Uncovering the Fallacy Attempts Against Better Future Adoption Services
We have read the article posted under the title “The controversial Issue of Giving Children for International Adoption’ which is written against the name of our organization, Better Future Adoption Services, and dated August 8, 2010.
With all due respect and impartiality to the publisher and readers, l would like to take this opportunity to explain the factual occurrences and identities discussed in the article, specifically clarifying, the identities of the author, interviewed persons, and the underlying purposes and the relationships between each of these key components. Doing so would greatly enable all readers to have a balanced perspective, which will aid in the process of critical assessment of the presented information.
Firstly, I would like to bring to your awareness that the falsified and misconceived interview and information therewith had been entirely orchestrated by the writer of the article and his interviewed friend, Mr.Abebe, for Abebe’s personal agenda against the organization. Had the article discussed when and how Mr. Abebe had been terminated, it would have been possible to give a better picture of the situation to readers. However, the case was not explained in a transparent manner due to the fact that transparency and ethics were far from the agenda of the article to begin with. He simply stated that Abebe started employment with said employer on June 20, 2009 without stating he was dismissed effective July 16, 2010—just a few weeks before the publishing of the article. He claimed that he took-over responsibility in the organization through tremendous pressure. He also claims that he voluntarily took the responsibility of leading the operations of the organization to ensure that such operations are within the appropriate legal framework and to put in place legal procedures. However, in all actuality and transparency, the reasons behind Abebe’s dismissal were directly due to his own unethical and unlawful practices as well as misuse of the organization’s funds, which are the cause for his dismissal. This can very well be verified from the dismissal letter that was given to him. In the interview held with the editor, Abebe claimed that giving children on adoption is merely a matter of being willing to do so without mentioning the preconditions that either or both of the parents of the child concerned should have passed away or should be unavailable, or that the parent alive should be incapable to raise the child or if both are not alive or unavailable, the relatives of the child should follow the proper setted legal procedures to relinquish the child; and without explaining any thing how the adopting family’s home study document after thorough investigation and authentication by concerned governmental offices, like Ministry of Foreign Affair, and Ministry of Justice filed to Ministry of Women and Children Affair and the Federal First Instance Court itself which has given the authority of last say.
As a background, I would like to say what is being done on the ground on children’s right and welfare aspect, currently the country Ethiopia has given the due respect to the right of children stating the matter in the country’s constitution, commonly known Article 36. To site one sub article that is read as Article 36.5. ‘’The state shall accord special protection to orphans and shall encourage the establishment of institutions which ensure and promote their adoption and advance their welfare, and education.’’ And further for this constitutional right to be effectively administered and implemented the government has issued a proclamation Art. 471/98 for establishment of the Ministry of Women, Children & Youth Affair which involves itself not only on technical matters but also detail operational follow- up of the activities of Adoption Agencies & orphanages.
Secondly, the editor who sited my name for the sake of his attempt to qualify his effort misquoted me twice. From the beginning, he was not interested in using our schedule and presenting his question for interview for us. The editor called me at 4:00 PM the day before the article was published to set an appointment to hear my perspective. He also did not keep the ethics of balance treatment of both side parties for their right to give information concerning their position. He depicted this in his action of omitting one paragraph from the article we provided him for public clarity, which states the close friendship/attachment between Mr. Abebe, the interviewed person and the editor Mr. Freiw. This was told to us by Mr. Abebe himself on the eve of the newspaper printing which has the Amharic language version of the article, calling one of our staff to buy the newspaper tomorrow, telling him that the editor is his friend. So, they tailored the question and the interview not for the sake of children they sited by name, or for the sake of Rule of law concerning children; since Mr. Abebe well understands the required immense document justification to lead the operation with his position as D/ Director. Mr. Ababe will soon answer in court of law for his actions.
The rest of the story can be found hereunder from the English translation of the article we gave to the editor, which still misses the important points I gave him for publication.
Assefa Deme,
Country Representative/Better Future Adoption Services
"Our grievance upon your report concerning
adoption"
Better Future Adoption Services
We have gone through the article that you have published on your
weekly newspaper 'under the title "the controversial procedure of inter country adoption" and concerning "who would be the parents of Child
Feven, Meskerem and Bethlehem upon their return to Ethiopia twenty
years later?"
Parallel with the objective of our organization to place children with
adoptive parents as per the constitution of the country and the
international laws, we believe that each child should be raised with
care and love in the community were he/she was born and by persons
whom he/she knows. It is not our belief that a child should be sent to
an orphanage just because his/her parents have passed away. As
such, we have put in place a plan to work with indigenous and
international organizations to ensure that children would be brought
up in the same community where their parents and relatives are found
and be nurtured in due cognizance of the culture pertaining thereto.
We recognize that freedom of speech is a constitutional right where by
making available the opportunity to express one's ideas through mass
media, be it in writing or other means. In exercising such right, we are
of the opinion that the constitution of the land should be governing
rule of law should be advocated for, loyalty to one's own conscience
should be ensured and transparency and accountability should be
upheld in attempting to convey the idea that individuals as well as the
government should give emphasis to an issue and in shouldering such
tremendous responsibility.
1 have stated the above promise in relation to the phone call 1 received
on 13/08/2010 at 12: 10 PM. Having made sure that it is me who is
responding to the phone call, the editor of the newspaper said "I am
calling from Sendek Newspaper." Subsequently, the editor simply went
on asking one question after another and stated "we wish to talk with
you about child Bethlehem and Meskerem." When the questions were
too much, 1 said "I know nothing about child Bethlehem and Child
Meskerem. The person who is supposed to know better about these
children is not in office at the moment and 1 am in a meeting." The
editor continued saying "we are about to give the newspaper to the
printing press and we need to have your response on the issue." 1
responded saying: "why would you contact us at the eleventh hour".
