Israel's health ministry has released a report for the first time, revealing that in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Israel lost babies born to (mainly) Yemeni immigrants, who were then offered up for adoption to Ashkenazi adoptive parents. . That reports the newspaper Haaretz. However, the ministry refuses to publish the report. The responsible minister Nitzan Horowitz of the Meretz party also refused to answer questions about the report. One reason could be that the government is preparing a compensation scheme for the families of children who have disappeared, and publication of the report would thwart that scheme because it would reveal the guilt of the Israeli state.

The report was prepared by the former director-general of the ministry, Prof. Itamar Grotto and two other employees of the ministry. Haaretz has seen it. It doesn't provide any new details or numbers, but it does suggest the very first time doctors, nurses and other caregivers acted as intermediaries in removing the babies, who were then offered up for adoption – for money or not – to Ashkenazi (Western) people. parents in and outside Israel. The idea was that Yemeni (and to a lesser extent other Jews from Middle Eastern or North African countries) were underdeveloped and could not take good care of their children. At least this way they could receive proper care and education.

The scandal of the missing Yemeni babies has caused a stir for years. The babies disappeared without a trace after medical treatment – ??or immediately after birth. The parents were told that the child had died, but no death certificates were issued, no places were designated where the babies were buried and medical records were later often found to be disappeared. It is estimated that around 5,000 babies may have disappeared this way. There were protests (one of them around Yemeni Rabbi Meshulam in the 1970s became nationally known – also because they handed out prison terms). In addition, there were no fewer than three official commissions of inquiry that, from the 1990s, examined the case but never gave a definitive answer. Newspapers wrote about the case, but did not clarify either. Only the rebellious newspaper Haolam Hazeh of Uri Avneri and the Mizrachi Shalom Cohen reported that it was pierced, but that was without consequence.

The current report quotes a woman who was a student and aid worker at the time, Shoshanna Shacham, at the Rosh Ha'ayin transit camp: “We saw cars coming and nurses feeding the occupants babies who then disappeared in their cars. I said wait, where are they taking it? And they replied: we improve their situation, give them to people with whom they have a better chance of survival. We accepted that then. But when the parents came, they were lied to that the children had died.” The report also cites medical articles from the time describing Mizrachi, and especially Yemeni, parents not being hygienic and unable to properly care for their children.

.

SEOUL, Dec. 24 (Korea Bizwire) – The state-run National Center for the Rights of the Child said Thursday that it had found and reunited 33 children who have been missing for a long time with their families through DNA tests.

This achievement is the result of a joint campaign to find missing children that has been promoted by many companies and institutions and eventually led such children and their families to register their DNA.

In fact, there was a case in which a missing child without surviving relatives or family members who grew up in an orphanage during childhood visited a police station to register his DNA after seeing an ad displayed on a beverage delivery truck.

The DNA of missing children and their families can be registered after they visit the women and youth division or the criminal affairs division of the police stations across the country and apply for a genetic analysis that can be completed through the collection of a gene specimen.

Through the tests, the center registers and manages the DNA of missing children and their parents looking for them through the ‘missing children management system.’

A Russian court has jailed for 21 years a former Orthodox priest, said to have adopted 70 children, for a string of child abuse offences.

Nikolai Stremsky was convicted of raping several children and other violent acts in his parish in the Urals in south-west Russia.

Stremsky was reputed to have Russia's largest family and was decorated with a national Order of Parental Glory.

Barred from the priesthood he has also been stripped of his honour.

As an abbot in the town of Saraktash, Stremsky and his wife ran a foster home from the early 1990s, adopting children from orphanages in the region. Most of the 70 they adopted have since grown up.

SEOUL, Dec. 23 (Yonhap) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that grandparents can legally adopt their own grandchild, even though the child's biological parent is alive, when the arrangement is in the interest of the child's welfare.

The top court ruled in favor grandparents who filed an appeal to adopt their own grandchildren, and transferred the case to a district court in Ulsan, 415 kilometers southeast of Seoul, for a retrial.

The decision was the first Supreme Court ruling which allowed grandparents to adopt their grandchild even if the child has living parents, given that qualifications are met and the arrangement is in the interest of the child's welfare.

