The Overseas Koreans Agency (Director Lee Sang-deok) will hold its first policy discussion meeting tomorrow (the 29th) to discuss ways to support the domestic settlement of adoptive Koreans.

 This event, co-hosted with the Overseas Korean Adoption Association, was prepared as a follow-up measure to the 'Adoption Counseling Center' opened by the Overseas Koreans Office last month.

Approximately 60 domestic and international adoptees and experts, including Seodaemun-gu Mayor Lee Seong-heon, the Ministry of Health and Welfare's Population and Children's Policy Director Kim Sang-hee, and Overseas Koreans

' Counselor Yoo Jae-hoon, will participate in the meeting to discuss adoption policies and business directions and seek field-centered support measures. In addition, the meeting will feature presentations on various topics related to adoptees, such as '

Overseas Koreans Office's dedicated window operation cases and this year's promotion plan for adoptees' and 'The Child Rights Protection Agency's family search project.' Overseas Koreans Office Director Lee Sang-deok stated that this meeting is an opportunity to listen to the real difficulties of adoptees and to discover and promote policies and projects for adoptees and their children, and that he will continue to provide effective support for adoptees.

This is the story of Princess Victoria Gouramma, the princess of Coorg, who was deposed by the British. Her story is not just a footnote of colonial history. It is a reminder of resilience, heartbreak, and a young girl’s fight for belonging in a world that was never ready to fully accept her. 

On a rainy spring morning of 1852, a usual day for Londoners, when they suddenly gathered curiously around the docs as an unusual figure stepped ashore. She was clad in a simple silk robe, a 11-year-old girl, with dusky skin, solemn eyes, steps down as she clutches her father's hand.

She was Princess Gouramma of Coorg. She was a royal from India, which was now annexed under the British rule. Beside her was her father, the deposed King Chikavira Rajendra, who hope for justice from the Queen of England. Little did they know that the little girl, bright and eager, was about to be swept into the heart of British royalty, which would turn into a lifetime of quiet battles against prejudice, loneliness, and betrayal.

In the pages of history as we go along adopting, acknowledging and embracing new curriculum, there are often stories that we continue to ignore. Princess Gouramma's story is also one such forgotten story, however, it continues to hold the haunting mirror which reflects even what royals like Meghan Markle may have faced centuries later. Princess Gouramma's life shows that even when the British monarchy embraced a person of colour, the acceptance was only skin-deep.

A Royal Arrival, A New Identity

One of thousands of adoptees taken away from Greece in the 1950s and 60s, stripped of their citizenship and identities, shares her story story

It was under a bright, warm sun in June last year when I arrived at the Patriotic Institution for Social Welfare and Awareness (PIKPA), a building which holds secrets and history and heartache in its very bones. Comfortably set on a hillside of Penteli outside of Athens, I was there to find out more about myself. This was the place I likely came after I left an orphanage on my way to adoption by a Greek-American couple, strangers to my tiny self. I had issues with my lungs, which I still have 67 years later, and this is the place where people came for further treatment, for rehabilitation, a place to heal and rest.

This visit to PIKPA Penteli was part of my long journey to secure the remainder of my adoption records in order to learn about who I am and from whom I come. I came with journalist and award-winning podcaster Katerina Bakogianni, who is producing a series, “Born Greek,” about the so-called lost children of Greece. She was there as a friend and interpreter.

My mother gave birth to me at the Athens Maternity Hospital, which has long since been torn down. We spent nine precious days together. Somewhere. She took me to the Athens Municipal Orphanage (Vrefokomeio) and I became baby number 44488. From there, I went to PIKPA Penteli before going to a final foster home and then to America and new parents.

PATHANAMTHITTA: Two years ago, baby Niket was fighting for survival, having been found abandoned by his biological parents. Today, he is nestled in the arms of his adoptive parents in Italy, in a early-life story that has come to embody resilience and unconditional love.

Niket’s journey of acceptance began on April 4, 2023 in Aranmula, Pathanamthitta, where he was discovered in a bucket in front of a house. After giving birth to him at home, his mother sought medical attention at a hospital in Chengannur due to excessive bleeding.

The mother informed authorities that she had delivered a stillborn baby. However, police became suspicious when they received information of the abandoned infant, weighing just 1.3 kg. and rushed him to Kottayam Medical College Hospital for treatment.

The intervention by police officers, which ended up by saving the child’s life, came for high praise. A video showing a cop running to a hospital carrying the bucket with the child in it had then gone viral.

