Shyanne Klupp was 20 years old and homeless when she met her boyfriend in 2009. Within weeks, the two had married, and within months, she was pregnant. “I was so excited,” says Klupp. Soon, however, she learned that her new husband was facing serious jail time, and she reluctantly agreed to start looking into how to place their expected child for adoption. The couple called one of the first results that Google spat out: Adoption Network Law Center (ANLC).

Klupp says her initial conversations with ANLC went well; the adoption counselor seemed kind and caring and made her and her husband feel comfortable choosing adoption. ANLC quickly sent them packets of paperwork to fill out, which included questions ranging from personal-health and substance-abuse history to how much money the couple would need for expenses during the pregnancy.

Klupp and her husband entered in the essentials: gas money, food, blankets and the like. She remembers thinking, “I’m not trying to sell my baby.” But ANLC, she says, pointed out that the prospective adoptive parents were rich. “That’s not enough,” Klupp recalls her counselor telling her. “You can ask for more.” So the couple added maternity clothes, a new set of tires, and money for her husband’s prison commissary account, Klupp says. Then, in January 2010, she signed the initial legal paperwork for adoption, with the option to revoke. (In the U.S., an expectant mother has the right to change her mind anytime before birth, and after for a period that varies state by state. While a 2019 bill proposing an explicit federal ban of the sale of children failed in Congress, many states have such statutes and the practice is generally considered unlawful throughout the country.)

Klupp says she had recurring doubts about her decision. But when she called her ANLC counselor to ask whether keeping the child was an option, she says, “they made me feel like, if I backed out, then the adoptive parents were going to come after me for all the money that they had spent.” That would have been thousands of dollars. In shock, Klupp says, she hung up and never broached the subject again. The counselor, who no longer works with the company, denies telling Klupp she would have to pay back any such expense money. But Klupp’s then roommates—she had found housing at this point—both recall her being distraught over the prospect of legal action if she didn’t follow through with the adoption. She says she wasn’t aware that an attorney, whose services were paid for by the adoptive parents, represented her.

“I will never forget the way my heart sank,” says Klupp. “You have to buy your own baby back almost.” Seeing no viable alternative, she ended up placing her son, and hasn’t seen him since he left the hospital 11 years ago.

Demand outpaces supply in the private adoption world. As a result, middlemen can make huge profits, often with little oversight.

VIDEO

https://www.newsy.com/stories/the-profits-and-problems-with-private-adoption/

H.E Mr. Simon Mordue, Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to the President of the European Union Council, met with H.E Mr. Abdulrahman bin Mohammed Al-Khulaifi, Ambassador of the State of Qatar to the Kingdom of Belgium and Head of Mission of the State of Qatar to the European Union and NATO.

During the meeting, they reviewed the cooperation relations between the State of Qatar and the European Union, developments in the Middle East and the Iranian nuclear file.

.

Between 1994-2001, 26,293 children were adopted, of which 15,112 (57.5%) were adopted internationally

In 2015, Romania still had 4,060 adoptable children

In 2018, Romania had 50,608 children in the special protection system, of which only 3,123 children were adoptable

Marion Le Roy Dagen is 45 years old and has been living in France since she was six, when she was adopted. Since the early 1990s, he has come to Romania several times to help the country's orphans. And since 2014 he has been trying to help those adopted by families abroad.

She co-founded, together with two other women, the Romanian Orphans Association. I receive hundreds of requests, from all over the world, to help adopted children in Romania to find their families of origin. The chances are extremely small.

The Hague, 02 June 2021

Donor children and their mothers who litigate about the disclosure of the identity of their sperm donor are largely in the right by the court in The Hague. The donor data foundation for artificial insemination (SDKB) and the clinic must assess whether the donor's reasons for wishing to remain anonymous are compelling enough. If not, they must disclose the donor's identity to the children. The court therefore does not rule that that identity should already be disclosed.

Donor identity

The children were born after artificial inseminations in the years 1997-2000. During this time, seed donations were usually made anonymously. However, the mothers consciously opted for the sperm of a donor who had agreed with the clinic that his identity would be allowed to be disclosed. Later he was only allowed to refrain from doing so if there were serious reasons for doing so.

Artificial Fertilization Donor Data Act

Marion grew up in an orphanage in Romania for two years.

The girl was adopted and taken to France by a couple of foreigners.

In time, Marion realized that Romania was a market for adoptions.

