Home  

Banii orfanilor dispar de la Fundatia pentru copii a lui Ion Tiriac

Banii orfanilor dispar de la Fundatia pentru copii a lui Ion Tiriac

De: Iulian RINDER

Aparut in nr 14 / 02 June 2009

Categorii: ADMINISTRATIE PUBLICA

,,Poiana Soarelui” din Brasov, actuala ,,Dumbrava Minunata”, apartinand lui Ion Tiriac a fost data în judecata la Tribunalul Brasov de un orfan care a fost institutionalizat acolo pana în 2005. Motivul, conducerea institutiei a ridicat banii din sponsorizarile primite de tanara orfana fara a-i cere acordul. Teodora Larisa Zdranc, sustine ca a aflat, dupa ce a fost exclusa de la Complexul Educational, despre faptul ca era cotitulara pentru mai multe conturi aflate pe pe numele ei si pe cel al directoarei institutiei, Luminita Timpea. Fapt de altfel confirmat de Banca Nationala a Romaniei. Fata a fost fortata sa paraseasca ,,Dumbrava” pentru ca a dat informatii presei despre conditiile dure de acolo.

The Baby Merchants – Part 1

Article Index Sections Human Trafficking
The Baby Merchants – Part 1 Print E-mail
Written by Raissa Robles   
Monday, 01 June 2009
Digg!

What looked like a nursery filled with babies was a storage, processing and shipping center for Filipino babies.

When policemen entered a house in Jala Jala, Rizal just southeast of Manila on the night of December 15, 2008, they had a warrant to arrest a suspect accused of writing bouncing checks.

The last thing they expected to find was a room full of crying, cooing newborn babies.

“We were amazed to see so many babies,” Jala Jala town police chief Larry Malaybalay told Newsbreak.

There were nine diapered infants; each snuggled in a crib with stuffed toys for company. Each crib had a name on it. The room had the look of a bright and cheery nursery.

There was only one problem: there were no parents. Instead, the house had 11 adults including seven nannies and one Singaporean woman who repeatedly told the town police chief, “I love babies.”

“We asked for papers” to explain the babies' presence. “They couldn't show any,” he said.

“We arrested them all.”

Chief Inspector Malaybalay said “I felt something was wrong. Why were there so many babies (when) that was not an orphanage? Of course we became very suspicious.”

It turned out he had grounds for suspicion. Digging into the babies' backgrounds, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) realized that the police may have stumbled on an international baby trafficking ring operating under its very nose since 2006.

DSWD Secretary Esperanza Cabral described the case as “very important” to her agency. She gave Newsbreak access to other agency officials.

The DSWD now suspects that what looked like a nursery filled with babies was actually something more chilling: a storage, processing and shipping center for Filipino babies.

Possibly involving more than 30 babies, it may well turn out to be the biggest and only case of highly organized and systematic baby trafficking in years. It shows how easy it is to smuggle babies out of the country, authorities said.

The operators preyed on the anguish of women, buying their unwanted babies from P2,000 to P7,000 each, some while still in their mothers' wombs. The babies were stored initially in a place in Pililla town and later in neighboring Jala Jala.

The Pililla town operation was ostensibly an orphanage called Hope for the Homeless Angels. It was registered with the Pililla government but never registered with the DSWD nor the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as required by law.

Authorities believe that while the babies were in Pililla then later transferred to Jala Jala, they were fattened up, vaccinated, provided genuine or fake birth certificates, then flown to a commercial adoption agency in Singapore owned by Irene Low Ai Lian, who was caught red-handed with the babies in that December raid in Jala Jala.

The babies lived a regimented life, their bodily functions and milk intake closely monitored. For instance, according to a schedule provided to their nannies, they all had to be exposed to sunlight by early dawn.

If the police had not found the nine babies when they did, two would have simply disappeared, flown out of Manila as hand-carried baggage by December 22, 2009, according to a handwritten schedule taped to the babies' bedroom wall. Two other babies had been flown out earlier on December 6, the same schedule showed.

Authorities are now trying to trace up to 30 babies who were processed and shipped in this manner starting 2006, Supt. Malaybalay said.

A number of babies allegedly never made it to the airport, though. “I was told babies died on them in their previous location in Pililla which they called Hope for the Homeless Angels,” claimed Voltaire Gellido, one of Low's co-accused. Gellido was included in the charge sheet since he owns the house in Jala Jala where the babies were found and he was the original object of the police manhunt.

Gellido, a former mayor of Jala Jala, claimed in an exclusive interview that Low had decided to lease his Jala Jala residence in order to move out all the babies from Pililla because three of them nearly died there of pneumonia. She referred to the former site, located in a squatter area as “that dinky place,” he said.

The babies who did reach Singapore allegedly ended up with Low's Singapore-based agency, where they were turned over to foreigners who had each paid a “processing fee” of at least P600,000 (US$12,500) per baby. Upon request, though, this fee could be discounted or paid on installment, interest free.

In comparison, legal adoptions which all have to be coursed through the Philippine government, cost at least US$3,200 in processing and other fees, according to the Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB), the lone state agency to authorize all foreign adoptions and accredit all foreign adoption agencies.

Low's adoption agency in Singapore, the Fox Family Services Pte. Ltd., is not in the ICAB registry and therefore not authorized to facilitate foreign adoptions of Filipino babies, said Sally Escutin, chief of the DSWD legal service.

“Singapore is a transit point,” she said. Many babies eventually ended up elsewhere like Australia or Germany, she said.

Because of this, sources told Newsbreak that the Australian Embassy had contacted Philippine authorities to learn more about the case.

A passion for babies

It was the presence of a middle-aged Singaporean matron in an obscure lake shore town, two and a half hours drive from Manila, that set off alarm bells for the police.

Slim of build with her hair in a bun, the conservatively dressed Low, 51, was the picture of bewildered sincerity. “Her allegation was that she was shouldering the costs of the orphanage in good faith,” Supt. Malaybalay recalled her telling him.

“She said to me, 'I love babies'.”

She refused to give any statement, written or verbal at the police station.

But she gave interviews, especially to Singapore media, disowning any crime. She said she was merely a visitor and a donor to the orphanage housed in Jala Jala, now renamed The Jala Jala Home for the Needy Angels, Inc. She said she was an innocent, gullible and misguided do-gooder who was conned into donating large sums to what she belatedly realized was an illegal scheme.

According to Singapore's leading daily, The Straits Times: “She said she was staying in the house to oversee its refurbishment and to distribute food and clothes to the infants while the home awaited license by the authorities.'I am not here to match babies (with couples), but as a donor to support the home,'” she said. (read The Straits Times' story Facing prosecution)

“I am not a baby-trafficker,” she also told The New Paper, Singapore's second largest, days after her arrest. “I was at the wrong place at the wrong time.” (read The New Paper's story S'porean adoption agency owner accused of baby-trafficking )

Since her arrest last December, DSWD officials have been trying to find a link between her Fox Family commercial adoption agency in Singapore and the babies recovered outside Manila.