Chengannur sub-inspector M C Abhilash, who carried the infant to safety, recalled the emotional moment. “We just wanted to save his life. Seeing him in safe hands now fills my heart with joy,” said Abhilash, who is now circle inspector with Venmony police station.

obtained after complaint handed in at European Ombudsman

Equivalent citations: AIR1986MAD181, AIR 1986 MADRAS 181, (1985) 17 LAWYER 36, 1985 LAWYER 17 36, (1985) 98 MADLW 339, (1985) 1 MADLJ208, (1985) 2 HINDULR 457, (1985) WRITLR 134

1. This petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for causing the production of a minor boy by name Amba Shankar alias Jayapaul has come to be filed on account of a gross and total misconnection of the circumstances under which a petition of this nature can be filed. The facts of the case are briefly as under.

The petitioner is the father of a minor by name Jayapaul. He had entrusted the custody of the child as early as in the year 1978 to the first respondent herein who is running an institution known as "Prayer House". it is said to be an association registered under the Societies Registration Act and to be enaged in running an orphanage as well is maintaining a home for aged persons and for destitute widows. According to the first respondent., the petitioner informed him that after the ,death of his wife, he had married again and his second wife was averse to bringing up the minor child born to his first wife and therefore, the child may be taken care of in the orphanage run by the first respondent. Some months thereafter a Belgium couple expressed their desire to adopt an Indian child. The first respondent would say that the petitioner was contacted and he gave his consent to the child being taken in adoption by the Belgium couple; but the petitioner would deny it. Be that as it may, the first respondent filed a petition O. P. No. 500 of 1978 on the Original Side of this Court under Ss. 3, 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act. After the formalities regarding publication of notice etc. were observed, a learned Judge of this Court passed an order on 10-12-1978 declaring the first respondent, to be the lawfully appointed guardian of the minor child Jayapaul and permitting the first respondent to entrust the custody of the minor child to the foreign couple Mr. Raucy Claude Roger and Mrs. Raucy Alberte Champenois residing at 18 Anenue De La Victoire Virton, Belgium, through their power of attorney agent Miss Alma Philips, English Professor, Cultural Academy, 19 Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Madras, for being taken to Belgium for the purpose of being fostered, maintained and brought up by the said Mr. Raucy Claude Roger and Mrs. Raucy Alberte Champenois. The Court Imposed a condition that Mr. Raucy Claude Roger and Mrs. Raucy Alberte Champenois should send to this Court an annual report along with recently taken photographs of the minor child in order to satisfy the Court that the child was being looked after well. The first of such report was directed to be filed on or before 31-12-1979. According to the first respondent, the petitioner was fully aware of all these things and he gave his whole-hearted consent and he also executed an agreement on stamp paper on 8-1-1979 agreeing to the child being taken by the Belgium couple as their adopted son and giving an undertaking that neither he nor his relations or friends would go back on the arrangement and give any trouble or cause any loss to the first respondent or the adoptive parents. It is the further case of the first respondent that till recently, the petitioner had been corresponding with the adoptive parents and in one of those letters dt.27-10-1979 the petitioner has categorically stated as follows "We have no objection. I Jayapaul staying with you; Let him be your son itself, But we are eager to have some contact wish you morely writings."

It is further written in the letter that the adoptive parents may write to him (the petitioner) in future and not to the first respondent. Lastly, he concludes the letter invoking the blessings of God for the grace shown by them on Jayapaul.

2. In spite of all these, the petitioner has come forward with this petition stating that the entrustment of the custody of the minor child to the first respondent was only a temporary arrangement and the first respondent had no authority to act as the guardian of the minor child and send him away in adoption to Belgium. According to the petitioner, the agreement on stamp paper is a document in which his signature was obtained without his knowing what the contents were. In so far as the letters are concerned, he has no specific answer except to say that the taking away of the child in adoption was not with his consent. The technical plea raised by him is that he was not made a party to the proceedings in O. P. No. 5010 of 1978 and therefore, the order passed by the Court is not binding on him. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts without any materials whatever, that the child is being made to serve as a domestic servant by the adoptive parents in Belgium and the child is living in inhuman conditions. Therefore, he would say that the child is not leading a dignified way of life and such a of violates Art. 23 of the Constitution. He Would also say that the child has been exported for monetary considerations by the first respondent without the consent of the father who is the natural guardian and that again is illegal. The further submission made is that the father is the natural arid lawful guardian and he is entitled to seek the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for getting the custody of his child. In support of these, Propositions, he cites the decisions in Gohar Begum, and Veena Kapoor v. Varinder Kumar, .Those, authorities have no relevancy at all to the facts of the case on hand. When asked as to how a writ of habeas corpus can be enforced when the child is beyond the shores of this country and when the persons having the custody of the child are not parties to these proceedings, the counsel would cite the in Marggarate Maria v, Pualparampil, Nee Fledman v. Dr. Chacko Pulparapil, (FB) which was rendered under entirely different circumstances.

1 ­       In the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, District and      Sessions Judge : South East : Saket Court, New Delhi.In the matter of :G.P. No. 16/2016        Welfare Home for Children         B­1, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar        New Delhi­110 044.        Though its Social Worker Ms. Lata Nair       .... Petitioner                                      V E R S U S        Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs        R/o Wipstraat 47 AT 2590 Berlaar        Belgium        Through her attorney Ms. Nidhi         Kataria, Adoption Officer        Welfare Home for Children         B­1, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar        New Delhi­110 044.                     .... Respondent                 Petition presented on                        :        05.12.2016                 Arguments concluded on                       :        12.04.2017                 Judgment Pronounced on                       :        12.04.2017                 PETITION   UNDER   SECTION   59   (7)   OF                  JUVENILE   JUSTICE   (CARE   AND                  PROTECTION   OF   CHILDREN)   ACT,   2015,                  FOR   ORDER   OF   ADOPTION   WITH                  RESPECT   TO   THE   MINOR   CHILD   'NITIN'                  IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. G.P. No. 16/16               WHC V. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs                                     Page  1 of 25                                                     ­ 2 ­ JUDGMENT

1.0 Vide their petition, Welfare Home for Children, B­1,  Institutional   Area,   Sarita   Vihar,  New   Delhi,   ("Petitioner  Society"  in   short)   through   its   social   worker   and   authorized  representative Ms. Lata Nair, prayed that the minor child 'Nitin'  born on 09.05.2011 ("Child" in short) be given in adoption to  the respondent Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs, as her  son and that she be permitted to remove the minor child outside  the jurisdiction of this Court for his upbringing to   Belgium,  where the respondent resides.

2.0 The   petition   has   been   filed   by  WHC  being   a  Society,   registered   as   a   Charitable   Organization   running   its  Orphanage   Homes   for   abandoned/destitute/   handicapped  children.     WHC   is   duly   recognized   by   the   Central   Adoption  Resource   Authority   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   "CARA"),  Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India, as  an agency for placing children in adoption i.e. as  Specialized  Adoption Agency  ("SAA" in short)   Ms. Lata Nair has been  duly authorized by WHC, the petitioner society to sign, verify    ­ 3 ­  and institute the petition under Section 59 (7) of Juvenile Justice  (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act" in short).

3.0 The petitioner has submitted that a minor male child  'Nitin'   born   on   09.05.2011   was   placed   with   the   WHC.     The  petitioner desires to give the child in adoption to the respondent  Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs, through her attorney  Ms. Nidhi Kataria, Adoption officer, WHC.

4.0 It is submitted by the petitioner that on 09.05.2015,  a minor male child 'Nitin' was found abandoned by the police  officials of PS Amar Colony, who handed over the custody of  the   child   to   the   petitioner   society.     The   child   was   produced  before   the   Child   Welfare   Committee,   Kalkaji,   who   permitted  the petitioner to continue to keep the child.  The parents of the  child did not come to claim him.  Vide order dated 03.03.2016  in petitioner's application/Case no. 483/15, the Child Welfare  Committee declared the child as an abandoned child and legally  free   for   adoption,   after   due   enquiries.   On   the   basis   of   the  medical   examination,  the   date   of   birth   of   the   child   was  determined as 09.05.2011.

1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in the matter of appointment of guardian of the person of female minor Babita an inmate of Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah (founding home) conducted by Rajasthan Social Welfare Department of Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The application filed by the appellant for appointment as guardian of the above mentioned minor child was dismissed by the Family Court vide its judgment dated August 12, 1986.

2. It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that the Inter-country Adoption Agency "Juthika" (hereinafter called as "Juthika") of Netherland, which is one of the recognised agency of Government of India, approached the Director of Social Welfare Department and Superintendent, Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur through its power of attorney holder to give minor Babita, a destitute child in Guardianship of the petitioner. The Director, Social Welfare Department gave permission for adoption of the child to a foreign parent since no Indian citizen came forward for taking the child in adoption. Petitioner through its general power of attorney holders Mrs. Hem-lata Mirazkar, 208, Olympus, Altamount Road, Bombay-4000 26 and Shri Sandeep Saxena, D-2, 'Moti-Kunj', Malviya Marg, Ashoknagar, Jaipur moved an application before the Family Court for granting Guardianship to the petitioner. This application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard both the parties and gone through the documents.on record.

