My Story

I believe we all have a story, and more than that – we all have a purpose, and it’s the journey that makes us great. Living a life driven by my values, my goal is to leave a legacy that lasts.

To lead people and organisations with wisdom, courage and understanding knowing that fulfilment in life comes from WHO we are, not what we do. And that kind of legacy, will impact generations to come.

My story started here: born in the slums of India, to a woman who didn’t want me. Abandoned on the steps of a hospital, left for dead. Unloved, unwanted and prisoner to the caste system that hands down a life sentence of poverty on its victims.

From the outside it appears as though I should have lived an impoverished, uneducated life. I should have been one of the billions living each day forced to fight for survival. That should have been me. But it wasn’t. Because I was saved by a charitable act. Adopted by a family in Australia who chose to give up their money, their time, their love and welcome me into their family. Fighting all odds, bureaucracy, red tape and financial hurdles, they took me in, loved me as their own and taught me how an act of selflessness can make a life-altering difference in the world. This is my story. And today, it’s what drives me. What my parents did for one I want to do for many. Showing people that they can live a life defined by who they are, not by what they do or where they’ve come from. The past doesn’t have to determine your future because it’s the journey that makes us great.

Wanted and (not) found: Annick tells

We talk quickly about seeking, finding and contacting first parents, but not everyone has to search, can find or has contact. In this series, various adoptees tell how they experience this.

Annick | 36 years | °India | founder Adoptie Schakel | children's coach

“Meanwhile, the images have faded, but they are still there”

I was almost five years old when my adoptive parents came to pick me up in Zaventem. That was in December 1989. A year and a half before that, my uncle took me to the orphanage in Madras. He came to visit me regularly, but after six months I was transferred to Calcutta. I grew up in Tongeren with an older brother.

The fact that while I'm typing this two toddlers tearing down the living room, screaming with laughter, doesn't really make any sense from a medical point of view. My husband and I had wanted a child for years before their arrival and did our best to get it, but to no avail. There was nothing wrong with his sperm, the cause was mine.

Or more precisely, with my endometriosis, a condition in which the lining of the uterus grows outside your uterus – which not only causes a lot of pain, but often also infertility.

Because our desire to have children continued to be great, we finally decided to sign up for adoption. We were sure we were going to love a child who hadn't grown in my womb just as much, and we weren't deterred by the fact that for many years only children with so-called 'special needs' were eligible for an intercountry adoption process.

Those 'special needs' could be anything from a missing limb or a baby with HIV infection, to mothers who had used drugs or alcohol during pregnancy. We learned all about it during the compulsory adoption course that every aspiring adoptive parent in the Netherlands must follow. Six half days in an impersonal office, somewhere on an industrial estate, with about five other couples who also hoped to hold a child in their arms through adoption.

That course was not the only requirement to qualify for an actual adoption process. Our finances were checked extensively, we had to undergo a medical examination by an independent doctor to check that our risk of death was not too high to allow us a child, we had to fill out 1001 forms and had three conversations with someone from child protection who had to determine whether we would be suitable parents.

Immediately after her birth in Sri Lanka, Sharinda Nathaliya Wolffers (33) was adopted by Dutch parents. This year she saw her biological mother for the first time. "People who can't have children and therefore adopt, give me a bad taste."

“You are not able to take care of your baby, sisters in the Sri Lankan hospital, where I was born, told my mother. You better give your daughter up for adoption.

My mother was not married to my father during the pregnancy. That is really not possible for a poor woman in Sri Lanka, who has little money to live on.

My mother was not married to my father during the pregnancy. That is really not possible for a poor woman in Sri Lanka, who has little money to live on.

As a ten-day-old baby, I was introduced to my Dutch adoptive parents. They could not have children, but with all their good intentions they adopted and raised me in the Netherlands. Still, my adoptive mother realized that her happiness meant my birth mother's grief.

Today the court ruled in two cases concerning intercountry adoption. One case concerns the adoption of a woman from Bangladesh. This woman's claims are dismissed. The other case concerns the illegal adoption of a man from Brazil. In that case, the court partially grants the claims.

Adoption from Bangladesh

The woman was adopted from Bangladesh in the Netherlands in 1976. She accuses Wereldkinderen, Terre des Hommes Nederland and the State of having cooperated in the fact that her biological mother renounced her under false pretenses. According to her, they also did not do enough to properly investigate the abuses in intercountry adoptions from Bangladesh, including hers, and to inform her about this.

Wereldkinderen and Terre des Hommes Nederland have invoked limitation. Since it has been more than twenty years since the woman was adopted, the woman's claims are time-barred. No exception is made in the case of this woman, because on the basis of the available information it cannot be assumed that the woman was given up for adoption against the will of her biological mother and that she was not transferred to the Netherlands in accordance with the applicable rules. The woman also waited too long with the liability of Wereldkinderen and Terre des Hommes.

The State initially also invoked limitation. After an independent commission investigating intercountry adoption (COIA) had reported in February 2021 on an investigation into possible abuses in intercountry adoptions and the role of the Dutch government in this regard, the State dropped the appeal on prescription. The court has therefore assessed the content of the woman's claims against the State.

