Many birth mothers hope to maintain contact with their child. But their agreements with adoptive parents can be fragile.

By Nicole Chung

When I was born, my Korean parents, immigrants to the United States, relinquished me for adoption. At the age of two and a half months, I was placed with a white family who lived in a small town in Oregon. This was the early 1980s, and mine was a closed adoption, which meant that growing up, I had no contact with my birth parents. I didn’t know their names or their circumstances. I didn’t know why they had chosen not to keep me. I was curious and confused about my history, but my adoptive parents couldn’t fill in the gaps, because they knew so little themselves.

When I was in my 20s, I decided to search for more information about my birth family. This required that I pay hundreds of dollars to an intermediary, who petitioned a Washington State court to unseal my adoption records. She couldn’t share my birth parents’ names or contact information with me until she found them and gained their consent. Throughout the process, which dragged on for months, I thought about how things might have been different had I grown up in an open adoption, one in which I might have known more about my birth family and perhaps retained contact with them. I wouldn’t have had to wait decades, and I wouldn’t have had to shoulder the financial cost of a search, to understand where—and whom—I came from.

A three-month-old girl was reunited with her biological parents in Tripura’s Gomati district after police and childline officials foiled an alleged unlawful adoption attempt in Karbook subdivision.

Officials said the infant’s parents, Kanchan Chakma and Santana Chakma, handed her over to a childless couple from Madhumag para. In return, they allegedly received Rs 10,000 and an additional Rs 1,500. Later, when the parents sought the baby back, the adoptive family refused. The issue came to light after local media reports, prompting police to intervene and recover the child within 24 hours.

Sub-Divisional Police Officer Gamanjoy Reang said neither family admitted to exchanging money during questioning, though the biological father earlier acknowledged the payment. He added that financial distress and the burden of raising a second child likely influenced the decision. The Chakma family, dependent on a small rubber plantation, already has a two-year-old son.

Authorities decided not to register a case as the matter was resolved amicably. Both families were counselled on the legal adoption process and cautioned about possible consequences of bypassing it. The baby was formally handed back to her parents in the presence of police and child welfare officials.

Couples were charged around Rs 30 lakh for the process, purportedly meant for the surrogate. However, the probe revealed that in several cases, the children handed over were not biologically related to the commissioning parents. 

The Enforcement Directorate has unearthed a massive illegal surrogacy and child trafficking racket in Hyderabad, where a fertility centre supplied babies not biologically related to couples opting for surrogacy. These babies were taken from poor and vulnerable pregnant women, lured into giving up their newborns immediately after childbirth.

Acting under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the agency carried out search operations on September 25 at nine locations across Hyderabad, Vijayawada, and Visakhapatnam.

The searches at the Universal Srusthi Fertility and Research Centre, allegedly run by Dr Pachipalli Namratha, also known as Athluri Namratha led to the seizure of incriminating documents exposing the large-scale fraud, including records of couples who were allegedly defrauded and details of properties amassed by Namratha.

In an office memorandum issued last week, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) pointed to Rule 23(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules and point 4(1) of the Model Foster Care Guidelines, which states that only children aged six years and above are eligible for placement in foster care, under circumstances defined in Rule 44 of the Act

The government has clarified that children aged below six are not eligible for placement in foster care, following concerns over differing interpretations of the new regulations.

In an office memorandum issued last week, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) pointed to Rule 23(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules and point 4(1) of the Model Foster Care Guidelines, which states that only children aged six years and above are eligible for placement in foster care, under circumstances defined in Rule 44 of the Act.

The statutory body noted that some agencies had raised issues regarding the interpretation of the regulations, prompting the clarification.

Oslo, September 23, 2025 – Korean adoptee Uma Feed delivered a formal notice of intent to sue the Norwegian state through a dramatic performance art piece at the Ministry of Children and Families today. Feed alleges her international adoption was illegal and demands both declaratory judgment and compensatory damages.

She alleges that the Norwegian state violated her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private and family life. She also claims that Norwegian authorities contributed to her being subjected to human trafficking in violation of Article 4 of the ECHR.

The case references a September 28, 2022 joint statement on illegal intercountry adoptions from UN committees, including Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED), which established that illegal adoptions violates numerous international human rights laws, and can constitute human trafficking. Additional supporting arguments cite the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

The legal notice was delivered through a performance piece titled “ARV” (Norwegian for Heritage/Legacy), performed by Feed herself at the ministry’s reception. The performance referenced the tragic deaths of other international adoptees in Norway, including victims of drowning, shooting, and domestic violence by adoptive parents.

