Home  

Governments Communicate in Kairi Case But Won’t Reveal Details (UPDATED JUNE 13)

Governments Communicate in Kairi Case But Won’t Reveal Details (UPDATED JUNE 13)
Address from where 3 months old baby Kairi started her journey to the USA

Washington - The United States government on Tuesday told India America Today that Washington was in touch with Delhi, but the US State Department in the same vein refused to confirm if it had received the letters of communication from its Indian counterparts.

In a reply to a question posed by India America Today, the US State Department replied, “We are in touch with the Government of India regarding this case. For further information I refer you to DOJ and DHS.”

Replying to an email question, the Department of Homeland Security stated that they had no additional information they could share about Kairi Shepherd's ordeal.

“We are not aware of any new developments regarding this case,” said Lori Haley, Spokeswoman, Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Earlier, one of the senior officials in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs had written in an email to Anjali Pawar, Director of Sakhee and Consultant to ACT (against child trafficking), “The Consulate General in San Francisco, under whose consular jurisdiction, the issue lies, has written to the Office of Foreign Missions of the Department of State in California, and the ICE of the Homeland Security Department.”

The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in May confirmed to India America Today that Kairi Shepherd was “not in ICE custody at this time,” but clarified that “Shepherd has a final order of removal.” Virginia Kice, the Western Regional Communications Director/Spokesperson for ICE, replied to India America Today, “Before carrying out a deportation, ICE must first obtain a travel document to ensure the receiving country will admit the alien who is being returned. Once ICE obtains a travel document, the agency then proceeds to make transportation arrangements.”

“Completing the removal process can take varying amounts of time, depending on the country involved and the circumstances of the case,” said Kice.

On the same day, a spokesperson for the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC broke the silence saying, “The Embassy has seen reports concerning Kairi Shepherd, and has requested the US authorities for facts on this matter.”

Citing the humanitarian dimension of the case, “that cannot be ignored,” Virander Paul said in an email, “As reports indicate, Kairi Shepherd was brought to the United States after adoption, as a baby, and has known no other home.”

Without mentioning if the embassy had received a request from the US for travel documents for Shepherd, Paul said, “Her case deserves to be treated with the utmost sensitivity and compassion, keeping in mind the humanitarian dimension and tenets of universally accepted human rights.”

ICE gave India America Today a detailed account of the Shepherd case saying, “Shepherd was originally encountered by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers at the Salt Lake County Adult Detention Complex in October 2007, following her incarceration on unknown local charges. ERO officers processed Ms. Shepherd and placed her in immigration removal proceedings after determining she was potentially deportable based upon her criminal history.”

“An immigration judge with the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) ordered Ms. Shepherd deported in February 2010, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently declined to take action that would have set aside that order,” ICE stated.

“Background checks indicate Ms. Shepherd’s criminal history includes two prior convictions in Utah in 2004 for attempted forgery and forgery, the latter of which constitutes an aggravated felony,” detailed the ICE statement about Shepherd’s criminal history.

“ICE has reviewed Ms. Shepherd’s case at length and believes seeking her removal is consistent with the agency’s immigration enforcement priorities, which include focusing on the identification and deportation of aliens with felony criminal convictions,” the ICE statement concluded.

The story began on a happy note in 1982 when 3 month old Indian orphan Kairi arrived in the US and was adopted by a Utah woman. Her adoptive mother unfortunately died of cancer when she was only 8 years old and at age 17 (still a minor under US law), Shepherd was arrested and convicted of felony check forgery to support a drug habit. She subsequently served her sentence for the conviction.

Now at the age of 30, Kairi Shepherd faces deportation because Judge Scott Matheson, in a 23-page decision, said the court didn’t have jurisdiction to determine Shepherd’s legal status.

The case is clouded in a maze of technicalities, as the court found there was a failure to file a second appeal through the Board of Immigration Appeals as well as Shepherd attempted to get her petition reviewed prematurely.

The Indian Federal Ministry of Welfare in its guidelines for adoption posted on the Indian Embassy’s (Washington, DC) website (http://www.indianembassy.org/guidelines-for-adoption-of-indian-children.php) outline very specific procedures which must take place in order for an Indian child to be adopted abroad. Questions are being raised regarding whether the procedures are actually followed, as 30 year old Kairi Shepherd faces deportation to a country from which she was uprooted as a 3 month old baby.

