Home

Blog: Ethiopia Orphanages Closures

Ethiopia Orphanages Closures

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011

Adoption Associates Response To Clients

Dear Families~

We have been informed that the government in Southern Ethiopia shut down 15 orphanages in the Awassa area in the last week. Obviously, many agencies, including us, have been affected by this. One of the orphanages is the Awassa location of EnatAlem. We have worked with this location for quite a while and have received many referrals from there. It is difficult to hear that they have been closed. Another orphanage that was shut down was EVADO. This is an orphanage we have also worked with for a long time, although, over the last 6 months or so, our trust level with the director has deteriorated significantly and we did not plan to continue working with this orphanage anyway.

Organizations: Gladney Center for Adoption, Adoption Advocates International (AAI) WA, International Adoption Net, Adoption Associates, Inc., Holt International Children's Services Inc., Mussie orphanage (Ethiopia), Enat Alem

Persons: Ato Temesgen G/Salassie, Belachew Tafesse

Countries: Ethiopia

Illegal children will be confiscated

China's family planning

Illegal children will be confiscated

The one-child policy is not just a human-rights abomination; it has also worsened a demographic problem

Jul 21st 2011 | from the print edition

“BEFORE 1997 they usually punished us by tearing down our houses for breaching the one-child policy…After 2000 they began to confiscate our children.” Thus Yuan Chaoren, a villager from Longhui county in Hunan province, describing in Caixin magazine the behaviour of family-planning bureaucrats. According to Caixin, local officials would take “illegal children” and pack them off to orphanages where they were put up for adoption. Foreign adoptive parents paid $3,000-5,000 per child. The bureaucrats collected a kickback.

Stealing children is not an official part of Beijing’s one-child policy, but it is a consequence of rules that are a fundamental affront to the human rights of parents and would-be parents. The policy damages families and upsets the balance between generations. It is so hated that even within China it is now coming under political attack. For the first time a whole province, Guangdong, with a population of over 100m, is demanding exemptions (see article).

A thousand-mile journey begins with a single step

Chinese officials are fiercely attached to the one-child policy. They attribute to it almost every drop in fertility and every averted birth: some 400m more people, they claim, would have been born without it. This is patent nonsense. Chinese fertility was falling for decades before the one-child policy took effect in 1979. Fertility has gone down almost as far and as fast without coercion in neighbouring countries, including those with large Chinese populations. The spread of birth control and a desire for smaller families tend to accompany economic growth and development almost everywhere.

But the policy has almost certainly reduced fertility below the level to which it would have fallen anyway. As a result, China has one of the world’s lowest “dependency ratios”, with roughly three economically active adults for each dependent child or old person. It has therefore enjoyed a larger “demographic dividend” (extra growth as a result of the high ratio of workers to dependents) than its neighbours. But the dividend is near to being cashed out. Between 2000 and 2010, the share of the population under 14—future providers for their parents—slumped from 23% to 17%. China now has too few young people, not too many. It has around eight people of working age for every person over 65. By 2050 it will have only 2.2. Japan, the oldest country in the world now, has 2.6. China is getting old before it has got rich.

The policy’s distortions have also contributed to other horrific features of family life, notably the practice of aborting female fetuses to ensure that the lone child is a son. The one-child policy is not the sole cause, as India shows, but it has contributed to it. In 20 years’ time, there will not be enough native brides for about a fifth of today’s baby boys—a store of future trouble. And even had the one-child policy done nothing to reduce births, the endless reiteration of slogans like “one more baby means one more tomb” would have helped to make the sole child a social norm, pushing fertility below the level at which a population reproduces itself. China may find itself stuck with very low fertility for a long time.

Demography is like a supertanker; it takes decades to turn around. It will pose some of China’s biggest problems. The old leadership is wedded to the one-child policy, but the new leadership, which is due to take over next year, can think afresh. It should end this abomination as soon as it takes power.