4. It is contended by Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has erred in not considering the certificate of Professor of Dutch Law in Nether-

land that a Dutch man living in Netherland can take in guardianship of any child and can also adopt as many children as he likes. It is also submitted that the direction was given by the learned Judge that the State Government and Shanti Devi Shishu Grah should publish in newspapers and also publicize on television to seek persons willing to adopt the child, it is contended that this is against the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 469. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has not cared to look at the Annexure 5 which satisfied all the requirements regarding appointment of guardianship of the petitioner. It is also contended that the trial Court has overlooked that it was for the paramount benefit of the child to appoint petitioner as guardian who will eventually adopt he,r in accordance with the law of Netherland. It is also pointed out that Director of Social Welfare and the Superintendent of Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah have stated that it is in the interest of the child that she should be given in guardianship of the petitioner.

IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR                        DISTRICT JUDGE-I : DELHIGUARDIANSHIP CASE No. 22/2011Unique I.D No.02401C0033642011IN THE MATTER OF:1.          Mr. Biswanand Changoe2.          Mrs. Raathna Indra Kamaansingh            Both residents of            2911 RE Nieuwerkerk a.d.lJssel            The Netherlands           Through their Attorney:            Ms. Loraine Campos            Adoption Officer,            Delhi Council for Child Welfare,            Qudsia Garden,            Civil Lines, Delhi.                                                              .... Petitioners.                         Versus1.          Indian Council for Child Welfare,            4, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,            New Delhi - 110 002.2.          Delhi Council for Child Welfare,            Qudsia Garden,            Civil Lines, Delhi.                                                              .....Respondents.Date of institution of petition :22.01.11Date on which order was reserved :14.02.11Date of pronouncement of judgment::14.02.11 J U D G M E N T:

The case of the petitioners as disclosed in the petition is that petitioners are Dutch Nationals. They were married on 26.08.1994. Due to medical reasons, they could not have any biological child of their own. They are very fond of children. They have already adopted Miss Vaishnovi Teena from India, who is twin sister of the minor child Miss (G.P.22/2011) ( page 1 of 5) Reena and they think that Reena is a part of their family. It is stated that minor child Miss Reena was not placed with the petitioners by Church of North India, New Delhi because they wanted to wait and watch on her development. As such, the petitioners have expressed their willingness to be appointed as joint guardians of minor female child Miss Reena with permission to adopt her according to local laws of their country.

2. It is stated that minor female child namely Miss Reena (born on 17.06.2004) was relinquished/ left by her parents through a document of surrender duly signed by them in favour of Church of North India, Shishu Sangopan Griha, New Delhi on 25.06.2004. Care and custody of the said minor child was transferred to respondent no.2 institution on 04.09.2009 vide order dated 03.09.3009 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, New Delhi for placing the child in adoption. Co-ordinating Voluntary Adoption Resource Agency (CVARA) and Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) have given clearance/ no objection for inter country adoption of the child. The petitioners, through their Attorney Ms. Loraine Campos have moved the present petition under Sections 7 & 26 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 praying that they be appointed as the guardians of the minor female child namely Reena and they be permitted to remove the minor child outside the jurisdiction of this court for her eventual adoption according to local laws of their country. 3- Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and citation was also affixed on the Notice Board of the Court House. Both the respondents have filed their respective replies stating therein that they have no objection if the petition is allowed.

4- In support of the petition, Ms. Loraine Campos, Attorney of petitioners proved Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners in her favour as Ex.P1. She tendered her evidence vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she reaffirmed the averments made in the petition. She has placed & proved on record home study report as Ex.P2; employment certificates of the petitioners as Ex.P3 & P4; their Financial declaration as Ex.P5; sterility certificate as Ex.P6; declaration of their health as Ex.P7; marriage certificate as Ex.P8; sponsoring agency letter, issued by Wereldkinderen, The Netherlands as Ex.P9; photographs of the (G.P.22/2011) ( page 2 of 5) petitioner alongwith their earlier adopted child as Ex.P10; proof of naturalization of their earlier adopted child as Ex.P11; child approval as Ex.P12; declaration of willingness as Ex.P13; and progress reports of their earlier adopted child as Ex.P14.