Chapter 2 of the “Liaison with Indian Diplomatic Missions,” instructs:

“The Central Adoption Resource Agency shall maintain liaison with Indian diplomatic missions abroad in order to safeguard the interests of children of Indian origin adopted by foreign parents against neglect, maltreatment, exploitation or abuse and to maintain an unobtrusive watch over the welfare and progress of such children.

For this purpose, the Central Adoption Resource Agency shall inform every Indian diplomatic missions concerned whenever an Indian child is taken in adoption or for the purpose of adoption, by foreign parents. The names, addresses and other particulars of such children and their adoptive/prospective adoptive parents shall be supplied to the Indian diplomatic missions as early as possible and in any case before the end of every quarter.”

The chapter states that "Periodical Progress reports of children from foreign adoptive parents as well as from recognized social or child welfare agencies in foreign countries" should be obtained, "to examine such reports and to take such follow-up action as deemed necessary.”

It is unknown whether Periodical Progress reports were obtained in Kairi Shepherd’s case or if CARA followed up after the death of her adoptive mother.

Chapter 6, under “Rights of the Child Taken Abroad,” explicitly notes, “On adoption of the child by the foreign parent according to the law of his/her country, it is presumed that subject to the laws of the land the child would acquire the same status as a natural born child within wedlock with the same rights of inheritance and succession and the same nationality as the foreign parent adopting the child.”

Guidelines penned by a task force of members from voluntary placement agencies under the chairmanship of Justice P.N. Bhagwati (the former Chief Justice of India) declared: “Even after the adoption is legalized, the enlisted foreign agency should maintain contact with the adoptive family in keeping with the need of privacy of the adoptive family and provide support and counseling services, if necessary and safeguard the interest of the child till such time as he/she attains majority.”

It appears the repeatedly orphaned Shepherd was denied her specific “rights of the child taken abroad” from India and that there were widespread failures among the checks and balances designed to protect vulnerable minor children from India who have been adopted abroad.

“She doesn’t have any known family in India, has no contacts, has lost the ability to speak any Indian language and might just die due to her serious health ailment of multiple sclerosis, after being thrown on Indian roads,” declared Pawar, questioning, “Why after her adoption in the US, her citizenship status has not been adjusted?”

“As long children from India adopted by US parents are faced with the threat of deportation, adoptions from India to the US should be halted altogether,” demanded Pawar in her letter to Indian Foreign Minister Krishna. (IATNS)

HC dismisses Swedish national's plea against Ashram

HC dismisses Swedish national’s plea against ashram 

Express news service
The Bombay High Court on Monday disposed of a petition filed by Swedish national Rebecka Saudamini Arnes, who was adopted from India in 1977, seeking action against Shraddhanand Mahilashram in Matunga where she was adopted from.Justices A M Khanwilkar and A R Joshi directed Arnes to file a private complaint before a magistrate if she wished to pursue her case against the adoption centre.After a four-year long search for her mother, Arnes moved the Bombay High Court in August, 2011 with a petition filed through her lawyer Pradeep Havnur. In the petition filed jointly with her adoptive mother Eva Lindgren (60), Arnes had sought a court direction to the police to take action against Shraddhanand Mahilashram for not disclosing information about her biological mother.Additional public prosecutor Aruna Kamat-Pai told the court that it had already directed Arnes to file a private complaint in the case inApril.Earlier, the court had also asked the state government to seek information from authorities at the missing persons bureau regarding Arnes’s biological mother, who is believed to have surrendered her as a two-day-old baby at the Shraddhanand Mahilasharam.However, observing that the main prayer made by Arnes —the complaint against Shraddhanand Mahilashram—had been dealt with, the court disposed of the petition. Annexed to Arnes’s petition in the HC, was an email exchange between her and Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who runs the Mahatma Gandhi Foundation in Mumbai. Arnes had contended that her adoption was facilitated by Gandhi’s parents Arun and Sunanda, who at the time helped a number of Swedish couples to adopt Indian children. However, as Gandhi still lives in Mumbai, Arnes had sought his help to trace her roots. Gandhi, however, had sent sharply-worded replies to her emails.

HC allows Swedish citizen to file complaint in adoption case

HC allows Swedish citizen to file complaint in adoption case

Mumbai, Jun 12 (PTI) The Bombay High Court has allowed a Swedish national, who was adopted from India in 1977, to file a complaint before a Magistrate seeking action against an adoption centre, which had refused to reveal information about her biological mother.

Hearing a petition filed by Rebecka Saudamini Arnes, Justices A M Khanwilkar and A R Joshi, yesterday, disposed of her petition, seeking a direction to police to take action against Shradhanand Mahilashram at Matunga here, from where she was adopted.

       After a four-year search for her mother, Arnes had approached the High Court in August last year by filing a petition jointly with her adoptive mother Eva Lindgren.

     She prayed for a direction to police to seek action against the Mahilashram located in Matunga here for not disclosing information about her biological mother.

      The Court had earlier directed the petitioner to file a complaint before a Magistrate. However, she did not do so.

The Court had also asked the state government to seek information from authorities at the missing persons bureau regarding Arnes's biological mother.

      Arnes said she was given away in adoption to a Swedish couple when she was a two-day-old baby at Shradhanand Mahilashram.

      Arnes had also annexed to her petition an e-mail correspondence between her and Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who runs the Mahatma Gandhi Foundation in Mumbai.

      Arnes had contended that her adoption was recommended by Gandhi's parents Arun and Sunanda, who at the relevant time had helped Swedish couples adopt children from India. As he (Gandhi) still lived in the city, the petitioner sought his help to locate her roots and find out who was her biological mother. However, Gandhi had sent terse replies to her e-mails.

Spread of 'baby boxes' in Europe alarms United Nations

Spread of 'baby boxes' in Europe alarms United Nations

UN says hatches in which unwanted newborn babies can be left contravene children's rights to know and be cared for by parents

A baby bank in Hamburg, Germany: over 400 children have been abandoned in hatches in Europe since 2000. Photograph: Nina Ruecker/Getty Images

The United Nations is increasingly concerned at the spread in Europe of "baby boxes" where infants can be secretly abandoned by parents, warning that the practice "contravenes the right of the child to be known and cared for by his or her parents", the Guardian has learned.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which reports on how well governments respect and protect children's human rights, is alarmed at the prevalence of the hatches – usually outside a hospital – which allow unwanted newborns to be left in boxes with an alarm or bell to summon a carer.

The committee, a group of 18 international human rights experts based in Geneva, says that while "foundling wheels" and baby hatches had disappeared from Europe in the last century, almost 200 have been installed across the continent in the past decade in nations as diverse as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Czech Republic and Latvia. Since 2000, more than 400 children have been abandoned in the hatches, with faith groups and right-wing politicians spearheading the revival in the controversial practice.

Their proponents draw on the language of the pro-life lobby and claim the baby boxes "protect a child's right to life" and have saved "hundreds of newborns". There are differing opinions on this key social issue across Europe. In France and Holland women have the right to remain anonymous to their babies after giving birth, while in the UK it remains a crime to secretly abandon a child.

However UN officials argue that baby hatches violate key parts of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which says children must be able to identify their parents and even if separated from them the state has a "duty to respect the child's right to maintain personal relations with his or her parent".

In an interview with the Guardian, Maria Herczog, a member of the UNCRC committee, said that the arguments from critics were a throwback to the past. "Just like medieval times in many countries we see people claiming that baby boxes prevent infanticide … there is no evidence for this."

Herczog, a prominent child psychologist from Hungary, says baby boxes should be replaced by better state provision of family planning, counselling for women and support for unplanned pregnancies.

She likened the pro-baby box movements in Europe to the religious right in the US. "Very similar to the United States where we have the spread of the Safe Haven programme with baby boxes in 50 states since 1999. Now we have MEPs arguing for baby boxes and they just reject the convention."

The committee wrote last year to the government in the Czech republic, which has seen 44 baby boxes set up since 2005, asking it "undertake all measures necessary to end the programme as soon as possible".

The ensuing row spilt over borders with two dozen right-wing MEPs, including the current president of Hungary, writing to complain that baby boxes "offer(ed) a solution for women who unfortunately keep their pregnancy a secret and fear to approach official instructions".

In an email to the Guardian, Manfred Weber, German MEP and vice-chairman of the European People's Party – the largest grouping on the centre right – who signed the anti-UNCRC letter, said the issue was one of competing "rights". "Although I am convinced that a child is best raised within an intact family, the safety of children is of higher priority than their desire to know their biological parents," he said.

There is evidence that the baby box idea is popular. A Swiss poll in 2011 found 87% saying baby boxes were "very useful or useful" and more than a quarter of respondents thought every hospital should have one.

Herczog said that the committee is undeterred. "We review countries' adherence to the convention. We did Czech Republic. Austria is coming up. I cannot say for sure but I can imagine we will do the same for Austria (as the Czech Republic)".

Her stance was backed by experts. Kevin Browne of the Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology at The University of Nottingham has just completed a two-year study into the phenomenon. He said of the 27 EU member countries, 11 still have "baby hatches" operating – Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia.