Countries: China

In 2012 the European Commission will prepare a mega report on Bulgaria and Romania

Dear readers, we would just like to recall that all the texts on www.euinside.eu are a subject to copyright and if you would like to use any of our articles to republish, please contact us for details In 2012 the European Commission will prepare a mega report on Bulgaria and Romania http://www.euinside.eu/en/analyses/bulgaria-needs-to-show-results-in-fighting-organised-crime-and-corruption#ixzz1T2ATdqcx

In 2012 the European Commission will prepare a mega report on Bulgaria and Romania

Published: July 21, 2011 17:40, Ralitsa Kovacheva, Sofia, updated: July 22, 2011 10:32

“Changing the legal and judicial system to further align it with other Member States is a national task” and a fundamental reform of the judiciary should be seen as a national priority. This is one of the most important messages in the fifth monitoring report of the European Commission under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM). The Mechanism has been imposed on Bulgaria (as well as on Romania) in 2007, when both countries joined the EU, in order to ensure that they will make the necessary reforms in the legal and judicial system.

In its fifth report the Commission unambiguously indicates that establishment of rule of law is a mission of the whole society, not just of the institutions. Not accidentally, the position of the civil society is widely covered in the report - it was mentioned 8 times, moreover in terms of an active participant with a corrective role. This is an important signal, given the resistance against the CVM, which is particularly strong in the institutions most criticised in the report - for example, the Supreme Judicial Council. This has not passed unnoticed by the Commission, which reports on the positive role of the CVM in promoting changes, although “at times the CVM has been contested and criticised by one or other element of this necessary national consensus”.

The report clearly states that nearly five years after joining the EU, Bulgaria must shift the focus: “The elements of the legal framework needed for the reform are now largely in place, even if not complete,” so “the next necessary steps in this process should focus on implementation by the judiciary and the police of the new laws”. From this perspective it becomes clear why most of the criticisms are focused on the judiciary and its leadership – because there the adopted legislation should be implemented in practice.

The political assessment of the Bulgarian government states that it “has shown sustained political will and commitment to pursue its reform strategy”. A major role in the reform process is assigned to professional associations of magistrates and civil society, because of the “increased public demand for an irreversible reform process”. “But the leadership of the judiciary has yet to show a real commitment to thorough judicial reform as slow progress is not just the result of shortcomings in judicial practice and in the Penal Code.”

The Supreme Judicial Council is passive and disengaged from reforms

Bulgarian judicial reform has two long-term goals - to improve accountability and increase the professionalism of those working in the system, the report recalls. The amendments to the Judicial System Act have created the legal basis to achieve these goals, improving procedures for appointments, training and appraisal, as well as for strengthening the integrity of the magistrates. But: “The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) will need to show a strong commitment to reform by translating the new law into practice in order to effectively strengthen the management of judicial bodies, notably in terms of allocation of workload, in close cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, professional association and civil society”. Despite the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, the judiciary does not make a serious effort to meet the recommendations of the Commission in terms of improving the judicial practice, as well as the recommendations for systematic persecution of allegations of corruption among magistrates.

“Judicial appointments still lack the necessary level of transparency and credibility,” the report notes. It cites some concrete examples which provoked pubic debates in Bulgaria, summarising: “The subsequent mobilisation of professional associations of magistrates and civil society calling for reform of the Supreme Judicial Council sends an important signal of support for judicial reform. Recommendations by civil society to hold public debates and announce the names of candidates at an earlier stage are laudable. The appointment of highly competent and motivated magistrates of unquestionable integrity via transparent procedures, in particular for the new specialised court for organised crime, is indispensable to successfully implement judicial reform.”

Where is the General Prosecutor?

The acquittals in a number of cases involving high-level corruption and organised crime are again an emphasis in the report, because they show “serious deficiencies in judicial practice”. Although this is a permanent criticism in the CVM reports, “these deficiencies have not been properly analysed or followed up by the leadership of the judiciary, the Supreme Judicial Council, the General Prosecutor and the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation.” So far, the prosecution has behaved as though it has nothing to do with the report and has successfully avoided the punches in the fight between the executive and the judiciary.

Obviously, this has been noted by the Commission and this time the General Prosecutor is mentioned three times in the report in the same context. "The General Prosecutor should systematically analyse the reasons for acquittals in high level cases, make recommendations for the handling of future cases when shortcomings in the procedure have been identified and appeal the acquittal decisions when it appears that the Courts did not properly assess the evidence provided.” And again: “The generally passive attitude of the judiciary's leadership, the Supreme Judicial Council, the General Prosecutor and the President of the Supreme Cassation Court towards considerable shortcomings in judicial practice raise serious concerns.”

