Home  

Dutch moves court to trace Indian roots

Dutch moves court to trace Indian roots
 
 
 
A 34-year-old Dutch national has approached the Bombay High Court for help in locating her roots in India, alleging that she was probably kidnapped as an infant and given up for international adoption.
Daksha Van Dijck, a clinical psychologist who worked as a scientist at Maastricht University, has filed a petition saying she suspected she was kidnapped in 1975 and given up for adoption by Shraddhanand Mahilashram in Matunga.
A division bench on Tuesday directed the state to file a reply in two weeks. Dijck was adopted by Johan Van Dijck in 1975 through Wereldkinderen, an adoption agency in Hague.
After her first visit to India in 2001, Dijck tried locating her biological parents through Wereldkinderen. She returned to India in 2007 with her husband and approached Shraddhanand Mahilashram. "The office bearers were totally uncooperative in furnishing any details about her [Dijck] adoption and her biological parent/parents," her petition alleges.
Dijck then approached Wereldkinderen, which allowed her to see her file. The file, however, did not have details about her biological parents or any declaration that she had been abandoned, the petition says.
Pradeep Havnur, Dijck's advocate, said Wereldkinderen had registered complaint with the Matunga police on February 2, 2009 because Shraddhanand Mahilashram was not cooperating.
Rakesh Kapoor, advocate for Shraddhanand Mahilashram, said, "Those days, there was no system to get authentic information of the parent who was relinquishing a child. We have no reason to hide anything from her but she is chasing something that does not exist."
Dijck's petition requests the court to direct the police or the Criminal Investigation Department or Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate Wereldkinderen's 2009 complaint.
 

Meet Mazie Grace: This is the 3-year-old's journey from Haiti to Cadott

Meet Mazie Grace: This is the 3-year-old's journey from Haiti to Cadott
Updated: 10:51 PM Jun 18, 2010Reporter: Mary Rinzel and Photographer Duane Wolter-->

Der US-amerikanische botschfater in Rumänien ist dafür, dass Rumänien bald wieder Kinder ins Ausland vermittelt.

2.7.10 Rumänien
Der US-amerikanische botschfater in Rumänien ist dafür, dass Rumänien bald wieder Kinder ins Ausland vermittelt. Der Nachrichtenagentur AFP sagte er: “Ich würde es gerne sehen, wenn Rumänien seine Adoptionsgesetze bald ändert, damit Kinder schneller und einfacher adoptiert werden können. Ich glaube, dass es nicht gesund für die Kinder ist, wenn sie nicht so früh wie möglich in Familien kommen. Meine Frau arbeitet in einem Zentrum, wo die Kinder ihr erstes Lebensjahr verbringen. Sie sollten bereits in diesem Alter adoptiert werden. Denn je länger sie in solchen Institutionen bleiben, desto mehr sind sie in ihrer emotionalen und intellektuellen Entwicklung beeinträchtigt.“
 
 
 
