Name : Annick Boosten

Profession : Personal assistant / coach

What makes you happy? : uncomplicated things, such as sun, rest and a nice drink.

What do you dislike? People with a negative attitude.

Favorite color : Blue

The Bombay High Court recently refused permission to a couple to take custody over a twoyear-old child on the strength of a "notarised adoption deed".

A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale ruled,

"We are of the opinion that by merely executing a notarized document purporting to be an

Adoption Deed, the petitioners cannot claim that they have a right to hold custody of the girlchild."

The petitioner, who claimed to be the child's adoptive parents, approached the High Court

I have chosen to not disclose the identities of my sources, in order to protect them from possible retaliation. All of the people that I spoke to are child rights advocates working in Uganda.

Uganda, 2016. The East African country has just passed an amendment to the Children’s Act that prevents foreigners arriving in Uganda from removing children from Uganda through a ‘legal guardianship’ order. Previous to this amendment, a ‘legal guardianship’ order was granted to the adoptive parents through district courts, after which the adoptive parents were able to get a visa for the child and fly out of the country. This process allowed adoptive parents to bypass the legal requirements to live in Uganda for three years fostering the child under the supervision of the local Probation and Social Welfare Officer.

A legal loophole led to hundreds of children being taken out of Uganda between 2010 and 2016, after which they were adopted in the adoptive parents’ own countries.

‘Legal guardianship’ orders were never a part of the legal framework for adoption, so this ‘loophole’ led to many children being taken out of Uganda and adopted in the adoptive parents’ own countries. Between 2010 and 2016, hundreds of children were taken out of Uganda through this process.

During this period, one of my contacts was asked to review active cases of children being adopted by couples from two European countries through the ‘legal guardianship’ process. He explains: “I identified fraud, corruption and unethical practices in every single one of the 40 cases I reviewed.” Some of the issues that he identified included:

The Taoiseach's State apology on mother and baby homes will mean nothing unless a full investigation is immediately launched into thousands of incomplete adoption files, campaigners say.

The €11.5m which was left unspent by the mother and baby homes commission must now be used to fully investigate what happened to thousands of children with incomplete adoption files.

State adoption agencies cannot say what happened to thousands of children for whom files were opened but an adoption order was not granted.

'No excuse for delaying full review'

The Irish Council of Civil Liberties (ICCL), Aitheantas, and the Clann Project have all said a lack of funding or resources cannot be used as an excuse to delay a full review and say a forensic investigation into incomplete adoption files is now required.

From 1956 onwards, ten thousand women gave up their children. They were often young, disgraced their families and the new adoption law made it easier to give up a child. But by no means always this was voluntary for the women. Many mothers never saw their children again.

Distance mothers program

Did you give up your child for adoption in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s of the last century? Have you been walking around for years with the question: Where is my child? The program Where is my child? from 3CTV would like to help you with your search. In this series, the program makers go in search of their child with Dutch, biological mothers. They support and guide the mothers. The goal is to find the child, but just as important is the way there. In Where is my child? the makers follow the mothers, they listen to your story and the taboo that still exists on your story in the Netherlands is broken. With this program, attention is finally being paid to mothers who lost their child to adoption.

On March 29, 2021, Time for MAX will also pay attention to this topic.

Sign up for Where is my child?

Basking Ridge, New Jersey (CNN)On a gorgeous spring afternoon, Aimee and Stephen Welch are playing with their five kids in their sun-drenched New Jersey backyard, taking a break from the grind of virtual schooling and working from home.

But their laughs on the swings and shrieks on the trampoline belie a deep sense of sadness -- because one person is missing. It's now been a year since they had their bags packed and hotels booked for a trip to China to adopt their sixth child, a 7-year-old named Penelope.

A weekslong delay turned into months as, by early March 2020, China suspended the country's foreign adoption program. One year later, they are still stuck in limbo.

"Every time I go into her room and just see her pink bed there, that no one has slept in and the drawers full of clothes that have probably been outgrown before they could ever be worn," Aimee Welch told CNN's Poppy Harlow, "it's just a heartbreaking reality."

