Home  

EU fails to safeguard human rights

EU fails to safeguard human rights

Friday, September 16, 2011

TWO current media topics suggest that Europe has a long way to go before we can consider ourselves civilised.

Mary Raftery’s excellent RTÉ documentary series “behind the walls” details past and ongoing problems within Ireland’s mental health sector; the second story relates to the alleged imprisonment of captive slave labourers in Britain.

While we are rightly concerned and appalled at what has happened in both instances, we seem less concerned as a European community with what is still happening within our borders. In 2004 an Amnesty International report into mental institutions in Romania detailed the use of captive slave labour to prop up an under-funded care system. Individuals who did not need to be in institutions were being retained in the system to carry out unpaid maintenance and facilities work, replacing an inadequate budget with slave labour. No significant reform of the Romanian mental health system has taken place in the interim; suffering as depicted in the RTÉ documentary still goes on today, within the borders of the EU.

Surrogate not legally a baby’s mother, judge rules

Surrogate not legally a baby’s mother, judge rules

Fotolia

“It’s tough for the legislators to keep up, and this is a case where it may be lagging,” said Rich Gabruch, lawyer for “John” and “Bill,” the same-sex couple who are now properly called the parents of “Sarah,” who was conceived with John’s sperm and an ovum from an anonymous donor, and carried to term by “Mary.”

     Sep 13, 2011 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 12, 2011 10:39 PM ET

A Saskatchewan judge has ruled that a woman who gave birth to a baby girl in 2009 is not actually the child’s mother, in a decision that exposes the gap between legislation and reality in modern parenthood.

“It’s tough for the legislators to keep up, and this is a case where it may be lagging,” said Rich Gabruch, lawyer for “John” and “Bill,” the same-sex couple who are now properly called the parents of “Sarah,” who was conceived with John’s sperm and an ovum from an anonymous donor, and carried to term by “Mary.”

“The way we’re reading this decision is that the other father can now be listed on [the birth certificate],” Mr. Gabruch said. “The next step would be to list [Bill] specifically,” although he acknowledged the case has moved into “uncharted waters.”

In granting John and Bill’s request, supported by Mary, to remove Mary’s name from Sarah’s birth certificate, Madame Justice Jacelyn Ann Ryan-Froslie of the province’s Court of Queen’s Bench, noted that the law defines a “mother” as the woman who delivered a child, and presumes she is also a parent, which is no longer always true.

Being a parent is an important legal designation, she wrote, and it does not apply to Mary, who surrendered all parental rights to John and Bill after Sarah’s birth. Among the lifelong rights and obligations that come with parentage are that a Canadian parent may confer citizenship regardless where the child is born; a parent must consent to any future adoption; and a parent may register a child in school or obtain documentation, such as a passport or health card, on behalf of the child.

“It is clear from the definition of ‘mother’ contained in The Vital Statistics Act, 2009, that Mary, the gestational carrier, is Sarah’s mother for the purposes of that Act as she is the woman from whom Sarah was delivered. Naming her as Sarah’s mother on the registration of live birth raises a presumption that she is also Sarah’s biological mother,” the judge wrote.

“In this case, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mary, the gestational carrier, is not Sarah’s biological mother. I am also satisfied neither [John nor Bill] nor Mary ever intended that Mary would assume any parental rights or obligations with respect to Sarah. As such, a declaration that Mary is not Sarah’s mother is warranted.”

As adoption moved out of the cultural shadows in recent decades, the concept of “mother” was split, in colloquial language if not the law, into “biological mother” and “adoptive mother.” But the rise of reproductive science has further split the biological mother category into “egg donor” and “gestational carrier.” Add to this the new legality of same-sex marriage and adoption, and the old legal categories no longer seem to grasp the facts.

Provinces have moved to follow the changes, but the pace is slow. In the 1990s, legislatures across the country moved to abolish the notion of illegitimacy. From then on, a person’s status as a child of their parents did not depend on being born into wedlock. Likewise, the legal presumption that the husband of the mother is the father of the child has fallen out of favour, as it fails in the case of a married surrogate.

Alberta, for example, has a rule that allows an egg donor to be declared the mother of a child if the gestational carrier consents after birth. But in Sarah’s case, the egg donor was anonymous.

Mr. Gabruch said it is unlikely his clients would have won if Sarah had come from Mary’s own ovum, rather than a donor’s.

“I don’t know if the judge would have taken the step that the judge took,” he said. “There would have been a greater risk for us, in making the application, of being unsuccessful.”

Birth certificates are routinely changed in all provinces, to correct mistakes or reflect adoptions, and declarations of parentage are relatively common, but are usually about paternity. Declarations of non-maternity, such as this one, are very rare.

Saskatchewan has no precedents, but in in 2002, an Ontario judge declared that a gestational carrier was not the mother of a child, largely because the carrier gave her consent.

In 2000, a Manitoba judge ruled in the case of a woman who was a gestational carrier for her sister-in-law’s ovum, fertilized with her brother’s sperm. The judge refused to declare the sister-in-law to be the mother of the as yet unborn child, and declined to make an order about paternity to avoid the uncomfortable outcome of siblings being listed as parents. And in 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared a child to have three parents under the law: her biological father and mother, and her mother’s same-sex partner, all of whom were actively involved in the child’s life.

National Post
jbrean@nationalpost.com

MADONNA'S CONTROVERSIAL ADOPTIONS

MADONNA'S CONTROVERSIAL ADOPTIONS

September 13, 2011, 12:47 pm Dan McDougall

When Madonna first swept into the African nation of Malawi, chequebook in hand, she vowed to save its impoverished people. Five years later, she has brought them two controversial adoptions, broken promises and a charity caught up in a fraud investigation.

 

A flight of grey mourning doves scatters as dusk descends on the Malawian village of Zaone. On the edge of town, elderly matriarch Lucy Chekechiwa eats cold lumps of cassava root. Pinned to the wall of her one-room home is a grainy photograph of a woman and child. The woman is, unmistakably, Madonna; the baby she is clutching is Mercy James, Lucy's granddaughter. The 62 year old hasn't seen the girl, now five, since Madonna took her to London on a private jet in 2009.

 

Madonna is not the first Western traveller to Malawi to find her life changed by the poverty she encountered – nor the first to try to effect changes. This tiny country, wedged between Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique, is horrifically poor. About 12 per cent of its 15 million inhabitants are infected with HIV/AIDS; life expectancy is just 44 for men and 51 for women, according to the World Health Organization; and 65 per cent of the population lives on just $1 a day.

The singer's interest in Malawi began in 2006 when she secretly visited a number of orphanages there. According to Hollywood lore, she had been encouraged to adopt an African child by Brad Pitt, a close friend of her then-husband Guy Ritchie, and was said to be so moved by what she saw in Malawi she got out her chequebook straightaway, offering tens of thousands of dollars to individual non-government organisations (NGOs).

That same year she went back, filmed a documentary about the country's orphans, and announced she was setting up her own charity, Raising Malawi. Her motives, she admitted, were mixed: "I thought, 'I have to help. I have to save these people.' And then I thought, 'Wait a minute; I think it's the other way around. I think they might be saving me.'"

Soon afterwards, she and Ritchie adopted their first child from Malawi, one-year-old David Banda. Controversy followed almost immediately when David's father, who had been unable to afford to feed his son, claimed he had not understood the adoption was final; he said he thought the couple would merely care for and educate the boy overseas.

Undeterred, Madonna ploughed on with her mission to "save" more of Malawi's children. A series of high-profile fundraisers organised by the singer in Hollywood culminated in a star-studded event in 2008, co-hosted by Gucci, in a massive marquee at the UN headquarters in New York. In front of A-listers, such as P Diddy, Gwyneth Paltrow and Drew Barrymore, Madonna said that, inspired by her adopted religion of Kabbalah, she was going to set up a school in Malawi. "I want credibility as a philanthropic organisation," the singer told the $2500-a-plate crowd, as she punched the air.

The Raising Malawi Academy for Girls was to be a $15 million boarding school for 400 girls, a template already set up by Oprah Winfrey in South Africa. Madonna's project aimed to focus on law and medicine. Like Oprah, Madonna hoped to have a nationwide application process, selecting the best female student from each village for the school.