The editor proposed for us to meet in the afternoon at 4:00PM.
However, as 1 already had a scheduled meeting to be held at the same
hour, 1 declined and said that it would be possible to talk to one
another in the presence of a legal expert at 10:00Am the next day. On
the date of appointment, meaning on 14/08/2010, the editor called
and asked me about the meeting of the day. 1 told him that the legal
expert, who knows about the situation, would talk with him and 1 gave
the phone number and office address of the lawyer. Even though both
myself and the legal professional were not engaged in the organization
by the time the said children were given for adoption, it was my
intention that the needed information would be provided in reference
to the files kept at the office and in consultation with the employees
who were at the time and are presently employed in the organization.
While the editor of the newspaper should have included in his opinion
all the arrangements I had tried to make, he simply published the
words "I was not engaged in the organization by the time the children
were adopted and I am unaware of the details." As such, the
newspaper published the article without including the opinion of the
present management of the organization.
The notice I gave to the editor of the newspaper during our phone
conversation was that this sector requires meticulousness even though
I have been newly appointed to assume responsibilities. It also entails
the reputation of the country and expressed my opinion that the
information provided to the public over mass media should be carefully
assessed. I emphasized, in my response to the editor, on the need to
very well to be cognizant of the identity of the person giving
information and his relations to such information. Further, I stated that
it would be necessary to be loyal to the rule of law and to one's own
conscious in dealing with such matter. As such, I had advised the
editor to refrain from being used by persons who may give untrue
information in the best interest of protecting their own causes.
Consequent to failure to adhere to our recommendations, defects have
been witnessed.
On the basis of the questions forwarded by the editor to Mr. Abebe
Tigabu and the responses he gave, we have hereunder attempted to
notify you of the truth.
Had the editor posed the question to Mr. Abebe Tigabu as to how he
was employed in the organization, how his employment was terminated and when, it would have been possible to give clear picture
of the situation to readers. However, the case was rather not
explained in a transparent manner.
It is true that M,-. Abebe Tigabu began to be involved in the
organization due to the case that had arisen in Shashemene at the
time in relation to procedures of adoption. However, he concluded
contract of employment with the organization on June 20, 2009. On
the other hand, he was dismissed effective as of July 16, 2010 and he
is well aware of the fact that the case in Shashemene is being
entertained by legal means and he had been following it up in relation
to his level of responsibility.
He claimed that he,took over responsibility in the organization through
tremendous pressure. He also claims that he voluntarily took the
responsibility of leading the operations of the organization to ensure
that such operations are within the appropriate legal framework and to
put in place legal procedures. Without prejudice to the activities he
had done, which can be expressed in terms of being conflicting with
one another, this did not prove to be beneficial to our operations as he
had failed to put in place the intended legal framework and
procedures. Consequent to his failure as such, he was in dispute with
the management of the organization and was ultimately discharged.
This can very well be verified on the letter in his hands. In the
interview held with the editor, he claimed that giving children on
adoption is merely a matter of being willing to do so without
mentioning the preconditions that either or both of the parents of the
child concerned should have passed away or should be unavailable, or
that the parent alive should be economically incapable to raise the
child or if both are not alive or unavailable, the relatives of the child
should be willing to give him/her for adoption as well as that the case
should be verified by a court found in the locality through testimonies
of witnesses. These should be complied with in addition to the consent.
Then after, the Women's Affairs Office of the Regional State would
verify the process and the documents would be submitted to the
Federal Ministry of Women's Affairs for verification of reliability. The
last procedure is for the case to be presented to the Federal First
Instance Court in which case witnesses who had testified at local
justice organs would appear at the Federal Court through the
temporary foster house and testify. Ultimately, the final decision would
be rendered by the Federal First Instance Court.
Similarly, the case of abandoned and found children would need to be
ascertained by the local police office and the Women's Affairs Office of
the City or Town Administration. Then after, the documents pertaining
to the abandoned and found child would be submitted to the Regional
Women's Affairs Bureau and, subsequently, to the Federal Ministry of
Women's Affairs. The Federal Ministerial Office provides support letter
to the Federal First Instance Court for rendering of decision.
This is a legal procedure put in place by the government and which is
recognized by the Ministry of Women's Affairs as well as the Regional
Offices. All parties involved in the procedure should comply with these
procedures. It is rather not expected from a legal professional and who
shoulders responsibilities to fail to explain these legally recognized
procedures.
In response to the question as to how he began to be involved in the
operations of the organization, the individual stated that he took over
the responsibility as deputy director of the organization for the
purpose of ensuring legal procedures to prevail and to put in place
legal framework in this respect. We have left for readers to compare
the responses given by the said individual as opposed to his status as
a professional prosecutor, instructor of law and the responsibilities he
had shouldered against the activities he undertook during his stay in
the organization and the responses given by families who have given
their children for adoption as appearing on the newspaper.
We would like to leave aside to readers and the editorial the cause of
the conflicting ideas appearing on the same newspaper between the
responses of Mr. Abebe and that of the birth parents. The case of
Mr. Abebe Tigabu is being heard in a court of law and the case of the
families mentioned is being investigated by the Federal Ministry of
Women's Affairs and, hence, we do not wish to get into the details.
Thank you
Assefa Deme
Country representative