Home  

Missouri high court sides with immigrant in adoption appeal

Missouri high court sides with immigrant in adoption appeal

JEFFERSON CITY | The Missouri Supreme Court has sided with a Guatemalan immigrant in a child custody case, ruling that the state failed to follow its laws in terminating her parental rights and allowing her son to be adopted by someone else.

Tuesday’s decision does not automatically return the child to the mother. Instead, the court ordered the state to follow proper procedures and hold a new trial on whether the mother’s parental rights should be terminated.

Encarnacion Bail Romero lost custody of her infant son after she was caught up in a 2007 immigration sweep and sentenced to two years in prison for aggravated identity theft.

A court terminated Romero’s parental rights in 2008 and granted adoption to Seth and Melinda Moser, of Carthage. The child now is at least age 4.


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/25/2608968/missouri-high-court-sides-with.html#ixzz1C5NDER4H

Officials party with child adoption funds

Officials party with child adoption funds
January 24th, 2011
Jan. 23: The social welfare department here chose to conduct a two-day seminar on child adoption only to use up the funds provided by the Union government before the end of March. The seminar concluded on Friday with sumptuous food and high rhetoric but nothing else by way of serious discussion as no senior social welfare official was present.
Tamil Nadu social welfare minister Geetha Jeevan chose to skip the event. According to official sources, the funds provided by the Central Adoption Resources Agency (CARA) in Delhi, which works under the Union women and child development ministry, to promote adoption of abandoned babies among common people were utilised for the gala seminar held in Anna Institute of Management.
“We had Rs 2 lakh surplus funds and since we could not divert the allocation to any other work, we decided to use the money for this seminar,” a senior officer admitted.
The officer maintained that all the district social welfare officers were invited to participate in the seminar on child adoption to update themselves about the procedures in the adoption of orphan children.
“We were served great food and had a real feast through the two days. And we got an expensive file-folder with all sorts of government publicity papers. That’s about all,” said one of the participants, requesting anonymity.

Ethica’s notes from U.S. Department of State meeting – Ethiopia Adoption: Solutions into Action

Ethica’s notes from U.S. Department of State meeting – Ethiopia Adoption: Solutions into Action

On Monday, January 24, 2011, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) hosted a meeting for stakeholders in Ethiopian adoption. Ethica will post the official DOS minutes as they are available.

Ethica was present at the meeting. The following are Ethica’s notes from that meeting.

Ethiopia Adoption: Solutions into Action – January 24, 2011

Overview: (Department of State – Abigail Rupp, U.S. Embassy Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; and Jill Larsen, Office of Children’s Issues)

*Adoptions are mostly from two regions of the country. 

*80% of the adoption cases are relinquishment cases, majority relinquished by one birthparent.  Most have siblings.  In the earlier phase of adoptions from Ethiopia, the youngest children in a family were relinquished; now it is the middle and older siblings in a family.

*40% of the children involved are under the age of two; 25% are between 2-4 years old, and 35% are over the age of 4. 

*90% of the cases handled by the U.S. Embassy call for further investigation for clarification of facts.  The kinds of abuses they are seeing relate to misrepresentation of facts and concealment of facts in hopes of making the process going more quickly, including a false perception that if there is no birthparent reported that the case will move more quickly (so fathers will say that they are uncles, for instance).  The problems in Ethiopia begin at the local level long before the children reach Addis.

*There are 22 licensed US ASPs (Adoption Service Providers) in Ethiopia, but over 70 who operate there.  That is a lot of umbrella-ing.

*The top 10 ASPs account for 67% of all adoptions from Ethiopia.

Vulnerabilities:

*There is no central mechanism for referrals for children. 

*There are three different parts of the Ethiopian government that have jurisdiction over adoptions:  Ministry of Justice (MOJ), Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MOWA), and Charities and Societies, which registers NGOs and ASPs

*MOJ evaluated 200 orphanages; recently indicated that they were planning on closing 50 of them due to malfeasance

*MOWA has an office of 5 people to review all adoption cases; the process requires two reviews of adoption cases.

*ASPs choose orphanages to work with, orphanages choose ASPs; there is neither transparency nor regulation in this process 

*Irregularities are found after the adoption is finalized and the child is legally the child of American parents.

*Expediting the process means that there is not enough time for due diligence

*There is no standardization of fees, no standard fee structure

*Lack of monitoring at the local level

*At one point, it seemed that there was some movement toward Ethiopia becoming a Hague Convention country, but it does not appear to be on the agenda now.