"There is growing evidence that it is frequently men or relatives abandoning the child, raising questions about the mother's whereabouts and whether she has consented to giving up her baby," he said. "You also have to ask whether an anonymous drop allows the authorities to check whether there's a chance for the baby to remain with its family in the care of other relatives."

Browne's research found that the Czech Republic and Lithuania both have an average of seven infants left in baby hatches per year, followed by Poland with six and Hungary and Slovakia with four – and highlighted that baby boxes had flowered in post-Communist eastern Europe.

Politicians in the former Communist bloc dispute this analysis. Miroslav Mikolášik, a Christian Democrat MEP from Slovakia, said that the "communist idea" was "to take away violently a child from a family that they considered as an enemy of regime and place him or her in a state orphanage … If UN convention on the rights of the child's article 8 that guarantees children's right to know their own identity means the death of only one unwanted baby, it is a very wrong article and very wrong convention."

In western Europe the issue is complicated by religious practice and the law. Sari Essayah, Finnish MEP from the centre-right Christian Democrats, pointed out that in Scandinavia "two lesbians can get sperm anonymously and have children. They don't know the name of the donor. So what about the rights of the child? The UN have got it wrong here about baby boxes."

Perhaps the most taxing problem will be Germany, the powerhouse of Europe, which has about 80 baby boxes operating across the nation. The German constitution says all citizens have a right to "know of their origins" and fathers have a right to be part of a child's upbringing. Both are breached when a mother gives birth anonymously. Hatches are tolerated – but earlier this year German ministers floated the possibility of a new "legal framework for confidential births".

In February the German Youth Institute found that the anonymous service had lost trace of a fifth of all abandoned babies – giving ammunition to those who want to end the practice.

However Bernd Posselt, Christian Social Union MEP for Munich who signed the letter to the UNCRC last year, told the Guardian that "our experiences with baby-boxes here in Munich, for example organised by a monastery, have been positive. I know also the problems, but for me it is essential to protect and to safeguard the life of children in extreme situations. All other problems can be solved with good will as long as the child is alive. It is not the decision of an United Nations committee what we are doing to help born or unborn children".

EP Round Table and Exhibition

hildren need families not institutions! - ending the harmful institutionalisation of children in Europe.

Date

06 Jun 2012 16:00

Address

European Parliament
  Brussels
Belgium

Event Type

M - Seminar, presentation

Organiser type

Federations / Associations

Section

Social Europe & Jobs

Event Location

Brussels

Event Description

Exhibition and Expert Roundtable hosted by Mairead McGuinness, MEP
Date: 06 June 2012
Venue: ASP Ground floor. Exhibition space outside the Members restaurant
Time: 16:00 – 18:00
Overview:
This unique and powerful exhibition will highlight that for over a million children in Europe, the right to a family life is still not realised. Visitors will hear from young people themselves and from experts in child development and fundamental rights about the detrimental effects of institutionalisation, and the benefits of prevention and alternative care. In a Europe of rights, no child should have to grow up in and institution; with policy support and funding from the EU, they won’t have to. Speakers at the roundtable include Dr Charles H. Zeanah, a leading global expert in early childhood development, and renowned children’s rights expert Dr Maria Herzog of the UN’s Committee for the Rights of the Child. Speakers include Commissioner László Andor and Vice-President of the European Parliament Roberta Angelilli.
Registration:  You can register to attend the vernissage at  http://ark-exhibition.eventbrite.com/

12-year-old Amy wants to go home to Ethiopia

12-year-old Amy wants to go home to Ethiopia

NaBr 08 June 2012 06:51

The 12-year-old Amy Steen, who was forcibly removed from her foster parents of Kortrijk municipality would rather return to Ethiopia than to stay in a residence that is the case right now. It says she Zealand.

"My greatest wish is to move back to Hanne and Ole (foster parents, Ed.). But it is probably impossible. This is about the municipality does not want to lose face. I would 100 percent rather go back to Ethiopia, but to be here, "Amy says Steen.

Also read: Municipality reported to the police for child violence

Govt bid to speed up child adoptions

Govt bid to speed up child adoptions

ANANYA SENGUPTA

New Delhi, June 7: The government is trying to simplify the process of adopting children so that it can be wrapped up in two to three months, officials said.

Adoptions now often take more than a year to complete, the red tape and delays scaring off many couples.

A committee formed by the women and child development ministry is drafting amendments to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act to streamline adoption procedures, introduce time-bound approvals and mandate specialised centres in every district for adoption by foreign couples.