Atty. Escutin told Newsbreak she had stumbled on a definite link while surfing in Fox Family's official website. But the website disappeared and was replaced by an “under renovation” sign. She could no longer access it, she said. She called her discovery very revealing.

Newsbreak also encountered the same “under renovation” sign and therefore phoned Low's lawyer, Reynaldo Directo, to get her side of the story. Repeated requests for a return call were ignored.

Newsbreak therefore searched the web again and managed to retrieve portions of the Fox Family website and phone numbers.

Newsbreak was just as surprised as Irene Low was when she personally answered one of the numbers posted on the internet. “I'm somewhere around (the Philippines) but how did you get my number?” she asked.

When told it was from her website, she said, “but my website is no longer up.” Later, she said, “I have pulled out my website as you know until my resolution is clear.”

Out on bail but barred from leaving the country, she said, “I'm still waiting for a resolution. It's not over yet. I'm just waiting. Don't know why it's taking so long. I don't know if it's good or bad.”

“I did it out of my heart....That's what my passion is. I want to help people. I help kids and I help families....I just wanted to (help), because I've adopted two kids and they were wonderful.”

She sounded fragile and hurt - “It (the case) just affects me emotionally. I just can't get back on again until everything is clear.”

She was also very wary. She refused to discuss the case and told Newsbreak to talk to her lawyer because “he's got all the right words.” 

Newsbreak asked her whether she was getting her babies from Pililla and Jala Jala. She flatly denied this. “I'm not getting babies from there. I don't like these questions because it may implicate me from what I'm saying. Not that I'm guilty, I'm not.”

Her denial ran contrary to the introductory statement posted on her company website which said: “Fox Family Services Adoption Centre was established primarily to find good families for unwanted and abandoned infants and toddlers in the Philippines and elsewhere and to assist you in finding a child.”

When Newsbreak pointed that out, she said, “Well, it is not only in Philippines. In Philippines basically, in fact, I'm working with the DSWD.”

When asked whether she was referring to Maria Lourdes Martinez, the social welfare officer of the town of Pililla who is her co-accused in the case, she said, “Sorry, you've got to speak with the lawyer about this.”

Pressed further which DSWD official she had been working with, she said, “I really do not know if I should tell you at this point in time.”

Low also made the assertion that her adoption agency in Singapore could operate freely in the Philippines without need of accreditation from the Philippine government.

“It's not necessary for any adoption agency to be accredited...by any government,” she said.

She gave Newsbreak this parting advice: “Before you write a story get your facts right, get a lawyer. You don't just get half a story from me.”

This article was made possible with the generous support of the American people through the United States Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat trafficking in Persons and The Asia Foundation. The contents are the  responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Department of State of the United States or The Asia Foundation.

SCANDAL ROM?NO-GERMAN PENTRU O FETI?? "ADOPTAT?" DIN TIMI?

SCANDAL ROM?NO-GERMAN PENTRU O FETI?? "ADOPTAT?" DIN TIMI?

Copil sechestrat de 3 ani, cu acte false

Un scandal diplomatic este pe cale s? izbucneasc? între Ro mânia ?i Germania, din cauza unei feti?e de 3 ani, care este ?inut? ilegal în Germania, înc? de la vârsta de 4 luni. În timp ce autorit??ile ?i presa german? caut? ?api isp??itori în Ro mânia ?i încalc? legile europene privind circula?ia ?i g?z duirea minorilor români în alte ??ri UE, autorit??ile române dau din col? în col?, promi?ând c? feti?a va fi readus? acas?, de?i familia german? la care locuie?te refuz? s? o predea.