Ambasadorul SUA la Bucure?ti Mark Gitenstein declar?, într-un interviu acordat MEDIAFAX, c? în România corup?ia este o problem? ?i c? sunt momente în care Guvernul pare prea lent în a lua decizii sau opac în explicarea lor, aspecte reclamate de investitorii str?ini.
·         Politic
INTERVIU: Gitenstein:Corup?ia e o problem? aici; uneori Guvernul pare lent în a lua decizii sau opac (Imagine: Bogdan Stamatin/Mediafax Foto)
R. Alt subiect: scutul american antirachet?. România ?i SUA au început au început negocierile oficiale pe tema desf??ur?rii de elemente ale scutului antirachet?. Spune?i-ne, exist? un text de acord sau de tratat care se negociaz? în prezent ?i de fapt care sunt elementele acestuia?
M.G.: Da. Toate subiectele legate de un tratat sunt discutate. Am luat parte la discu?iile oficiale s?pt?mâna trecut?. Au avut loc o serie de inform?ri aprofundate acolo despre solicit?rile tehnice, despre toate aspectele juridice legate de tratat, dar nu a fost luat? o decizie final?.
R.: Statele Unite se gândesc la anumite loca?ii din România?
M.G.: Nu. Este de datoria românilor s? decid?. Noi le-am prezentat românilor cerin?ele tehnice care trebuie îndeplinite pentru plasarea interceptoarelor. Românii vor trebui s? vin? cu o propunere, dar nu am v?zut nimic deocamdat?.
R.: ?i de câte loca?ii a?i fi interesa?i?
M.G.: Cred c? discu?iile sunt despre o singur? loca?ie, va fi aleas? una singur?.
R. O loca?ie. ?i, odat? cu interceptoarele, vor fi adu?i ?i militari americani pentru a le manevra?
M.G.: Va fi personal care va lucra la ele.
R.: Alte detalii nu ne pute?i oferi?
M.G.: Nu, acum nu.
R.: Raportul Departamentului de Stat privind situatia drepturilor omului a indicat, în ceea ce prive?te România, cazuride discriminare la adresa comunit??ii evreie?ti. De asemenea, au fost plângeri legate de ritmul lent al restituirii propriet??ilor confiscate. Ce crede?i despre acest subiect?
M.G.: În primul rând, vreau s? spun c?, întorcându-m? aici, ca evreu ai c?rui str?buni au plecat din aceast? ?ar?, m-am bucurat s? particip la inaugurarea Memorialului Holocaustului aici în octombrie 2009. Este un monument bine realizat ?i m-am bucurat c? a fost construit. Am acordat mult timp vizit?rii comunit??ilor evreie?ti din România. Cred c? unul dintre cele mai minunate lucruri f?cute de România dup? Revolu?ie este înfiin?area Comisia Wiesel ?i a Institutului Wiesel, eforturi concrete de asumare a trecutului.
În ceea ce prive?te restituirea propriet??ilor, principalul subiect care m? preocup? este Fondul Proprietatea. De aceea am felicitat-o pe pre?edinta Roberta Anastase, pentru c? una din cele patru legi pe care le-a trecut prin Camera Deputa?ilor la începutul acestei s?pt?mâni este una care permite Franklin Templeton s? înceap? gestionarea acestui fond. A existat mult? îngrijorare legat? de Fond, dac? este bine gestionat ?i dac? bunurile sale nu sunt risipite, pentru c? de fapt ace?tia sunt banii din care se vor realiza retroced?rile.
Mul?i americani în vârst? care au fost victime ale comunismului sau fascismului ?i ale c?ror bunuri au fost confiscate încep s? moar?, îmb?trânesc tot mai mult ?i accept? s? primeasc? sume derizorii în contul desp?gubirilor fiindc? se tem c? nu vor primi nici un ban de la Fond. Cred c? de aceea este important ca valoarea acestui Fond s? fie asigurat? în continuare.
Am acordat de asemenea mult timp modului în care este rezolvat? problema Bisericilor greco-catolice. Am acordat de asemenea timp problemei victimelor comunismului ?i a confisc?rii propriet??ilor acestora de c?tre comuni?ti. Este un subiect important pentru Statele Unite pentru c? exist? 400.000 de americani de origine român? ?i mul?i sunt preocupa?i de acest subiect. A?a c? aud foarte des aceste probleme.
R.: Recent, Curtea Constitu?ional? a României a declarat neconstitu?ional? legea lustra?iei. Care este opinia dumneavoastr? despre aceast? decizie ?i, mai ales, la 20 de ani dup? Revolu?ie crede?i c? mai este necesar? o lege a lustra?iei?
M.G.: Nu cunosc argumentele constitu?ionale pe baza c?rora a fost dat? decizia. Nu sunt expert în Constitu?ia României. Dar no?iunea de lege a lustra?iei nu este complet necunoscut? în Statele Unite. Poate c? nu ?ti?i dar dup? R?zboiul Civil, Guvernul a pus interzis sudi?tilor secesioni?ti s? de?in? func?ii. De fapt, ei aveau legi mult mai dure decât cea din România. În cele din urm?, acele prevederi au fost relaxate. Legea aici, din câte în?eleg, nu a fost niciodat? implementat? pe deplin.