The launch raised nearly $4 million and Madonna reportedly promised to match every dollar anyone gave. Questions were asked about why a pop star and a fashion label had been granted use of the hallowed UN lawn. Gucci had no further links to Raising Malawi beyond the event.

In Malawi, though, the government was so excited about a prestigious school being established in their country they agreed to donate 450,000 square metres of land for the project (which meant evicting the people living on it), charging only $8600 a year for a 99-year lease.

Then, in 2009, Madonna decided she wanted to adopt another child from Malawi. The country does not generally allow international adoptions to prospective parents who have not lived in the country for at least 18 months, fearing its children might be exploited by child traffickers. But again, they made an exception for Madonna. On her next trip, she overcame legal challenges both by local authorities and the family of the girl she intended to adopt and, within a few months, in June 2009, she came home with three-year-old Mercy James.

Madonna also visited the site of her proposed academy and symbolically laid the first brick, inscribed with the words "Dare to Dream". (When the hygiene-conscious singer later waved to TV cameras, she was clutching a bottle of hand sanitiser.) Somehow the image seemed to symbolise a Westerner who was not willing to get her hands dirty.

In Lilongwe, the Malawian capital, serious concerns were being raised by other charities about Madonna's links to Kabbalah. American and British evangelist groups that had been established in the country for decades feared a battle for souls when Raising Malawi announced it would introduce Spirituality for Kids, Kabbalah's youth charity, to Africa.

What she could not have foreseen was that the LA-based Kabbalah Centre, Madonna's partner in the project, would soon be under investigation for fraud by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)Raising Malawi would be implicated, and Madonna herself would be left looking, at best, foolish. Worse still, around $3 million in raised funds seems to have disappeared in the charity's head offices in LA without ever reaching Malawi.

In March, in a carefully worded statement, Madonna said the school would not be built and she would now focus on other projects in the country. Nowhere was the disappointment felt more keenly than around the site of the planned school.

 

Madonna with adopted daughter Mercy.

 

"This was our dream, too, for the girls of our village," says Grevansio Makina, 42, who lost his maize field to the project. "Our daughters have been working harder, studying, aiming for this dream – to live and study in this dream school. But their hopes have died and so have our hopes of a better future for them."

The abandonment of such a crucial part of her vision – the school itself – was a body blow to Madonna, not least because it brought the activities and methods of her charity under greater scrutiny. Raising Malawi seems to have resorted to controversial techniques in order to raise money, and the scale of its reach appears to have been exaggerated – presumably to persuade donors to dig deeper. The charity employed a US-based team to raise funds through cold-calling, and a website was set up on which dramatic statistics purported to show both the scale of the need in Malawi and what the charity was doing there.

Celebrities Can Adopt - Why Can't We?

For a start, it stated the charity's work had already reached more than a million orphans in a country where, according to some estimates, the total is 850,000. Many of the figures it gave were wrong, and a number of projects attributed to the charity were, in fact, projects set up by NGOs that existed long before it was created. "Raising Malawi has hijacked a number of existing projects, some of which have been in operation for decades, and advertised them as their own," says a senior source at Oxfam.

Until recently, blogs on the website claimed that more than 66,000 children and caregivers living with HIV/AIDS, malaria, or other diseases received life-saving treatments thanks to Raising Malawi; and 73,000 children and caregivers are receiving nutritious meals daily. The website previously stated 10,000 children had received supplements to counter the effects of severe malnutrition – which, if true, would rival the UN effort on the ground. Raising Malawi has now radically revised the website, changing statistics, like how many community-based organisations it has helped – from 1750 to "several".

Some time before the school project stalled, the nation's information minister, Patricia Kaliati, praised Madonna: "What she is doing for the orphans of this country, very few superstars can do that – she has managed to raise their plight on the world stage. Madonna has built clinics in rural areas where the government has failed to reach. Because of that, she has saved many lives of pregnant mothers who could have died." Has she? Leading Malawian journalist Raphael Tenthani says not: "Raising Malawi has not been building clinics in rural areas to save lives. This is complete misinformation."

