DELFT - According to Jody Bernal, the television program Spoorloos should have put on the robes, after it became clear that adopted children were linked to the wrong parents in the program. The singer and DJ himself came to Delft from Colombia when he was six months old, the country where there is now much to do. He has seen for some time that things are going wrong in the search for biological parents of adopted children: 'It has been rumbling for years.'

In recent days there has been much to do about the Spoorloos program of the KRO-NCRV. The program is said to have used a rogue 'fixer' who often led the children to the wrong parents. Jody Bernal, herself an adopted child, tells in the radio program Menno in de Afternoon of Omroep West that there have been rumors about errors in the television program for some time.

The program is said to have knowingly used a rogue intermediary in Colombia, who linked children to the wrong parents. Bernal is also originally from Colombia and reacts shocked. 'If you are adopted, I myself was three months old then, you are looking for your roots. It must be terrible to be told years later that it's not right.'

Stories have been going on for a long time

The singer, known for his hit 'Que Si, Que No' from 2000, finds it intense that last night's program Spoorloos declared to Khalid and Sophie that they still have faith in their 'fixer', even after it appears that mistakes have been made. Something that according to Bernal is not possible. 'It has been rumbling among adoptees for some time. The bell has been ringing for some time and we often heard that certain stories would not be correct and the matches would not be correct.'

The Bombay High court has granted bail to a man accused of raping a

woman and abandoning her, on the condition that he would marry her within

a year.

Justice Bharti Dangre observed that the prosecutrix and accused were in a

consensual relationship, and the man refused to marry her when she was six

If poverty, racism, and health care inequities were properly redressed, adoption would be a last resort.

Adoption has taken a front-row seat in US political discourse since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Remarks from the Supreme Court, most notably from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, position adoption as a viable alternative to abortion. Even some progressives sing the praises of adoption in cases where abortion is not accessible or desired. However, framing the tragedy of losing reproductive freedoms as a problem easily solved by the relinquishment of a child obfuscates the reality of adoption as an institution that is steeped in systemic injustice. Moreover, such a framing underscores the way adopted people—the ones purportedly “saved” by adoption—are overlooked. Finally, the overarching social narrative that places adoption on a pedestal and views adoption as an alternative to abortion completely misses the point that it is not a reproductive choice at all. It’s a parenting choice—and one that should be a last resort, instead of being lauded as a great act of charity or a cure for a world where abortion is all but outlawed. In an ideal world, where poverty, racism, and health care inequities were properly redressed, the need for adoption would be practically eradicated.

In the conservative adoption fairy tale, a pregnant person who does not feel that they are capable of adequately parenting hands off these duties to people who have been desperately hoping to become parents. The child, it is assumed, will fare better, escaping a life most assuredly filled with poverty or neglect. Above all, this child “could have been aborted,” so adoption rescues them from annihilation.

While it is true that many parents who relinquish children for adoption cite financial concerns as a chief obstacle to parenting, it does not follow that adoption is the solution. Positing adoption as a solution to impoverished parenting ignores the fact that another solution exists: supporting struggling families. The sociologist Gretchen Sisson has found that even the smallest financial assistance would have empowered many birth mothers to keep their babies rather than relinquish them. Instead, parents are punished for their poverty, which is conflated with neglect in the child welfare system, as Dorothy Roberts’s scholarship shows. Roberts has demonstrated how Black families in particular are targeted by what she calls the “family policing” system for the crime of being poor while being Black. In other words, Child Welfare Services are far more likely to remove Black children than others, even in cases where no eminent threat to the safety and well-being of the child is present.

Furthermore, the idea that a birth parent selflessly “chooses” to relinquish a child for adoption is not supported by research or by the testimonials of birth parents. Sisson’s interviews with birth mothers overwhelmingly indicate that adoption agencies engage in manipulation and coercion. Ann Fessler’s book The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade chronicles similar predatory practices. In short, the idea that parents freely decide to relinquish their children is an oversimplification at best.

KRO-NCRV and the Spoorloos program will conduct an external investigation into the intermediary who has linked Dutch candidates in Colombia to the wrong biological parents in the past. The broadcaster confirmed this on Monday after reporting from the AD .

By our entertainment editors

The broadcaster does not want to give any further explanation about the investigation. RTL crime journalist Kees van der Spek revealed last week that participants of Spoorloos in Colombia have been linked to the wrong biological parents. The fraudulent Colombian intermediary allegedly responsible for the mismatches is said to have cooperated in 16 cases.

KRO-NCRV has meanwhile admitted two 'mismatches'. Two other matches went well and were confirmed by DNA testing. The other 12 cases are still under investigation.

Presenter Derk Bolt previously defended the fixer in the Khalid & Sophie program . The presenter did this after he had previously said he did not want to say anything about the case.

Recently, the Supreme Court recognized the right of children at home to know who their parents are. Why the longing for the real parents? 'It's the trivial questions you want answers to. Who gave me those sweaty feet?'

Daphne van Rossum

May 18, 1994 – published in no. 20

THE FIRST TIME I saw my father I was twenty. Tall and gray, he was waiting at a table at the Americain Hotel. We were strangers to each other. I was barely three when he left. How was I supposed to greet him? In the film, people would have flown around each other's necks. I shook his hand. The meeting was inevitable.

For years I tormented myself and those around me with questions about this man. According to my mother, he didn't even deserve the designation father. She invariably called him 'your begetter'. My aunts told terrible stories about him, they knew no one more impossible than him. So over the years I have developed a strong desire to meet him. There must be something wrong with him, right? After all, I was also a sweet child, and who gave me that cap nose?