Deci cred c? este foarte important s? î?i asumi trecutul. Îl admir mult pe Nelson Mandela ?i tot ceea ce a f?cut el în Africa de Sud. Gra?ie Comisiei Wiesel, România a reu?it foarte bine s? î?i asume Holocaustul. Probabil c? ar trebui s? investi?i timp ?i energie pentru a v? gândi cum s? v? asuma?i trecutul comunist. Este o parte important? a istoriei României, pe care trebuie s? v-o asuma?i deschis. Nu trebuie s? presupun? m?suri punitive, dar trebuie asumat?.
R.: Strategia Na?ional? de Ap?rare trimis? s?pt?mâna aceasta la Parlament men?ioneaz? campaniile de pres? menite s? discrediteze sau s? creeze presiuni asupra institu?iilor, printre vulnerabilit??ile ??rii. Crede?i c? asta ar putea afecta libertatea de expresie în România?
M.G.: Depinde ce se întâmpl? ca urmare a acestei prevederi. P?rerea mea este c? presa din România nu difer? de presa din Statele Unite ?i în multe cazuri este subiectiv?. Finan?atorii institu?iilor de pres? au propriile interese. ?i în Statele Unite este la fel. E suficient s? te ui?i la posturi precum MSNBC ?i Fox News ?i vei vedea acela?i lucru. Copia?i destul de bine situa?ia din Statele Unite.
Solu?ia din punctul meu de vedere este ca media s? relateze cazurile de abuz al statului asupra unei institu?ii de pres? sau al unor institu?ii de pres? asupra concuren?ei. Relata?i despre ele! Cred c? solu?ia este s? se scrie mai mult despre astfel de situa?ii, s? se fac? mai mult? lumin?, institu?iile de media s? se critice mai mult una pe cealalt?, pentru c? oamenii sunt mult mai inteligen?i decât v? imagina?i ?i în?eleg ce se întâmpl?. Cu cât relata?i mai mult, cu atât deciziile lor vor fi luate mai în cuno?tin?? de cauz?.
R.: Când a?i venit în România, a?i vorbit cu pl?cere de r?d?cinile române?ti pe care era?i hot?rât s? le cerceta?i. V-a?i g?sit rude?
M.G.: Am g?sit rude în Republica Moldova. Am fost la Chi?in?u de dou? ori ?i m-am întâlnit cu membri ai familiei Gitenstein. Este vorba despre o tân?r?, o veri?oar? îndep?rtat?. Înc? nu în?eleg exact care este rela?ia de rudenie. Se nume?te Sonia Gitenstein, are 30 de ani ?i se ocup? de cimitirul evreiesc de acolo ?i conduce o organiza?ie care protejeaz? cimitirul acesta. L-am cunoscut ?i pe tat?l ei, care este de vârsta mea. Se nume?te Daniel Gitenstein. Numele lor se scrie exact ca al nostru ?i în mod clar de înrudim, pentru c? nu sunt prea mul?i Gitenstein în lume. Iar noi provenim din Chi?in?u. Încerc?m s? clarific?m lucrurile.
Cât despre rudele mele din Boto?ani, familia Bralower... cred c? nu mai exist? urma?i. Nu am ajuns înc? la Boto?ani, dar am un document de 400 de pagini cu genealogia familiei de la un v?r îndep?rtat al meu din Statele Unite, care arat? exact când au plecat ?i cine era str?- str?bunica mea. Am ?i o fotografie cu str?-str?bunica mea, care a locuit din Boto?ani ?i a imigrat în SUA. Str?bunicul meu a adus-o la el. A?a c? am s? m? duc acolo ?i am s? încerc s? caut posibile rude. M? tem c? nu voi g?si pe nimeni. Exist? foarte pu?ini evrei în acea zon? a României ?i a? fi surprins s? mai descoper rude în via??.
R. : Trecând la un alt subiect, în timpul audierilor dumneavoastr? în Senat, anul trecut, a?i spus c? o prioritate a mandatului dumneavoastr? va fi reluarea adop?iilor interna?ionale.
M.G.:Da
R.:Ce pute?i spune acum despre acest subiect?
M.G.: Abordarea mea în leg?tur? cu subiectul adop?iilor este c? mi-ar pl?cea s? fie reluate adop?iile interna?ionale. ?i am f?cut eforturi pentru aceasta. Preocuparea mea este legat? de copii ?i vreau s? m? asigur c? ajung în c?minul potrivit. Am identificat 300 de copii care pot fi adopta?i. Guvernul român mi-a oferit câteva informa?ii despre situa?ia lor. Cred c? doar 40 din ace?ti copii nu au fost adopta?i. Încerc s? aflu care este starea lor de s?n?tate, cât de bine sunt trata?i.
Apoi, mi-a? dori s? v?d o schimbare în legisla?ia român? privind adop?iile, astfel încât copiii s? poat? fi adopta?i mai u?or ?i mai repede, indiferent dac? sunt adopta?i de români sau de altcineva. Pentru c? eu cred c? nu este un lucru s?n?tos faptul c? ace?ti copii nu sunt în mijlocul unor familii cât mai repede. So?ia mea lucreaz? ca voluntar? aici la un centru dintr-un spital unde stau în primul an din via??. ?i atunci trebuie adopta?i, cât mai repede cu putin??. Deoarece cu cât stau mai mult în institu?ii cu atât mai mare va fi impactul asupra dezvolt?rii lor emo?ionale ?i intelectuale. ?tiu c? exist? oameni care doresc s? fie schimbat? legea a?a încât procesul s? fie mai rapid iar acesta este un lucru extrem de important. ?i ?ti?i, cunosc oameni - americani - care locuiesc aici, în România ?i care încearc? s? adopte ?i au multe probleme.
Ace?ti copii merit? o familie exact a?a cum am avut noi.