de Mircea Opris

1/06/2009 3037 vizite

Copil sechestrat de 3 ani, cu acte false

Jurnalul National Copil sechestrat de 3 ani, cu acte false Un scandal diplomatic este pe cale sa izbucneasca intre Ro mania si Germania, din cauza unei fetite de 3 ani, care este tinuta ilegal in Germania, inca de la varsta de 4 luni. In timp ce autoritatile si presa germana cauta tapi ispasitori in Ro mania si incalca legile europene privind circulatia si gaz duirea minorilor romani in alte tari UE, autoritatile romane dau din colt in colt, promitand ca fetita va fi readusa acasa, desi familia germana la care locuieste refuza sa o predea.Justitia si presa din landul Bavaria duc un razboi mediatic si psihologic împotriva unei banatence de etnie germana, Estera Schweitzer, care are în localitatea timiseana Giulvaz fundatia "Annelise Heim", unde creste legal copii primiti în plasament de la Directia pentru Protectia Copilului Timis. În timp ce fetita se afla practic sechestrata în Germania si parintii naturali o cer înapoi, justitia din landul Bavaria le-a condamnat pentru trafic de minori pe Estera Schweitzer si pe fiica acesteia Annelise Jugu. Incompetenta si anumite interese, atât din partea autoritatilor române cât si a celor germane, le-au scos tapi ispasitori pe cele doua femei, în timp ce fetita a fost dusa în Germania de catre tatal natural al acesteia si de catre "mama adoptiva" din Germania, Korina Biemuller-Meyer. Din 2006 pâna acum minora se afla în Germania fara forme legale. Autoritatile române dau asigurari ca aceasta se va întoarce acasa, în timp ce autoritatile germane vad doar ceea ce le intereseaza: mai putin statutul legal al fetitei si mai mult condamnarea unei "retele de traficanti de copii" care nu exista în realitate.MEDIA GERMAN? "MÂNJESTE" ROMÂNIAÎn luna aprilie, televiziunile germane si austriece au difuzat un reportaj realizat de catre o echipa de jurnalisti de la Spiegel TV. Materialul prezinta tendentios realitatile din Giulvaz, satul unde s-a nascut fetita, cu scopul de a sensibiliza autoritatile si publicul german, pentru pastrarea copilului în Germania. Interviul cu tatal natural al minorei este trucat: acesta a dus fata în Germania de buna voie si a semnat o declaratie notariala pentru ca fiica sa sa poata sta în Germania pâna în 1 iunie 2010, însa în filmul facut de Spiegel TV el apare plângând, sarutând fotografia fetitei si implorând sa îi fie adus înapoi copilul. Ima ginile de ilustratie din Giulvaz prezinta doar mormane de gunoi si copii desculti pe strada. Alte materiale din presa regionala bavareza sustin si ele ca fata trebuie pastrata în Germania, cu toate ca pâna si autoritatile pentru protectia copilului din tara respectiva recunosc ca adoptia din alt stat UE este ilegala iar fetita ar trebui sa se întoarca, conform legilor românesti si comunitare, la familia naturala din România. Pentru a distrage atentia, judecatoria din orasul german Bad Kissingen demareaza un proces împotriva femeii care are fundatia de întrajutorare din România, Estera Schweitzer, si a fiicei acesteia din Germania, Annelise, si le condamna, în baza unor probe neconcludente, pentru trafic de minori în vederea adoptiei, lucru ilegal. Interesant este ca pedepsele primite sunt foarte blânde: amenzi de câteva sute de euro si munca în folosul comunitatii, tocmai din cauza ca probele procuraturii sunt documente eliberate de Politia Româna de Frontiera, acte care se contrazic între ele. Estera Schweitzer si fiica acestei Annelise recunosc ca au ajutat parintii naturali ai fetitei Nicoleta Adriana, pe Trif Viorel si Gabriela Guta, sa intre în legatura cu Korina Biemuller-Meyer, de nationalitate germana, care ulterior a devenit "mama adoptiva" si acum refuza sa predea copilul autoritatilor pentru a fi repatriat. Razboiul mediatic si cel din justitie se justifica prin implicarea unor personaje politice din Bavaria: familia care tine fetita în Germania se afla în relatii de prietenie cu Barbara Stamm, presedinte al Parlamentului landului Bavaria, fost ministru pe probleme sociale si membru marcant al partidului CSU, aflat la putere în landul respectiv.Stamm este cunoscuta în România pentru activitatea umanitara din ultimii 20 de ani. Ea ajuta la finantarea mai multor fundatii româno-germane de caritate, a construit un centru pentru copii în dificultate lânga Iasi, în valoare de 1,5 milioane de euro, iar în judetul Neamt a fost de nu mai putin de 78 de ori la Centrul de recuperare pentru persoanele cu handicap de la Pastraveni, un alt proiect în care este implicata. Cea mai puternica fundatie cu care lucreaza în România si pe care a fondat-o este însa Fundatia Bavaria pentru România, care a adus în România, cel putin la nivel declarativ, milioane de euro pentru sustinerea copiilor si a persoanelor cu handicap de la noi. Implicarea Barbarei Stamm în cazul minorei sechestrate în Germania se explica prin prietenia cu familia Biemuller. Aceasta a cerut în scris ajutorul politicienei germane pentru a pastra fetita românca în Germania. Un document din corespondenta acestora atesta legaturile dintre ei. Într-o scrisoare trimisa familie germane de catre Bernd Frabitius, avocat si asistent al Barbarei Stamm, acesta comunica familiei Bimuller ca aceasta are în vedere cazul dar ca legal nu pot fi ajutati. De altfel, chiar "mama adoptiva" a relatat reporterilor Jurnalului National despre legatura cu politiciana Barbara Stamm. "O cunoastem prin sotul meu. Ea m-a ajutat si domnul Fabritius, asistentul ei în România. Mi-a spus ca va face ce poate, doar nu foarte multe. Barbara Stamm ne-a spus ca ne ajuta doar din punct de vedere umanitar dar nu politic", ne-a declarat Korina Biemuller. Aceasta se considera victima unei escrocherii puse la cale de parintii fetitei si de cea care a pus-o în contact cu familia, Estera Schweitzer. În reclamatiile la politiile româna si germana se speculeaza ca minora ar fi fost cumparata la un pret între 6.000 si 10.000 de euro. Korina Biemuller ne-a declarat însa ca toate cheltuielile facute de ea, cu obtinerea actelor în România, bilete de avion si bani trimisi catre parintii fetei în România nu depasesc suma de 3.000 de euro.PRESIUNE PE SUSPEC?II DE SERVICIUAsistenta maternala Estera Schweitzer si fiica acesteia a pus în legatura parintii Nicoletei Trif cu Korina Biemuller la sfârsitul anului 2006, când aceasta a venit în România. Atunci, parintii fetitei, împreuna cu cetateana germana Korinna Biemulller, au cazut de acord sa o dea pe micuta Nicoleta, atunci în vârsta de 4 luni, pentru o perioada de jumatate de an, în care sa fie dusa în Germania, pe motiv ca avea nevoie de tratament medical din cauza unor probleme la solduri. Copilul a iesit din România împreuna cu tatal natural, Viorel Trif, si cu Korinna Biemuller, la data de 4 decembrie 2006, cu o cursa aeriana Carpatair, pe ruta Timisoara - Frankfurt. Copilul a iesit pe baza pasaportului si a unei declaratii notariale prin care parintii naturali erau de acord ca fetita sa stea în Germania pentru doua saptamâni. Ulterior, comisarul Marian Croitoru si comisarul-sef Stefan Florea de la Politia de Frontiera Timis trimit în 2 octombrie 2007 o informare catre ofiterii de legatura ai Politiei Criminale Germane de la Ambasada Germaniei la Bucuresti, o informare prin care avertizeaza ca Estera Schweitzer, sotul acesteia, precum si fiicele Annelise si Cristina Jugu, ambele cu cetatenie si domiciliu în Germania "sunt coordonatori ai unui grup organizat specilizat în derularea de activitati de trafic ilegal de minori catre Germania... Persoanele implicate actioneaza sub acoperirea de asistenti maternali si îsi desfasoara activitatea în mai multe sate din judetul Timis". Singurul exemplu din acest document este cel al micutei Nicoleta Adriana Trif, care însa a fost scoasa din tara de tatal ei natural împreuna cu cetateana germana Korina Biemuller, la care fata se afla si acum, dupa 3 ani de la plecare. Pe baza acestei sesizari a Politiei de Frontiera Timis, politistii criminalisti germani pornesc o ancheta împotriva familiei Schweitzer si a fiicelor Annelise si Cristina Jugu. Ulterior Estera Schweitzer si fiica Annelise Jugu sunt condamnate, în ianuarie 2009, la judecatoria din Bad Kissingen, pentru trafic de minori, în baza acestui document al Politiei de Frontiera si a unei hârtii scrise de mâna, semnata de parintii fetei si de Korina Biemuller, prin care acestia o încredintau celei din urma pentru a locui în Germania si pentru o posibila adoptie. Nici una dintre cele doua condamnate nu au nici o legatura cu aceasta întelegere scrisa, neautentificata oficial. Culmea, la un an dupa ce politia timiseana de frontiera acuza întreaga familiei Schweitzer-Jugu pentru retea de traficanti de copii, în 2008 aceeasi doi ofiteri români trimit catre autoritatile germane un act oficial prin care mentioneaza ca în urma cercetarilor nu se adeveresc suspiciunile de trafic de copii împotriva familiei Schweitzer-Jugu. Aceeasi constatare de nevinovatie o confirma personal si chestorul Nelu Pop, seful IGPF, printr-o scrisoare semnata personal. Instanta germana din Bad Kissingen nu ia în considerare acest act oficial, atunci când se pronunta. Acum, Annelise Jugu primeste telefoane de amenintare, are probleme la serviciu si chiar si sora ei Cristina Jugu, neimplicata în acest caz, are de suferit. "Imaginea noastra a fost prezentata în toata Germania ca fiind niste infractoare. Îmi pot pierde slujba în orice moment, nimeni nu mai vrea sa lucreze cu noi si ne vedem vietile ruinate. Cine ne va despagubi? Mai grav este ca primim tot felul de amenintari si toti ne trateaza ca pe niste criminali. Presa si politia ne vâneaza, ne opresc fara motiv si cauta cu orice pret sa ne faca sa cedam", ne-a declarat Annelise Jugu.INTIMID?RI SI USI ÎNCHISEFamilia Schweitzer-Jugu primeste telefoane de amenintare iar politia îi opreste aproape zilnic pe motive de controale de rutina. Telefoanele sunt ascultate iar echipe de filaj misuna în jurul resedintelor acestora. Chiar si reporterul Jurnalului National, aflat în documentare la fata locului, a observat aceste lucruri si chiar a fost oprit abuziv de doua echipaje de politie, pe o sosea izolata, pentru un control de rutina, la care i-au fost veri ficate masina dar si aparatura foto si video. Motivul politistilor a fost acela ca urmaresc o banda de hoti de panouri solare, cu toate ca respectiva banda de hoti fusese anihilata cu o luna si jumatate înainte. Sosirea Jurnalului National în Bavaria a fost semnalata imediat în presa locala care a cerut date despre ziarist la Consiliul Regional din Bad Kissingen. De altfel, purtatorul de cuvânt al institutiei, Stefan Seufert, a fost singurul oficial care a acceptat un interviu cu ziarul nostru. "Cazul este unul complicat iar institutia noastra nu are competenta sa se pronunte. Perso nal nu stiu ce trebuie facut, dar stiu ca cel mai important este sa se faca ce e mai bine pentru acest copil, fara a încalca legile nationale si europene", ne-a declarat acesta. Toti ceilalti oficiali cu care am încercat sa stam de vorba, de la politie, judecatorie, Agentia pentru Protectia Copilului nu au putut fi contactati telefonic sau gasiti la birou pe parcursul întregii saptamâni de documentare. PROCES DE TIP STALINISTInteresant, chiar în ziua în care politia verifica cu zel jurnalistul român, judecatorul de caz, Dr Matthias Goebhardt, a acceptat o convorbire telefonica. "Sunt sigur ca ce vi s-a întâmplat este o confuzie din parte politiei si nu un abuz, chiar daca politistii nu s-au prezentat. Referitor la procesul privind traficarea minorei din România, cazul Schweitzer-Jugu, acesta nu e gata. Noi am luat o decizie de condamnare dar ele au facut recurs la instanta superioara. Noi consideram ca doamna Schweitzer a facut ceva gresit ca a adus fetita pentru adoptie în Germania. Legal nu e posibil sa se adopte copilul si atunci am avut un document prin care se vorbea despre adoptie. Aceasta e una dintre probe. În plus, exista un act notarial prin care fata poate sta în Germania pâna în 2010. Hârtia de mâna prin care se face adoptia între Trif si Biemuller nu e oficiala dar e facuta, credem noi, de Schweitzer. Nu am chemat pentru audieri parintii naturali ai copilului, penturu ca aveam declaratia lor notariala si pentru noi acest lucru este destul ca proba. Daca Biemuller tine copilul de prea mult timp, Protectia Copilului trebuie sa se sesizeze si atunci vom vedea daca o vom pedepsi si pe Biemuller. Nu putem sa o judecam fara o sesizare a celor de la Tribunalul districtual. Politic, ministrii de Externe din România si Germania vor trebui sa gaseasca solutia legala unde va merge copilul sau daca va ramâne în Germania", ne-a declarat judecatorul de caz Matthias Goebhardt. În realitate, la procesul de la judecatorie s-au prezentat doar probele care incrimeneaza familia Schweitzer-Jugu, adica o scrisoare de mâna între parintii fetei si Korina Biemuller, act fara valoare juridica. De asemenea, tribunalul german nu a luat în considerare faptul ca împuternicirea nota riala prin care copilul poate ramâne pâna în 2010 în Germania, act facut la biroul notarial Ciorâca-Maghiaru din Timisoara este ilegal, deoarece împuternicirea s-a facut fara ca fetita Nicoleta Adriana sau Korina Biemueller, carei i se încredinteaza fetita, sa fie de fata. Presa nationala germana s-a autosesizat despre caz si despre proces. "Este clar ca la noi în Germania justitia judeca cetatenii pe doua categorii: nemtii nascuti în Germania si nemtii second-hand, adica cei care au venit emigrând din alte parti, cum sunt Schweitzer si Jugu. Indiferent ce probe ar avea, tot nu li se da dreptate. În plus, presa, din Bavaria este controlata politic de catre partidul aflat la putere în acest land, iar mama adoptiva este o prietena a doamnei Barbara Stamm. Asta spune multe. Scandalul se va amplifica, fiind chiar înainte de alegerile pentru europarlamentare", ne-a declarat un redactor de la cel mai mare cotidian national din Germania. Autoritatile române se trezesc cel mai greu. 2009-06-01