Investigation of children’s backgrounds:

ASPs are inconsistent in their due diligence in investigating children’s backgrounds.  In one example, a 6-year old child was found abandoned at a bus station and kept in an orphanage for 1.5 years.  The first time the child was asked about his biological parents was during his visa interview at the Embassy, and he told the officials the name and address of his biological parents.  This information could have easily been procured prior to this point.

Some adoption agencies do more due diligence than others, with social workers and investigators operating in the best interests of the child.  Some ASPs create lifebooks as an investigative tool so they have more information on the child prior to court.  The life book includes video interviews of the parents, neighbors and others involved in the case, and they document evidence of the child’s background, how s/he came into care, and provide timelines.  Other agencies are passing along paperwork that the agency has failed to look at themselves which show discrepancies, missing information and clerical errors; one example provided was a document that stated in one place that “father unknown” and in another place, “tried to call father; no answer.” 

The Transparency Survey administered by Ethica can provide some information into the different practices of agencies (found here).  

The US government and the Embassy in Addis Ababa is increasing scrutiny and increasing field investigations based on fraud markers they’ve observed.  They continue to collect detailed tracking information on all cases to detect patterns.

Hague accredited agencies are not necessarily operating in a transparent and ethical manner, either.  Most agencies are not investigating kids’ histories across the board, Hague accredited or not.

According to COA, part of the problem is umbrella-ing.  COA pledges to examine the connections between all organizations and determine whether those relationships are appropriate.  They want to become more rigorous in their investigations.  COA also suggests that reputable agencies will broadcast clearly the problems that are happening in Ethiopian adoptions, and encourage families to register their complaints with COA about problem agencies if those agencies are Hague-accredited. 

Current situation in Ethiopia:

*As the number of children coming out of Ethiopia increase, there are increasing concerns about their well-being, particularly in a country that lacks the infrastructure necessary to support the numbers.  There are increasing attachment issues in children coming from Ethiopia.

*There is a dichotomy in agency practices:  on one end of the spectrum, agencies that go into the village, interview leaders in the village, families.  On the other end of the spectrum, child is not asked about their circumstances and paperwork is suspicious.  There are significant concerns about how children come into care.  There are also concerns in the fact that the children now stay in the government orphanage before coming to transition homes. 

*There are significant development projects in Ethiopia as a result of adoption agency involvement that affect far more than the children who are adopted.

*Adoptive parents’ entitlement are one of the most damaging issues in Ethiopian adoption.  There have been reports of parents hitting their children, yelling at their children.  This is extremely harmful to newly adopted children and has serious consequences for the future of the program.  This is why APs are now required to stay in guest houses.  There needs to be a real change in the way parents behave in country.

Speed of the process: 

*From the USG perspective, it is fairly expeditious.  If the agency provides appropriate and reliable paperwork, and the Embassy knows that the agency did its due diligence, they can act more quickly.  The delays are often on the Ethiopian side, especially because of the limited resources of MOWA and MOJ.

*One big issue is that the USG is often seen as the “bad guy” when they have to disclose to the AP that the child being referred has two living parents who want to parent.  This is not the fault of the Embassy.

“The way forward” panel: (USAID, UNICEF, and Buckner International spoke)

*PL 109-95 mandates a consistent, coordinated, effective approach to helping orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC).  It includes 7 US government agencies and PEPFAR.  One can find all of the USG projects to address OVC here (this is mandated by PL 109-95).

Some of the results:  strengthening capacity on the ground; increasing capacity to meet basic needs

*There are significant concerns about coercion, paperwork irregularities.  The increase in adoptions from Ethiopia did not coincide with an increase in family options, which is notable and concerning.

*The Ethiopian government requested technical assistance from UNICEF regarding the Hague.  They have also asked for assistance in providing training guides on topics such as subsidiarity, assistance developing foster care, reunification with birth families.

*With USAID, UNICEF has created a minimum standard of care, referral networks, cadre of welfare professionals, and strengthening child support frameworks.

*Buckner:  They served 400K families in Ethiopia, but only 6 kids placed in adoptions overseas.

*Invited by the ET government to set up a local NGO – Buckner Bright Hope” – supported by private donors with the hope that it will be self-sustaining.  They work to preserve biological families. 

*Children are brought into assessment centers given medical evaluations/social  history taken; first goal is to preserve a child’s cultural connections.  Sometimes ICA does serve the best interests in the child but they work to explore other options first.  In 2010, Buckner placed 2000 kids in foster care domestically, and 6 found homes through ICA.