R.: Tot la momentul numirii dumneavoastr? ca ambasador în România a?i fost criticat de pres? - m? refer la Washington Times - pentru activit??ile dv de lobby. S-a scris de asemenea c? în cariera dumneavoastr? a?i reprezentat Lockheed Martin, compania care acum a fost selectat? s? livreze României avioanele F16. Ce le r?spunde?i celor care spun c? ar fi un conflict de interese aici?
M.G.: Regulile privind conflictul de interese sunt foarte dure în Statele Unite. ?i sunt ?i foarte clare. Sunt probabil reguli mult mai dure decât în România. Eu de exemplu nu am voie s? reprezint sau s? am vreo influen?? asupra vreunei companii în care am investi?ii personale. De exemplu, dac? a? avea ac?iuni la Lockheed Martin, nu a? putea face niciun fel de munc? în favoarea Lockheed Martin. Nu am ac?iuni la Lockheed Martin ?i sunt absolut sigur c? nici nu am avut vreodat?.
Dac? a? fi reprezentat Lockheed Martin în ultimii doi ani prin firma mea de avocatur?, nu a? fi putut face niciun fel de munc? în favoarea Lockheed Martin pân? la împlinirea termenului de doi ani.
Eu nu am reprezentat Lockheed Martin în ultimii doi ani. Am reprezentat Lockheed Martin acum zece sau 15 ani, nu mai îmi amintesc, a fost acum mult timp, în anii '90. ?i nu a avut nimic de-a face cu achizi?iile.
În al treilea rând, eu nu am nicio influen?? asupra decizia Guvernului american de a sponsoriza F-16 sau Lockheed Martin pentru programul românesc de avion multirol. A?a c? nu am avut nicio influen?? asupra aceastei decizii.
În schimb, nu am voie s? fac anumite lucruri care au leg?tur? cu Brookings Institution. Nu am voie s? fac nimic care ar influen?a Brookings Institution, pentru c? am lucrat acolo. Nu am voie s? fac nimic care s? aib? impact direct asupra firmei mele de avocatur?. Adic? dac? firma mea de avocatur? ar veni aici ?i ar spune "Am vrea s? ne aju?i cu firma aceasta sau aceasta", eu le-a? spune "Nu v? pot ajuta pe voi sau acea companie".
Deci exist? mult? lucruri pe care nu am dreptul s? le fac, dar Lockheed Martin nu figureaz? printre ele.
R.: Diploma?ii români lucreaz? pentru o vizit? a pre?edintelui Traian B?sescu în Statele Unite.
M.G.: Lucr?m la acest aspect.
R.: Se va întâmpla anul acesta? Anul viitor?
M.G.: Cine ?tie?! Adic?, pre?edintele Statelor Unite este o persoan? cu un program destul de înc?rcat, a?a c?... dar lucr?m la asta.
R. Deci lucra?i la o întâlnire bilateral? a lor?
M.G.: Asta încerc?m s? facem.
R.: Anul acesta?
M.G.: Nu ?tiu când se va întâmpla. Eu am încercat... Mi-ar pl?cea s? se întâmple mâine. Mi-ar pl?cea s? vin? pre?edintele Obama aici chiar mâine. Dar l-am adus pe vicepre?edinte aici.
R.: Apropo, l-am putea vedea pe pre?edintele Obama aici, la Bucure?ti?
M.G.: V-am spus c? mi-ar pl?cea s? vin?, dar nu se ?tie. Fiecare ?ar? din lume vrea acela?i lucru, iar el nu este decât o singur? persoan?.
R.: Spune?i-mi domnule ambasador, cum vi se pare via?a în România?
M.G.: Îmi place aici. Este cea mai bun? slujb? pe care am avut-o vreodat?. Iubesc locul, oamenii, munca mea, echipa cu care lucrez. Singurul lucru care nu este bun este c? m? aflu la 8.000 de km de nepo?ii ?i de copiii mei.
R.: Nu v? viziteaz??
M.G.: Ba da, m? viziteaz?. Dar a? vrea s?-i v?d în fiecare s?pt?mân?.
R.: Le-a pl?cut în România?
M.G.: S-au îndr?gostit de România. ?i vor s? revin? aici. De fapt, fiul meu, so?ia lui ?i nepotul meu se vor reîntoarce aici în jurul datei de 6 iulie, cred. Vom petrece cam o s?pt?mân?-zece zile aici ?i apoi vom pleca pentru înc? o s?pt?mân? în Turcia, la Istanbul. Abia a?tept.
R.: Deci v? ve?i petrece vacan?a în Turcia?
M.G.: O parte aici ?i o parte în Turcia.
R.: A?i recomanda România ca destina?ie turistic??
M.G: Absolut!
R.: În pofida infrastructurii?
M.G.: În pofida infrastructurii! Am avut ni?te prieteni foarte dragi care au venit aici acum zece zile ?i i-am încurajat s? mergem la Oradea. A fost foarte frumos acolo, în zona montan?. Apoi - el este pescar, ca ?i mine - am mers împreun? în Delt? ?i am stat într-un hotel plutitor. A fost foarte cald, dar ne-am distrat grozav. Am v?zut multe p?s?ri, n-am prins prea mult pe?te. Eu am prins unul singur, dar i-am dat drumul înapoi în ap?.
N-am fost în Maramure?, dar vreau s? m? duc acolo.
?ti?i, din p?cate, fac multe drumuri dar când ajung undeva sunt foarte multe obliga?ii oficiale de care trebuie s? m? achit. Iar eu vreau s? m? relaxez. De exemplu îmi place s? pictez ?i a? vrea s? pictez. Sper s? avem o s?pt?mân? doar Libby ?i cu mine undeva, în Transilvania în august, f?r? întâlniri oficiale. Doar pentru pictur? ?i plimb?ri.
R.: Deci pescui?i, picta?i... Ce altceva mai face?i?
M.G. Dorm foarte mult în weekend. E un alt hobby al meu.

