With the Children's Act, children who have been placed have the right to pause contact with their biological parents. With this course day, we address how you, as a professional, create the best possible conditions for the child during placements, so that you both secure the child's rights and are aware of the challenges that can arise when contact is interrupted.

You will be in the company of two experts, namely lawyer Bente Adolphsen and psychologist Henriette Lieblein Misser . During the course, they will, among other things, into:

• Socializing with parents and with others
• Supported contact and supervised contact
• The importance of togetherness for the child's attachment, including different forms of attachment and the latest research on congenital, genetic vulnerabilities
• How can a child develop resilience in the face of the challenges that being together can bring?
• How should you as a professional react to the things you observe before, during and after a meeting?

Read along below, where there is more information about today's content and the two teachers.

KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that the right to privacy of birth parents overrides the right to search for one’s roots, dismissing the plea of a Swiss citizen against an adoption agency.

Adopted from India by Swiss parents in 1988, the petitioner raised the plea alleging non-cooperation from Specialized Adoption Agency — from where he was adopted — when he sought details of his biological parents.

The single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held that although the right to know one’s roots is enshrined in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, “however...the rights of privacy and protection of identity of biological parents of adoptee are more fundamental and basic insofar as the said right protects the very survival of the biological parents. It is all the more so when an unwed mother surrenders her child due to extreme social pressures,” observed the Court, concluding that the right to confidentiality of the unwed biological mother has primacy over the right of the adoptee.

The petitioner’s mother was unmarried during his adoption in 1988. The court noted that Regulation 47(6) of the Adoption Regulations of 2022 stipulates that the right to privacy of biological parents shall not be infringed by the right of the adopted child. The regulations provide for confidentiality in respect to all the documents regarding the biological parents unless the said parent has expressed the willingness to divulge information.

Adopted foundlings want the opportunity to take back their biological family name, but the legislation is tight-lipped.

Dear politicians.

I was reunited with my biological family in 2019. I came to Denmark adopted as a lost child in 1976. I now have one burning desire: to be allowed to mark this by taking back my biological family's name and thereby mark my identity towards myself and the outside world.

All over the world there are television programs that in one way or another seek to reunite family members who have been separated for one reason or another. A large part of these are adopted, and under domestic skies the program "Sporløs" has run successfully year after year for decades. The programs reflect that as an adoptee you need your identity, and this cannot be found for everyone in the adoptive family.

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a Swiss citizen, who was adopted in the year 1988, against the Specialised Adoption Agency through which he was given for adoption. Petitioner argued that after coming of age, he began a 'search for his roots' and wanted to retrace his pre-adoptive links, but due to the failure of the respondent authorities to preserve its records...

 

From the 1960s, baby brokers persuaded often Indigenous Mayan women to give up newborns while kidnappers ‘disappeared’ babies. Now, international adoption is being called out as a way of covering up war crimes

by Rachel Nolan

In 2009, Dolores Preat went looking for her birth mother. A softly spoken woman with a bob haircut and glasses, Preat had been adopted as a five-year-old from Guatemala by a Belgian family in 1984. Her adoption paperwork recorded her birth mother as Rosario Colop Chim, originally from an area that had been brutalised in the civil war that ravaged Guatemala from 1960 to 1996.

Aged 32, Preat booked a plane ticket to Guatemala. She had managed to trace Colop Chim to her home in Zunil, a small town sitting in a green valley at the base of a volcano. Zunil means reed whistle in the Indigenous Mayan language K’iche’, and the town’s population is almost entirely Indigenous. (In Guatemala, Indigenous people make up about half the population, identified and differentiated by language, by home town, and – especially among women – by brightly coloured hand-woven clothing.)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reiterated that the consent of the adopter’s legitimate children aged at least 10 years old is required in adoptions.

In a 10-page decision, the SC Third Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Nena Bagcat-Gullas challenging the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), which in turn affirmed a decision of a regional trial court (RTC) that set aside an adoption decree granted to her.

The adoption decree was for a child who used to live with her biological mother at the house of Bagcat-Gullas and her husband, Jose.

According to the SC, after the child was abandoned by her mother, Bagcat-Gullas and Jose provided for the child's needs.

In May 2016, Bagcat-Gullas and Jose filed a petition for the child's adoption and correction of entries in the child's birth record before an RTC.

During the last sonography of her pregnancy, Meera found out that there was a tumour growing in her uterus. As they grappled with this reality, their doctor suggested adoption through SOFOSH.

The moment Pranit Kulkarni addressed her as “aai”, she collapsed crying. “She was essentially a complete stranger, so it was difficult for me to say ‘aai’. But it was a very emotional moment. I knew I looked like someone in this world and I just wanted to thank them once”, said Pranit about the first and the last time he met his biological mother.

Heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Nigel Cantwell for delivering an enlightening lecture on "Protecting the Rights and Best Interests of Children in Intercountry Adoption." Your presentation has sparked meaningful reflections among our students, challenging them to reconsider and deeply contemplate crucial aspects. Thank you for the impactful insights! #childrensrights #intercountryadoption   

361 Comment

LikeComment

BULLETIN 6 COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION IN DOMESTIC REMOVAL AND ADOPTION

Giovanna Ricciardi’s Post

Giovanna Ricciardi

Children’s Rights Specialist at International Social Service (ISS)

5mo