Sarah Ineichen had not expected these consequences: Five years ago she went public with her story and told how she was brought to Switzerland from Sri Lanka and adopted here as a baby under questionable circumstances.

From then on nothing was the same again. Her phone kept ringing. Dozens of those affected came forward, and soon there were hundreds. And everyone reported a similar experience. Sarah Ineichen just wanted to clarify the question of where her own roots are.

For her, the birth of her own children was a decisive factor: "That's when I realized: It can't be that a mother voluntarily gives her child away without leaving a mark on her," says Sarah Ineichen. “The pain of being separated from my mother and the need to find her consumed me completely.”

Looking for her mother

She was only able to trace her origins once she had put down roots herself with her family. And so in 2017, full of hope, she traveled to Sri Lanka with the information on her birth certificate from 1981. 

But the longed-for meeting with her mother did not happen. She did find the woman who was listed as the mother on the birth certificate. But as it later turned out, she was an acting mother; a woman who had been bought to play mother to the authorities and give her consent to the adoption.

With reference to the documentary on TV2 'The secret in the shadow archive' about adoptions from South Korea, we must herewith make a short comment.

As we have previously expressed, the board of Adoption & Society fully supports the adoptees' desire to have certainty. It is absolutely crucial for all parties that the information provided in an adoption case can be trusted. 

The South Korean authorities, like the Danish authorities, have already launched an investigation into a large number of cases from the 70s and 80s. We eagerly await the conclusions of this, as it is essential for many adoptees and their families to find out whether the grounds for release in the cases have been truthful. 

Unfortunately, we have previously seen in connection with this type of investigation that the parties concerned are left without sufficient help from the authorities. All concerned parties, i.e. biological family/foster family, adoptive family and not least, of course, the adopted themselves, must be offered the necessary assistance and advice to handle both the emotional issues and the concrete, practical questions they/we face. This applies both before, during and after the conclusions are presented.

After viewing part 2 of the documentary, we will make a more in-depth statement in relation to this necessary support as well as the possibility of an impartial investigation. 

The Karnataka High Court has said that a son, born in 'Batil' marriage (void-ab-initio) under Mohammadan Law, is illegitimate and does not possess any right of succession under the law. A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the appeal filed by one Nabisab Agnnamani (original plaintiff) and set aside the order of the first appellate court which granted half share of...

As we move into a new Democratic administration, ending family separation inflicted by the so-called child welfare system should be a top priority. Specifically, the Biden administration should refuse to sanction the federal government’s endorsement of arbitrary timelines that permanently tear families apart. That means repealing the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. 

ASFA was developed at a time when our country was hysterical about “crack babies” and resentful of their poor, mostly Black, parents. Media coverage focused on these selfish, drug-addicted parents who were giving birth to permanently damaged infants. As a result, many children were spending years in foster care with little pressure on systems to reunify them with parents or find them an adoptive home. 

The law ties federal child welfare funding to a requirement that, with a few exceptions, states move to terminate the rights of parents whose children have been in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months. After that period, the children become eligible for adoption. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the arbitrary and unfair nature of this timeline and which parents are most unlikely to meet it. Parents who are unable to visit with their children or participate in services recommended by CPS in furtherance of reunification during the pandemic are unsure whether their parental rights will be terminated. Even in normal times, for incarcerated parents whose ability to visit with their children or access services is out of their control, this timeline is usually out of reach.  

This is true regardless of whether the crime for which the parents are incarcerated had anything to do with the children. Many parents are held pre-trial because of their inability to pay cash bail before entering jails, which are even less likely to have services than prisons. Similarly, for many parents who are struggling with addiction — where relapse is often a part of recovery — this timeline is simply unrealistic. 

Ted and Maxine Holt were married in Columbia on April 28, 1962, at The Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The couple moved back to Massachusetts in 1963 to be close to family and then moved back to Columbia in 1979.

Mr. Holt worked at The Tennessee Knitting Mills, Arduini Manufacturing and delivered newspapers for The Daily Herald until 2002 at age 80.

Mrs. Holt was a homemaker, but she was also was employed by Kay’s Dress Shop, owned by Kay and Ray Adams, and AA Auto Insurance. They are both devoted, active members of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Columbia.

The couple’s three children, Ms. DeeAnn Johnson of Madison, Ms. Trish Maskew of Silver Springs, Md., and Mrs. Rachel (Dan) Bovee of Columbia hosted an anniversary celebration in their honor at Christy’s Café on 6th Street in Columbia on Saturday, April 28.