Mariuca left an orphanage in Romania, after two French women adopted her. Today her name is Marion and she is the founder of an association that helps offenders find their origins.

Mariuca has pressing memories from the Children's Home in Alba Iulia. She still doesn't forget the screams of the children she heard at night. She stayed there between 1976 and 1980. She was brought by her mother, who was 17 when she gave birth to her.

In Alba County, since the beginning of the year, DGASPC has certified 12 persons / families able to adopt, three families are being evaluated and another 23 are waiting to adopt.

In total, there are 123 children, aged between 3 and 14, in the records of the Adoptions and Post-Adoptions Bureau, for which the competent court has decided that they are adoptable.

Also, by court decision, for 16 children the adoption for adoption was approved, and for another 16 children it was decided to approve the adoption.

On June 2, the National Day for Adoption is celebrated, a moment that brings to attention the fact that every child needs a family, in which to feel loved, protected and accepted, in which to have stability and to develop.

According to the DGASPC, if, for various reasons, a child cannot be cared for by his or her parents or biological relatives, then adoption may be a solution.

Nina Lopez points to adoptions occurring against the wishes of birth families, while one reader recalls how their sister was forced to give up her baby. And John Peniket says it was the prevailing social attitudes to sex and childbirth that were to blame

Gaby Hinsliff (The UK’s forced adoption scandal was state-sanctioned abuse, 27 May) draws an important parallel between the adoptions forced on single mothers between the 1950s and 1970s, the Rochdale, Windrush and Grenfell scandals, and preventable Covid-19 deaths. She points to “state-sanctioned abuse” of people “dehumanised in the eyes of officialdom”.

But she seems unaware that forced adoptions have not stopped. Of about 3,500 adoptions a year, 90% are against the will of the birth family. They are hidden by a closed family court system that was found to be ridden with sexism, racism and classism by the government’s review of harm in the family courts’ treatment of domestic violence.

One grandmother in our network who lost her grandchild to adoption describes the process: “If you are poor, working class, in need of support, services, housing, or have been in care, it can be used as proof that you are not fit to be a parent. They had all the power. We had only our pain and anger. And our fear for her. She had no choice, no voice, no comprehension.”

We recently celebrated the reunion of a family whose children had been destined for adoption after their single mother, an asylum seeker who spoke hardly any English, was accused of having lied to the authorities. Social workers and the police had been parked outside the hospital waiting for the court order to take the newborn. This time we were able to stop it. The Movement for an Adoption Apology is well aware that the past is in the present – that’s why it is part of our coalition.

A 31-year-old woman living in Washington has been charged with assault and domestic violence after it was revealed that she allegedly put her adopted six-year-old daughter through 473 “unnecessary” surgeries.

Sophie Hartman, a white woman, adopted two Black daughters in May 2019 from Zambia. On 17 March this year, the two children were taken away from her. Doctors at a hospital where Ms Hartman had taken one daughter, alerted authorities of the suspicious medical history of the child.

Court documents reviewed by Business Insider say that Ms Hartman admitted her six-year-old daughter to the Seattle Children’s Hospital in February for a 16-day stay. However, doctors found the child to be healthy and alerted the state’s department of children, youth and families.

Dr Rebecca Wiester, the director of the Seattle Children's Hospital, in her letter to the authorities said that the child was facing “profound risk” at the hands of her caretaker. She also asked the authorities to dig deeper in investigating Ms Hartman.

Dr Wiester said: “All the available evidence obtained during the course of her admission suggests [the child] is a healthy young six-year-old who would continue to benefit from a de-escalation of medical support and normalisation of her childhood experience.”

Mette Bach has lived with her foster mother since she was three years old. Now she is 27 years old and would like to be adopted, but she can only stay if she is also adopted by her foster mother's boyfriend.

In the kitchen in Korup by Hadsund, Mette Bach and Kirsten Bach sit and look at Mette's childhood pictures. There are holiday photos, confirmation photos, family portraits and the like, and they go back to when Mette was three years old.

You may be in doubt when you see them sitting at the dining table and talking about childhood memories, but Mette and Kirsten are not biologically related. Mette Bach came into the care of Kirsten Bach when she was three years old because her biological parents had substance abuse problems.

- I do not remember that I did not live with Kirsten. She is the one who has been there all the way from start to finish. And she is still here, even now that I am an adult and 27 years old, says Mette Bach.

Therefore, she is no longer in doubt either. She would like to be adopted by Kirsten, and Kirsten would very much like to adopt Mette: