As we rang in 2021, hopes were rising due to the vaccine being rolled out, the fact that a new U.S. President would be sworn in, the idea that COVID19 might become a thing of the past, and the majority of the world just wanting 2020 to end. However, shortly after January 1, 2021 travel and lockdowns around the world became only stricter with the new variants of COVID19 emerging; all bringing 2021 into question and if it would actually usher in the end of COVID19 and the unique and extremely difficult challenges we’ve been facing.

2020 for me, as many readers may know, was a tumultuous year with, just to name a few things, the confirmation through DNA with my Korean father, a paternal lawsuit filed and won, and his passing. I have a hard time just calling him “my father,” as I legally have two fathers. However, only one of them (my adoptive father, whom I hate to give that title) truly feels like my father, even though my other father actually created me.

Feeding into that thought process; now imagine mourning this man who created you, without ever intrinsically knowing him. I’ve seen him from afar, and met him up close whilst hidden behind a mask, sunglasses, and a hat. However, I do not know him and now I never will. This man who created me, who knew my mother’s identity, and who abandoned me twice is still someone I have had to mourn. It’s not easy to describe nor for an outsider to understand.

Those around me tried to, and would, comfort me with words such as: “He wasn’t your real father…” or “Just think of your immediate family and be thankful.” The list goes on of inappropriate words meant to be of comfort for someone who has just lost their father.

In reality, for an adoptee, or any child, who has been estranged from their parent, losing them is not something you should or can just forget about or carelessly disregard. This person is still your parent who brought you into this world, and you have the right and even the need to mourn that loss. It may not be the same feeling of loss or grieving you may go through if you knew them your entire lifetime and built good memories with them. Maybe that is what makes the loss even greater, because you don’t have that foundation of good memories, or any memories for that matter, to carry you through the weight of the loss and pain you feel at that moment – it’s just emptiness and a deep sense of despair as you think about and wish for it to have been different. Just as 2020 had started with the hope of being only steps away from knowing whom my mother is and confirming whom my father was, it ended with the hopelessness of my father’s family secret being scattered under a tree in a fancy park in Seoul.

January 30, 2018. Why UNICEF's Views Are Wrong. We have been asked to comment on UNICEF's anti-international adoption position. UNICEF takes the view that, according to its charter and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), it would rather a child have the chance to have a safe and healthy childhood with his or her own family and, in any event, remain in his or her country of origin. The first problem with this statement is that UNICEF interprets these words as meaning that in-country institutional care is preferable to international adoption. We do not. UNICEF has promoted "Permanency." Permanency is a concept which translates into permanent, in-country foster care or group homes. We believe that children are best served by permanent, loving families, where ever they may be found. But UNICEF's solution suits many stakeholders because UNICEF backs up its ideology with money--especially money for group homes. As they used to say in Britain, "jobs for the boys." But the children are the losers.

The second problem is that many countries of origin do not view children from minority groups, such as Roma or indigenous people, as part of their national group. This disparity leads to UNICEF, on the one hand condemning international adoption, and on the other, decrying the treatment of Roma or indigenous people. The children are caught in the middle and get nothing.

Finally, on international adoption, UNICEF references its charter, the Declaration of Human Rights and the UNCRC. Two comments. After the UNCRC was passed, most countries signed and ratified the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (the "Hague") which, as a legal matter, supersedes the UNCRC. UNICEF avoids referencing the Hague because the Hague supports international adoption over intercountry institutional care. The CRC (arguably) does not.

A further issue with human rights treaties. The various enumerated children's rights do not include the right to family. This problem arose from the drafting of the first of the post-war human rights conventions, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948), and persists to this day. The Declaration was written in the shadow of the German Lebensborn program which saw more than 250,000 children from Eastern Europe kidnapped and taken to Germany to be raised as Aryan German children. The 1948 Declaration condemned this action by stating that every child is entitled to his/her nationality. But the Declaration did not include a child's right to a family because in the context of the Lebensborn program, kidnapped children had two families--their birth families and the German ones they were given. By omitting the right to a family, the 1948 Declaration created the negative precedent which then gets embraced in the UNCRC. We have been working to plug this hole for years. We are still trying.

.