“These three fates are not mine, they belong to other international adoptees who had to pay with their lives,” Feed stated in her performance. “The dead cannot return, but from today we adoptees will no longer carry them! Norwegian State! The notice has been given – from today it is you who must carry them.”

Latest investigations found that 15 babies had been sent to Singapore “under the guise of adoption”, with each sold for around S$20,000 (US$16,000).

JAKARTA: The Indonesian National Police (Polri) are working with their counterpart in Singapore to investigate an alleged cross-border baby-trafficking syndicate based in West Java, in which three Singaporeans are suspected to be involved.

The syndicate’s operations allegedly spanned the areas of Bandung, Jakarta, Pontianak in West Kalimantan as well as Singapore, according to Untung Widyatmoko, secretary of Interpol's National Central Bureau (NCB) in Indonesia. 

“We are tracing the trafficking of these babies all the way abroad,” Untung was quoted in a Polri statement that was updated on Monday (Sep 22). 

The world’s most successful entrepreneurs often captivate us with their business acumen, vision, and relentless drive, but there’s one factor in the early lives of Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Larry Ellison that many people overlook: they were all adopted. Steve Jobs, the Apple co-founder, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, and Larry Ellison, the Oracle co-founder, each grew up in adoptive families that provided stability, guidance, and emotional support. While adoption is not the sole reason for their extraordinary achievements, it may have shaped their resilience, ambition, creativity, and determination to succeed against the odds. These inspiring stories offer a glimpse into the unknown early lives of billionaires and highlight how early life experiences can influence lifelong success.
 

Steve Jobs: Parents who adopted him nurtured his creativity

Steve Jobs was born to Abdulfattah Jandali, a Syrian student pursuing a PhD, and Joanne Schieble, an American Catholic of Swiss-German descent. Because Joanne’s parents opposed the relationship and pregnancy, she opted for a closed adoption. The couple originally selected to adopt Jobs backed out after learning the baby was a boy. He was eventually adopted by Paul and Clara Jobs, a working-class couple who promised to save for his college education. Jobs was fiercely loyal to his adoptive parents, viewing them as his true family. Throughout his life, he often referred to his biological parents as “my sperm and egg bank.” The nurturing environment provided by Paul and Clara helped cultivate his creativity, curiosity, and relentless pursuit of innovation, which later defined his career at Apple and Pixar.

Jeff Bezos: From Jeffrey Jorgensen to Amazon founder

The Karnataka High Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction to the Central Adoption Resource Agency to allow the mother to adopt her minor child.

The Karnataka High Court has allowed adoption of a minor child by mother and step-father after the biological father failed to take a definitive stance on the issue in the Court, construing it as his approval.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction to the Central Adoption Resource Agency to allow the mother to adopt her minor child.

The single judge bench of Justice BM Shyam Prasad observed, "...this Court is also of the view that if the inference is not drawn with the fifth respondent not taking a stand despite opportunity, the minor, who is keen to go in adoption with the petitioners with whom he is living, could lose the advantage of belonging to the family completely with all consequences that would be."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sharanadeep while the Respondent was represented by Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath.

Names remain blackened - unlike in 2013 when all names were exposes. 

See text

The Delhi High Court also said the question of how a minor child came to the custody of the alleged adoptive parents was not inquired into.

The Delhi High Court, while upholding the conviction of adoptive parents accused of subjecting a six years old girl to physical abuse and sexual assault, observed that is the duty of the investigating agency to ensure that every aspect of a case, particularly one relating to trafficking or unlawful custody, was investigated and placed before the Court.

The Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “While it is true that Courts cannot direct the manner of investigation, they nevertheless bear the responsibility to point out glaring lapses where essential aspects of a heinous crime are ignored. It is the duty of the investigating agency to ensure that every aspect of a case, particularly one relating to trafficking or unlawful custody, is investigated and placed before the Court. This responsibility assumes even greater significance in cases involving children, who are the most vulnerable members of society and deserve the highest degree of protection under law. The present case, therefore, should have been treated initially by the investigating agency, not only as one involving offences of rape/sexual assault and hurt/physical assault but also as one involving grave suspicions of human trafficking or illegal custody.”

Advocate Arjun Malik represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the Respondent.

Case Brief