1

Jack Preger's Book

As a newly-graduated doctor aged 42, he answered an appeal in Bangladesh where he worked tirelessly amongst massive human suffering in refugee camps, and set up various clinics and medical centres for the poor. He uncovered a heinous trafficking of young children in 1977 that implicated several highly placed officials. His subsequent vociferous campaign against it, and attempt to trace a large number of missing children led to his deportation in 1979. His medical facilities were requisitioned, and his patients thrown out on the street. Some died as a result. His actions however finally led to a tightening of the regulations governing child adoptions, and to the arrest of some of the perpetrators. On behalf of some of the heartbroken parents, he continued trying to trace the whereabouts of some of the children who disappeared during this time, but in most cases was unsuccessful. Their fate is still not known.

2009/6 gegrond Beslissing van de Raad voor de Journalistiek inzake de klacht van UAI

2009/6 well-founded Decision of the Council for Journalism on the complaint from   United Adoptees International Netherlands Foundation.


against   the editor-in-chief of the Adoption Magazine   By letter of 29 October 2008 with six appendices, mrs. J. Hansink, vice-chairman, on behalf of Stichting United Adoptees International Nederland in Sint-Michielsgestel (hereinafter: the complainant) filed a complaint against the editor-in-chief of the Adoption Magazine (hereinafter: defendant). P.M. Benders, chairman of the editorial board and director of the Adoption Facilities Foundation in Utrecht, answered on behalf of the defendant in a letter dated 1 December 2008 with three appendices.   The case was dealt with at the Council meeting on 12 December 2008. On behalf of the complainant, H. Westra, chairman, and the aforementioned Hansink appeared there. On behalf of the defendants, mrs. L. Waanders, editor-in-chief, appeared, accompanied by the aforementioned Benders. Hansink explained the complainant's position on the basis of a pleading.   Due to the sudden absence of one of the members of the Council, the parties have requested that they do not object to the chairman and three members handling the case.   THE FACTS   In the Adoption Magazine No. 2 of 2008, an article appeared by Waanders under the heading "The trap of involvement" under the heading "The trap of involvement" with the subtitle "An investigation that does not cover the title" (hereinafter: the article). The lead of the article is:  “Barely a day after the publication of the Kalsbeek commission report, United Adoptees International (UAI) opened the attack on the commission. Strangely enough, it was not the conclusions and recommendations that it had to suffer, but the alleged partiality of the committee, which would appear from its composition. The integrity of a number of committee members was questioned, their expertise ignored. A week later, four students from the "Social Legal Services" course at the Hogeschool van Amsterdam presented their graduation thesis: "Intercountry Adoption: child protection or child trafficking?" UAI sponsored this study. "

