The average delay for prospective parents to get an adoption referral in India has increased to over three years

For years now, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) — the country’s nodal adoption agency — has struggled to effectively manage adoptions. While a significant number of parents are willing to adopt, only a limited number of children are legally cleared for adoption. This imbalance has not gone unnoticed. In 2022, a Parliamentary panel called this imbalance a “paradoxical situation,” and in 2023, the Supreme Court “expressed displeasure” over the time-consuming adoption process.

Latest data obtained through a Right To Information application filed by The Hindu show that the asymmetry continues even in 2025, and the gap has widened further. In 2021, 26,734 prospective parents registered in the CARA portal, and 2,430 children were legally free for adoption. In other words, there were 11 prospective parents for every child free for adoption in 2021.

MUMBAI: Bombay high court refused to direct the Central Adoption Resource Agency (Cara) to approve the adoption of an American child by an Indian Muslim couple. It observed that neither the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act nor the Adoption Regulations allow the adoption of a child of foreign citizenship unless the child is ‘in need of care and protection' or ‘in conflict with law.'
"There is no fundamental right of the petitioners to adopt an American child, which child does not fall within the applicability of the JJ Act and the regulations thereunder even if he is born to Indian parents.
 

Neither is there any violation of any fundamental right of the child of American nationality to be adopted by an Indian citizen," said Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale on Wednesday.
They dismissed a petition by the childless couple from Pune who sought to adopt a child (now six years of age) from their California-based relatives. They brought him to India in Oct 2019.
As they are Muslims with no law for adoption, they approached the district court under Section 56 (2) for adoption from ‘a relative'. Cara, the regulator for in-country and inter-country adoption, refused to register them as prospective adoptive parents. They moved the high court, saying without valid adoption the child's stay in India may become illegal.
Their advocate, Shirin Merchant, argued that Section 56(2) provides for the adoption of a child from a relative. She said Cara is unnecessarily treating the adoption under AR 23 for NRI, OCI, and foreigners.

Cara's advocate, Y S Bhate, said the JJ Act and AR do not apply to the adoption of a child who is an American citizen by Indian parents.

The judges said the JJ Act applies to all matters concerning ‘child in need of care and protection' and ‘child in conflict with law'. Admittedly, the child does not fall within these definitions. "Hence, provisions of the Act… do not apply," Justice Gokhale wrote.

The judges said Section 56 (2) cannot operate independently of the Act. A relative must first relinquish the child for it to be a ‘child in need of care and protection'. Also, AR 23 provides for post-adoption procedures for bringing a foreign child adopted by Indian parents to India. The petitioners were "always at liberty to adopt this legal and regular procedure."

While Merchant insisted that the adoption be treated as in-country adoption provided under the AR, the judges said it has to follow the parent Act.

They said the petitioners' "predicament" can be resolved by Cara's suggestion to apply for Indian citizenship and following surrender by biological parents to follow the JJ Act or adopt the child in US.

The petitioners "were not inclined to accept the same".

Counselling should be made available to prospective adoptive parents, adopted children and biological parents who surrender their child for adoption.

New Delhi: The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has written to its state counterparts asking that the counselling services for adoption be institutionalised.

The CARA has written to all SARAs asking that empanel qualified counsellors be hired at the district and state level. 

Counselling, the directive said, should be made available to prospective adoptive parents (PAPs), adopted children and biological parents who surrender their child for adoption. 

These counselling provisions, which are to be made available at the pre-adoption, adoption, and post-adoption stages, are prescribed under the Adoption Regulations, 2022. 

“The Adoption Regulations, 2022 contain specific provisions requiring the delivery of structured and

need-based counselling services at each stage of the adoption process. These include, but are not 

limited to, Regulation 10(7), Regulation 30(4)(c), Regulation 30(4)(e), Regulation 7(11), Regulation 30(2) (c), Regulation 14(4), Regulation 1 (6)(b), and Regulation 21(6) 

of Adoption regulation 2022 which collectively envisage a holistic support system for all relevant stakeholders,” a communication by CARA CEO Bhavna Saxena, dated July 7, states

Counselling, in the adoption process, is mandatory during the pre-adoption state to prospective adoptive parents, and is important to draft the Home Study Report without which adoptions cannot take place. 

Clarifying the term "certified copy," CARA said it refers to a digitally authenticated version bearing official attestation, and not a physical original or hard copy.

