My childhood fantasy, whenever there was an unexpected knock at the door, was that Charles and Diana had had a breakdown on the A road that ran outside our house and needed a bed for the night. Subsequently, I was always mortified when the door opened on a grinning friend of my parents or some pre-GPS driver lost in the black Oxfordshire countryside. This huge disparity between reality and the grandiose expectations I was able to conjure up in milliseconds has never left me.

The call that Wednesday afternoon was a rare exception. I had just finished teaching my weekly English class at the University of Potsdam and saw a missed call on my phone with a Berlin number. I am always waiting for the call, the one that is going to change my life, so it’s impossible for me to ignore an unidentified number. I always phone back.

“Frau Schw[mumble],” the voice said.

“It’s Ben Fergusson. I had a missed call from this number call.”

“Ah, Herr Fergusson. It’s Frau Schwenk.” Our social worker, I now understood. “Thank you for getting back to me. I’m calling because we have a little boy, four weeks old, who needs a family.”

Recognition of parenthood in foreign surrogacy

What is the legal situation in Germany? What do we have to consider in the case of surrogacy abroad? How is parenthood legally recognized in Germany in surrogacy cases?

1. The ban on surrogacy

Surrogacy is forbidden in Germany.

According to Section 1 Paragraph 1 No. 7 of the Embryo Protection Act (ESchG), it is a criminal offense to carry out artificial insemination on a woman who is willing to leave her child to a third party permanently after the birth (surrogate mother) or to her to transfer a human embryo.

The West German youth welfare offices have recently had to devote themselves to a highly annoying sideline: they have to defend themselves against the accusation that by interpreting the legal provisions too narrowly they have contributed to the emergence of a "grey market" in which a commodity that is not commonplace is traded, namely small children.

The accusation was recently made by the Overseas Weekly, which informs Americans stationed in NATO Europe about the world. Overseas Weekly proclaimed in two bold front-page headlines: "Americans Bypass German Laws to Adopt Children."

Federal German municipal officials, the paper reported, had admitted that unborn babies traded briskly on a semi-legal "grey market."

will. "Even though orphanages are overflowing with unwanted children, American couples are forced to circumvent German law in order to find children for adoption."

Südwestdeutsche Gazetten took up the spectacular news. The Heidelberg Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung wrote: "'Overseas Weekly' rightly claims that in Germany thousands of babies are 'bought' by American families in addition to the normal adoption cases." The main transshipment point is the Kaiserslautern suburb of Vogelweh. 5,000 NATO Americans and their families live in Vogelweh.

A senior official from the Department of Social Defence in Tamil Nadu said that non-availability of breast milk is a concern for newborns who are under the care of specialised adoption agencies

The non-availability of breast milk for newborns under the care of specialised adoption agencies in Tamil Nadu is a concern, S. Valarmathi, State’s Director of Social Defence, said here on Saturday.

Inaugurating the fourth edition of “Clinical updates in Indian breastfeeding practice” at SIMS Hospital here, she pointed out that there were many infants who did not have access to breast milk in the roughly 20 specialised adoption agencies under the monitoring of the Department of Social Defence.

Highlighting the importance of breast milk for infants, she asked if any of the organisations and healthcare professionals participating in the conference would be able to help in ensuring access to breast milk for these children.

According to the Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, under which the Department of Social Defence functions, 23 specialised adoption agencies are functioning in the State. Orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children are kept under the care of these agencies after they are declared legally free for adoption by the Child Welfare Committees of respective districts.

High court quashes adoption, which couple were forced into after registrar wrongly permitted only one mother’s name on child’s birth certificate

A woman in a same-sex relationship who was forced to adopt her child because officials refused to register her as her child’s mother has secured a high court ruling quashing the adoption.

Sarah Osborne, 48, and Helen Arnold, 48, had a baby with the help of IVF in 2014 but Osborne was forced to go through the “painful and humiliating” process of formally adopting her child – including being interviewed by social workers about her suitability as a parent and undergoing criminal records checks.

The couple registered their child’s birth at Cambridge register office but the registrar said that unless Osborne was the father, and she “clearly wasn’t”, then her name was not permitted on the birth certificate. They said, wrongly, there “could only be one” mother.