Therefore, the first recommendation of the Commission is to “establish proposals for a reform of the Supreme Judicial Council, the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office and the Prosecution in general". Bulgaria is expected to demonstrate that the appointments in the judicial system, including the Supreme Judicial Council, fully respect the principles of transparency, independence, integrity and professional merit; that cases of corruption and malpractice within the judiciary will have disciplinary and criminal consequences; to “ensure complete electronic access to court verdicts and motivations and a strict application of the principle of random allocation of court cases.”

Is there a fight against corruption?

“The fight against high-level corruption has not yet led to convincing results. There have been very few final and enforced verdicts in this area and there are no indications of active targeting of high-level corruption.” Regarding the number of acquittals in major corruption cases, the recommendation is again the General prosecutor to examine the causes and take corrective measures. The analysis of some cases, made by the Commission and independent experts, shows “serious weaknesses in judicial and investigative practice”, primarily in terms of collection of evidence, witnesses protection, general lack of investigative strategies, comprehensive financial investigations and securing of assets. “Court practice is permissive and excessively cautious, overly attentive to procedures at the expense of delivering justice.”

Bulgaria continues to implement an integrated strategy to prevent and sanction corruption and organised crime and several measures have been taken, but “at the same time, the 2010 action plan focusing on tackling organised crime has not been fully implemented and has not been updated in 2011.” In this regard the Commission recommends greater involvement of the civil society through the participation of external experts in assessing the results of the strategy. The BORKOR project is also expected to deliver concrete results.

Conflict of interests is also not pursued effectively enough as the newly created dedicated commission is not still operational. The European Commission expresses concerns over “weaknesses in asset declarations and verifications of politicians, magistrates and senior civil servants” and expects false declarations and discrepancies to be effectively sanctioned.

Fight against Organised Crime – many police operations, less results

“In spite of persevering police actions to tackle organised crime, the overall results need to be significantly improved”. The Commission recommends police reform to be continued by “addressing shortcomings regarding the integrity and independence of police action, evidence gathering and witness protection”. In the technical update, accompanying the report, the issue of police practice to accept donations from private and legal persons to finance its operations is also raised. According to the Commission, “this practice challenges the independence of police investigation” and the issue requires further follow-up.

As expected, the Commission continues to insist Bulgaria to adopt urgently a law on asset forfeiture, although the draft legislation has recently been rejected by the Bulgarian Parliament. The Commission expects Bulgaria to have proper legislation allowing “non-conviction based confiscation and ex-officio verification of assets of senior officials, magistrates and politicians” and to show concrete results in its implementation.

5 years later

In 2012, 5 years after Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism has been launched, the Commission will make an overall evaluation of what has been achieved. Despite persistent efforts of Bulgarian and Romanian journalists to understand whether this means that the CVM may be abolished, European Commission spokesman Mark Gray answered briefly: everything depends on the results, which Bulgaria and Romania will achieve. He refused to comment on how the reports on Bulgaria and Romania would affect the assessment of the Member States on Sofia's and Bucharest's readiness to join the Schengen area.

But looking at the Bulgarian document it is obvious at first glance that one of the main requirements of our partners in the EU is not fulfilled – to show results in the fight against organised crime and corruption. For comparison we should note that in the report for Romania we can see a lot of criticism too, similar to that in Bulgarian, but a few key words make an impression. Romania has taken “significant steps” in some of the most important areas, the fight against corruption must “remain” a top priority (which means it is already a top priority) and Bucharest should “increase the pace of judicial reform” (as obviously it is currently under way).

Now we will hear another portion of mutual accusations between the executive and the judiciary. The first sharp reactions to the report are already a fact, but we will comment on these in a separate text. If, however, we assume that there must be a “positive hero” in the report - this is the Bulgarian civil society in the face of all those who keep pushing for a change. Now these efforts are taken into account and supported by the European Commission, which is clearly saying to the Bulgarian government: listen to the voice of your own citizens, give them a say, involve them into the overall effort to reform. Because, while the SJC believes it is self-sufficient and untouchable symbol of the (judicial) authority; while the police and the court are accusing each other, instead of working together; while the government is looking only for praises when reading the CVM reports; while citizens keep idly sitting side and waiting - there will be no judicial reform, no qualitative investigations, no convictions on important cases.