The article also includes the following passages: "The students operating under the JJAG Research Group named their report" Intercountry Adoption: Child Protection or Child Trafficking? ". Their main research question, however, is: "Should the Netherlands continue to apply current laws and regulations with regard to intercountry adoption, since this leaves room for abuses and lack of clarity in the role of the organizations involved?" or suspicion from outside. Everything - but especially the report itself: position, discussed cases and sources - seems to point to the latter. Much of what has been written can be traced back to the spearheads and the reasoning and argumentation of the UAI. ” and "The UAI in the person of Hilbrand Westra, however, should have known better. At least in two respects. His attack on a number of members of the Kalsbeek commission was not pure yet, but is even quite hypocritical due to his own role as sponsor and gossip in the research of the students of the Hogeschool van Amsterdam. It is also serious that once again - after all the previous statements in the media - he directs and manages an alleged relationship between adoption and child trafficking. Abuses occur at intercountry adoption in different degrees and at different moments in the procedure, and more than any person involved - personally or professionally - is dear. To expose that and expel it in the long term apparently requires an objectivity and expertise that cannot be attributed to experience experts. ”


PARTIES VIEWS   The complainant states first and foremost that she wants adopted persons to be seen as full partners in the (inter) national adoption debate. It strives for a proportional representation of adopted persons as a discussion partner for governments, authorities and adoption organizations. According to the complainant, the article discredits her and her president Westra. The complainant finds content criticism to enter into dialogue more than welcome. However, the defendant wrongly failed to hear a reply with regard to the contested publication, so that it was denied the opportunity to respond to the allegations, according to the complainant. It considers that the sole purpose of the article was to make known the personal grievances and aversion to the complainant, in the person of Westra, and to damage the complainant's good name. The complainant points out that she works with various organizations from the adoption field, including various adoptive parent associations. Many adoptive parents receive the Adoption Magazine. The article may, by creating a negative impression on the complainant, complicate or even prevent future cooperation with the aforementioned associations. At the hearing, the complainant adds that, although the defendant argues that this is an opinion article, this does not mean that no rebuttal can be omitted. The complainant also wonders whether the article can be regarded as an opinion piece. According to the complainant, given her position as editor-in-chief and final editor, Waanders should have stated more clearly that this article only concerns her personal opinion and is not based on any authority by virtue of her position. In view of her experience within the adoption field, it cannot be other than that Waanders was aware of, or should have been, the fact that the publication of her article could (could) negatively influence the position of the complainant within the adoption field. Careful consideration of interests has not been demonstrated. The complainant points out that in the article, in the person of Westra, she is accused of hypocritical behavior. The concluding remarks "that objectivity and expertise are qualities that cannot be attributed to all experienced experts" clearly relate to the complainant and Westra.


The respondent states - summarized - that this is an opinion article and that the publication mainly concerns the author's personal vision, whereby factual reporting is not a priority. The intention and nature of the article are sufficiently clear to the average reader. The article contains no qualifications for journalism that are unacceptable, according to the defendant. He further states that, in principle, this type of publication does not need to be heard. The defendant is of the opinion that the complainant's interests were not so seriously affected that a rebuttal was still required. In addition, the defendant observes that the complainant seeks publicity in all possible ways, while not avoiding hefty statements. She could have expected a publication like this. Moreover, the importance of publication has been carefully weighed against the interests that could possibly be harmed by the article. Finally, the defendant notes that Westra already sent his commentary on the article to a selection of players within the adoption field in July. This means that the complaint is actually "mustard after meals," according to the defendant.   COMPLAINT ASSESSMENT   The core of the complaint is that the defendant wrongly failed to apply rebuttal.   The Council first of all states that when publishing accusations, the journalist should investigate whether there is a sound basis for the accusations. Furthermore, if this is reasonably possible, the journalist applies rebuttal to those involved who are disqualified by a publication. The accused is given sufficient opportunity, without undue pressure of time, to respond to the allegations preferably in the same publication. (see point 2.3.1. of the Council Guideline) The principle of rebuttal does not apply to publications that contain a personal opinion (for example columns, reviews and opinion submissions). Nevertheless, such a publication can affect someone's interest in such a way that it is necessary to be heard. (see point 2.3.4. of the Guideline)

Furthermore, the Council considers that a journalist is free to express his opinion on a particular fact, provided that it is clear that this is his personal opinion. However, that did not happen here. The disputed article was not posted and formatted as a column or opinion piece, and also contains factual reporting. Thus, in the opinion of the Board, there is no question of a publication that, in principle, does not require a rebuttal. (cf. CoE 2006/59)   In the article it is stated that the complainant is at least her chairman "quite hypocritical due to his own role as sponsor and souffleur in the research of the students of the Hogeschool van Amsterdam". It is also stated that the complainant at least "re-directs and directs its chair to have its chair re-directed in an impure manner about an alleged relationship between adoption and child trafficking". Thus there is such a disqualification of the complainant or its chairman that the defendant should not have been allowed to publish these statements without being heard. The defendant wrongly failed to do so, while extra care could be expected from him - given the status of the magazine in the adoption field.   The Council therefore concludes that the defendant has thus exceeded the limits of what is socially acceptable in view of the requirements of journalistic responsibility. DECISION   The complaint is well-founded.   The Board requests the defendant to publish this decision in its entirety or in summary in the Adoption Magazine.   Adopted by the Council on 6 February 2009 by Ms. H. Troostwijk, chairman, G.T.M. Driehuis, mrs. E.H.C. Salomons and A.H. Schmeink, members, in the presence of mrs. D.C. Koene, secretary, and mrs. F.G. Jansma, deputy secretary.

Dutch:

2009/6 gegrond

Beslissing van de Raad voor de Journalistiek
inzake de klacht van
 
Stichting United Adoptees International Nederland
 
tegen
 
de hoofdredacteur van het Adoptietijdschrift
 
Bij brief van 29 oktober 2008 met zes bijlagen heeft mw. J. Hansink, vice-voorzitter, namens Stichting United Adoptees International Nederland te Sint-Michielsgestel (hierna: klaagster) een klacht ingediend tegen de hoofdredacteur van het Adoptietijdschrift (hierna: verweerder). Hierop heeft P.M. Benders, voorzitter van de redactieraad en directeur Stichting Adoptievoorzieningen te Utrecht, namens verweerder geantwoord in een brief van 1 december 2008 met drie bijlagen.
 