De facto statelessness places adoption on the table for children of N.Korean women in China

De facto statelessness places adoption on the table for children of N.Korean women in China
Proponents say adoption is one solution to complex legal and social issues, while critics say it bypasses resolving root causes and is not in the child’s best interests
 
 
 
-->
 
» North Korean child defectors in China, 2001.
 
In an effort to address legal obstacles faced by children of North Korean mothers in China, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill proposing a solution on March 25 of this year. The bill, H.R. 4986, is also known as the “North Korean Refugee Adoption Act of 2010.”

 

The bill’s purpose is “to develop a strategy for assisting stateless children from North Korea, and for other purposes.” The same bill, S.3156, was also introduced into the U.S. Senate two days prior.

 

The bill has been backed by Liberty in North Korea (LiNK), an NGO that works with North Korean defectors. LiNK worked with legislators during the drafting process. The NGO has also campaigned for the bill by screening a film at campuses, community centers, and churches across the United States, according to LiNK President Hannah Song.

 

H.R. 4986 proposes inter-country adoption as a solution to resolve issues surrounding children of North Korean women living in China and recommends that the U.S. Secretary of State “develop a comprehensive strategy for facilitating the adoption of North Korean children by United States citizens.”

 


This bill also states that it would seek ways to establish pilot programs in South Korea, China, Southeast Asia, and other countries for identification, immediate care, and eventual international adoption of orphaned children from North Korea. It attempts to create alternative mechanisms for foreign-sending countries to prove that North Korean children are orphans when documentation, such as birth certificates, death certificates of birth parents, or orphanage documentation, is missing or destroyed.

 

Such documentation is a requirement of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which sets out international principles that govern inter-country adoption. The Hague Convention, of which China is a signatory, “seeks to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights, and to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children.”

 

“The tough challenge with North Korea and even with what we saw with Haiti, for example, was that documentation was destroyed,” said LiNK President Song. “And for North Korea, it just does not exist.”

 

De Jure vs. De Facto Statelessness

 

Children of North Korean mothers and Chinese fathers face a number of significant and diverse legal obstacles that ultimately lead to difficulties in securing citizenship in China.

 

Although they are legally entitled to Chinese citizenship, children face obstacles in obtaining hukou, a family registry certificate. Such a certificate is difficult to obtain under current practice. This is because although not required by law, the Chinese father must submit legal proof including testimonies from witnesses that his North Korean wife has been arrested and repatriated back to North Korea. This is a requirement because the mother may not be listed on the hukou due to her status as an illegal economic migrant, since China currently does not recognize North Korean border crossers as refugees. As a result, families are caught between having to leave children in de facto statelessness, as they cannot obtain hukou, or having to split up the family, both of which could become root causes for abandonment and eventual stateless orphan status.

 

“Many North Korean children of Chinese fathers and North Korean mothers live in legal limbo,” said Kay Seok of international NGO Human Rights Watch in her report, “Denied Status, Denied Education: Children of North Korean Women in China.”

 

“Children are nationals of North Korea, meaning entitled to South Korean citizenship at the same time, even if children already have dual nationality from China and North Korea,” said international human rights lawyer Kim Jong-chul. “Children are stateless not in the de jure sense, but in a de facto sense because their Chinese birth fathers do not register them under the family registration system, which prevents them from receiving educational and medical services.”

 

Inter-country Adoption

 

Inter-country adoption remains a complex issue in Northeast Asia. An estimated 200,000 children from South Korea have been sent overseas through inter-country adoption. Ninety percent of children sent abroad through inter-country adoption from South Korea in 2009 were children of unwed mothers. According to the U.S. Department of State, China sent an estimated 3,000 children to the United States in 2009.

