India

Adoptions have been taking place since the 60s from India. During the 70s, some children came to Sweden privately and the rest through AC. One of the private routes was our Poona contact, when Eva Minton placed children with the help of SOFOSH and Dipika Maharaj Singh. That contact came to FFIA during the mid-80s.

The FFIA's first authorization in 1979 was for the Juvenile Court in Mumbai (Bombay). It was about children who were placed partly in state orphanages and partly in private orphanages, but who were responsibly sorted under the court. The court assigned us children who had been fully investigated and declared abandoned, usually foundlings.

FFIA received 90 children from the Juvenile Court during the years 1980 - 1985.

A judgment of the Supreme Court of India in 1985 changed and systematized the adoptions. It was regulated how the orphanages should handle children who were placed with them from the courts. After this time, children of this category came directly from the orphanages.

History

FFIA's start in Bombay 1980

The business started when a Mr. E. Raman Rao made contact in 1979. It was with the then KFA, the Association of Adoptive Children with children adopted from Thailand, where Britt-Marie Nygren (formerly Hembert) was a member. Britt-Marie was tasked with investigating whether it was a serious contact and, if so, how it would be organised.

One man who helped Rao make contact and who then became involved in the FFIA was Christer Fält. He was then the contact person for many years and supported the prospective adoptive parents. Rao was in Sweden selling Bibles on behalf of the Adventist movement to which he belonged. He received inquiries from Swedes about adoption and decided to help them. He contacted the Juvenile Court and established good relations with them. With that, they began the procedure of placing children for adoption after the "on remand" investigation instead of sentencing the child "court committed" to an orphanage as before. The problem with such a judgment was that in order for such a child to be placed for adoption, the judgment had to be set aside with a "release order". This was a matter that included the Ministry of Social Affairs and could take a very long time,.

Eventually a procedure was established in Bombay which followed our procedure.

In the 80s and 90s, Henri Tiphagne was a lawyer in the FFIA adoption cases

had in South India. His wife Cynthia served for a time as FFIAs

contact person. Since the mid-90s, Henri has built up

the human rights organization People's Watch in Madurai,

South India. FFIA Aid has been supporting Sudhanthra for many years, which is a

Adoptive couples’ only hope is High Court, which could hand them the custody again.

Four families which accepted lifelong responsibility of unwanted babies and nurtured them for months have been torn apart by a hurried police inquiry into suspicions of interstate child trafficking that have proved unfounded.

In December, the Mankhurd police snatched from the families four babies — whose biological parents didn’t have the resources or will to raise them — assuming the infants had been abducted from Mumbai and sold in Goa, Karnataka, and Gujarat.

The infants, now aged between 5 months and 10 months, were placed in a government-approved shelter’s care only for cops to conclude that no real crime had been committed: the biological parents had willingly consented to their children being raised in a new family.

The realisation came too late as the infants’ immediate future is now ensnared in legal complexities, which do not favour the four adoptive families.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has said that an 18-year-old rule which stipulates a two-year wait period before guardians are allowed to adopt the children placed in their custody is not a mandatory requirement.

The court came to the aid of a couple, in their 30s, who wanted to adopt a six-and-a-half-year-old child for whom they were appointed as guardians in January 2017.

The child has been residing with the adoptive mother since birth, after his biological mother placed him in her custody.

The court said that the reality today, especially when it comes to education of young children, was different from 18 years ago. "The factual scenario today is very different from what it was merely two decades ago. The question of identity and proof of identity for every living person and citizen has assumed a certain criticality. From the child's earliest days, parents must now have ready at hand, for a multitude of purposes, documentation establishing the child's birth, identity and parentage. One of the most crucial areas is the question of admission to educational institutions. Another is applying for government subsidies for social and financial benefits. In matters of education, things have reached an absurd and even impossible pass where a child has to be registered for admission almost at birth and certainly well before the child is able to speak or walk," said Justice Gautam Patel.

Justice Patel said that the two-year wait period was a court-made rule and was introduced as a matter of caution. The judge said that courts "cannot approach these matters with such rigidity, especially if that comes at the cost of the minor."

Bombay High Court

Vatsalya Trust vs Naga Ravikanth Manchikanti And ... on 21 July, 2022

Bench: B.P. Colabawalla

901-IAP-24-2022.doc

Digitally

Whistleblowerin sagt in Krichbaum-Prozess aus

Veröffentlicht: 12.01.2023

Region+ Aktualisiert: 12.01.2023 19:05 Uhr

Preisgekrönte Bilder des Festivals "Schömberger Fotoherbst" im Kulturhaus Osterfeld

Wetter am Wochenende: Es wird windig und nass

https://intercountryadopteevoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Contemplating-Searching.pdf

The Bombay High Court recently granted guardianship of a minor to her biological parents after she was deemed to be an illegitimate child as a result of being born out of marriage [Sudeep Suhas Kulkarni and Anr. vs Abbas Bahadur Dhanani].

Jean-Philippe LEGAUT

Images of abused, malnourished children, deprived of access to care, crammed into unsanitary buildings: in 1989, international opinion discovered with horror the hell of the "Ceausescu orphanages", to the point that their dismantling was a condition sine qua non of Romania's accession to the European Union.

Beyond the sensationalist representations disseminated by the press and international organizations, the reality of this phenomenon is still largely unknown. One thing is certain: due to a cruel lack of means and qualified personnel, these "children of the State" have, by the tens of thousands, endured for years, without any possibility of escape, the harshness of the living conditions under the socialist regime and daily violence within the institutions supposed to support them.

Based on unexplored national and local sources, on numerous testimonies from former minors in care, but also on his twelve years of observation and social work in the field, Jean-Philippe Légaut shows us why and how these structures condemned those they should have protected.

.