Gezinnen, geen kinderhuizen: tentoonstelling en rondetafel lezing in Europees Parlement

Gezinnen, geen kinderhuizen: tentoonstelling en rondetafel lezing in Europees Parlement

ingevoerd op 29-5-2012

Exhibition and Expert Roundtable on ending the harmful institutionalisation of children in Europe

Eurochild, Hopes & Homes for Children (HHC) and Absolute Return for Kids invite to an exhibition, vernissage and expert Round Table beginning of June in the European Parliament in Brussels.

Expert Roundtable: 6 June, 16:00 – 18:00, European Parliament, Brussels,  ASP A1E-1 followed by a:
Vernissage at ASP Ground Floor (outside the members’ restaurant), 6 June, 18:00 – 20:00
Exhibition: just outside the members’ restaurant, open between the 4–7 June 2012
This unique and powerful exhibition will highlight that for over a million children in Europe, the right to a family life is still not realised. Visitors will hear from young people themselves and from experts in child development and fundamental rights about the detrimental effects of institutionalisation, and the benefits of prevention and alternative care. In a Europe of rights, no child should have to grow up in and institution; with policy support and funding from the EU, they won’t have to.

Speakers at the roundtable include Dr Charles H. Zeanah, a leading global expert in early childhood development, and renowned children’s rights expert Dr Maria Herzog of the UN’s Committee for the Rights of the Child and president of Eurochild. We will then hear from the Commission and European Parliament Presidency at the vernissage which follows (speakers tbc). The whole event is hosted by Mairead McGuinness, MEP.       

Issued notice, Preet Mandir says it was following old norms

Issued notice, Preet Mandir says it was following old norms

Nisha Nambiar :  Wed Jun 06 2012, 01:31 hrs
Express impact Following Indian Express report, Women & Child Welfare dept demands answers

The state Women and Child Welfare Commissionerate has issued a showcause notice to the city-based adoption agency Preet Mandir following reports in The Indian Express that it was accepting ‘donations’ from parents. In its notice, the department has sought answers from the agency. The adoption agency, however, maintains that it was following old guidelines that allowed it to accept donations to raise funds.

The showcause notice, issued on May 29, states, “In respect of The Indian Express report which appeared on May 8, the Women and Child Welfare Comissionerate, Maharashtra state has issued a showcause notice to the agency. The agency on receipt of the notice should respond within four days. If it is not done, then it would be understood that as an agency you have nothing to say and we would be free to cancel your licence to operate as an adoption agency.’’

Deputy commissioner, women and child welfare (adoptions), Rahul More said no adoption agency should be accepting donations. “We issued the notice after its records were checked by the district women and child welfare officers. We have received the agency’s response and are yet to take a decision,’’ said More. The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) does not permit any kind of donation.

Managing trustee of Preet Mandir D P Bhatia said they have replied to the notice. “We have received no notification from CARA on new guidelines. I have written to the district women and child welfare officer, commissionerate and to the minister that we were following the old guidelines, whereby we are allowed to raise funds considering our situation. We as an agency are surviving only on donations. We have a three-shift system to support the 40 children. We do not force any parent to donate money; it is by their own free will to support our endeavour. As we have the infrastructure, I have been requesting the government to allow us to re-start admissions so that we can keep the activity going. At present, we are also going to have new trustees as the old ones have resigned.’’

He added that the agency had 33 years of experience and needed to pay its staff up to Rs 2.5 lakh as salaries, which was raised through donations not only from adoptive parents but others as well. Asked whether they would give up the children to other agencies, he said that they have not yet thought about it.

The adoption agency, which had gained notoriety over alleged malpractices last year, was once again in the news for accepting donations. A CBI chargesheet notwithstanding, the agency, that has permission to give away only 40 children remaining at its Kalyaninagar unit for “in-country adoption”, was allegedly accepting donations from parents.

As per details available with The Indian Express, for 12 children who were to be placed under foster care, the agency charged the parents adoption cost as well as “donations”. CARA guidelines state that for in-country adoption, there is a Rs 1,000 registration fee, home study report and post-adoption follow-up charges of Rs 5,000, and Rs 40,000 as Child Care Corpus. The total payment to be made to the agency is Rs 46,000. Preet Mandir, however, charged donations (as the agency has labeled the entries in its books) ranging from Rs 17,000 to Rs 1 lakh apart from the adoption cost.

Minister of Women and Child Welfare, Varsha Gaikwad, had recently ordered that all divisions and district-level officers must check the functioning of adoption agencies.