De zaak is behandeld ter zitting van de Raad van 12 december 2008. Namens klaagster zijn daar H. Westra, voorzitter, en voornoemde Hansink verschenen. Namens verweerders is mw. L. Waanders, hoofdredacteur, verschenen, vergezeld door voornoemde Benders. Hansink heeft het standpunt van klaagster toegelicht aan de hand van een pleitnota.
 
Vanwege plotselinge ontstentenis van een der leden van de Raad, hebben partijen desgevraagd laten weten geen bezwaar te hebben tegen behandeling van de zaak door de voorzitter en drie leden.
 
DE FEITEN
 
In het Adoptietijdschrift nr. 2 van 2008 is in de rubriek ‘achter de feiten aan’ een artikel verschenen van de hand van Waanders onder de kop “De valkuil van betrokkenheid” met de ondertitel “Een onderzoek dat de titel niet dekt” (hierna: het artikel). De lead van het artikel luidt:
 “Amper een dag na het verschijnen van het rapport van de commissie Kalsbeek opende United Adoptees International (UAI) de aanval op de commissie. Vreemd genoeg waren het niet de conclusies en aanbevelingen die het moesten ontgelden, maar de vermeende partijdigheid van de commissie, die zou blijken uit haar samenstelling. De integriteit van een aantal commissieleden werd in twijfel getrokken, hun deskundigheid genegeerd. Een week later presenteerden vier studentes van de opleiding ‘Sociaal Juridische Dienstverlening’ van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam hun afstudeerscriptie: ‘Interlandelijke Adoptie: kinderbescherming of kinderhandel?’ UAI was sponsor voor dit onderzoek.”
Het artikel bevat verder onder meer de volgende passages:
“De onder de naam Onderzoeksgroep JJAG opererende studenten gaven hun rapport de titel ‘Interlandelijke Adoptie: Kinderbescherming of Kinderhandel?’. Hun belangrijkste onderzoeksvraag is echter: ‘moet Nederland de huidige wet- en regelgeving met betrekking tot interlandelijke adoptie blijven hanteren, aangezien deze ruimte openlaat voor misstanden en onduidelijkheid in de rol van de betrokken organisaties?’ (…) De vraag doet specifieke kennis, vooringenomenheid of beïnvloeding van buitenaf vermoeden. Alles – maar vooral het rapport zelf: stellingname, besproken casussen en bronnen – lijkt te wijzen op het laatste. Veel van wat geschreven is, is te herleiden tot de speerpunten en de wijze van redeneren en beargumenteren van de UAI.”
en
“De UAI in de persoon van Hilbrand Westra had echter wel beter moeten weten. In ieder geval in twee opzichten. Zijn aanval op een aantal leden van de commissie Kalsbeek was al niet zuiver, maar is zelfs behoorlijk hypocriet door zijn eigen rol als sponsor en souffleur bij het onderzoek van de studenten van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam.
Ernstig is ook dat hij opnieuw – na al eerdere gedane uitingen in de media – op een onzuivere manier over een vermeende samenhang tussen adoptie en kinderhandel aanstuurt en aan laat sturen. Misstanden komen bij interlandelijke adoptie in verschillende gradaties en op verschillende momenten in de procedure voor, en meer dan welke betrokkene – persoonlijk of professioneel – lief is. Dat aan de kaak stellen en op termijn uitbannen vraagt blijkbaar een objectiviteit en deskundigheid die ervaringsdeskundigen niet alle kan worden toegedicht.”
 
DE STANDPUNTEN VAN PARTIJEN
 
Klaagster stelt voorop dat zij wenst dat geadopteerden als volwaardig partner worden gezien bij het (inter)nationale adoptiedebat. Zij streeft naar een evenredige vertegenwoordiging van geadopteerden als gesprekspartner voor overheden, instanties en adoptieorganisaties.
Volgens klaagster brengt het artikel haar en haar voorzitter Westra in diskrediet. Klaagster vindt inhoudelijke kritiek om de dialoog aan te gaan meer dan welkom. Echter, verweerder heeft ten aanzien van de gewraakte publicatie ten onrechte geen wederhoor toegepast, zodat haar de mogelijkheid is ontnomen te reageren op de aantijgingen, aldus klaagster. Zij meent dat het artikel alleen ten doel heeft gehad om de persoonlijke grieven en aversie tegen klaagster, in de persoon van Westra, kenbaar te maken en de goede naam van klaagster aan te tasten.
Klaagster wijst erop dat zij werkt met verschillende organisaties uit het adoptieveld, waaronder diverse adoptieouderverenigingen. Veel adoptieouders ontvangen het Adoptietijdschrift. Het artikel kan, door een negatieve indruk over klaagster te wekken, een toekomstige samenwerking met de hiervoor bedoelde verenigingen bemoeilijken of zelfs verhinderen.
Ter zitting voegt klaagster hieraan nog toe, dat hoewel het volgens verweerder een opiniërend artikel betreft, dit niet maakt dat wederhoor achterwege kan worden gelaten. Klaagster vraagt zich overigens af of het artikel als opiniestuk kan worden aangemerkt. Volgens klaagster had Waanders – gelet op haar functie als hoofd- en eindredactrice – duidelijker moeten aangeven dat dit artikel slechts haar persoonlijke mening betreft en niet op enige autoriteit uit hoofde van haar functie is gebaseerd. Gelet op haar ervaring binnen het adoptieveld kan het niet anders dan dat Waanders zich bewust is geweest, dan wel had moeten zijn van het feit dat publicatie van haar artikel de positie van klaagster binnen het adoptieveld op negatieve wijze zou (kunnen) beïnvloeden. Van een zorgvuldige belangenafweging is niet gebleken. Hierbij wijst klaagster erop dat zij in het artikel, in de persoon van Westra, wordt beschuldigd van hypocriet gedrag. Ook de afsluitende opmerkingen ‘dat objectiviteit en deskundigheid kwaliteiten zijn die niet alle ervaringsdeskundigen kunnen worden toegedicht’ hebben duidelijk betrekking op klaagster c.q. Westra.
 