In a statement posted online, Madonna insisted she was still committed to the country: "My original vision is now on a much bigger scale. I want to reach thousands, not hundreds of girls. I want to do more and I want to do it better," she said. But the Ministry of Education spokesperson, Ben Phiro, says she has yet to consult the government on her plans: "We know nothing about this."

In the ruckus that followed the axing of the academy – allegations of local incompetence, financial mismanagement and "outlandish expenditures" countered with legal action from African staff for severance pay – the most important fact to emerge is that only $850,000 of the $3.8 million spent on the academy was actually spent in Malawi. The lion's share, almost $3 million, was handled by the Kabbalah Center, including more than $1 million in unspecified "construction costs", according to their accounts.

In New York, Madonna has been fighting what one aide calls an "absolute shit storm". When the news broke of the school project's collapse and, later, the IRS probe, the star's PR machine went into overdrive. Statements were issued and journalists close to the singer's agent, Liz Rosenberg, wrote sympathetic pieces on entertainment websites, claiming that Madonna had been duped by the Malawians she employed to build the school, and that she had been robbed by her closest charity advisers in the US.

For hardened aid workers in Africa, the demise of the project has come as little surprise. "She has been spectacularly naive," said one Unicef contact.

In Malawi itself, Madonna's detractors are more vitriolic. "What has happened was written in the script," says Desmond Kaunda, director of the Malawi Human Rights Resource Centre. "The world's greatest economists and minds have failed in Africa. They are still failing. Madonna is a singer. What does she bring to the table? Nothing but the fact that she is famous – that is not enough."

Mercy James, whose mother died five days after giving birth, was raised by her grandmother and uncles at first, but placed in the care of the Kondanani Children's Village as they couldn't afford to buy formula to keep her alive. They can barely feed themselves. "We loved the girl so much. She belonged to us. But what choice did we have but to let her go? Does that mean we lose her completely?"

The adoption paper reads: "Ms Madonna married Guy and they have one son. Mr Ritchie continues to visit the family, but Ms Madonna has custody rights. She is in sound mind and owns a personal house in Beverly Hills in California. She has a large yard with a swimming pool, which is fenced. A shopping mall within walking distance. She has another house in London. Financial information shows she has impressional [sic] income in excess of $500 million. She is intelligent, articulate and outgoing, and shares strong family values."

A stamp says "approved".

Malawi's Human Rights Consultative Committee, a coalition of around 85 NGOs, has accused Madonna of "child kidnap" and of being a "bully" when she adopted Mercy James. Madonna, who clearly loves the children, has never commented on the dispute.

Through the torn, flapping curtain that passes for a door on the tent belonging to Mercy James's grandmother, the view is of a charred and spent landscape: the fields of millet that once surrounded this community have long been sacrificed for charcoal. Children skip between blackened tree stumps. In front of mud-block homes their mothers sell miserable packages of dirt-coloured groundnut and chillies. Lucy says Mercy James whispers to her on the wind at night. "Why did God allow this woman to come here?" she asks, breaking down in tears.

Claimants Rummage through Samaritan’s Purse










Claimants Rummage through Samaritan’s Purse
11 September 2011
Published On  Sep 11,  2011

 Charities board continues to settle, transfer property of NGOs with revoked licences









 












Close to 53 individuals have claimed, last week, that they have shares in properties belonging to Samaritan Purse, found in Addis Abeba, which the board of Charities and Civil Societies Agency (CCSA) had decided to confiscate.

The properties were confiscated in December 2010, after the CCSA revoked its licence in August 2010 for hiring 14 foreign nationals without the proper work and residence permits over a three year period. The NGO was also found guilty of evading tax in the amount of seven million Birr by Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority (ERCA).

The agency had appointed a liquidator to assess the value of all assets owned by Samaritan Purse and settle debts and liabilities it owes. Properties of the NGO, established in 1979 for victims of war, poverty and famine, which are located in branch offices across the country, have not yet been fully assessed and valuated, but those located in Addis Abeba have been finalised.

The three member liquidation committee had called for those who claim to have a stake or share in the properties to come forth, two weeks ago. Many of those who came forward, in the 10 days given for debtors to come forth, were former employees of the organisation, according to Assefa Tesfaye, public relations for CCSA.