The suit was filed after the grandparents wished to adopt their daughter's son. The baby was born while the daughter was still in high school, and was left with the grandparents for upbringing.

The grandson has lived believing that the grandparents are his biological parents. His actual parents divorced while he was an infant.

An article from CQ Almanac 2000

Document Outline

Senate Committee Approves Treaty On Adoption

House Passes Bill To Implement Adoption Treaty

Senate Passes Bill; Quick Conference Expected

Thiruvananthapuram: A mother who left her girl child at the ‘ammathottil’, the electronic

cradle Kerala State Council for Child Welfare (KSCCW) in which a child could be placed

anonymously, retrieved the baby after seeing an advertisement regarding the adoption

mother approached the committee after recognising her child through the advertisements.

She revealed to the officials that she was compelled to abandon her child after her partner

November was adoption awareness month. The month is dedicated to celebrate families that have adopted children because they give the children emotional, social, legal, and kinship benefits of biological children. Adoptive families provide children an opportunity to be raised in a loving and stable home. Adoption enables caregivers to become parents or to grow their families by adding a child to their family as they give the child a home.

All positive conversations adults have with adopted children make a huge impact in their lives. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises a child’s right to family life and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents or, where applicable, by members of the extended family or community.

The 2019 UN General Assembly resolution on the rights of the child recognised and prioritised the role of the family as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and wellbeing of all its members, particularly children. Families have the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children. In order for a child to achieve their full potential, he or she should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.

Sadly, 7.5 million children all over the world live in charitable children’s institutions, commonly known as children’s homes or orphanages, yet 80 per cent to 90 per cent of these children have a living parent or known relatives. In Kenya, an estimated 45,000 children live in charitable children’s institutions for various reasons such as the loss of a parent or primary caregiver, poverty at home, sickness and disability, violence, abuse, and neglect.

Some communities perceive life in a children’s home as “good” because the children have better meals, housing, and opportunities for schooling. Yet families play a critical role in a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development that a children’s institution cannot give. The government through the National Council of Children’s Services is spearheading care reforms to promote the best interest of the child to ensure that children are cared for in families and communities.

The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has informed the Delhi High Court that

it shall consider permitting advocates to appear as 'authorized representatives' to

coordinate and facilitate various formalities that are required to be undertaken in the

process of inter-country adoptions.

It also said that if virtual meetings are required by either biological or adoptive parents,

The Committee for Welfare, Public Health and Family of the Flemish Parliament is once again organizing hearings on intercountry adoption. This time, the final report of the expert panel on intercountry adoption gave the starting signal. This final report examines whether and how malpractice in intercountry adoption can be prevented. The panel of experts gave twenty recommendations to fundamentally reform intercountry adoption and accommodate victims of malpractice.

The Children's Rights Commissioner participated in the expert panel. We endorse all recommendations of the final report. Nevertheless, with our advice we will go deeper into some recommendations that touch on children's rights or complaints and reports that came to us:

States that allow or recognize adoption must ensure that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration. But simply referring to the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in adoption is not enough. It is especially relevant to describe and assess that importance in terms of content. What is in the best interests of the child cannot be determined or described in advance and can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the situation, the personal context, one's own needs and requirements. There are various sources of inspiration to fulfill that interest of the child.

The principle of subsidiarity makes intercountry adoption the exception rather than the rule. From a children's rights perspective, adoption only comes into play when all other appropriate care options in the country of origin have been exhausted. Although it is not clear from a legal point of view what exactly appropriate internal solutions are and how subsidiary intercountry adoption is compared to other care solutions, no generally unanimous answer is needed here. Every situation is different. In the interest of each child, the different care solutions must be weighed up against each other.

Informed consent from children from 12 years and from the first parents is required. The Children's Rights Commissioner finds the age limit of 12 years to give permission arbitrary. By analogy with the decree on the legal position of minors in Integrated Youth Care, we argue for a presumption of competence from the age of 12, but with the option of deviating if the minor who is younger is indeed sufficiently mature and competent to make certain decisions. to take. Whether the law in the country of origin expressly requires the consent of the first parents must be decisive in deciding whether or not to cooperate with a country of origin.