A COURT ruling has held up the adoptions of ten Dorset children – although all will, or have now, been concluded successfully.

The case involved neighbouring Somerset Council and the way full medical reports on children being adopted are considered.

Executive director for Dorset’s children’s social services, Theresa Leavy, has told councillors that because of the legal finding there had been a ‘pause’ in ten Dorset cases but while their placement process had been interrupted, all had concluded successfully. She said that throughout the process the potential adopters had been kept fully informed about the court finding and how their cases were being progressed.

She was speaking about the Aspire adoption agency, which runs adoption services for both Dorset Council and neighbouring Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.

Ms Leavy said the service had performed incredibly well during the past two, Covid, years managing to maintain a steady flow of adoptions despite the difficulties presented by the restrictions which had led to a slight fall in overall numbers.

Abstract

In their article on ‘Investigating historical abuses’ Yannick Balk, Georg Frerks and Beatrice de Graaf (2022) present an applied history of intercountry adoption to the Netherlands over the past 70 years and conclude that a moratorium on intercountry adoption is necessary because of the many adoption abuses. In this paper we comment on their aims, methods, results, and conclusions. Applied historical analysis without considering the numerous empirical studies on the effects of (de-)institutionalization is problematic if the application is to impact policy. Furthermore, using inaccessible archival material and opaque triangulation hinders replication. An estimate of the overall frequency of adoption abuses is absent. Any adoption abuse is a serious violation of children’s rights and needs to be addressed. However, we argue that their findings do not necessitate the recommendation to (temporarily) stop intercountry adoption at the expense of children in institutions for whom intercountry adoption would be the last resort.

Keywords: international adoption; abuses; institutionalization; policy; translational research; Dutch Committee Investigating Intercountry Adoption (CIIA)

1 Introduction

A recent estimate of numbers of children left in institutions worldwide was estimated in 2020 to be 7.5 million.1 The number of children who became orphans during the COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to be around 5 million since 2020, and still counting.2 In many cases the wider social network will take care of these children, but many others run the risk of ending on the street or in institutional care. The recent war raging in Ukraine might add to these numbers.3 From our recent meta-analyses commissioned by The Lancet Psychiatry, covering more than 300 studies in more than 60 countries across 70 years, we had to conclude that institutional care has a devastating impact on children in all developmental domains, ranging from physical and brain growth to socio-emotional development.4

Abstract

In their article on ‘Investigating historical abuses’ Yannick Balk, Georg Frerks and Beatrice de Graaf (2022) present an applied history of intercountry adoption to the Netherlands over the past 70 years and conclude that a moratorium on intercountry adoption is necessary because of the many adoption abuses. In this paper we comment on their aims, methods, results, and conclusions. Applied historical analysis without considering the numerous empirical studies on the effects of (de-)institutionalization is problematic if the application is to impact policy. Furthermore, using inaccessible archival material and opaque triangulation hinders replication. An estimate of the overall frequency of adoption abuses is absent. Any adoption abuse is a serious violation of children’s rights and needs to be addressed. However, we argue that their findings do not necessitate the recommendation to (temporarily) stop intercountry adoption at the expense of children in institutions for whom intercountry adoption would be the last resort.

Keywords: international adoption; abuses; institutionalization; policy; translational research; Dutch Committee Investigating Intercountry Adoption (CIIA)

1 Introduction

A recent estimate of numbers of children left in institutions worldwide was estimated in 2020 to be 7.5 million.1 The number of children who became orphans during the COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to be around 5 million since 2020, and still counting.2 In many cases the wider social network will take care of these children, but many others run the risk of ending on the street or in institutional care. The recent war raging in Ukraine might add to these numbers.3 From our recent meta-analyses commissioned by The Lancet Psychiatry, covering more than 300 studies in more than 60 countries across 70 years, we had to conclude that institutional care has a devastating impact on children in all developmental domains, ranging from physical and brain growth to socio-emotional development.4

Our Reporter

Dimapur, May 18 (EMN): The Ministry of Women and Child Development on Wednesday stated that there are 474 Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) in the country, including four in Nagaland.

The Ministry in its Central Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (Carings) portal revealed that among the Northeast states, Assam has the highest number of SSA with 20, Arunachal Pradesh has two, Manipur has nine, and Meghalaya has six, Mizoram has seven, Sikkim has three and Tripura has nine.

Maharashtra has the highest SSA in the country with 56 followed by Rajasthan with 35, and Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa with33 each. Himachal Pradesh has the least number of SAA in the country with just one SSA and 19 children.

As per the report, in the state-wise number of children in Specialised Adoption Agency, Maharashtra has the highest number of children with 1172 children in the 56 SAA, followed by Tamil Nadu which has 471 children in the 23 SAA, and Madhya Pradesh with 465 children in 33 SAA.