France - Le conseiller du Premier ministre a été interpellé en compagnie d’une prostituée mineure Scandale à Matignon, le Monsieur communication de Raffarin démissionne

le 24 avril 2004 à 00h00

Le Premier ministre Jean-Pierre Raffarin a mis fin hier aux fonctions de son conseiller en communication Dominique Ambiel, qui lui a présenté sa démission après avoir été interpellé en compagnie d’une prostituée de 17 ans. Dominique Ambiel, 49 ans, sera jugé le 7 juin devant le tribunal correctionnel de Paris pour avoir « sollicité, accepté ou obtenu des relations de nature sexuelle de la part d’un mineur qui se livre à la prostitution », délit passible de trois ans de prison et 45 000 euros d’amende au maximum, a-t-on appris de source judiciaire. Il est également poursuivi pour « outrage à personnes dépositaires de l’autorité publique », ayant apparemment adressé des propos assez vifs aux policiers qui l’ont interpellé. Cet ancien producteur de télévision était en poste à Matignon depuis mai 2002. Le Monde daté du 24 avril a révélé l’affaire hier matin. Peu après, dans un communiqué laconique, Matignon annonçait : « Le Premier ministre a mis fin aux fonctions de Dominique Ambiel, conseiller en communication, sur présentation de sa démission. » Le gouvernement et particulièrement le cabinet du ministre de la Justice Dominique Perben se sont refusés à tout commentaire. Le parquet de Paris a déclaré que le dossier avait été traité « comme pour tout citoyen ». C’est le procureur Yves Bot qui a décidé d’utiliser la procédure de convocation directe au tribunal, habituelle pour ce type de faits. Dominique Ambiel a été interpellé mardi vers 02h30 du matin dans le XVIIe arrondissement de Paris, alors qu’une prostituée roumaine de 17 ans se trouvait dans sa voiture, a confirmé le bureau du procureur. Un violent échange verbal l’a opposé aux policiers. Il leur aurait fait valoir son titre et aurait tenté de les intimider en leur demandant leurs numéros de matricule et en relevant le numéro de plaque d’immatriculation de leur voiture. Les policiers l’ont laissé partir pour emmener la jeune fille et l’interroger. Cette dernière leur a affirmé qu’elle avait eu avec Dominique Ambiel plusieurs rapports sexuels tarifés dans un hôtel les jours précédant l’interpellation. Le conseiller de Jean-Pierre Raffarin a été convoqué dans la journée de mardi, placé en garde à vue et confronté à la jeune prostituée. Il a démenti les accusations, livrant une version jugée toutefois « peu crédible » par les policiers. Selon lui, il faisait route vers Matignon pour récupérer un dossier important lorsque, arrêté à un feu rouge, la jeune femme s’est réfugiée dans sa voiture et lui a demandé de l’aide à la suite d’une bagarre avec d’autres prostituées. Il s’apprêtait à la déposer quelques centaines de mètres plus loin lorsque les policiers sont intervenus, a-t-il affirmé. Le 7 juin, Dominique Ambiel devra s’expliquer devant trois magistrats sur la base de la seule procédure policière, probablement en l’absence de la jeune Roumaine qui ne fait pas l’objet de poursuites mais d’un simple suivi social. Interrogé par Le Monde, il a parlé de « mensonge », de « diffamation », de « manipulation » et a rappelé que son départ de Matignon était déjà prévu. « Par égard pour le Premier ministre, j’ai décidé d’anticiper de quelques semaines mon départ prévu du cabinet afin de pouvoir m’exprimer en toute liberté sur les allégations malveillantes qui peuvent résulter de cet incident », a-t-il dit. Dominique Ambiel s’est d’ailleurs déclaré hier « abasourdi » et « atterré » par les accusations selon lesquelles il aurait eu recours aux services d’une prostituée de 17 ans. « Je vous le dis sur l’honneur : je n’ai jamais fréquenté de prostituées de ma vie, jamais ! Je suis atterré par des allégations aussi malveillantes. J’ai dit très exactement ce qui s’est passé ce soir-là et il ne s’agit en rien, en rien, de prostitution ». Inconnu du grand public, cet ex-responsable des Jeunes giscardiens s’est fait un nom dans le monde des médias en produisant entre 1987 et 2002 des émissions de télévision très populaires comme Fort-Boyard et Les aventuriers de Koh-Lanta. Une grande influence lui était prêtée à Matignon, où le Premier ministre s’appuyait sur ses conseils pour mettre au point ses célèbres formules et « vendre » ses projets à l’opinion. Les relations de Dominique Ambiel avec les médias se sont dégradées après ses interventions directes auprès de rédactions, auxquelles il reprochait les critiques adressées à Matignon à la suite de la canicule meurtrière de l’été 2003.

.

PPDA accusé de viol: qui sont les femmes de sa vie? (photos)

CINÉ-TÉLÉ-REVUE

2RÉAGIR

Publié le vendredi 19 Février 2021 à 11h11

Signé Ciné-Télé-Revue

Half of all intercountry adoptees who are now adults have ever searched for information on their background. Slightly under one-fifth are planning to do so in the future. A small number have been able to find all the information they were looking for. Adoptees from China are less likely to search for birth information than those from other birth countries. The search was also less successful in the case of adoptees from China and from Bangladesh. Statistics Netherlands (CBS) reports this on the basis of new research.