This is what the Bulgarian institutions and Bulgarian citizens must understand from this report. Five years later, it is time for us to realise that Bulgaria really is a member of the European Union and should become a really normal state. Nothing more, nothing less.

Read euinside's analysis of the 2010 CVM report here and a summary of the discussion on the CVM, organised by euinside and blogeurope - here.

Organizations: European Commission

Countries: Romania, Bulgaria

Prince Andrew could be dragged into embarrassing Jeffrey Epstein case

By STEPHEN WRIGHT

UPDATED: 23:21 GMT, 21 July 2011

21View

comments

Persons: Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein

Martínez-Mora Charlebois, Laura - Children in Institutions: The beginning of the end?

In recent years, countries in Latin America have engaged in a critical debate on the institutionalisation of children and adolescents as a response to family problems, disabilities, financial problems and types of conduct perceived as a threat to society. The new paradigm established by the Convention on the Rights of the Child with regard to the relations between children and families, society and the state, has shifted the focus of the debate on institutionalisation from technical and systems management issues and the effect of institutionalisation on children, to a policy and strategic outlook aimed at generating opportunities for human development to all. This publication provides an account of historical processes in Spain and Italy, which have led to a transformation of social child protection policies and an abandonment of the most widely-used mechanism of social exclusion, namely institutionalisation

Children in Institutions: The beginning of the end?

Countries: Spain, Italy

"Meerwaarde adoptie niet groot genoeg"

17-07-11

Pleegzorg en adoptie

Pleegzorg en adoptie

"Meerwaarde adoptie niet groot genoeg"

Door: Liliane Waanders

Anders dan in de Verenigde Staten of Groot-Brittannië leidt pleegzorg in Nederland niet vanzelfsprekend tot adoptie (*). Als het aan Mariëlle Bruning, hoogleraar Jeugdrecht aan de Universiteit Leiden, ligt, blijft dat ook zo. “Er zijn maar weinig situaties te bedenken, waarin adoptie voor het kind beter is dan pleegzorg.”

Mariëlle Bruning: “Elk kind heeft het recht om bij zijn eigen ouders op te groeien. Dat is een basisrecht. Als een kind (tijdelijk) niet meer thuis kan wonen, heeft het recht op een gezinsvervangend thuis, waar voor het kind zoveel mogelijk rust gecreëerd wordt. Dat de mogelijkheid van contact met de biologische ouders daarbij open blijft, is belangrijk. Een kind is en blijft loyaal aan zijn ouders. Kinderen zijn veerkrachtig en accepteren veel van hun ouders, zelfs als het gedrag van ouders hen schaadt. In de ogen van hun kinderen verliezen de biologische ouders niet zo snel definitief hun kansen.

Pleegzorg is een kinderbeschermende maatregel die tegemoet komt aan de noodzaak en wens om voor elk kind een thuis te creëren, zonder dat de biologische ouders uit beeld raken. Adoptie is dat in mijn ogen niet. Door adoptie wordt de juridische band met de biologische ouders doorgesneden. De biologische ouders kunnen daardoor formeel geen rechten meer doen gelden op hun kind. Bij elke afweging over adoptie moet beoordeeld worden of dit niet in strijd is met het basisrecht van het kind op een gezinsleven met zijn eigen ouders. Adoptie is in mijn ogen alleen te verantwoorden als een kind - zoals dat in de wet geformuleerd staat - echt niets meer van zijn ouders te verwachten heeft. Adoptie is voor een kind dat nog (enige vorm van contact met) eigen ouders heeft haast altijd een verlies.”

Adoptie: alleen in heel uitzonderlijke gevallen

“Er zijn situaties waarin het vanuit het perspectief van kinderbescherming nodig is om biologische ouders de zorg voor hun kinderen definitief te ontzeggen. Dat zijn de situaties waarin adoptie eventueel overwogen zou kunnen worden. Dan heb je het over uitzonderlijke gevallen: over ouders die drugsverslaafd of langdurig gedetineerd zijn en over ouders die geen moeite willen doen om betrokken te blijven bij het leven en de opvoeding van hun kinderen. Zolang biologische ouders de intentie hebben om contact met hun kinderen te onderhouden en dit contact het kind niet schaadt, is adoptie een stap te ver.

