'We note, with deep distress, the announcement by the state government, of a ‘committee’ to monitor the ‘school adoption’ programme...schools are not orphans to be adopted,' said the activists.

BENGALURU: As many as 17 academicians and activists in the education field have taken offence to the use of the word ‘adoption’ in the ongoing school adoption process after the state government constituted a committee to monitor school development programmes.

In a memorandum to the state government, academicians and activists led by Niranjanaradhya VP, Senior Fellow, Centre for Child and the Law, National Law School India University (NLSIU), have said that the term ‘school nurturing’ should be used instead of ‘adoption’, and have iterated that the Department of Public Instruction had already begun a programme called ‘Shalegagi Naavu Neevu’, to mobilise additional support for nurturing government schools through School Development and Management Committees (SDMCs).

“We note, with deep distress, the announcement by the state government, of a ‘monitoring committee’ to monitor the ‘school adoption’ programme...Government schools are not orphans to be adopted. The parents’ body, established through an Act of Parliament, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is the parent of the school; hence no authority has a right to give away the school in adoption to anybody else,” they said.

“The notion of ‘adopting’ a school creates a sense of helplessness, charity, lack of resourcing and abdication by the constitutionally mandated responsibility of the state which is delegated to the SDMC, as well as by its trustee, the state government,” they said. “Today, we are in the era of ‘Rights-based development’ and not ‘Charity-based approach’ of erstwhile monarchies. We request the CM and the Education Minister to set right this mistake,” they added.

'We note, with deep distress, the announcement by the state government, of a ‘committee’ to monitor the ‘school adoption’ programme...schools are not orphans to be adopted,' said the activists.

BENGALURU: As many as 17 academicians and activists in the education field have taken offence to the use of the word ‘adoption’ in the ongoing school adoption process after the state government constituted a committee to monitor school development programmes.

In a memorandum to the state government, academicians and activists led by Niranjanaradhya VP, Senior Fellow, Centre for Child and the Law, National Law School India University (NLSIU), have said that the term ‘school nurturing’ should be used instead of ‘adoption’, and have iterated that the Department of Public Instruction had already begun a programme called ‘Shalegagi Naavu Neevu’, to mobilise additional support for nurturing government schools through School Development and Management Committees (SDMCs).

“We note, with deep distress, the announcement by the state government, of a ‘monitoring committee’ to monitor the ‘school adoption’ programme...Government schools are not orphans to be adopted. The parents’ body, established through an Act of Parliament, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is the parent of the school; hence no authority has a right to give away the school in adoption to anybody else,” they said.

“The notion of ‘adopting’ a school creates a sense of helplessness, charity, lack of resourcing and abdication by the constitutionally mandated responsibility of the state which is delegated to the SDMC, as well as by its trustee, the state government,” they said. “Today, we are in the era of ‘Rights-based development’ and not ‘Charity-based approach’ of erstwhile monarchies. We request the CM and the Education Minister to set right this mistake,” they added.

From 1956 onwards, ten thousand women gave up their children. They were often young, disgraced their families and the new adoption law made it easier to give up a child. But by no means always this was voluntary for the women. Many mothers never saw their children again.

Distance mothers program

Did you give up your child for adoption in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s of the last century? Have you been walking around for years with the question: Where is my child? The program Where is my child? from 3CTV would like to help you with your search. In this series, the program makers go in search of their child with Dutch, biological mothers. They support and guide the mothers. The goal is to find the child, but just as important is the way there. In Where is my child? the makers follow the mothers, they listen to your story and the taboo that still exists on your story in the Netherlands is broken. With this program, attention is finally being paid to mothers who lost their child to adoption.

On March 29, 2021, Time for MAX will also pay attention to this topic.

Sign up for Where is my child?

Young women and men who have been adopted from abroad are increasingly demanding information about their origins, proving abuses and taking legal action. This has now led to a ban on adoptions in the Netherlands.

By: Sabine Bitter, Elsbeth Gugger , Moderation: Monika Schärer , Editor: Sabine Bitter, Production: Michael Sennhauser

29.03.2021, 21:28

Listen to the showListen to the show

DownloadDownloadSubscribeSubscribeSplitSplit

In the beginning, anonymous sperm donation was the standard. Since 1993, some clinics have worked with two types of donors: completely anonymous (A donor) or a donor that can be traced to the child in the long run (B donor). Information about these B donors appears to be only allowed after the donor's consent has been given. This means that they can also choose to remain anonymous. What are their considerations? Talking to a donor and moving from anonymity to contact.