Take-home messages for adoptive parents:

1)  Agency selection is critical for prospective adoptive parents.  Select an agency that has a solid track record of investigating children’’ histories and knowing their facilitators and the situations in which children come into care.  PAPs should avoid agencies that umbrella and sign only with Hague-accredited agencies that are legally allowed to operate in Ethiopia.  It is highly advisable to join adoption agency research internet groups to fully vet one’s agency choice.

2)  Adoptive parents should seek out pre-adoptive education on child development and attachment.  They should check their attitudes when in-country, but more than that, realize that practices such as hitting, smacking, or yelling at children are extremely harmful for both the children themselves and the future of the program.

3)  When a Hague-accredited agency presents inconsistent paperwork or the adoptive parents have ethical concerns about their adoption in the process of completing their adoption,, PAPs and APs are strongly urged to report the behavior to the Department of State here.  If it is a non-accredited agency that behaves unethically, the Department of State would still like to hear about it; families can emailaskci@state.gov.  For questions about making a complaint, families can email Ethica atethicainfo@gmail.com.

4)  It cannot be overstated that we urge adoptive parents to use only Hague accredited agencies and ask many questions about a referral once it is made about the circumstances surrounding the child’s history.  For more information or help determining whether an agency is Hague-accredited, contact us: ethicainfo@gmail.com.

Prejudice that 'denies ethnic babies a home': Barnardo's chief blames councils for fall in adoptions

Prejudice that 'denies ethnic babies a home': Barnardo's chief blames councils for fall in adoptions

By KATE LOVEYS

Last updated at 11:02 AM on 24th January 2011

The number of babies adopted is falling as ‘prejudiced’ local authorities will not let white parents look after ethnic children, the head of Barnardo’s says.

Just 70 under the age of one were found homes last year – a mere 2 per cent of the total 3,200 children adopted.

Russia may ban US adoptions


Russia may ban US adoptions

 
Jan 23, 2011 09:18 Moscow Time
Pavel Astakhov. Photo: RIA Novosti
Print Email Add to blog

Russia says it will ban adoptions by American parents unless an agreement to that effect is signed between the sides, Russian Ombudsman for Children’s Rights Pavel Astakhov said commenting upon another case of violence against Russian kids in the US.

In late December, a shocking video appeared on the Internet that featured American woman Jessica Beagley forcing her adopted son to take cold shower and swallow hot sauce.

Later, the boy on the video turned out to be seven-year old Daniil Bukharov from Russia, who was adopted by an American family together with his twin brother Oleg.

Pavel Astakhov said that in compliance with international law, such discipline methods may be classified as child abuse and torture.

Adop?ia, na?ional? sau interna?ional??

Duminic?, 23 Ianuarie 2011. 968 vizualiz?ri76 comentarii, 10 voturi
Adop?ia, na?ional? sau interna?ional??
Autor: Oana Cr?ciun
Miercuri, Parlamentul European a adoptat o rezolu?ie prin care a transmis statelor europene un mesaj clar de încurajare a adop?iilor, atât na?ionale cât ?i interna?ionale, astfel încât copiii abandona?i s? creasc? în familii, nu în centre.
Rezolu?ia vine ca urmare a unei peti?ii venite din partea italienilor, care cereau în mod explicit deblocarea adop?iilor interna?ionale pentru a putea adopta ?i copii din România. Asta, în condi?iile în care România a interzis, înc? din 2003-2004, înainte de aplicarea legii adop?iei, posibilitatea ca str?inii s? mai înfieze copii români p?r?si?i de p?rin?i.

În timp ce câteva state europene, ca ?i Statele Unite ale Americii, duc un lobby puternic în ultimii ani pentru deblocarea adop?iilor interna?ionale, autorit??ile române sus?in c?, cel pu?in deocamdat?, locul orfanilor români este într-o familie autohton?, aici în România.

Europa încurajeaz? adop?ia în locul centrelor

De altfel, aceast? rezolu?ie nu oblig? în niciun fel România s? dea drumul la adop?iile interna?ionale, ba chiar încurajeaz? adop?ia na?ional?, lasând totu?i la latitudinea fiec?rui stat european s?-?i stabileasc? tipul de adop?ie ales. Scopul este ca micu?ii abandona?i s? ajung? într-o familie, ca s? nu mai stea în centre.

„Aceasta este una dintre nout??ile aduse de rezolu?ie, având în vedere c? pân? acum adop?ia era v?zut? ca ultima solu?ie în cazul copiilor abandona?i ?i nu institu?ionalizarea. Acum raportul s-a schimbat, iar adop?ia, na?ional? sau interna?ional?, în func?ie de legisla?ia fiec?rui stat, este pus? aproape pe acela?i plan cu familia natural?”, sus?ine Bogdan Panait, ?eful Oficiului Român pentru Adop?ii (ORA).