Dat wil niet zeggen dat het ultieme doel van iedere pleegzorgplaatsing is, dat een kind uiteindelijk teruggaat naar zijn ouders. Het gaat erom dat de veiligheid die het pleeggezin biedt, een kind ook in staat stelt een relatie met de biologische ouders op te bouwen of in stand te houden. Als dat binnen een voor het kind acceptabele termijn mogelijk blijkt of blijft, is dat genoeg om pleegzorg als keuze te blijven rechtvaardigen.

Kinderrechters moeten op enig moment een besluit nemen over de toekomst van een kind, bijvoorbeeld door een gezagsontneming uit te spreken als het kind langdurig in het pleeggezin zal blijven, maar die termijn ligt niet vast. De beslissing moet van het kind afhangen. Een kind kent de betekenis en gevolgen niet van de verschillende juridische constructies, maar het kan wel zeggen wie en wat belangrijk voor hem is. Een rechter moet moeite doen om, met hulp van een gedragsdeskundige en zonder een kind voor het blok te zetten en het uitspraken te ontlokken, te onderzoeken wat het kind wil.”

Pleegzorg biedt voldoende zekerheid

“Adoptie is één van de vormen waarin een kind een gezinsvervangend thuis geboden kan worden. Toch zijn er uiteindelijk maar weinig situaties waarin adoptie voor een kind beter of noodzakelijker is dan pleegzorg. Alleen als de meerwaarde van adoptie vaststaat, is het een verantwoorde keuze. Dat adoptie meer zekerheid biedt dan pleegzorg, zit vooral in de hoofden van pleeg- en adoptieouders.

Pleegouders zijn jaren ondergewaardeerd en kregen te maken met beperkende maatregelen wat betreft de hoogte van de vergoeding, het maximale aantal pleegkinderen dat tegelijk in een pleeggezin mocht worden opgevangen of de zeggenschap over de kinderen. Inmiddels is hun positie verbeterd. Een kind dat een jaar met een ondertoezichtstelling in hetzelfde pleeggezin gewoond heeft, kan daar straks door het blokkaderecht niet zomaar weggehaald worden. De biologische ouder heeft wel een voorkeurstem. Pleegouders die langdurig voor een kind zorgen, kunnen de (gezamenlijke) voogdij krijgen. Daarmee hebben zij instrumenten om de zorg en opvoeding van hun pleegkinderen handen en voeten te geven. De realiteit blijft echter dat pleegzorg, net als adoptie, voor het kind een vervanging is voor het gezin dat het met zijn ‘eigen’ ouders vormt.” <

Liliane Waanders is (freelance) journalist en gespecialiseerd in de onderwerpen afstand en adoptie en Nederlandse literatuur.

(*) Als in dit artikel sprake is van adoptie gaat het om binnenlandse adoptie.

0 reacties:

Countries: Netherlands

Suspended jail terms for buying baby on internet

The Irish Times - Friday, July 15, 2011

Suspended jail terms for buying baby on internet

PETER CLUSKEY in Zwolle

A DUTCH couple who bought a baby boy for €7,500 on the internet were each given eight-month suspended jail terms and sentenced to 240 hours of community service yesterday.

The couple, aged 28 and 29, replied to an advertisement placed by the baby’s parents and picked up the infant across the border in the Belgian city of Ghent shortly after he was born in June 2008, a court in Zwolle, in the east of the Netherlands, was told.

Countries: Belgium, Netherlands

Russia and the United States end adoption dispute

Topic: Talks on bilateral child adoption agreement

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

After long deliberations, Russia and the United States have finally agreed on new terms for child adoption. According to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, only accredited agencies will be allowed to administer the adoption of Russian children by American families, and a single federal body will be established to monitor the process in the United States. The document was signed late Wednesday, Moscow time. Experts praise the agreement but are reluctant to vouch for its results until they are convinced of the continuous monitoring of adoptive families by American social services agencies.