Call

Anonymity is a complicated concept, according to Jeroen's (pseudonym) story. That story starts in 1995. “My wife was pregnant with our third child. Unfortunately, she miscarried after three months. That meant that a new pregnancy was no longer realistic, given our age. ”

"We could imagine that the children wanted to know who I was later on."

About a year later, he reads a call from a clinic to register sperm donors. In consultation with his wife, he decides to start the conversation. “We considered ourselves happy with our children, and we wish others that too. Together we decided that I would donate as a B donor. We could imagine that the children later wanted to know who I was. ”

The Taoiseach's State apology on mother and baby homes will mean nothing unless a full investigation is immediately launched into thousands of incomplete adoption files, campaigners say.

The €11.5m which was left unspent by the mother and baby homes commission must now be used to fully investigate what happened to thousands of children with incomplete adoption files.

State adoption agencies cannot say what happened to thousands of children for whom files were opened but an adoption order was not granted.

'No excuse for delaying full review'

The Irish Council of Civil Liberties (ICCL), Aitheantas, and the Clann Project have all said a lack of funding or resources cannot be used as an excuse to delay a full review and say a forensic investigation into incomplete adoption files is now required.

Nikwi Hoogland (26) found her biological parents two years ago, after a search that went much more smoothly than she expected. With her acquired knowledge, she started advocacy organization Adoptiepedia - which she launched last week - to inspire, inform and connect other adoptees. "I picked up my phone and read: 'Congratulations, it is your birth mother'."

Nikwi was 9 months old when a Dutch couple adopted her from China. The period that followed was not always easy. "When I first went to school, I was the only Asian. Other kids felt it necessary to emphasize that and were constantly shouting things at me like 'slit-eye' and 'bamibal'."

"I'm outgoing and therefore quite present. My bullies thought that was annoying, I guess - and then said, 'Gook, shut up,' or they would yell in my face that they thought I was disgusting. I felt left out throughout my childhood. The high school bullying reached its peak and they sometimes called me straight to the face 'cancer chinese' or 'hey dirty chinese'. It was terrible. "

'Asians are stupid and ugly'

Because Nikwi was so hated for her origins, she grew disgusted with herself. "In my eyes, Asians were stupid and ugly. I didn't want to have anything to do with it and was therefore not at all concerned with my biological family. Sometimes I even tried to talk exaggeratedly ABN, in the naive assumption that people would tell me as a Dutch person. would see. "

Chennai: Children with special needs have not found favour with childless parents looking to adopt kids. Most children from

adoption centres in Tamil Nadu have found homes abroad, but not within the country, as per data from the department of social

defence.

The United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which India ratified in 1992, insists on paying due regard to a

child’s ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds while giving them for adoption. This aspect is largely achieved when it comes

Basking Ridge, New Jersey (CNN)On a gorgeous spring afternoon, Aimee and Stephen Welch are playing with their five kids in their sun-drenched New Jersey backyard, taking a break from the grind of virtual schooling and working from home.

But their laughs on the swings and shrieks on the trampoline belie a deep sense of sadness -- because one person is missing. It's now been a year since they had their bags packed and hotels booked for a trip to China to adopt their sixth child, a 7-year-old named Penelope.

A weekslong delay turned into months as, by early March 2020, China suspended the country's foreign adoption program. One year later, they are still stuck in limbo.

"Every time I go into her room and just see her pink bed there, that no one has slept in and the drawers full of clothes that have probably been outgrown before they could ever be worn," Aimee Welch told CNN's Poppy Harlow, "it's just a heartbreaking reality."

According to the State Department, about 400 American families' adoptions of children in China were put on hold because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Bombay High Court recently refused permission to a couple to take custody over a twoyear-old child on the strength of a "notarised adoption deed".

A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale ruled,

"We are of the opinion that by merely executing a notarized document purporting to be an

Adoption Deed, the petitioners cannot claim that they have a right to hold custody of the girlchild."

The petitioner, who claimed to be the child's adoptive parents, approached the High Court