Thiruvananthapuram: Based on a court order to conduct a DNA test in

the controversial adoption case, experts from the Rajiv Gandhi Centre

for Biotechnology here collected samples from Anupama S Chandran,

her partner Ajith Kumar, and the baby. The test results arrived positive

on Tuesday.

The adoption row showed scarce signs of abating on Thursday.

The infant's mother, Anupama S. Chandran, has vowed to continue her struggle to unseat those at the helm of the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare (KSCCW) and Child Welfare Committee (CWC).

Ms. Anupama sought the prosecution of KSCCW general secretary J.S. Shiju Khan on the charge of violating the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. She also wanted the CWC disbanded.

The United Democratic Front (UDF) Opposition and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have thrown their weight behind Ms. Anupama. Notably, Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP) legislator K.K. Rema and social activist P.E. Usha were with Ms. Anupama through every step of her protest.

The State Government had ordered the Women and Child Development Department director to inquire into the incident and fix accountability on those responsible for the wrongful adoption.

The newborn girl, who was rescued over a month ago after being found abandoned near Harur bus stand, was handed over to Bethal Agricultural Fellowship Adoption Center, Salem, by Collector S. Dhivyadarshini on Wednesday. The infant, named Anupriya by the Collector, was at the NICU ward of the Dharmapuri government medical college hospital for over 40 days.

Those seeking claim to the child must contact the administration within 60 days from November 24.

In a country of over a billion people, the average waiting time to adopt a child via legal route is three years. However, most governments sideline delays in the adoption process as a non-issue. I In India, adoption involves multiple stakeholders - Center, States, CARA and PaPs (Prospective Adoptive Parents) to come together. This has made the process complex. Considering that it impacts children languishing in the CCIs on one hand and PaPs on the other, who wait endlessly to adopt children through legal routes, a group of 300+ PaPs (collaborating under the aegis of Adoption Action Group) have signed and sent a letter to the Ministry of WCD to fix these issues

Adoption Action Group (AAG), a PaP registered with CARA, works to bring together and unite the adoptive community in India and provide a platform for them to voice their concerns by highlighting the loopholes in the adoption system. While there are many advocacy groups and counselling forums on parenting that talk about child rights and adoption as a subject, this is the first group dedicated to the cause of adoptive parents and the struggle they go through on adopting in India.

AAG does not represent any non-profit or an organisation. It is a collective of PaPs and adoptive parents who are together to make adoption a smoother process. The collective has people from all walks of life. With 26,000 PaPs (as per an RTI response) waiting to adopt, the number of children adopted in the 0-5 age group last year is less than 3,200. This year in the last eight months less than 1,800 children have been placed with PaPs in the 0-2 category. In addition to this, the country has an extremely limited number of government bodies to bring more children into the adoption pool — 486-Specialised Adoption Agencies (SAAs), 642- District Child Protection Units (DCPUs), 5810- Child Care Institutions (CCIs). This has a direct impact on the families and parents who choose to create a family via adoption. In addition to this lack of response from CARA and information gaps make it difficult for the PaPs to sustain their journey. Ultimately, the system is not only discouraging those who are keen to adopt but adding to the dangers of illegal adoptions.

Abandoned, orphaned or surrendered kids enter the adoption pool through the legal process and paperwork initiated by CWCs. Only the kids declared legally fit to adopt come to CARA's adoption pool. Once a child is recused or surrendered it is the responsibility of the CWC to ensure the well being of the child. In cases where the child is adoptable the CCIs and the CWCs should work in co-ordination to initiate and complete the process in due time. In many cases this is never done. Many of these children grow up in institutions getting older and hence losing their chance of early adoption.

Adopting a newborn abandoned child

On 24 November 2021, the District Court of The Hague substantially awarded the claim of the illegally adopted Patrick Noordoven against the State of the Netherlands. The judgment of the court can be found here.

Patrick Noordoven was illegally adopted from Brazil in 1980. His parentage was thereby misrepresented, by giving him up as the biological child of the Dutch couple who adopted him illegally. Shortly after his illegal adoption, the police conducted an investigation and concluded that Patrick Noordoven and 41 other children had been adopted illegally from Brazil to the Netherlands. Nevertheless, after the investigation, the State did not take measures to enable Patrick Noordoven to know his parentage and the circumstances of his illegal adoption. The Court concluded that by doing so, the State acted in violation of Patrick Noordoven's right to identity and knowledge of his parentage.

As a result, Patrick Noordoven had to devote 20 years of his life to finding his biological parents. In addition, he has conducted years of research to clarify how his illegal adoption took place and what role the Dutch state had played in it. The court therefore ruled that the State is liable for the damage that Patrick Noordoven has suffered as a result.

The court rejected the claim that the State is (also) liable for the fact that the illegal adoption of Patrick Noordoven was effected with the help of a Dutch diplomat or was facilitated by the Dutch Diplomatic representations in Brazil.

.