Countries: Russia

Montreal Group - Haiti

e bent hier: Home > Nieuws en actualiteit

Deze pagina is toegevoegd aan mijn favoriete
links

Interlandelijke
adoptie Haïti: opvolging na aardbeving 2010

14 juli 2011

De
aardbeving in Haïti in januari 2010 heeft gevolgen gehad voor de interlandelijke
adopties uit dat land. Om de situatie op te volgen werd in juni ll. een
driedaagse conferentie georganiseerd in Haïti met de centrale
adoptie-autoriteiten uit Duitsland, Canada, Quebec, USA, Frankrijk, Italië,
Nederland en Zwitserland. De Vlaamse adoptieambtenaar heeft zich hierbij
aangesloten.

Het persbericht hieronder geeft het standpunt weer van de deelnemers aan deze
driedaagse conferentie. De ‘Groep van Montréal’ verwijst naar de plaats
Montréal, waar voordien reeds een beperkter aantal centrale autoriteiten zijn
samengekomen om de situatie in Haïti aangaande interlandelijke adoptie te
bespreken.

Voor Vlaanderen betekent dit dat het herstarten van de adoptiesamenwerking
met Haïti afhankelijk blijft van de resultaten die in de komende maanden zullen
geboekt worden om het belang van het kind in interlandelijke adoptie vanuit
Haïti te waarborgen. De Haïtiaanse autoriteiten zijn in grote mate bereid om
hieraan mee te werken.

De VCA volgt dit verder op en informeert via de website over alle nieuwe
ontwikkelingen in dit verband.

Conferentie van de Groep van Montréal over interlandelijke adoptie in
Haïti

Port au Prince 22-24 juni 2011 - Persmededeling

Op initiatief van Quebec en Frankrijk werd van 22 tot 24 juni 2011 in Port au
Prince een conferentie gehouden van de “Groep van Montréal” waarop negen
centrale autoriteiten vertegenwoordigd waren (Duitsland, de Vlaamse Gemeenschap
van België, de federale autoriteit van Canada, de Verenigde Staten, Frankrijk,
Italië, Nederland, Quebec en Zwitserland), de Spaanse ambassade, de
vertegenwoordiging van UNICEF in Haïti, het Permanent Bureau van de Conventie
van Den Haag en de centrale autoriteit van Chili. Overheidsautoriteiten en
parlementairen van de Haitiaanse Republiek en het IBESR, - de Haitiaanse
adoptieautoriteit -, waren eveneens aanwezig.

De Montréal Groep herbevestigde zijn gehechtheid aan de principes van de
Haagse conventie van 1993 inzake de interlandelijke samenwerking en de
bescherming van kinderen op het gebied van interlandelijke adoptie.

Na de bijeenkomst van de Montréal Groep van december 2010, waar de grote
lijnen werden uitgezet voor een actieplan met het oog op ratificatie van de
Haagse conventie, was de ondertekening van deze conventie door Haïti op 2 maart
2011 een sterk, door de internationale gemeenschap verwacht, signaal van de wil
van de Haïtiaanse autoriteiten om de adoptieprocedures veiliger te maken.

President Martelly hield er aan om persoonlijk een boodschap aan de Montréal
Groep te brengen.

Hij engageerde zich sterk om het ratificatieproces van de Haagse Conventie te
voltooien binnen de duur van zijn mandaat, om de adoptiewet op de parlementaire
agenda te zetten met van zodra mogelijk een onderzoek door de senaat en
eventueel een tweede lezing door de kamer van afgevaardigden, en om, in
afwachting van de stemming van de wet, een presidentieel besluit te nemen dat de
verplichting zal opleggen dat elke adoptieaanvraag via een erkende dienst moet
verlopen.

Het staatshoofd vervolgde “zo zullen we, in vertrouwen en in volledige
transparantie, de weg en de middelen kunnen vrijmaken voor een hervatting van de
interlandelijke adoptie in Haïti. Dit is mijn diepste wens in het belang van de
kinderen en met respect voor hun meest fundamentele rechten.

President Martelly gaf tevens aan dat hij in dit verband rekende op “ de
steun en de medewerking van de internationale gemeenschap en in het bijzonder
van de landen die kinderen opnemen”

De voorzitter van de Kamer van afgevaardigden, de heer Saurel Jacinthe,
verzekerde de Montréal Groep eveneens van zijn wil om het onderzoek van het
wetsontwerp op de wetgevende agenda te zetten en betuigde zijn steun aan de
evolutie van de Haïtiaanse wet naar een grotere overeenstemming met de
internationale normen.