Present at the occasion in addition to their daughters were their grandchildren, Patrick Maskew, Meghan Maskew of Silver Springs, Md., and Nicholas Bovee of Columbia; Maxine’s sisters, Madeline Richards of Eliot, Maine, and Ruth Foisy of York, Maine; Maxine’s niece, Jennifer DeForest of Marlborough, Mass.; and Ted’s niece Mrs. Dottie (Larry) King of Columbia.

UNICEF has released an official position statement on intercountry adoption, which clarifies the often controversial Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The ambiguity of Article 21 has lead some to interpret the Article as supportive of long term institutionalization over intercountry adoption--a position that at times seemed to be an official stance of UNICEF.

The Statement, released on 01/15/04, acknowledges that institutionalization should be a short term measure, and that intercountry adoption should be an option when a permanent family cannot be found for the child in his or her country of birth.

The statement also acknowledges the problems that often occur in adoption, and encourages the use of the Hague Convention as one solution to these problems.

Ethica strongly believes that reform of the intercountry adoption process is necessary in many countries of origin and in receiving countries. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that rapid and unplanned changes often result in moratoria and the rapid decline of protective child welfare services in many countries, often making children even more vulnerable to human rights abuses. In light of this, Ethica strongly supports the gradual implementation of changes which address both short and long term goals for establishing appropriate child welfare policies.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible.  Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her.

For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care, which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. Inter-country adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution.  In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.

Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage.  Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery, as well as trafficking to individuals whose intentions are to exploit rather than care for children. 

Many countries around the world have recognised these risks, and have ratified the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption.  UNICEF strongly supports this international legislation, which is designed to put into action the principles regarding inter-country adoption which are contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  These include ensuring that adoption is authorised only by competent authorities, that inter-country adoption enjoys the same safeguards and standards which apply in national adoptions, and that inter-country adoption does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it.  These provisions are meant first and foremost to protect children, but also have the positive effect of providing assurance to prospective adoptive parents that their child has not been the subject of illegal and detrimental practices.

The case of children separated from their parents and communities during war or natural disasters merits special mention.  It cannot be assumed that such children have neither living parents nor relatives. Even if both their parents are dead, the chances of finding living relatives, and a community or home to return to after the conflict subsides, continues to exist.  Thus, such children should not be considered for inter-country adoption, and family tracing should be the priority. This position is shared by UNICEF, UNHCR, the International Confederation of the Red Cross, and international NGOs such as the Save the Children Alliance. 

The largest group campaigning on behalf of NI survivors of mother-and-baby homes is pulling out of meetings with the Executive's survivors' forum.

Birth Mothers and their Children emailed the secretary of state, the head of the NI Civil Service and a number of political representatives.

It said it had become "disenfranchised" with the lack of a statutory inquiry into the institutions.

Attending forum meetings had caused further upset to its members, it added.

The group expressed frustration about the lack of a redress scheme 18 months after a truth and recovery report was published.

On 1 July, I was asked to speak as part of a webinar panel for the Transforming Children’s Care Webinar Series #4: Child’s Right to Identity in Alternative Care. We had an amazing panel of experts, moderated by Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, President of Child Identity Protection (CHIP), and hosted by the Better Care Network in partnership with CHIP.

TAG: MAUD DE BOER-BUQUICCHIO

POSTED ONJULY 4, 2021

Lifelong Impacts of Identity Loss

On 1 July, I was asked to speak as part of a webinar panel for the Transforming Children’s Care Webinar Series #4: Child’s Right to Identity in Alternative Care. We had an amazing panel of experts, moderated by Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, President of Child Identity Protection (CHIP), and hosted by the Better Care Network in partnership with CHIP.was asked to speak about the lifelong impacts of identity loss. So I shared my story and some statements from fellow adoptees to highlight our experience.

The commissioner said that a total of 20 children, comprising of 10 boys, nine girls and a newborn were rescued from the facility and were currently in the ministry’s custody.

Anambra Government on Wednesday sealed an orphanage home, Arrow of God Community Children’s Home at Nkwelle Ezunaka in Oyi Local Government Area.

Mrs Ify Obinabo, state’s Commissioner for Women and Social Welfare, while speaking to Reporters after sealing the facility, said the licence of its owner had also been withdrawn indefinitely.

Obinabo said the action followed a news report accusing the ministry of involvement in illegal adoption of a baby girl in connivance with one of the registered homes in the state.

She added that the founder of the orphanage home, Rev. Deborah Ogo, presently at large, had ignored her invitation to explain.