Verweerder stelt – samengevat weergegeven – dat het hier een opiniërend artikel betreft en de publicatie met name de persoonlijke visie van de auteur behelst, waarbij feitelijke verslaglegging niet voorop staat. De intentie en aard van het artikel zijn voor de gemiddelde lezer voldoende duidelijk. In het artikel komen geen kwalificaties voor die journalistiek onaanvaardbaar zijn, aldus verweerder.
Voorts stelt hij dat bij dit soort publicaties in beginsel geen wederhoor behoeft te worden toegepast. Verweerder meent dat de belangen van klaagster niet zodanig ernstig zijn geraakt, dat alsnog wederhoor was geboden.
Daarbij merkt verweerder op dat klaagster op alle mogelijke manieren de publiciteit opzoekt, waarbij zij forse uitspraken niet schuwt. Zij had een publicatie als de onderhavige kunnen verwachten. Bovendien is het belang van publicatie zorgvuldig afgewogen tegen de belangen die door het artikel mogelijkerwijs zouden kunnen worden geschaad.
Ten slotte merkt verweerder op dat Westra in juli zijn commentaar op het artikel al aan een selectie spelers binnen het adoptieveld heeft gestuurd. Daarmee is de klacht feitelijk ‘mosterd na de maaltijd’, aldus verweerder.
 
BEOORDELING VAN DE KLACHT
 
Kern van de klacht is dat verweerder ten onrechte heeft nagelaten wederhoor toe te passen.
 
De Raad stelt voorop dat de journalist bij het publiceren van beschuldigingen behoort te onderzoeken of voor de beschuldigingen een deugdelijke grondslag bestaat. Verder past de journalist, indien dit redelijkerwijs mogelijk is, wederhoor toe bij betrokkenen die door een publicatie worden gediskwalificeerd. De beschuldigde krijgt voldoende gelegenheid om, zonder onredelijke tijdsdruk, bij voorkeur in dezelfde publicatie te reageren op de aantijgingen. (zie punt 2.3.1. van de Leidraad van de Raad)
Het beginsel van wederhoor geldt niet voor publicaties die een persoonlijke mening bevatten (bijvoorbeeld columns, recensies en opiniërende bijdragen). Desalniettemin kan een dergelijke publicatie iemands belang zodanig raken dat wederhoor geboden is. (zie punt 2.3.4. van de Leidraad)
 
Voorts overweegt de Raad dat het een journalist vrijstaat over een bepaald feit zijn mening te verkondigen, mits duidelijk is dat het om zijn persoonlijke opvatting gaat. Dat is hier echter niet gebeurd. Het gewraakte artikel is niet geplaatst en opgemaakt als column of opiniërend stuk, en bevat tevens feitelijke berichtgeving. Aldus is naar het oordeel van de Raad geen sprake van een publicatie waarbij in beginsel geen wederhoor behoeft te worden toegepast. (vgl. RvdJ 2006/59)
 
In het artikel is vermeld dat klaagster althans haar voorzitter ‘behoorlijk hypocriet is door zijn eigen rol als sponsor en souffleur bij het onderzoek van de studenten van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam’. Voorts is vermeld dat klaagster althans haar voorzitter ‘opnieuw op een onzuivere manier over een vermeende samenhang tussen adoptie en kinderhandel aanstuurt en aan laat sturen’.  
Aldus is sprake van een zodanige diskwalificatie van klaagster c.q. haar voorzitter dat verweerder deze uitlatingen niet zonder toepassing van wederhoor had mogen publiceren. Verweerder heeft dit ten onrechte nagelaten, terwijl van hem – gezien de status van het tijdschrift in het adoptieveld – ter zake extra zorgvuldigheid mag worden verwacht.
 
De Raad komt derhalve tot de slotsom dat verweerder aldus de grenzen heeft overschreden van hetgeen, gelet op de eisen van journalistieke verantwoordelijkheid, maatschappelijk aanvaardbaar is.

BESLISSING
 
De klacht is gegrond.
 
De Raad verzoekt verweerder deze beslissing integraal of in samenvatting in het Adoptietijdschrift te publiceren.
 
Aldus vastgesteld door de Raad op 6 februari 2009 door mw. mr. H. Troostwijk, voorzitter, drs. G.T.M. Driehuis, mw. E.H.C. Salomons en mr. A.H. Schmeink, leden, in tegenwoordigheid van mw. mr. D.C. Koene, secretaris, en mw. mr. F.G. Jansma, plaatsvervangend secretaris.

AN OVERVIEW OF USAID CHILD WELFARE REFORM EFFORTS IN EUROPE & EURASIA

THE JOB THAT REMAINS: AN OVERVIEW
OF USAID CHILD WELFARE REFORM
EFFORTS IN EUROPE & EURASIA

Paris implicated in Zoe's Ark orphan fraud?

Paris implicated in Zoe's Ark orphan fraud?
Sat, 30 May 2009 02:07:25 GMT
Font size :
The Zoe's Ark head Eric Breteau

`Mistaken orphan' to meet lost father after 34 years

`Mistaken orphan' to meet lost father after 34 years
 
 
By Bruce Ward, Canwest News ServiceMay 30, 2009
 
 
OTTAWA - Thirty-four years after he was mistakenly whisked away from a Saigon orphanage, Thanh Campbell - Orphan 32 - is returning to his homeland.
Campbell, one of 57 children spirited from a Saigon orphanage to Canada in April 1975, is returning Saturday to be reunited with his biological father and the brothers who never stopped searching for him after losing him in the chaotic fall of Saigon.
``The anticipation is from something you never think could possibly happen and is actually happening. I just think of my father and how long it has been for him, searching,'' said Thanh, who is travelling with his wife, Karina, their four children, and his adoptive father William Campbell.
The flight arrives Sunday evening, and Thanh expects to meet his father and brothers Monday morning.
``I think, first of all, what's the reaction going to be from family members over there? What's their first impression going to be like? I don't speak the language. How can you express yourself through an interpreter and get them (his biological family) to know you?''
Thanh knows the broad strokes of his early life, told to him by his birth father after discovering him two years ago thanks to an astonishing chain of events.
As Nguyen Ngoc Minh Thanh, he was airlifted to Canada in April 1975, with a copy of his birth certificate tied to his wrist. It showed Thanh's second birthday was still months away.
The child listed as Orphan 32 had been taken to a Saigon orphanage with two of his older brothers because their parents thought it was a safe haven during the fall of the city.
But when they went to reclaim their children, Thanh was gone - mistakenly placed among a group of orphans sent abroad for adoption, likely to the United States.
Thanh was adopted by Rev. William Campbell, a Presbyterian minister, and his wife, Maureen, and grew up in Cambridge, Ont.
But in 2003 he connected with Trent Kilner, who had been on that fateful flight out of Saigon.
The two tracked down 44 of the 57 people on that plane, and after the photos and story of the orphans' 2006 reunion was covered by a Vietnamese magazine, Thanh got an e-mail from someone saying he could be Thanh's brother.
``Everyone see you very very like my brother . . . My father still keep Thanh's birth certificate. If you have some information like that, please contact with us.''
The original and the copy of the birth certificate matched. DNA testing carried out by a Toronto company proved the genetic link. Thanh had found his biological father and family.
Thanh uses the word ``providence'' to describe his astounding journey.
``It's more than just a father reuniting with a son. It goes beyond that. We want to see the country, we want to meet the people. We also want to be able to share who we are.''
Ottawa Citizen