5- Ms. Tarini Bahadur, Secretary, Delhi Council for Child Welfare, has tendered her evidence vide affidavit Ex.RW1/A. She placed and proved on record Child Study Report as Ex.R-1; Photograph of the minor as Ex.R-2; Clearance Certificate for placement of the minor child in inter-country adoption, issued by CVARA as Ex.R-3; No Objection certificate issued by CARA as Ex.R-4 and certificate of abandonment issued by Child Welfare Committee, New Delhi as Ex.R5. She testified that minor female child namely Reena was relinquished/ left by her parents through a document of surrender duly signed by them in favour of Church of North India, Shishu Sangopan Griha, New Delhi on 25.06.2004. Care and custody of the said minor child was transferred to respondent no.2 institution on 04.09.2009 vide order dated 03.09.3009 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, New Delhi for placing the child in adoption. The child was declared to be abandoned child and legally free for adoption by the Child Welfare Committee. No Indian family living in India or abroad is willing to take the minor child as the child is suffering from spasticity, cerebral palsy with myoclonic seizure disorder, autism, speech disorder and cortical blindness. She also testified that their institution has no objection if the petition is allowed. 6- I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records carefully.

1 ­       In the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, District and      Sessions Judge : South East : Saket Court, New Delhi.In the matter of :G.P. No. 16/2016        Welfare Home for Children         B­1, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar        New Delhi­110 044.        Though its Social Worker Ms. Lata Nair       .... Petitioner                                      V E R S U S        Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs        R/o Wipstraat 47 AT 2590 Berlaar        Belgium        Through her attorney Ms. Nidhi         Kataria, Adoption Officer        Welfare Home for Children         B­1, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar        New Delhi­110 044.                     .... Respondent                 Petition presented on                        :        05.12.2016                 Arguments concluded on                       :        12.04.2017                 Judgment Pronounced on                       :        12.04.2017                 PETITION   UNDER   SECTION   59   (7)   OF                  JUVENILE   JUSTICE   (CARE   AND                  PROTECTION   OF   CHILDREN)   ACT,   2015,                  FOR   ORDER   OF   ADOPTION   WITH                  RESPECT   TO   THE   MINOR   CHILD   'NITIN'                  IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. G.P. No. 16/16               WHC V. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs                                     Page  1 of 25                                                     ­ 2 ­ JUDGMENT

1.0 Vide their petition, Welfare Home for Children, B­1,  Institutional   Area,   Sarita   Vihar,  New   Delhi,   ("Petitioner  Society"  in   short)   through   its   social   worker   and   authorized  representative Ms. Lata Nair, prayed that the minor child 'Nitin'  born on 09.05.2011 ("Child" in short) be given in adoption to  the respondent Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs, as her  son and that she be permitted to remove the minor child outside  the jurisdiction of this Court for his upbringing to   Belgium,  where the respondent resides.

2.0 The   petition   has   been   filed   by  WHC  being   a  Society,   registered   as   a   Charitable   Organization   running   its  Orphanage   Homes   for   abandoned/destitute/   handicapped  children.     WHC   is   duly   recognized   by   the   Central   Adoption  Resource   Authority   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   "CARA"),  Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India, as  an agency for placing children in adoption i.e. as  Specialized  Adoption Agency  ("SAA" in short)   Ms. Lata Nair has been  duly authorized by WHC, the petitioner society to sign, verify    ­ 3 ­  and institute the petition under Section 59 (7) of Juvenile Justice  (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act" in short).

3.0 The petitioner has submitted that a minor male child  'Nitin'   born   on   09.05.2011   was   placed   with   the   WHC.     The  petitioner desires to give the child in adoption to the respondent  Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs, through her attorney  Ms. Nidhi Kataria, Adoption officer, WHC.

4.0 It is submitted by the petitioner that on 09.05.2015,  a minor male child 'Nitin' was found abandoned by the police  officials of PS Amar Colony, who handed over the custody of  the   child   to   the   petitioner   society.     The   child   was   produced  before   the   Child   Welfare   Committee,   Kalkaji,   who   permitted  the petitioner to continue to keep the child.  The parents of the  child did not come to claim him.  Vide order dated 03.03.2016  in petitioner's application/Case no. 483/15, the Child Welfare  Committee declared the child as an abandoned child and legally  free   for   adoption,   after   due   enquiries.   On   the   basis   of   the  medical   examination,  the   date   of   birth   of   the   child   was  determined as 09.05.2011.