It was in breach of the law that states that same-sex female couples who have a child through IVF – and who consented to being treated as a parent – should be named on the child’s birth certificate.

THIRUVANANTHAPUR: Seven months have passed since a high-ranking IAS official submitted a report which contained adverse comments on the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare (KSCCW) for flouting adoption norms, but no action has been taken in the matter so far.

Many feel the reason no action has been initiated so far is because KSCCW's General Secretary, J.S. Shiju Khan, is a top youth leader of the ruling CPI-M.

Incidentally, the KSCCW along with the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) was in the news when it was alleged that it had allowed adoption of a child to an Andhra Pradesh couple last year.

Trouble began when a former student activist of the CPI-M, Anupama, and her now husband Ajith, also a local CPI-M leader, claimed that four days after she delivered her baby boy in October 2020, her parents forcibly took the child away and later the KSCCWC and CWC allowed the child to be adopted by an Andhra Pradesh couple.

Following media outcry, which began in September 2021, action begun on the distraught mother's pleas.

A senior official from the Department of Social Defence in Tamil Nadu said that non-availability of breast milk is a concern for newborns who are under the care of specialised adoption agencies

The non-availability of breast milk for newborns under the care of specialised adoption agencies in Tamil Nadu is a concern, S. Valarmathi, State’s Director of Social Defence, said here on Saturday.

Inaugurating the fourth edition of “Clinical updates in Indian breastfeeding practice” at SIMS Hospital here, she pointed out that there were many infants who did not have access to breast milk in the roughly 20 specialised adoption agencies under the monitoring of the Department of Social Defence.

Highlighting the importance of breast milk for infants, she asked if any of the organisations and healthcare professionals participating in the conference would be able to help in ensuring access to breast milk for these children.

According to the Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, under which the Department of Social Defence functions, 23 specialised adoption agencies are functioning in the State. Orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children are kept under the care of these agencies after they are declared legally free for adoption by the Child Welfare Committees of respective districts.

A parliamentary committee has said some 185,000 children were taken away for adoption between 1949 and 1976 in England and Wales, and urged an official apology.

Anne Neale, from the campaign group Legal Action for Women, welcomed any such admission as "long overdue".

But she said the committee had "refused" to examine cases of mothers being forced to give up their children today despite having done nothing wrong.

Activists say the law's singular focus on the well-being of the child has led to thousands of children being taken away from parents, even without evidence of any abuse.

Often it is because their mothers have suffered from mental health issues or domestic violence.

The European Commission has taken Hungary to the EU's top court for allegedly violating laws on media freedom and LGBTQ+ rights.

The Commission Friday announced it was sending Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union for refusing to renew a radio license for independent Hungarian media Klubradio. Hungary will also have to face European judges over an anti-LGBTQ+ law. The law seeks to prevent children and teenagers from accessing content and ads about LGBTQ+ issues.

Budapest's actions go against several European telecom, audiovisual and digital laws, including the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the e-Commerce Directive, the Commission argues. The anti-LGBTQ+ rules also infringe on crucial foundational European texts — the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and Treaty of the EU — and the EU Charter of fundamental rights.

Brussels' move comes after it said Hungary's explanations failed to assuage the Commission's concerns. The Commission had launched infringement procedures in June 2021.

The Delhi High Court on Friday said it will not permit an unmarried woman to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at 23 weeks, observing it virtually amounts to killing the foetus.

The high court also said the law granted time to unmarried women to undergo the procedure of medical termination of pregnancy and the legislature has “purposefully excluded consensual relationship” from the category of cases where termination is permissible after 20 weeks and up to 24 weeks.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while dealing with the petition by the woman to undergo medical termination of pregnancy, suggested that the petitioner be kept “somewhere safe” until she delivers the child who can subsequently be given up for adoption.

“We will ensure that the girl is kept somewhere safe and she can deliver and go. There is a big queue for adoption,” observed the bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad.

“We will not permit you to kill that child. (We are) very sorry. This virtually amounts to killing (the foetus),” said the court orally as it noted that almost 24 out of 36 weeks of gestation were over.