From fast track to mommy track to adoption activist


Published: May 31, 2009 02:00 AM
Modified: May 30, 2009 09:25 PM

Diane Kunz of Durham with Elizabeth, 4, the youngest of her eight children. Four sons are biological, and four daughters are adopted.
Harry Lynch, Staff photo by Harry Lynch
Buy Photo
 
From fast track to mommy track to adoption activist
BY KRISTIN COLLINS, Staff Writer
Diane Kunz started with the desire to change one child's life.
But 13 years after adopting her first daughter from China, she now has hopes of helping every child, at home or abroad, who is growing up without a family.
Kunz, of Durham, is the mother of eight children, four adopted and four biological. She is also one of the nation's leading advocates for adoption, quietly changing national policy and helping thousands of families bring home children.
She and another adoptive mother are the founders of a think tank, the Center for Adoption Policy, based in New York, which aims to remove barriers to adoption. The group's work has won national awards and made Kunz a player on an international stage. Along the way, Kunz has also become a sort of guru for people going through the complex process of adoption.
She does most of her work from her home in Durham, baking chocolate chip muffins one minute and sitting in on a conference call with the State Department the next.
She has been a corporate lawyer in New York and a professor at Yale, but she says this job -- for which she receives no pay -- is the true work of her life.
"Every child has the right to a permanent, loving family," Kunz says.
A life of surprises
Kunz, 56, seems as surprised as anyone at the turn her life has taken since she helped found the center eight years ago. As a young woman, she never imagined herself as an impassioned social activist or a Brady Bunch-style mom.
The only child of Jewish immigrants, Holocaust survivors who settled in New York City, she spent much of her early life earning a law degree at Cornell University and working long hours at a corporate law firm in her native city. She and her husband, Tom, whom she met in law school, didn't have their first child until 1986, 12 years after they married.
She eventually had four sons and went on to become a history professor at Yale. She never even thought of adopting until the mid-1990s, when Chinese children became available for international adoption and she and Tom read a story about the phenomenon in The New York Times Magazine.
Once they learned more about it, they felt compelled to use their wealth, earned in successful law and academic careers, to help an orphaned child. Adoptions often cost tens of thousands of dollars, but that was no obstacle for them.
"We just had a feeling that we could do this," Kunz says. "We've been very lucky, and we felt this was the right thing to do."
They brought Eleanor home in 1996 and watched the child, who might have been doomed to life in a Spartan orphanage, blossom under their care. Soon, one child led to the next.
Their spacious home and the help of a nanny has made a large family easier for the Kunzes than for most. The younger children attend private school, and the Kunzes still get to go out alone once a week for dinner. Because of their advantages, they came to see helping unparented children as a moral obligation.
"Once you save one person's life," Tom Kunz says, "it's kind of hard to sit back and say, 'That's enough.' "
Hurdling barriers
Over the years, Kunz, like many adoptive parents, became something of an expert in the tricky process of adoption. She met another adoptive mother in New York, Ann Reese, who has two children from Romania, and they began to talk about all the many difficulties of bringing parentless children into their homes.
Some of the barriers were ideological, such as a bias against placing black children with white parents, but others were simply bureaucratic snags, problems such as transferring health insurance between states.
"We just started conversations about, gee, this is wrong, and why aren't there people working on this?" Reese says.
Eventually, they decided to combine their expertise to help children stuck in foster homes or orphanages.
Four years ago, Kunz and her husband moved to Durham, and she continues her work from her home beside a golf course.
Now, Kunz and Reese are a sort of SWAT team for adoptive parents in desperate situations.
When thousands of Chinese adoptions were nearly stalled last year because of the technicalities of an international treaty, they negotiated with the State Department to allow those families already in process to bring their children home.
Also last year, when the U.S. government refused to issue visas to several hundred children given up for adoption in Vietnam, Kunz became both a sort of social worker and lobbyist on their behalf. U.S. immigration officials said there were problems verifying that the children had been abandoned by their parents.
Barry and Donna DeLong of Durham were among those denied visas for the boy they wanted to adopt from Vietnam. Barry DeLong said there was no evidence of wrongdoing in their case, and the Vietnamese government was willing to allow the adoption. So they joined several Americans who went to Vietnam and adopted their children, even though they were not allowed to bring them back to the United States.
They, like many, were prepared to stay in Vietnam permanently if the U.S. government refused to issue their children visas. They had been living in Vietnam in a state of near-panic for weeks when Kunz began offering legal advice to them and several other families via e-mail and conference calls.
Barry DeLong said she was a calm yet forceful voice in a time of chaos. And he thinks it was partly her influence that, after several months, persuaded U.S. officials to relent and grant the children visas.
"I got a sense from her that this was where she was going to stay," DeLong said. "And if this person [in the U.S. government] wanted to continue in a happy career, they couldn't just blow her off."
Looking at each child
In addition to helping would-be parents, Kunz is also working to mute growing opposition to international adoption. Groups such as UNICEF say that allowing wealthy Westerners to adopt children from poor nations is a Band-Aid solution that fails to address the fundamental issues that cause child abandonment.
Kunz says she looks at the issue from the perspective of each child. "I would be happy to have a world where there is no prejudice and no poverty and no war," she says. "But right now, there are unparented children."
She says the best solution to problems that have stymied international adoption in recent years is to ensure an ethical process. The center is helping the State Department create more stringent guidelines for adoption agencies and pushing for harsher penalties for those who perpetrate fraudulent adoptions.
Kunz can talk about her work for hours. But on this day, she is interrupted by the patter of feet. Her three youngest girls bound into the room, giggling and shouting, followed by their nanny. Soon they are jumping into Kunz's lap, crawling around her feet, demanding hugs.
The center's work has become her vocation, but she says her own family -- built in part by adoption -- is her greatest reward.
"It's a cliché," she says, "but it's true."
kristin.collins@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4881
Read The News & Observer print edition on your computer with the new e-edition!
Diane Bernstein Kunz
Born: Nov. 9, 1952 in Queens, N.Y.
Family: husband, Tom Kunz; sons, Charles, 23, James, 22, William, 17, and Edward, 15; daughters, Eleanor, 13, Sarah, 8, Catherine, 5, and Elizabeth, 4.
Education: bachelor's degree from Barnard University; Law degree from Cornell University; master's degree from Oxford University; doctorate in history from Yale University
Career: corporate lawyer, 1976-1983; history professor at Yale, 1988-1998; history professor at Columbia University, 1998-2001; founder and member of board of directors, Center for Adoption Policy, 2001-present.
Honors: authored several award-winning books on diplomatic history. In 2008, won the Angels In Adoption award from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute.
Hobbies: running, travel, reading.
© Copyright 2009, The News & Observer Publishing Company
A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company