However, not all of those who have claims will get what they ask for.

“The agency will only pay those who come up with evidence which verify their claims,” Assefa told Fortune. “There are claims which have no evidence.”

After the licence was revoked, the board had granted Samaritan Purse access to its bank account, which had been blocked by the agency, to pay salaries of its employees for August and September 2011.

Once all the debtors have been paid and liabilities are settled, the remaining properties will be transferred to a charity or civil society organisation with similar vision and purpose by the agency, according to the Charities and Civil Societies Proclamation.

The proclamation, passed in 2009, had received a lot of criticism from human rights organisations when it was passed. It had reclassified Charities and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) into local and international based on the amount of funds and resources they get. Those charities and CSOs, which receive more than 10pc of their funds from international sources, were classified as international while those with funds less than 10pc were classified as local. It had also further outlined areas and sectors, where those classified as international were not allowed to operate.

In the just ended fiscal year, the agency which had registered 407 organisations under the new classification, had revoked the licences of four international and one local charity organisations and frozen the accounts of two local NGOs.

Including Samaritan Purse, the agency had revoked the licences of Mobility without Barriers Foundation - Ethiopia (MwBF-E), International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Better Future for Adoption Service (BFAP), and Coalition for Action against Poverty (CAP), a local organisation.

The MwBF-E’s, an organisation established for safer and versatile assisted mobility options, licence was revoked after the agency had determined that grants from UNICEF for the purchase of wheelchairs and other materials were transferred to the organisation’s headquarters. It also accused David Winters, the company’s representative, of receiving a payment of 50,000 dollars for 1,000 hours while registered as a volunteer at the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA).

“The organisation had 80,000 Br in debt, which the agency settled out of the assets that were confiscated,” Assefa told Fortune. “We will transfer the remaining property to an organisation in similar endeavours.”

The agency also revoked the licence and confiscated the properties of BFAP for child trafficking.

“Having found one million Birr in their account, we are in the process of settling debts the organisation owes,” Assefa told Fortune. “We will soon make an announcement for those who may have claims with the organisation to come forward soon.”

All the assets of IIRO had already been transferred to the Ethiopian Islamic Council, whereas no material properties of CAP were found and the 150,000 Br that was in its bank account was gone, according to Assefa.

By MAHLET MESFIN
FORTUNE STAFF WRITER

Hilversum (RNW) - De Nederlandse adoptieouders Marco en Brigitta Neervoort, die in Colombia twee weken vast zitten in een hotel,

Hilversum (RNW) - De Nederlandse adoptieouders Marco en Brigitta Neervoort, die in Colombia twee weken vast zitten in een hotel, kunnen weg.

De autoriteiten zijn met veel officiële documenten uit Nederland overtuigd geraakt van de goede bedoelingen van het stel. Vannacht bleek dat Colombia een uitreisvisum voorbereidt.

Twee weken geleden werden Marco en Brigitta en hun 8-jarig adoptiezoontje Ruben tegen gehouden door de douane in Colombia. Het probleem was dat Ruben eerder door een ander Nederlandse stel was geadopteerd en dat de naam van die adoptieouders nog in zijn paspoort stond.

Marco Neervoort heeft RNW laten weten dat het gezin hoogstwaarschijnlijk komend weekeinde terugkomt naar Nederland.

Woman drags orphanage boss to Police

Woman drags orphanage boss to Police
Saturday, 10th September, 2011
E-mail article E-mail article   Print article Print article
Fielding with some of the orphans she was sponsoring

Fielding with some of the orphans she was sponsoring

By Jackie Nambogga 

BRONWYN Fielding is an Austrian woman with a big heart. She has been mobilising money from her church, friends and the Austrian community to look after HIV/AIDS orphans in Uganda. 

But last month, after one year and about sh500m later, she flew into the country to find a different story. All the money had been swindled. 

Christopher Kalema, 31, convinced Bronwyn that he was using the money to run Buwaiswa Orphanage Children’s Home Ministries in Kamuli district. 

In his reports, he claimed he was supporting 1,200 orphans, with a sh102m clinic to cater for their health. When Bronwyn arrived unannounced, she was shocked to find the clinic did not exist and the number of orphans under Kalema’s care was only 120. 