Mis en ligne le 6 janvier 2011, par Mecanopolis. 3 Commentaires

Les relations franco-américaines ? L’un des vecteurs de la globalisation et, pire que tout, l’un de ses verrous. En effet, la construction européenne, Cheval de Troie de la gouvernance mondiale, n’aurait pas pu arriver là où elle en est sans la collaboration de la France. Dur à admettre, mais c’est ainsi…

L’histoire de la France et les possibles alliances stratégiques qu’elle pourrait initier sur la scène internationale sont telles que sa neutralisation a de longue date été prioritaire. Cette mise en quarantaine, nécessaire pour le processus globalisant, est exponentielle depuis son intégration dans l’Europe. Les États-Unis, quant à eux, ont incorporé une dimension humanitaire à toute entreprise expansionniste depuis la fin de la Seconde guerre mondiale avec le Plan Marshall. Cette stratégie leur a permis de compenser les « dégâts collatéraux » de leurs expéditions militaires par des bénéfices médiatiques et politiques. Ce qui explique que les relations franco-américaines d’après-guerre révèlent un flagrant ajustement de certaines ONG avec les volontés expansionnistes des États-Unis.

Dans le cadre du Plan Marshall, outre la contribution financière à la reconstruction de l’Europe, une ONG est alors créée : CARE(1), qui devient plus tard CARE International. Des colis alimentaires sont gracieusement distribués par l’ONG dans les pays européens dévastés par la guerre. En France, les fonds du Plan Marshall sont administrés par le Commissariat général au Plan, où officie Jean Guyot. Puis ce dernier occupe le poste de Directeur financier de la CECA (Communauté européenne du Charbon et de l’Acier) – l’ancêtre de l’actuelle Union européenne – sous la direction de Jean Monnet. Ce dernier en démissionne en 1954 pour prendre la tête du Comité d’action pour les États-Unis d’Europe. Jean Guyot entre ensuite chez Lazard dont il est associé-gérant pendant près de cinquante ans et où il participe à la renommée internationale de la banque. En 1983, il crée le bureau français de l’ONG Care, qui est actuellement présidée par Arielle de Rothschild.

Les États-Unis affirment donc, dès la fin de la Seconde guerre mondiale, le besoin de camoufler leurs ambitions impériales en employant des moyens subversifs. Cette nécessité se fait de plus en plus grande durant la Guerre froide : jusqu’en 1969, Charles de Gaulle est au pouvoir et résiste aux pressions américaines en refusant tant qu’il peut la construction d’une Europe inféodée aux intérêts américains. Il ira même jusqu’à proposer à Willy Brandt le développement d’un projet européen alternatif à celui de la Maison Blanche. Au lendemain de la chute du Général, la France est alors à la fois dans l’orbite des États-Unis et dans l’incapacité de répondre à leurs tentatives de cooptation.

Thousands of people are being promised new rights to information, a potentially momentous step in a country where unmarried mothers were pressured for decades to give up their babies.

DUBLIN — For tens of thousands of people who were adopted in Ireland — or gave up children for adoption there, often under heavy pressure — knowledge that for decades was shrouded in secrecy and shame may now be a mouse-click away.

The Irish government introduced an online service this week that for the first time promises adopted people born in Ireland, wherever they now live, the right to see any information the state holds about them — including the names of their birth mothers. It also offers a free tracing service for anyone, including birth mothers, trying to find relatives lost to them through Ireland’s adoption system.

The authorities are permitted up to 30 days to respond to requests, and adoption rights activists are waiting to see how well the service works. But they say it has the potential to be a significant step in reckoning with a painful national legacy of mistreatment of unmarried mothers and their children.

Over decades, ending as recently as 1998, thousands of pregnant and unmarried women and girls in Ireland were confined to church-run “mother and baby homes,” where they were expected and often pressured to give up their babies after birth. An official inquiry published last year acknowledged poor conditions, high death rates and abuses at the institutions.

Kirk Kellerhals was adopted when he was a toddler and grew up thinking his biological parents were dead

For almost all of his life, Kirk Kellerhals struggled with his identity.

The 50-year-old from Norfolk, Virginia was adopted by an Army captain and his wife shortly after Kellerhals was born in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. At the time, both Kellerhals and his adoptive parents believed his biological mother and father had died.

“My mother was listed as a Vietnamese national and was deceased, and my father was also listed as deceased,” Kellerhals tells PEOPLE for National Adoption Awareness Month. “I’ve grown up my whole life thinking my parents were dead, that both my parents were dead.”

Kellerhals — who has dark hair and tanned skin — says he was mistaken for a variety of ethnicities and called “every derogatory term you can think of” while growing up. Though he knew he was half-Vietnamese, the complete picture of his background remained a mystery to him.

Nearly two years after the Commission of Investigation published its final report, survivors are still being ignored, Órla Ryan writes.

HOW MUCH REDRESS should a person who spent less than six months in a mother and baby home as a child get?

How many Commissioners will appear before the Oireachtas?

How many official reports with disputed findings should be repudiated?

How many independent reviews will take place?

Alex Lipe

Part One: The Adoption Industry

The adoption industry commodifies children as well as parenthood. In the U.S., in 2015, the adoption industry had an approximate revenue of $14 billion. (Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy 2015; IBISWorld).

In this piece I will be asking pressing questions: How can the so-called child welfare industry truly have welfare as its top priority when it so clearly is based on profit? Does the U.S. domestic adoption industry place more value on profit than on child welfare? How have various activist organizations historically challenged legislation in order to secure equal rights for adoptees? What is the history of the modern U.S. adoption industry?

As a jumping-off point, it is important to acknowledge that adoption has roots in colonialism and white saviorhood. Adoption is a tactic of social control that has historically primarily affected working class people, sex workers, women and families of color, and ways of organizing families and childcare that are deemed “nontraditional” or “unconventional” or that are non-U.S.-ian. As we will see, adoption is also closely connected to feminized, informal forms of labor.