 

Tentative Support

 

Supporters of the bill claim it will help address what they deem China’s lack of willingness to cooperate on issues pertaining to North Korean defectors, as well as a lack of resources to address related social welfare issues.

 

“Overall, I see positive intentions behind this law,” said Seok. “Orphanages are not ideal, and there is a lack of financial resources in those areas of China where children of North Korean mothers reside that are available in countries like the U.S.”

 

However, Seok notes that there are potential practical problems.

 

“If this law were to pass, first and foremost, the organizations that are a part of these measures would have to work with China, and it is not a given that China’s government will agree to cooperate,” said Seok, speaking of the bill’s challenges. “Second, they need to verify documentation about the children and their parents, which will be the most difficult task they will face.”

 

In addition to highlighting the lack of financial resources in China to address this issue, experts also consider China’s policies toward North Korean defectors.

 

“When China’s rigid or hostile attitude toward North Korean defectors is considered, inter-country adoption is one of the possible options to resolve this kind of dilemma,” said Kim Jong-chul.

 

Criticisms

 

Inter-country adoption remains controversial in circles of academia, social welfare, and human rights. In addition, the Hague Convention mandates that the first priority is in keeping families together, looking to domestic adoption as a second alternative, and inter-country adoption as a last resort.

 

The inter-country adoption program that launched in South Korea in the aftermath of the Korean War was the first of its kind.

 

“As previously hidden histories of American adoption of that generation have surfaced, they - as with subsequent generations of adoptees - were often doubly traumatized by the very humanitarian process meant to liberate them from poverty and suffering,” said Christine Hong, professor of Critical Pacific Rim Studies and Korean Diaspora Studies at UC Santa Cruz in the United States in regards to the inter-country adoption program.

 

“Who has the authority to determine if these children have indeed been socially orphaned and surrendered for adoption?” asked Hong. “This resolution does not begin to address these fundamental questions that any ethical overseas adoption program must address.”

 

Others have pointed to the need to address root causes of the issue.

 

“Public policies have to include a way to overcome this emergency situation and a means to normalize or legalize the family situation of Chinese men and North Korean refugee women,” said Reverend Kim Do Hyun of Koroot, a group that provides support for inter-country adoptees from South Korea.

 

 
» The bill, H.R. 4986, is also known as the “North Korean Refugee Adoption Act of 2010.
 

 

Alternative Legal Avenues

 

The legal complexity woven around the children of North Korean mothers in China remains a stark reality. Indeed, the issue has permeated into legal systems in China, South Korea, North Korea, a number of countries in Southeast Asia in which defectors reside, and the United States, among others.

 

In its report, Human Rights Watch recommends not inter-country adoption, but that the Chinese government “allow hukou registration for all children with one Chinese parent without requiring verification of the identity of the other parent,” among its suggestions.

 

“The problem is not the absence of a law in China,” said Kay Seok, who is also a supporter of the bill. “The issue is the enforcement of the law, which should take place without penalizing the children’s parents.”

 

In addition, Kim Jong-chul, also a bill supporter, said in regards to the will to first seek to obtain hukou, “In reality, Chinese fathers are very reluctant to register their children because the one-child policy and their North Korean wife’s illegal status are obstacles.”

 

The Protection and Settlement for North Korean Defectors Act passed by South Korea’s National Assembly 2007 is the legal mechanism through which North Koreans who have left the country may gain lawful recognition as South Korean nationals. It is based on a South Korean constitutional provision that defines the Republic of Korea as the entire Korean peninsula, meaning that people from North Korea are eligible for lawful recognition in South Korea.

 

The language of the North Korean Defectors Act implies that only those who previously held North Korean citizenship are eligible. Legal experts say that a clarification upon or amendment to the law’s definition of North Korean defectors could grant children, along with their mothers, recognition as South Korean nationals. This may effectively be an alternative solution to the de facto statelessness of the children.

 

The language of H.R. 4986 also makes it unclear as to which children fall within the scope of the programs that may be created under the bill. The bill states that the children that will benefit from inter-country adoption are orphaned North Korean children who do not have families or permanent residence, as well as orphans with Chinese fathers and North Korean mothers living in China and any eligible North Korean children. Such language leaves ambiguity as to which children the bill refers to, and therefore, which children may be determined “eligible” for inter-country adoption through a newly-created documentation process.

 

“We would never take a child who we know has a parent that is still alive and pretty much put them through this process for adoption,” said LiNK’s President Song, who later added that she also supports directly contacting parents to confirm relinquishment of children. The current language of the bill, however, does not clearly articulate those sentiments.

