Bea Garnier-Merz offers members of the Bundeswehr and their families advice and support in social matters. But when the lights go out in your office, your social commitment doesn't fall by the wayside. Because then the employee of the social service of the Bundeswehr in Koblenz gets involved in the association “Help a child eV” registered association ”. This association offers help with adoptions abroad.

Still a little tired from the exhausting journey, Bea Garnier-Merz and her colleague Angela Gönemann review the past few days. The two employees of the social services of the Bundeswehr covered around 17,000 kilometers by air in a short time. The reason: They brought ten children between the ages of three and seven from Haiti to Germany to hand over to new adoptive parents. Both women are involved in the adoption agency “Help a child eV”registered association"

Despite the corona pandemic, the flight to Haiti could be carried out. Without further ado, the association chartered an aircraft with pilots and flight attendants. The machine was on the road for almost three days. Started in Brussels, spent the night in Guadeloupe, then on to Port-au- Prince. A three-hour stay and then back again. Cost: around 100,000 euros. The new parents paid a large part. The remaining amount has been donated for this purpose. “It is an enormous effort, but when we look into the happy faces of the children when we hand them over to the new mums and dads, then that makes up for everything,” says Garnier-Merz.

There was a lot going on on the return flight: excitement and anticipation for what lies ahead.

Many of the children have never seen a plane in their lives, let alone sat in one ",

Nicole (44) and Babette (29) had one more meeting to go with the Child Care and Protection Board before they could possibly receive approval for an adoption. Due to the adoption ban, they are now in uncertainty.

“There is never a guarantee that it will go ahead, but that it will not happen for this reason, we never expected,” said Babette.

The women do not want their last name to be mentioned for privacy reasons.

ADOPTION STOP

After a damning report by the Joustra Committee on intercountry adoption in the Netherlands, Minister Dekker suspended all intercountry adoptions last week. The committee speaks of 'structurally serious abuses ' in the Dutch adoption system. According to the report, the system is 'susceptible to fraud'.

1

INFORMATIE DOSSIER

Samenwerkende Vergunninghouders Adoptie ten behoeve van het Algemeen Overleg

Februari 2021

2

In the 1970s, Hans Walenkamp and his wife Ina adopted three children from Colombia, Korea and Suriname. The harsh report on the role of the government in adoption abuses hurts him. "We couldn't have acted better at that time."

It did not come out of the blue. As early as the 1980s, he heard the first discord about adoption, and the image he and his wife had when they embraced their first child in 1971 turned out to be incorrect. Still, the report saddens Hans Walenkamp. “As an adoptive parent, I feel pushed into a corner by the conclusions of the Joustra committee. The advice makes it appear as if I am part of a criminal circuit. ”

Walenkamp (78) also finds the thought that he may have indirectly contributed to abuses. This week it became clear again that foreign adoptions have been forged papers, information has been erased and adopted children often cannot trace their roots. The rock-hard report on the role of the government in these kinds of problems led to a halt in international adoptions.

“My wife and I have talked about it a lot. But I have to say that we haven't felt guilty for a moment. We looked around the adoptions of our three children very carefully and enlisted the help of a bona fide government-approved broker. We have made decisions with a lot of good will, ethical awareness and care. We could not have acted better at that time. ”

'Even if you only save one'

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.