De deelnemers aan de conferentie verwelkomen de bereidheid van de hoogste
autoriteiten van het land om de Republiek van Haïti resoluut te engageren in het
voordeel van de bescherming van kinderen en om zich op het vlak van adoptie te
richten naar de principes van de Haagse conventie.

De Montréal Groep zal, in overeenstemming met het sinds december 2010
ontwikkelde actieplan, verder samenwerken met de Haïtiaanse regering om
procedures in te stellen, conform de Haagse conventie, die eventueel zullen
toelaten om de interlandelijke adoptie in dit land te hervatten.

Countries: Belgium, Haiti

Live-ins are not eligible to adopt kidsJ

Live-ins are not eligible to adopt kidsJul 12, 2011, 06.47am IST TNN[ Swati Deshpande ] MUMBAI: Live-in couples desirous of adopting children have no hope on this front any more. The existing adoption guidelines, which were silent on the issue, have been amended to specifically bar them from adoption. “Couples in a live-in relationship are not eligible to adopt a child,” says the concerned rule unequivocally. The new rules, recently notified by the ministry of women and child development, focus mainly on “the source of the child” (abandoned, orphaned or surrendered), placement priority and ethical issues. While live-in couples have been barred, unmarried individuals will continue to be allowed to adopt, while married couples “may” have to show only “two years of stable marital relationship” instead of the earlier five years. “The adoption rules have come into effect. They have been gazetted,“ said the government lawyer. The guidelines ease some provisions, seek to fast-track adoption of “children with special needs” and promote domestic adoptions by enforcing an 80:20 rule. The rule will require an adoption agency in India to place only 20% of its available children for inter-country adoptions as against the existing norm of 50-50. Children with special needs however are not counted in the 20%. To speed up adoption procedures, there is a two-month deadline. To check the plight of children in failed foreign adoptions—which in recent years has seen a rise—the rules now require foreign adoption agencies to shell out $5,000 before repatriating a child after court orders are passed for such repatriation. A whole section is devoted to repatriation under the guidelines. The money has to be deposited with a public sector bank and the documents will be in the custody of the state government. The child will get the money on becoming a major. Where the old guidelines were silent on the rights of adopted children seeking information on their biological parents, the new rules specifically address such rights. Section 52 is titled ‘Roots search’ and it recognizes this right as stemming from the UN convention. Adoption Agencies will now have to “facilitate an adopted child's roots search, but will keep in mind his or her age and maturity.” The guidelines, however, ban roots search by a “third party.” The provisions also clarify that personal information cannot be revealed “if the biological parent/s specifically requested anonymity while surrendering the child”. The new rules, titled the Guidelines Governing Adoption of Children, 2011, have relied on the Juvenile Justice Act, two international conventions—The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Inter-Country Adoption, 1993, and the 1989 UN Convention on Rights of the Child as well as the findings of the 1984 landmark Supreme Court judgment on adoption in Laxmikant Pandey vs Government of India. Central government advocate Vinod Joshi presented the guidelines before the Bombay HC on Monday. The HC bench of Justices B H Marlapalle and U D Salvi was hearing a petition filed by the Pune-based Advait Foundation and another NGO that raised several “disturbing” issues concerning the adoption of children from and in India. The lawyer for the NGO, Pradeep Havnur, has sought two weeks’ time to study the new guidelines. He said that there appeared to be several provisions in the new norms that contravened the Supreme Court ruling.”

Advocate Jamshed Mistry, who represented a foreign adoptee, Arun Dhole, in the apex court in his search for his biological mother's identity, said, “Including the concept of roots search is laudable—however, the guidelines also impose severe restrictions which are tantamount to curbing the right it seeks to give.” Email this article to a Friend More Mumbai

Countries: India

China's family planning

The one-child policy is not just a human-rights abomination; it has also worsened a demographic problem

In 2012 the European Commission will prepare a mega report on Bulgaria and Romania

17-07-11

Pleegzorg en adoptie

0 reacties:

Interlandelijke adoptie Haïti: opvolging na aardbeving 2010

14 juli 2011

Interlandelijke
adoptie Haïti: opvolging na aardbeving 2010