 

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs according to U.S. legislative procedure and is likely to go through a number of stages of discussion, markup and further amendments prior to being finalized and presented for a vote by the Congress.

 

By Kimberly Hyo-Jung Campbell

 

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

 


http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/426317.html

 

International briefs: Russia says adoption deal OK'd

International briefs: Russia says adoption deal OK'd

Posted Thursday, Jun. 17, 2010
Russia says adoption deal OK'd

RUSSIA -- A Russian rights ombudsman said Thursday that Russian and U.S. negotiators have agreed to set up licensed adoption agencies and allow monitors to visit the homes of adopted children as part of a new accord, but the State Department said no deal had been reached. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the Moscow talks will be extended. New adoptions of Russians by U.S. parents virtually stopped after an incident in April in which a Tennessee adoptive mother put a 7-year-old boy on a plane back to Russia unaccompanied by an adult.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/17/2274520/international-briefs-russia-says.html

 

Child trafficking bill passes Senate to become law

Child trafficking bill passes Senate to become law

 

 

 
 
 

OTTAWA — The Senate has adopted a Conservative backbench MP's bill to ensure traffickers of children in Canada spend at least five years in jail, removing its final hurdle in becoming law.

 

The bill puts in place mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of trafficking children in Canada, with at least five years for most offences and six years for offences involving aggravated circumstances, such as sexual assault.

 

The current law imposes a maximum penalty of 14 years for human trafficking, regardless of the victim's age, but there is no minimum. Human trafficking has been an offence in Canada for less than five years.

 

Manitoba MP Joy Smith's private member's bill passed in the House of Commons last September, with the support of the Conservatives and most Liberal and NDP MPs. The Bloc Quebecois voted against the bill.

 

Smith says the bill is needed because the first few convictions under the law resulted in lenient sentences.

 

But the debate in the Senate has been slow, and it has sat in the upper chamber for nearly nine months. It received third reading Thursday, and is due to receive royal assent and be proclaimed law.

 

"Bill C-268 is an important step forward in addressing human trafficking here in Canada," Smith said in a statement. "Traffickers need to know that Canada will not accept the exploitation and sale of our children and any attempts to do so will be met with stiff consequences."

 

Smith said the bill is the only private member's bill to be passed by Parliament since the most recent election in 2008. Its passing is "even more significant" since it amends the Criminal Code, she said. Prior to this legislation, only 14 private member's bills containing Criminal Code amendments have been adopted by Parliament since Confederation.

Adoptive mother stranded in Uganda

Adoptive mother stranded in Uganda

by OWEN LEI / KING 5 News

NWCN.com

Court asks Centre to aid CBI in Preet Mandir probe

Court asks Centre to aid CBI in Preet Mandir probe
Mayura Janwalkar / DNA
Thursday, June 17, 2010 0:28 IST
 
 
Mumbai: Expressing concern for 450 children lodged at Pune’s Preet Mandir adoption home, the Bombay high court on Wednesday directed additional solicitor general DJ Khambata to seek instructions from the Central Adoption Resources Agency (Cara) about what it proposes to do for those children.
Justice BH Marlapalle and justice Anoop Mohta have directed the Cara and the Union ministry for women and child welfare to co-operate with the CBI. The Cara has been asked to file its affidavit in one week.
The court was informed that Preet Mandir’s licence to carry out adoption activities was revoked in May 2007. The adoption home has challenged the revocation of their licence before the court.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is probing into allegations of Preet Mandir carrying out adoptions in an illegal manner, asked the court for six months to complete the procedure.
The court was also given a status report on the institute by the CBI. 
NGOs Advait Foundation and Sakhee had moved court seeking action against Preet Mandir. Their advocates Pradeep Havnur and Abhay Nevgi had earlier told the court that a number of children lodged at the adoption home were found to be malnourished. The FIR filed against Preet Mandir states, “enquiry has revealed during the period 2005 to 2010 in as many as 70 instances, Preet Mandir has received excess money in the form of donations by extortion from Indian parents, amounting to more than Rs 50,000.”
The FIR also states that the donation, in many cases, was charged after the adoptive parents developed a liking towards a child and desperately wanted to adopt it. Refusing to pay the amount would stop the adoption process.
Investigations by the CBI, as written in the FIR of May 12, reveal that the adoption centre had fraudulently given away children in foreign adoptions by misleading their parents and had set up a temporary shelter home for distressed women in order to procure children from unwed mothers and give them in adoptions.