Panait a explicat c? înc? nu se pune problema debloc?rii adop?iilor interna?ionale, acesta fiind punctul de vedere al executivului în acest moment, mai ales c? în România înc? sunt peste o mie de familii atestate care ar vrea s? înfieze copii români, iar num?rul adop?iilor este înc? sc?zut, undeva în jur de 1.000, anul trecut. 

O familie pentru copil ?i economie pentru stat

Potrivit oficialului, în România, în sistemul de protec?ie social? se afl? aproape 70.000 de copii, iar „adoptarea a 2.000 de copii anual ar presupune, pe lâng? beneficiile copiilor, ?i o economie de aproximativ 10 milioane de euro la bugetul de stat”. 

Ceea ce încearc? acum autorit??ile s? fac?, printr-un proiect de modificare a legii adop?iei, este s? reduc? durata procesului de adop?ie ?i mai ales birocra?ia. În plus, se prevede ?i o relaxare în ceea ce prive?te adop?ia interna?ional?, în ideea c? ?i cet??enii români stabili?i în str?in?tate vor putea înfia un copil român.

Unde crede?i c? ar trebui s? creasc? ace?ti copii abandona?i, într-o familie din România sau în str?in?tate? 

Russian ombudsman investigates another adopted child abuse case

Russian ombudsman investigates another adopted child abuse case

Pavel Astakhov. © RIA Novosti.Vladimir Vyatkin
Pavel Astakhov
15:49 22/01/2011
© RIA Novosti. Vladimir Vyatkin

Russian children rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov on Saturday elaborated on one more case of abuse of a Russian boy adopted by U.S. parents.

Astakhov said in late December he received a letter from a woman who has seen a TV show in which a certain Jessica Bigley from Anchorage, Alaska, unveiled her methods of upbringing her recalcitrant son, such as pouring cold water over him and mouth washing with hot pepper sauce.

Astakhov said his service has finally identified the boy. It is Daniil Bukharov from Magadan and the actions of his adoptive U.S. mum must be regarded as cruel treatment.

Bigley is due to be tried on the 28th of this month.

Russia is one of the largest sources of adoptions for U.S. families, accounting for about 10 percent of foreign adoptions. The mistreatment of Russian children adopted in the United States has attracted public attention in recent months as a result of a number of highly publicized incidents.

In April, a 7-year-old boy was placed alone on a one-way flight to Moscow by his U.S. adoptive mother with a note claiming he was "psychopathic."

Following the case, Russia threatened to prohibit child adoptions by U.S. citizens until the countries sign an intergovernmental agreement guaranteeing the rights of adopted children.

 

MOSCOW, January 22 (RIA Novosti)


Russian ombudsman investigates another adopted child abuse case

Russian ombudsman investigates another adopted child abuse case

 
Pavel Astakhov
15:49 22/01/2011

Russian children rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov on Saturday elaborated on one more case of abuse of a Russian boy adopted by U.S. parents.

Astakhov said in late December he received a letter from a woman who has seen a TV show in which a certain Jessica Bigley from Anchorage, Alaska, unveiled her methods of upbringing her recalcitrant son, such as pouring cold water over him and mouth washing with hot pepper sauce.

Astakhov said his service has finally identified the boy. It is Daniil Bukharov from Magadan and the actions of his adoptive U.S. mum must be regarded as cruel treatment.

Bigley is due to be tried on the 28th of this month.

Russia is one of the largest sources of adoptions for U.S. families, accounting for about 10 percent of foreign adoptions. The mistreatment of Russian children adopted in the United States has attracted public attention in recent months as a result of a number of highly publicized incidents.

In April, a 7-year-old boy was placed alone on a one-way flight to Moscow by his U.S. adoptive mother with a note claiming he was "psychopathic."

Following the case, Russia threatened to prohibit child adoptions by U.S. citizens until the countries sign an intergovernmental agreement guaranteeing the rights of adopted children.

 

MOSCOW, January 22 (RIA Novosti)


What's driving the cops crazy

Anju Yadav A 22-year-old girl from Uttar Pradesh, who was rejected by Kusumbai Motichand Mahila Sevagram off Karve Road for apparent erratic behaviour, had to spend two days in the Shivajinagar Polic

 

A 22-year-old girl from Uttar Pradesh, who was rejected by  Kusumbai Motichand Mahila Sevagram off Karve Road for apparent erratic behaviour, had to spend two days in the Shivajinagar Police Station premises, as none of the women’s shelter homes were ready to take her in. The Shivajinagar police tried their best to get her admitted to the mental hospital in Yerwada, but a city court rejected their plea.