The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has clarified that adoptive parents do not need hard copies of adoption orders as digitally certified versions sent via e-mail are legally valid and sufficient under the current rules.

In a letter issued to all States, Union Territories, specialised adoption agencies, and District Child Protection Units (DCPUs), CARA addressed the confusion surrounding Regulation 13(8) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, which outlines the procedure for delivering adoption orders.

The clarification comes amid reports that some adoption agencies and protection units were uncertain about the validity of e-mailed orders.

The regulation mandates that a certified copy of the adoption order — authenticated by the office of the District Magistrate — must be obtained by the SAA through the DCPU. This copy must then be sent to the adoptive parents via e-mail within 10 days and uploaded to the designated portal.

Security researcher Jeremiah Fowler found a publicly accessible database online that contained highly personal information from an adoption agency.

Jeremiah, who specializes in locating exposed cloud storage, is used to finding sensitive information exposed. However, because of the nature of the information, this one immediately raised his concern and he hurried to find out who owned the data.

Research indicated that the database belonged to the Fort Worth (TX) based non-profit Gladney Center for Adoption. After notifying the agency, the database was secured the following day. Let’s hope nobody else found it before that time.

In total, the unencrypted and non-password-protected database contained 1,115,061 records including the names of children, birth parents, adoptive parents, and other potentially sensitive information like case notes.

The risks of leaking this type of data and it potentially falling in the hands of cybercriminals are huge. The sensitivity of adoption-related data makes these exposures particularly damaging, both for children and families, since adoption records often include highly personal details about children, birth parents, adoptive parents, and agency staff.

Amsterdam - The swimming pool intern suspected of raping eleven young children came to the Netherlands from Haiti as a child, where his adoptive parents raised him. He was involved with numerous organizations and regularly excelled.

According to the Public Prosecution Service, twenty-year-old JL abused fourteen children between the ages of 4 and 6 during swimming lessons between the end of August and the beginning of December last year in Zelhem, Gelderland.

According to the indictment, eleven victims were raped, as emerged on Tuesday during an initial preliminary hearing in the Zutphen court.

L. turns out to be an athletic young man. He was involved with several clubs in his region, such as the Achilles gymnastics club in Hengelo. He was already a great talent as a young teenager. A local media outlet wrote about the athletic young man after a competition: "J. was in top form that day; it was as if he could perform magic. Everything just worked out."

Query: Please conduct a review of the available evidence on orphan traffickingi and how this is increasing the risks of children to exploitation and abuse in care institutions. Please include any evidence on: • The scale, nature and drivers of orphan trafficking including countries and regions of high prevalence. If possible, include the level of community awareness on this issue. • How orphan trafficking is increasing the risks of child exploitation and abuse and the gendered dynamics of this (i.e, child labour, CSEA, CEFM marriage)  • How profits are generated from trafficking children into institutions, beyond money generated from volunteering and tourism and evidence on where that majority of the money comes from (i.e tourists, volunteers, charity donations) • Does the situation of trafficking children into institutions differ between state-owned and privately-owned institutions, and what extent are governments involved and aware? • What is the strength of the evidence and where are the gaps?  • Effective prevention and response models from both a political and programmatic perspective and any barriers that have been encountered in trying to address the issue? 

Adriana Metz (left) and Estela de Carlotto, president of the human rights organization Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, embrace after announcing the recovery of Metz's brother. © REUTERS

'Grandmothers' find 140th stolen grandchild of Argentine dictatorship after nearly 50 years thanks to DNA research

. 

Thesis received from an external source - attached

De : GroupeRacinesetDignite <grouperacinesetdignite@protonmail.com>
Date : mardi 4 juin 2024 à 11:32
Objet : Re: Letter - Notification of Decision to Dismiss a Case OC/2023/0646
À : OLAF-FMB-NO-REPLY@nomail.ec.europa.eu <OLAF-FMB-NO-REPLY@nomail.ec.europa.eu>

 

Bonjour,
 

Nous avons bien reçu votre courrier de réponse signé par Madame Romana Panait.

Madame Panait, nous venons de découvrir que vous avez fait une thèse en 2013 sur le sujet   "la lutte contre la criminalité transnationale organisée comme reflet du processus d'adhésion de la Roumanie à l'Union Européenne".  Comme le sujet du crime organisé dans l'adoption internationale nous concerne, pouvez vous nous l'adresser ?

En attente de votre retour,
 

Très cordialement,
 

Marion le roy
 

Porte parole du groupe racines&dignité

https://racines-dignite.org/