According to the State Department, about 400 American families' adoptions of children in China were put on hold because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

'We note, with deep distress, the announcement by the state government, of a ‘committee’ to monitor the ‘school adoption’ programme...schools are not orphans to be adopted,' said the activists.

BENGALURU: As many as 17 academicians and activists in the education field have taken offence to the use of the word ‘adoption’ in the ongoing school adoption process after the state government constituted a committee to monitor school development programmes.

In a memorandum to the state government, academicians and activists led by Niranjanaradhya VP, Senior Fellow, Centre for Child and the Law, National Law School India University (NLSIU), have said that the term ‘school nurturing’ should be used instead of ‘adoption’, and have iterated that the Department of Public Instruction had already begun a programme called ‘Shalegagi Naavu Neevu’, to mobilise additional support for nurturing government schools through School Development and Management Committees (SDMCs).

“We note, with deep distress, the announcement by the state government, of a ‘monitoring committee’ to monitor the ‘school adoption’ programme...Government schools are not orphans to be adopted. The parents’ body, established through an Act of Parliament, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is the parent of the school; hence no authority has a right to give away the school in adoption to anybody else,” they said.

“The notion of ‘adopting’ a school creates a sense of helplessness, charity, lack of resourcing and abdication by the constitutionally mandated responsibility of the state which is delegated to the SDMC, as well as by its trustee, the state government,” they said. “Today, we are in the era of ‘Rights-based development’ and not ‘Charity-based approach’ of erstwhile monarchies. We request the CM and the Education Minister to set right this mistake,” they added.

'We note, with deep distress, the announcement by the state government, of a ‘committee’ to monitor the ‘school adoption’ programme...schools are not orphans to be adopted,' said the activists.

BENGALURU: As many as 17 academicians and activists in the education field have taken offence to the use of the word ‘adoption’ in the ongoing school adoption process after the state government constituted a committee to monitor school development programmes.

In a memorandum to the state government, academicians and activists led by Niranjanaradhya VP, Senior Fellow, Centre for Child and the Law, National Law School India University (NLSIU), have said that the term ‘school nurturing’ should be used instead of ‘adoption’, and have iterated that the Department of Public Instruction had already begun a programme called ‘Shalegagi Naavu Neevu’, to mobilise additional support for nurturing government schools through School Development and Management Committees (SDMCs).

“We note, with deep distress, the announcement by the state government, of a ‘monitoring committee’ to monitor the ‘school adoption’ programme...Government schools are not orphans to be adopted. The parents’ body, established through an Act of Parliament, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is the parent of the school; hence no authority has a right to give away the school in adoption to anybody else,” they said.

“The notion of ‘adopting’ a school creates a sense of helplessness, charity, lack of resourcing and abdication by the constitutionally mandated responsibility of the state which is delegated to the SDMC, as well as by its trustee, the state government,” they said. “Today, we are in the era of ‘Rights-based development’ and not ‘Charity-based approach’ of erstwhile monarchies. We request the CM and the Education Minister to set right this mistake,” they added.

I. INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION PROCESS IN SPAIN

REQUIREMENTS TO PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENTS

According to regulations in Spain (Article 175 of ?21/1987) the candidate-adopter must be at least 25 years old. When married couples apply to adopt, it is enough for one of the parents to be at least 25 years old.

In any case, the adoptive parent must be at least 14 years older than the adopted child.

The recommended age difference is into account in the time of home study preparing which is no more than 40 years difference between the candidate-adopter and adopted child. Exceptions can be allowed in case of adoption of children with special needs.

A New Zealander who has fought for years to adopt her nieces and nephews from Ethiopia is now facing the possibility that one will have to be left behind - unless there is government intervention.

Ms Norman* filed for adoption in 2017, so the four children, whose parents disappeared in 2013, could live with her in New Zealand.

In Ethiopia, the children are under the care of another aunt, with financial support from Norman.

The children all share a small room with their aunt and her 10-year-old daughter.

Once rent is paid, there is only money left for the most basic of food, with no money remaining for other necessities such as clothes.