In August 2020 I said I was writing an article about Ofsted and the barriers to accessing therapy as an adopted person in the UK.

The response to that tweet confirmed I was not alone in my own confusion around:

Who can offer adoption counselling? Do they need to be registered with Ofsted, and - if so - why?

Does the UK government and Ofsted know that this layer of regulation is adding to the barriers adoptees face in getting support? Some are having to take other routes to therapy, including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) which can have a neutral or even negative effect when it comes to adoption issues. And even more worryingly, some adoptees said they are at breaking point, they have self-harmed and had suicidal ideations.

Why are non-Ofsted registered therapists required terminate support if they later find out that someone they are treating is adopted? Not nice for anyone, particularly an adopted person who may struggle with trust and making attachments.

Marathon day yesterday at the UN headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

Morning of meetings with the Belgian member of the Children's Rights Committee, Benoit Van Keirsbilck, as well as the representatives of Child Rights Connect, a umbrella organization bringing together a large number of NGOs and associations campaigning for children's rights.

Intense afternoon, during our hearing by the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances, where the issue of children stolen at birth to be offered for adoption was on the agenda.

Mariela Sr – Coline Fanon ( Racines Perdues – Raíces Perdidas ) testified to her fight and her moving story. Abducted at birth in Guatemala, she was declared dead, then sold for adoption in Belgium to parents who were unaware of this odious traffic.

For my part, I presented the motion for a resolution that I tabled in the House and which aims to give all those concerned in Belgium the status of victim and to begin an in-depth investigation into these illegal adoptions.

The memorandum of amendment to the amendment proposal for the Artificial Insemination Donor Data Act (Wdkb) was sent to the House of Representatives on 19 May. This memorandum provides for a scheme for donor children of B donors and for a replacement consent after the death of the donor. The procedure for B donors from before 2004 will be the same as for donors from after 2004. This means that the donor's personally-identifying data will be provided, unless he can demonstrate a compelling interest. Donors from before 2004, who want replacement consent to be given by a specific person after their death, can now give consent for this. At this time, no information is provided if a donor prior to 2004 has died.

Read the summary

Procedure Legislative amendment

The memorandum of amendment makes a number of substantive changes to the bill that was submitted to the House of Representatives on 23 June 2021. The political groups can submit their questions and comments on the bill in writing before 15 June 2022. Minister Kuipers will respond to this in writing; the bill will then be discussed in the House of Representatives.

Scheme for donor children of b-donors

Even as Indians are opening up to the idea of adoption by single parents or

adopting a sibling for their biological child, they remain averse to accepting

children with special needs.

Fewer than 50 children with special needs found a home within India in the past

three financial years, accounting for less than 1% of the total 9,443 in-country

The police handed over all the abandoned newborns to the Society of Friends of the Sassoon Hospitals (Sofosh), a voluntary charitable trust, working for such abandoned children

On January 14, when twin newborns wrapped in a blanket were spotted near the Pashan lake by morning walkers, police swung into action and arrested the parents who abandoned the infants on January 22.

While the police were able to locate the parents in this case, there are 35 other cases registered at various police stations where no progress has been made.

According to statistics provided by Pune police, 14 newborns were found in 2017; six in 2018 and 15 during 2019.

The police handed over all the abandoned newborns to the Society of Friends of the Sassoon Hospitals (Sofosh), a voluntary charitable trust, working for such abandoned children.

Joyce Sylvester writes weekly about topics that touch her. This week she talks about adoption. "I also wish the children a more open society after arrival."

Iwas dressed in a clown costume: brightly colored baby-doll dress, bloomers, big shoes, red nose—the works—preparing to run the annual Fourth of July 5k race in Skagway, Alaska. As I stretched at the starting line, playing up to the crowd, my husband strode up, grabbed my arm, and tried to pull me toward a side street. Distressed at his forcefulness, I yanked away, ready to demand he explain himself, when his face seemed to melt.

"Michael died."

His gray complexion and the way he reached for me slammed the reality home. Like in a movie scene, my body crumbled to the ground, and as if in a lucid dream, I hovered above: my body was slumped in the middle of the city's Third Street, smack in the center of the hoop-bottomed dress like a bullseye. The sound that escaped my lips still echoes down that empty street—and in my skull.

In the days and weeks to follow, people expressed their condolences. They placed gentle hands on my forearm and nodded wordlessly or, more often, uttered the phrase "I'm so sorry for your loss." Emails filled my inbox, and messages popped up on social media feeds with broken hearts and sad face emojis.

These sympathetic offerings were welcome, if painful, reminders that I was a mother who'd lost her child. But their kindness marked a clear delineation from the last time I'd grieved the loss of this same child: after I'd relinquished my parental rights 23 years earlier.

This week, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled in favor of Dilani Butink in the case she had brought against the Dutch state and the Stichting Kind en Toekomst. The case had previously been time-barred, according to the court. She was proven right on appeal.

The case in brief

Dilani Butink was born in Sri Lanka in 1992 and adopted shortly afterwards by her Dutch adoptive parents. She has not been able to find her biological parents on the basis of her adoption papers. After Zembla television broadcasts in 2017 about abuses during adoption from Sri Lanka, she held the State and the Foundation liable. Dilani states that her adoption was made carelessly, leaving her in uncertainty about her origin and the circumstances under which she was given up. According to her, this is a violation of her fundamental rights and the State and the Foundation have acted unlawfully because of the role they played in the realization of the adoption.

Invocation of prescription expired/unacceptable

The court upheld the appeal of the State and the Foundation to the statute of limitations in 2020 and rejected Dilani Butink's claims. In the appeal, the State dropped the limitation defence. The Court finds the Foundation's appeal to prescription to be unacceptable. This allowed the case to be dealt with substantively.

Times have changed since Aotearoa's adoption system was written into law in 1955. Where once they removed all records of biological parents, there are now calls for the Ministry of Justice to give adopted children greater access to information about their birth family and culture, and support in reconnecting.

When Erica Newman's mother was growing up, the other kids at school had questions.

They wanted to know why she was brown when her parents were white.

She was seven years old when she found out she was adopted – but Newman says it wasn't until her mother was older, with children of her own, that she was driven to find answers.

"She always had a questioning and wondering about her taha M?ori, understanding that side of her family and her identity," says Newman, who is now the coordinator for the indigenous development programme at the University of Otago.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WTVG) - After the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the topic of adoption has taken the spotlight.

So at what point does a biological father lose the right to contest an adoption? That’s the question before the Ohio Supreme Court.

At the end of the day, the case before the Ohio Supreme Court is all about deadlines and the rights of a biological father.

It involves a girl who was 17-years-old at the time she got pregnant and her then 18-year-old boyfriend. She told him early on she wanted to put the child up for adoption but he disagreed. Eventually they ended their relationship. He tried to keep in touch but her family cut off communication.

The baby was born about a week early and was almost immediately placed with a couple looking to adopt that child. 17 days after the baby was born, the biological father found out. He immediately filed with Ohio’s putative father registry, which gives unmarried men the chance to get parental rights. The only problem is that the deadline to do that is 15 days after the child is born.