The Sevagram authorities claimed that the girl was distressed and disturbed. She disturbed and abused the other 60 inmates at the home. “The girl was brought to us by the Shivajinagar Police Station authorities 52 days ago. We took care of the girl, but she continued to behave in an unruly manner.

This is affecting other girls here in an adverse way, hence we decided to hand her over to the police again, as she is mentally disturbed. This is not an appropriate shelter home for the girl. when she is calmer, she sits under a running tap for hours, till someone puts a stop to it.” the residential superintendent of the home, Sunita Joshi said.

Joshi said that before sending the girl back to the police station, she wrote several letters to the police station requesting them to take her away.

Three days ago, the girl Anju Rajendra Yadav was brought to the Shivajinagar Police Station. Shelter home authorities told the police that the girl was not mentally sound.

The police took custody of the woman and decided to send her to Yerwada Mental Hospital for treatment and admission. However, the mental hospital authorities in their report, stated that the woman speaks gibberish, but she was not mentally unsound.

A woman assistant sub-inspector, Nirmala Naik, took her to court after making a station diary note at the police station. Chief judicial magistrate Suchitra Ghodke threw some questions at the girl and found that the girl responded to them in a positive manner.

The judge then said that the girl was not mentally ill. The judge maintained that the certificate issued by the regional mental hospital did not disclose any abnormal act committed by the woman produced in court, so as to treat her as if she was mentally ill and so that medical treatment can be provided at the mental hospital. The court rejected the plea of the policemen to send her to regional mental hospital, Yerwada.

For the last two days, the constables of the police station were doing the rounds of shelter homes, requesting them to accommodate the girl. Finally, the girl was sent to a state government women’s home in Mundhwa late on Friday night.

When Mirror quizzed Anju, she said that she was married and has two kids. She had come to Pune to watch a film. “We have a home in Uttar Pradesh and many people stay in it,” she said adding that “I have not had a proper bath in the last many days.” Anju was found loitering around at the State Transport (ST) bus stand at Shivajinagar on November 11, 2010. Following this, she was admitted to Sevagram.

â–º The girl was brought to us by the Shivajinagar Police Station authorities 52 days ago. We took care of the girl, but she continued to behave in an unruly manner. This is affecting other girls here in an adverse way, hence we decided to hand her over to the police again, as she is mentally disturbed.”

Jewish Children About to be Placed for Adoption in Non-Jewish Homes

Jewish Children About to be Placed for Adoption in Non-Jewish Homes

Friday January 21, 2011 10:34 AM - 4 Comments

kidsAgudath Israel of America has accused the Rensselaer Department of Social Services of violating state law by working to have two Jewish children (a brother and sister) adopted by non-Jewish couples. Under New York State law, social service agencies and the courts are generally required to place children in foster and adoptive homes that share the religious faith of the child. But in the case of two children under the jurisdiction of Rensselaer Social Services, the law is being ignored and plans for their adoption by two non-Jewish couples are underway-even though their mother has requested that her children be kept together and placed in a Jewish home.

Agudath Israel learned of the situation when those close to the children’s mother called the organization for help. “When we get calls about such situations,” explained Agudath Israel General Counsel Mordechai Biser, “we promptly inform the relevant social service agency of the legal requirement to place Jewish children in Jewish homes, and they usually are quick to comply.” “But in this case,” continued the attorney, “the Rensselaer Department of Social Services has rejected our pleas and those of the children’s mother that the law be followed, claiming that it is not ‘practicable’ to place these children in a same-faith home.”

In a letter to the Department, Agudath Israel pointed out that under state law, the only legal justification for not placing a child in a home of the same faith as the child is if there is no available appropriate person of the same religious faith to serve as the child’s foster or adoptive parent. In this case, there are appropriate Jewish couples available who have been approved to serve as adoptive parents and have contacted the Rensselaer Department of Social Services.

“It would indeed be a tragedy,” concluded attorney Biser, “if these young children would be lost to the Jewish people forever due to the illegal actions of this social service agency. Agudath Israel is pursuing the matter and reaching out to the appropriate officials to try to halt the proposed adoptions before it is too late.” The matter is currently before a court, and Agudath Israel plans to submit an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting the mother’s position that the children be placed in Jewish homes.

The telephone number for Rensselaer Social Services Commissioner Randy Hall is 518-833-6005.

{Noam Amdurski-Matzav.com Newscenter}