The facilities at the centre were also in a poor state and unsuitable for accommodation of children. 

She reported the matter to the Police and Kalema was arrested. 

The Police said the matter is being investigated and Kalema would be charged with obtaining money by false pretence, defrauding organisations and individuals in America, Canada and Austria, child trafficking and operating an orphanage illegally. 

The regional CID chief, John Baptist Bulega, says the investigations have delayed because his team was still waiting for additional documents before they could submit the final findings to the State attorney to prefer charges against the suspect. 

“There are some reports we are waiting for, which have delayed the conclusion of the probe,” he said on Thursday. He, however, declined to give more details because he was attending a meeting at the Police headquarters. 

The deal 
Fielding received an urgent but touching message from Uganda. Fire had gutted a girls’ dormitory at the orphanage and 14 girls had died and seven were hospitalised with injuries. The fire, Kalema said, had been caused by a kerosene lamp which exploded at night. He consequently asked for assistance for solar lighting equipment. Fielding said she wept and promised to send help immediately. 

“I did not have the money,” she told Saturday Vision, “I immediately went on Ema Christian radio and shared the tragedy with listeners. About $7,500 (sh21.8m) was raised to purchase the solar unit.” 

Later, when Kalema went to Austria, Bronwyn introduced him to local and Christian radio stations where he recounted the fire incident. He told the listeners that he needed $1,000 (sh2.8m) on a monthly basis to manage the orphanage. 

Fielding said: “We would send between sh1.7m to sh2.7 to Kalema on a weekly basis, depending on the contributions from well-wishers. 

She decided to travel to Uganda in April this year on a fact finding mission and was surprised to discover that the projects and activities did not exist. “When I consulted my partners, they told me to file a case against Kalema,” said Fielding. 

How they met 
Kalema met Bronwyn on Facebook in September 2009 and convinced her he was a member of the Busoga royal family. He said his grandfather was the first president of Uganda. He said his grandfather left him 240 acres of land to set up an orphanage and school for marginalised children and he needed assistance to fulfill the dream. 

Fieldinh said they eventually met in Austria in March 2010, where he discussed an orphanage proposal. She got him sponsors. She said Kalema would send occasional reports to her about the project status. 

Another lie 
Fielding said she would never forget this experience. Kalema deceived her with a straight face and she never doubted him. She remembers one incident she narrated to Saturday Vision. In June last year, Kalema wrote claiming he was being threatened with arrest because they had delayed to send money to clear children’s school dues totaling sh32.5m. 

A few days later, as they were struggling to raise the money, someone using the name of Barbara Munyaruguru and claiming to be Kalema’s wife, wrote to say Kalema had been detained at Jinja Central Police and subsequently remanded to Kirinya Prison over the debts. 

The following week, Munyaruguru sent another e-mail saying Kalema had been sodomised in prison. 

She reportedly said he could not walk and had been admitted to Kampala International Hospital where three major operations were recommended at a cost of sh13m. 

In the meantime, Fielding was intensifying her fundraising on radio and international friends whom she told about Kalema’s troubles. “On August 5, last year, I sent him sh15m,” she says. 

A week later, Kalema allegedly asked for another sh3.4m to undergo another operation at Mulago Hospital and sh9m to pay for his lawyer and buy medicine. 

Authorities closed the orphanage on orders of the assistant commissioner for children’s affairs in the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, Kabogoza Ssembatya. 

Located in Kitayunjwa sub-county, the facility was not registered with the ministry as required by law. The commissioner instructed that the children be relocated to a nearby registered home with the required facilities. 

Patrick Waiswa, the LCI chairman of Bukyelimba village where Kalema’s orphanage was located, confirmed that the facility was still closed and there were no children there. He said he supervised the relocation of the120 children to Walk-way Junior Academy in Muyenga village, Bugiri town. 

Where is Kalema? 
Kalema was arrested but later released on police bond after making a statement. He denied the charges against him. However, the police confiscated his passport and opened inquiries into his operations. 

John Baptist Bulega, the regional CID officer south eastern region confirmed that they were investigating Kalema over allegations of obtaining money fraudulently between October 2009 and April 2011 under General Enquiries 57/2011. 