In search of roots, Dutch woman smells a ‘racket’

In search of roots, Dutch woman smells a ‘racket’
Published: Thursday, Jun 17, 2010, 0:43 IST 
By Mayura Janwalkar | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
Daksha Van Dijck, 34, made trips to Mumbai from the Netherlands in 2001 and 2007 to touch base with her roots. Adopted in 1975 by Dutch national Johan Van Dijck and raised in the Netherlands, the clinical psychologist wanted to meet her biological parents. Now, she believes she might have been kidnapped as a baby and given away in adoption.
Van Dijck has moved the Bombay high court, seeking a direction to the commissioner of police, Mumbai, and the senior inspector of the Matunga police station to register an FIR against a Matunga-based orphanage-cum-adoption centre. Anjali Pawar-Kate of the international NGO Against Child Trafficking is co-petitioner.
In her petition, Van Dijck has stated she first visited India in 2001 “to fill in the void in her life in the absence of knowing her own biography, to trace her roots and seek details of her biological parents”. In 2007, she returned with her husband and visited the organisation to make more inquiries about her adoption, but the office-bearers refused to co-operate.
Wereldkinderen, the Dutch adoption agency that processed Van Dijck’s adoption, also aided her in tracing her roots and making contact with the orphanage. Pauline Hillen, an official of the agency, visited India in 2008 and made attempts to meet the director of the institution. However, according to the petition, she was led to the institution’s lawyer, who handed over a “pre-formulated letter” to Hillen stating that Van Dijck will not make any attempts in the future to locate her biological parents.
Smelling a rat, Van Dijck lodged a complaint against the organisation on February 9, 2009, stating that they should have maintained her confidential information files as mandated by the Supreme Court. She has stated that there was no reason for the institution to keep this information from her unless she was kidnapped and illegally given in an inter-country adoption. She has stated that there is also no police record to show that she was an abandoned child.
The adoption centre’s action seeking the undertaking from her is nothing short of “extortion or blackmail” she has contented. Van Dijck’s lawyer Pradeep Havnur said that the court will hear her case further after two weeks.

Orphanages get away with violation of rules

Orphanages get away with violation of rules

By: Kaumudi Gurjar    
 

Can two officers keep a tab on all orphanages in the city? That's the question officials of the Women and Child Development (WCD) Department pose when asked  how illegal orphanages manage to operate in the city.

The matter assumes significance in light of the adoption scandal that surfaced at the Gurukul Godavari Balak Ashram in Yerawada. The orphanage lacked a licence, and the police unearthed shocking details of a 'babies for money' adoption racket virtually everyday since the arrest of its director, an employee, a couple of doctors, and a school principal.

Faced with the mushrooming of orphanages in the city, officials find it difficult to cope with the workload. They say keeping an eye on 47 orphanages in the city in times of a severe staff crunch is tough.

"With one probation officer on medical leave and only two on duty, it is difficult to keep a tab on the illegal institutions, which are said to be mushrooming," District Women and Child Welfare Officer P B Shirke said.

Combing operations
Anuradha Sahastrabuddhe, member of Juvenile Justice Board and director of Dnyanadevi Childline, said combing operations to unearth illegal activities were the need of the hour.

"We had received a tip-off about such a fake orphanage four years ago, but nothing happened. Now after four years and all this noise, CWC (Child Welfare Committee) officials visited the ashram and said they shut it down. How can such laxness be allowed at such a time?" she said.

Anjali Pawar, director of NGO Sakhi, said WCD Department officials can not shy away from their responsibility by citing staff shortage.

Orphanages raided
On Monday, after protests from child rights activists that the WCD Department was doing nothing about the sale of children happening from orphanages, two Dapodi-based orphanages operating without a licence for 10 years were made to shut down on Monday.

"When the case of an HIV positive child being sold by Gurukul Godavari Balak Ashram was brought to light, a Dapodi-based CWC member received information about two such orphanages illegally running in the town area," said a person with inside knowledge of the committee's working. "The members of CWC visited two such institutions and after scrutinising their papers, realised that they were lacking necessary licences."

A CWC member, who requested anonymity, said at Niradhar Balsangopan Balakashram run by Malan Tulwe, 32 children from seven to 11 years of age were kept in a community hall with no proper provisions for eating, drinking water and toilets.

"The orphanage was running on charity and no state government funds were made available to them," the CWC member said. "On inspection of their files, it was revealed that most of the charity money was used by the caretakers."

She said the second orphanage, Saraswati Ananthashram run by Saraswati Surwase, was in a much better condition, but lacked the necessary licence.

Sahastrabuddhe alleged that one of the Dapodi orphanages that CWC claims to have shut was still running.

"We have kept surveillance on them for four years. After CWC claimed they had shut the orphanage, we visited the place," said Sahastrabuddhe. "Our person befriended the caretaker and was told that the kids had been shifted to another location hours before the CWC raid."

 

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/jun/160610-Orphanage-Women-and-Child-Development-Pune.htm