Over the first six months of last year, CBS surveyed the living situation, well-being and search behaviour of adults in the Netherlands who were adopted from other countries as a child. This survey was commissioned by the Committee Investigating Intercountry Adoption. Altogether 3.5 thousand people participated in the survey who were adopted from a foreign country between 1970 and 1998. The report elaborates on the experiences of adoptees from Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, China, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and South Korea. More information on the survey is provided in the final paragraph below.

Fewer searches in China

Fifty-one percent of the adult adoptees have searched for information on their background, while 18 percent intend to search for this information in the future. The number of searches is varied, depending on the country of birth. Adoptees born in China are least likely to search for information (26 percent). The share is roughly 50 percent among other adoption countries.

The most common objectives for people to set out searching for information by themselves are: finding out more about their roots (82 percent), their birth relatives (69 percent), a resemblance in appearance and character (61 percent), and finding out whether there are any siblings (56 percent).

After decades of campaigning from advocates, and multiple recommendations from the Law Commission, UNICEF and the Human Rights Commission, NZ’s adoption act is finally going to be repealed. But will it address the rights and needs of those whose lives it has affected – and are we at risk of repeating the same mistakes?

The government has this week told adoption reform campaigners it intends to overhaul the 1955 Adoption Act - a long awaited action over a law widely accepted to be outdated and unfit for purpose.

The law was created when unwed mothers were seen as shameful - their newborn babies often forcibly removed and placed with strangers, mostly married P?keh? couples.

In a letter sent this week to adoption law reform advocate and author Barbara Sumner, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi says the Government will take up the issue this parliamentary term.

It had already indicated the prospect of adoption law reform in its release of Briefings to Incoming Ministers (BIM) late last year, but this has only now been confirmed.

The Union Cabinet today approved landmark amendments to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to allow district magistrates and additional district magistrates to pass adoption orders ending the existing challenge of legal hurdles to adoptions.

Women and Child Development Minister Smriti Irani flagged the amendments which seek to make childcare institutions and child welfare committee members and chiefs accountable, besides ensuring that district magistrates have the power to monitor child shelter homes to ensure child safety.

At present, childcare institutions need to state their intent to get permission from state governments to set up homes. But after new amendments, the permission would be subject to reports submitted by district magistrates who will do antecedent checks. Also, eligibility will be fixed for CWC members.

The most important amendment relates to the DM and ADM being allowed to issue adoption orders to fast track the process.

Former CEO of the Central Adoption Resource Agency Lt Col Deepak Kumar, who was involved in drafting the amendments, said: “At present, the family court, district court or a city civil court is competent to pass the adoption order under Section 61 of the Act. However, large scale pendency in the court is observed despite the Act mandating decision within two months. This causes duress to adoptive parents and the child.”

The woman's husband and in-laws allegedly harassed her and asked her to give her son to her husband's sister for adoption, an official said.

Thane: Police have registered an FIR against a man and five other members of his family for allegedly harassing his wife after she refused to agree for adoption of her five-year-old son by a relative in Maharashtra, an official said on Wednesday.

The woman, 26, got married in 2015 and gave birth to a boy the next year.

However, her husband and in-laws, residents of Bhiwandi town in Thane, allegedly harassed her and asked her to give her son to her husband's sister for adoption, the official from Nizampura police station said.

When the woman refused to part with her son, her husband threatened to divorce her, the official said quoting the complaint filed by the woman on Monday.

NEW DELHI: The Union cabinet on Wednesday approved amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to give district

magistrates the power to issue adoption orders and monitor functioning of various agencies responsible for implementation of

the Act.

The divisional commissioner will have the power to decide appeals with regard to adoption cases. The government says it will

enable “speedy disposal of adoption cases and enhance accountability”. Currently adoption orders are issued by the district

Joustra report Let adoptees be satisfied with their rescue from poverty, it sounds. It's not that simple, warns Anouk Eigenraam.

The report that Minister Dekker for Legal Protection is adopting all conclusions and advice from the Joustra Committee and that intercountry adoption is temporarily suspended with immediate effect, has caused a small earthquake in the adoption country, among adoptees as well as at mediation agencies, adoptive parents and researchers.

Anouk Eigenraam is an FD correspondent in China and wrote the book Welcome to Adoptionland (2017).

Many adoptees' interest groups were skeptical about yet another committee investigating intercountry adoption. Time and again, such a committee concluded that there was abuse, some already in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s identified signs of child trafficking, kidnapping, forgery, corruption. The Pavlovian reaction from politicians, advisers, permit holders and researchers was that international adoption was always in the best interest of the child and that many adoptions went well. It is therefore not surprising that Tom Schulpen, emeritus professor of paediatrics and former medical advisor to adoption organizations, also responds in his opinion piece in NRC (11/2).

No structural research