The Bombay High Court on Friday expressed apprehension that parents may abandon children, especially girl children, in order to get reservation benefits if at all any such reservation is created for abandoned children.

A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale was hearing a plea by the NEST foundation, an NGO which urged the Court to direct the government to create reservation benefits for abandoned children at par with orphaned children. 

Opposing the proposition, Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf argued that the if the State government grants such reservation to abandoned children, it may create a situation where children are deliberately abandoned to be included under the fold of reservation. 

“Orphanage is a matter of fact but abandonment can be created. It happens. This is the sad truth. The government does not want to create such a situation,” the Advocate General said. 

“This is our anxiety too. It will encourage abandonment, especially of girl children. We need to find a balance,” the bench replied. 

Where exactly does the law stand when it comes to adoptions by trans persons?

It was a petition by Mumbai-based transgender activist Gauri Sawant – better known for being featured in a 2017 Vicks ad – and others that led to the historic NALSA judgment of 2014, in which the Supreme Court recognised trans people as a 'third gender'.

In a shocking incident reported from India’s eastern state of West Bengal, a couple sold their eight-month-old baby for 200,000 Indian rupees or $2,400. The bizarre development is said to be from the state’s North 24 Parganas district.

A police investigation is going on, and the child’s mother, named Sathi, has already been arrested. However, the father of the baby, named Jaydev, is absconding.

How did they get caught?

Interestingly, it was the couple’s neighbours who sounded the alarm. Their neighbours in the Panihati Gandhinagar area grew suspicious after they noted the child’s absence and the sudden change in the couple’s behaviour.

The Bombay High Court on Friday expressed the need to train officials of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), displeased over the manner in which the committee declared a child free for adoption despite the biological father’s pleas for the child’s custody.The court said it would order records of the present case to be placed before the appropriate department for consideration. “Whether...

HONOLULU (KHON2) — After almost two years since Isabella Kalua was reported missing, court documents revealed the six-year-old girl has been declared dead.

According to court documents filed in a probate case on Thursday, a judge ruled Isabella died on or about Aug. 18, 2021.

Check out more news from around Hawaii

Isabella’s disappearance and the story behind her abuse and murder allegedly done by her adoptive parents shocked the state.

Isabella Kalua home in Waimanalo goes up for sale

Deborah was brought to the Netherlands from Sri Lanka together with her twin brother. At least, that was the story. At the age of fifteen, she discovers that her alleged twin brother is not related to her at all. The real twin sister was too sick to fly, so two very young children were hastily swapped.

Deborah's fight to put this right appears to finally be coming to an end this summer. 

By Jeroen Pen

Deborah Hageman was adopted in 1985 and left Sri Lanka for the Netherlands. She is one of many: thousands of fellow sufferers travel the same route. The demand for adopted children rose to a record high at the end of the last century. There is a lot of money to be made from Sri Lankan babies and toddlers, so the supply should not lag behind. In a short time, an industry is created in which shrewd and malicious intermediaries call the shots. There is widespread tampering and fraud with birth data and adoption documents. Blinded by their desire to have children, Dutch adoptive parents turn a blind eye, or worse.

Something continues to gnaw at them, they are still too young to put their finger on it, but many of them feel that their adoption story is not right. Once the adopted children become teenagers, adolescents and adults, they start exploring. With often drastic consequences.

Local News

Homicide charges brought against adoptive parents in death of 5-year-old boy

The destruction of adoption files in 1983 and 1999 was not in line with the Archives Act. This is the conclusion of the Government Information and Heritage Inspectorate in a new report in response to questions from adoptees, parliamentary questions and a publication by the NOS .

This concerns thousands of destroyed files from the Child Protection Directorate of the Ministry of Justice and Security dating from the period from 1967 to 1979. The files contain data of people who had registered as adoptive parents.

This information was necessary for the so-called 'consent in principle', in which it was determined that people met the criteria to be allowed to adopt a child. The files also contained personal information about the adopted child, so that they could obtain a visa.

About a hundred files from that period have not been destroyed. It is not clear why they have been preserved.

Careless management

A six-year-old boy's life was permanently changed in a wonderful and emotional moment as he happily welcomed the news of his adoption. The poignant scenario portrayed the joy and pleasure of finding a permanent family. Finding a loving and permanent family remains a pipe dream for many foster children. However, that goal became a reality for one young kid, bringing joy and smiles to all who watched the poignant scene. 

This is the best reaction to being adopted you'll ever see. 

Harvey, six, of Smithfield, North Carolina, had been with his foster parents, Brian and Megan Raby, since he was two. Harvey's happiest place was, without a doubt, their home. However, like any foster child, he had an unspoken desire to know he had a permanent family. 

Fortunately, his foster parents shared his feelings towards Harvey. As a result, they secretly agreed to adopt him. They informed him of the wonderful news after it was official, and his reaction was amazing!

Humankind's Facebook page has shared the video, which is surely a watch for everyone. The clip is captioned by saying, 'When you come home, you come home. A foster child is overjoyed to learn that he has been adopted.'
 

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up an interesting question concerning Hindus: Would an illegitimate child born out of a void or voidable marriage be entitled to the property of parents or have coparcenary right over the properties belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF)?
As some of the contesting counsel veered towards a consensus that under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 a child born to a void or voidable marriage would be entitled to an equal share with children born to the legitimate wife/husband from the parent’s property, some others propped a doubt as to whether that property would include the self-acquired property of the parent or the inherited ancestral property. Arguments plumbed the depths of existing jurisprudence and threw up several hitherto judicially unattended nuances emerging from Section 16, which provided a clarification to the property right of an illegitimate child and limited it to parental property. Only clarification given by Section 16(3) is that such a child would have no rights over properties of other members of a HUF.
 

This was explained by some counsel as a bar on the right of an illegitimate child over the properties held under HUF, where every child born to valid marriages within the undivided family is entitled to a share of jointly-owned property the moment he/she takes birth.
Even after day-long engrossing arguments, when a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra intended to reserve the verdict, several counsels desired to place their submissions on this issue, forcing the court to schedule further hearing on Thursday. The genesis of the issue was from a trial court in Karnataka, which in 2005 ruled that children born of illegitimate marriage had no coparcenary rights over ancestral properties of parents. A district judge reversed the trial court’s view.

However, the Karnataka HC ruled that “Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act makes it clear that illegitimate children only had the right to the property of their parents and no one else. It said that once the HUF/ancestral property is divided on the death of the parent, the illegitimate child can have share in the portion of property that accrued to his/her parent, but with a caveat that such a right would emanate only if such parent died without a will”. When the Karnataka HC’s ruling was challenged before the SC, a two-judge bench had on March 31, 2011 referred it to a three-judge bench and framed the question—whether illegitimate children are entitled to a share in the coparcenary property or whether their share is limited only to the self-acquired property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act?
In 2011, the bench had said, “The court must remember that relationship between the parents may not be sanctioned by law but the birth of a child in such a relationship must be viewed independently of the relationship of the parents. A child born in such a relationship is is entitled to all the rights which are given to other children born in a valid marriage. This is the crux of the amendment in Section 16(3).”