JAIPUR: A newborn always gets love and affection from his family. But, not in this case.

Within a month of his birth, custody of 29-day-old infant has changed thrice. Who will be his family where he will be brought up, what will be his identity, is still unknown for him?

Currently, he is at childcare home in Chittorgarh. He was born on April 18 at a private hospital of Nimbahera in Chittorgarh district.

Since he was born to a girl within a month of her marriage, she and her husband, who was not the biological father of the infant boy, gave the newborn to a couple by singing an agreement having title “godinama” on a stamp paper, without following the proper norms of adoption mentioned under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Since the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) found it a clear-cut violation of Section 80 of JJ Act 2015, a zero FIR has been registered against four persons, two couples, who adopted the baby and those who gave the baby for adoption at Sadar police station, Chittorgarh.

The baby is now in the custody of CWC and admitted to childcare home. “There are norms prescribed under JJ Act 2015 for adoption of a child. If they are not followed, the adoption is illegal and it is a violation of section 80 of JJ Act, 2015. Just signing an agreement on stamp paper, the legality of adoption is not fulfilled, in such cases FIR is registered. Action will be taken against those who are found guilty in the matter,” said Shailendra Pandya, member, Rajasthan State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (RSCPCR). The incident came into light when a woman brought a premature five-day-old baby to district hospital, Chittorgarh for his treatment. The baby was born at a private hospital in Nimbahera. The doctors immediately admitted the baby on April 23.

HYDERABAD: Cine actor Karate Kalyani met the Hyderabad Collector L Sharman on Tuesday and stated her version on the controversy wherein it has been alleged that she illegally adopted a baby girl. The actor in her interaction, with the Collector, maintained that she had not adopted the child and that the infant along with the biological parents were living with her at her place. She was merely helping them with resources, Kalyani emphasised.

Speaking to the media with her advocate, she denied all allegations of an illegal adoption. “I have been purposely vilified when in reality I have not adopted the child, but was only assisting her parents. Lies are being spread that I purchased the child which is baseless,” Kalyani said.The actor will now have to depose before the Child Welfare Committee on Wednesday when the final decision on the issue will be taken as to whether she has violated any law. It may be recalled that 1098 childline had received a complaint on the same from an anonymous person.

Meanwhile, debunking several myths on adoption and claims of Kalyani, the Hyderabad District Welfare Officer E Akkeshwar Rao explained how the adoption process can be done at any age of the child. This factor was no bar in legal adoption in India, contrary to Kalyani’s claims that she was waiting for the child to turn one, before starting the legal adoption process. As per the current situation, individuals enrolling for adoption have to wait anywhere between one to three years before legal approval.

.

When Michael Bennett ordered a 23andMe DNA testing kit in 2018, he was hoping to gain insight into his family health history.

“Every time I went to the doctor, they’d ask questions that I didn’t have the answers to,” said Bennett, a retired army veteran in Fort Worth, Texas, who was adopted at age 3.

Bennett, now 70, was born in 1951 in post-WWII occupied Japan. His biological mother, Yoshiko Nakajima, was Japanese; his biological father, Dick Webster, was an American serviceman. In 1953, Bennett was adopted by a couple in the United States. That was pretty much all Bennett knew about his birth family and he was OK with that.

“I had a very happy childhood. I adored my parents,” Bennett told TODAY Parents.

Sure, Bennett was curious about Nakajima and Webster — what happened between them? Why was he placed for adoption as a toddler? But Bennett didn’t dwell on the unknowns.

The state will help older foster youth who are aging out of care find families that will last beyond foster care.

TOPEKA, Kansas — Kansas will be the first state to let foster children pick their foster parents. The goal of the one-of-a-kind change aims to let older foster children create strong connections that could help them as they age out of the state’s care.

Foster children can find permanent homes either through adoption, being reunited with family or guardianship, but this new option gives foster youth more say.

Foster children age 16 and older would be able to pick up to two adults to serve as their legal, permanent family. Those people could include caregivers or people close to the child.

“It would be an unprecedented change,” said Scott Henricks, director of permanency at the Kansas Department for Children and Families. “It would be a change of direction on really how the system works.”

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: ACT

Date: Wed 18. May 2022 at 08:18

Subject: Fwd: : Re: : Defamation/ Clarification

To: ContactExpertisecentrumILA , Sandra de Vries ,

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a petition of an adoptive daughter of a

government employee, whose application for the benefit of a family pension was

dismissed on the sole ground of her being adopted after her father's retirement date, held

that an adoption post-retirement would not be a ground to deny the benefit of the family

pension to such child.