Bulega explained that Kalema, a resident of Kiryowa/Bukasa village, in Nyenga, Buikwe district, is said to have solicited funds for running the orphanage, which he allegedly registered through the Organisation of Good Life of the marginalized (OGLM), of which he is the director. 

Kalema is currently out on bond. He told Saturday Vision he was being blackmailed. 

American adoptive parents do not face death penalty

American adoptive parents do not face death penalty

 
Sep 7, 2011 16:48 Moscow Time
Michael and Nanette Craver. © ?????.Ru, www.vesti.ru
Print Email Add to blog

The York County Court, Pennsylvania, has opened court proceedings on the case of Michael and Nanette Craver. They are accused of killing their adopted son from Russia Vanya Skorobogatov who was adopted by them in 2003. His death was caused by brain injury on August 24th, 2009.

The so-called adopted parents say that Vanya fell and struck his head against the fire-place. Only the day after was he taken to the hospital and connected with the artificial breathing apparatus. However, an attempt to save him proved a failure. In the course of medical examination it became clear that the boy received more than 80 injuries, including 20 injuries to his head. A witness, Doctor Christopher Penney, told the court that his right ear drum was broken and that his body was covered with injuries. This fact was confirmed by other witnesses, including policemen and doctors, which means that the boy had been systematically subjected to tortures. Besides, the doctors said that he was extremely.

And still, Cravers’ attorneys insist that the damage to his body was done by Vanya himself. The attorneys refer to a number of statements, made by the defendants to the effect that the child was inclined to maiming. Russia’s Consul in New York Alexander Otchainov, who was present at the trial, questions the validity of these statements.  The more so that according to the Russian diplomat, they are  rejected by all those who saw the boy, when he was brought to the hospital.  

At the very beginning of the investigation the prosecutors believed that the Cravers should be sentenced to death. Now they say that the American adopted parents should be sentenced to 20 years in prison. In an interview with the Voice of Russia Ombudsman for Children’s Rights under the Russian President Pavel Astakhov said:

"The prosecutors plan to soften the accusation and to hand down a light punishment for killing a child. Of course, long-term imprisonment is also a serious punishment but if the Cravers killed a policeman, a taxi-driver, a doctor, or simply a passer-by on the street, they would have been undoubtedly sentenced to death."                                                                       

Pavel Astakhov stressed that the current trial is being carried out under the conditions when a new adoption agreement between Russia and the USA that was signed this July had not come into force yet. Otherwise, Russia would have been able to be present at the trial as a full-value participant, not simply an observer. The previously mentioned agreement will create an absolutely new legal situation, Pavel Astakhov said:

"Trials similar to that of Vanya’s adoptive parents have recently become frequent in the USA. And as a rule, verdicts leave much to be desired. The Russian Ombudsman says that it would be wrong to ban the adoption of Russian children by foreigners. However, only countries having a relevant agreement with Russia should be allowed to adopt Russian children. For the time being, only the USA and Italy have signed such documents. It is necessary to create a situation in the future when adoption privileges will be given to Russian citizens," Pavel Astakhov said.

Romania: the testimony of Azota Popescu

Romania: the testimony of Azota Popescu

OF MAURIZIO- SEPTEMBER 7, 2011

POSTED IN: INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS , EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , ROMANIA

ph. Roma children, Craiova-Romania (flickr cc)

We fished out a year later, a letter / testimony, dated September 2010, Azota Popescu Representative of the Convent for international adoptions in Romania. We wonder how successful ever had. We hope that as soon as the situation of adoptions in Romania can be resolved favorably.

On the adoption of 70 children waiting for 622 families

Foreigners want children from Serbia

Preference is given for the adoption of prospective couples from Serbia. Foreign citizens can get to the kids if only for a particular child within a reasonable time up to one year could not choose domestic adopters.

- It is about children with severe health problems and developmental delay. For the establishment of intercountry adoption is licensed by the minister responsible for family protection. From 2006 to 2010, the party adopted an average of ten children a year - said Dragan Vulevi?.

-------------------------------------------------- ---------

More adoptive parents than children cared for