy, 19 Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Madras, for being taken to Belgium for the purpose of being fostered, maintained and brought up by the said Mr. Raucy Claude Roger and Mrs. Raucy Alberte Champenois. The Court Imposed a condition that Mr. Raucy Claude Roger and Mrs. Raucy Alberte Champenois should send to this Court an annual report along with recently taken photographs of the minor child in order to satisfy the Court that the child was being looked after well. The first of such report was directed to be filed on or before 31-12-1979. According to the first respondent, the petitioner was fully aware of all these things and he gave his whole-hearted consent and he also executed an agreement on stamp paper on 8-1-1979 agreeing to the child being taken by the Belgium couple as their adopted son and giving an undertaking that neither he nor his relations or friends would go back on the arrangement and give any trouble or cause any loss to the first respondent or the adoptive parents. It is the further case of the first respondent that till recently, the petitioner had been corresponding with the adoptive parents and in one of those letters dt.27-10-1979 the petitioner has categorically stated as follows "We have no objection. I Jayapaul staying with you; Let him be your son itself, But we are eager to have some contact wish you morely writings."

It is further written in the letter that the adoptive parents may write to him (the petitioner) in future and not to the first respondent. Lastly, he concludes the letter invoking the blessings of God for the grace shown by them on Jayapaul.

2. In spite of all these, the petitioner has come forward with this petition stating that the entrustment of the custody of the minor child to the first respondent was only a temporary arrangement and the first respondent had no authority to act as the guardian of the minor child and send him away in adoption to Belgium. According to the petitioner, the agreement on stamp paper is a document in which his signature was obtained without his knowing what the contents were. In so far as the letters are concerned, he has no specific answer except to say that the taking away of the child in adoption was not with his consent. The technical plea raised by him is that he was not made a party to the proceedings in O. P. No. 5010 of 1978 and therefore, the order passed by the Court is not binding on him. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts without any materials whatever, that the child is being made to serve as a domestic servant by the adoptive parents in Belgium and the child is living in inhuman conditions. Therefore, he would say that the child is not leading a dignified way of life and such a of violates Art. 23 of the Constitution. He Would also say that the child has been exported for monetary considerations by the first respondent without the consent of the father who is the natural guardian and that again is illegal. The further submission made is that the father is the natural arid lawful guardian and he is entitled to seek the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for getting the custody of his child. In support of these, Propositions, he cites the decisions in Gohar Begum, and Veena Kapoor v. Varinder Kumar, .Those, authorities have no relevancy at all to the facts of the case on hand. When asked as to how a writ of habeas corpus can be enforced when the child is beyond the shores of this country and when the persons having the custody of the child are not parties to these proceedings, the counsel would cite the in Marggarate Maria v, Pualparampil, Nee Fledman v. Dr. Chacko Pulparapil, (FB) which was rendered under entirely different circumstances.

Madras High Court

P.K. Subramani vs Paster Mani And Anr. on 4 April, 1984

Equivalent citations: AIR1986MAD181, AIR 1986 MADRAS 181, (1985) 17 LAWYER 36, 1985 LAWYER 17 36, (1985) 98 MADLW 339, (1985) 1 MADLJ208, (1985) 2 HINDULR 457, (1985) WRITLR 134

Author: S. Natarajan

Bench: S. Natarajan