Home  

Profit-driven adoptions turn children into a commodity

 


GEOFFREY YORK


Profit-driven adoptions turn children into a commodity

 

JOHANNESBURG

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Last updated Tuesday, May. 29, 2012 9:24PM EDT

 

War-orphaned children sit in cardboard boxes at the Kizito orphanage in Bunia in northeastern Congo February 24, 2009. (Finbarr O'Reilly / Reuters)

 


A dramatic rise in foreign adoptions from Africa is ringing alarm bells among child advocates who worry that the soaring numbers are fuelled by financial incentives and a lack of basic safeguards.

The number of African children adopted by foreign families has nearly tripled in the past eight years. Nearly 6,350 children from Africa were adopted by foreigners in 2010, compared to less than 2,240 in 2003, according to a report released on Tuesday.

 


In Sahel, knowledge becomes a weapon to fight drought
Using rugby to help young Africans win
Malaria-vaccine trials raise hope of eradicating deadly disease


The rapid growth has been accompanied by a proliferation of adoption agencies and orphanages, even though the vast majority of “orphans” actually have at least one living parent.

Many orphanages in Africa are set up to generate profits for the owners, since they can receive up to $30,000 per adopted child, the report’s author says. “They were created for financial gain,” said David Mugawe, executive director of the African Child Policy Forum, which released the report Tuesday. “A lot is happening under the table.”

Of the five African countries that produce the most adopted children, none has ratified the Hague Convention, the leading international treaty on protecting children from illegal adoption. And too often the adoption of African children is cloaked in secrecy, according to Mr. Mugawe.

“Some parents are illiterate, so they don’t know what they are signing. They’re not told the whole truth,” he said. “Some are told it’s just a sponsorship for their children’s education, and they’ll get a job and return home to help their parents. They’re often told it’s just foster care for some period of time.”

Mr. Mugawe emphasized that many adoptions are legitimate, and many adoption agencies are good ones. But he said there is also evidence of frequent fraud, the sale and abduction of children, falsified documents, bribery, and children being removed from relatives who could care for them.

He cited the example of Ethiopia, where a number of orphanages were shut down by the government last year – and their children were promptly collected by their parents.

Canada is one of the world’s five biggest adopting countries, with nearly 2,000 children adopted by Canadians from all foreign nations in 2010. Ethiopia is by far the biggest source of adopted children in Africa, and it has also become one of the biggest sources of foreign children for Canadian adoptive parents in recent years.

Canadian adoption agencies have complained about growing restrictions on adoptions from foreign countries. Fees are getting higher, waiting times are longer, and fewer children are available – especially from traditional sources such as China and Russia.

But as China and Russia impose more restrictions, many agencies are turning to Africa to fill the gap. With more than 41,000 children sent overseas in the past decade, Africa has become the “new frontier” for foreign adoption, according to the report by the African Child Policy Forum, presented at a conference in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has also become the world’s second-biggest source of adopted children, and it may soon overtake China to become the biggest source.

Hollywood celebrities and pop stars such as Angelina Jolie and Madonna are among those who have adopted African children in recent years.

In some cases, African children can be adopted in a matter of weeks, compared to waiting periods of years in other countries, the report said.

Because of pressure from adopting countries, many African countries haven’t introduced enough safeguards to protect their children from illegal adoptions, and often they don’t make enough effort to look for informal adoption arrangements in their own countries, Mr. Mugawe said.

“Adoption can become a vast, profit-driven industry with children as the commodity,” he added. “Inter-country adoption should not be taken as an easy and convenient option. It should be a last resort and an exception, rather than the normal recourse to solving the situation of children in difficult circumstances, as it seems to have now become.”

Published on Tuesday, May. 29, 2012 8:32PM

 

MADONNA'S CONTROVERSIAL ADOPTIONS

MADONNA'S CONTROVERSIAL ADOPTIONS

September 13, 2011, 12:47 pm Dan McDougall

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Madonna with adopted daughter Mercy.

 

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

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

Celebrities Can Adopt - Why Can't We?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A stamp says "approved".

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

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

Madonna’s Charity Fails in Bid to Finance School

Madonna’s Charity Fails in Bid to Finance School

Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters

Madonna during a visit to Malawi in 2007.

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: March 24, 2011

Adoption made easy

Adoption made easy

Many people assume the adoption process is expensive, lengthy and cumbersome. That was true in the past, but now things have changed and it is simple, straightforward and affordable, writes NJOKI CHEGE

There are several reasons why people  adopt but for whatever reason you choose to do it, it important that you realise adoption must be done the legal way, in order for both the child and parent(s) to enjoy their full rights.

But what exactly is adoption? The laws of Kenya describe adoption as the permanent assumption of the parental rights and responsibilities in a legal manner of a child that is not naturally yours.





Gaciku Kangari, the executive director of the Kenyans to Kenyans Peace Initiative Adoption Society (KKPI) — a registered adoption society, says the process of adoption in not only simple and straightforward, but affordable as well.

“If you want to adopt, the first step is to approach a registered adoption society that will help you through the legal and social process. An adoption society sees your adoption right through to the end,” she notes.

Parents then make an inquiry and are taken through a simple interview. Here, they are introduced to the laws that govern adoption.

Gaciku explains: “A sole applicant or a couple where each is at least 25 years old and at least 21 years older than the child are allowed to adopt. A relative of the child may also adopt. By the way, a single female is only allowed to adopt a girl, unless in special circumstances where the boy is over five years old.”

Like any other legal process, legal documents such as your national identity card, a certificate of good conduct and a reference letter from your religious leader is required.

And what about the cost implications?

It costs about Sh8,000 to Sh12,000 depending on the adoption society you choose.

After a home assessment scheduled with a social worker, your request goes before a case committee that scrutinises your application — most of which go through hassle-free.

International standards

The next step requires you to describe the child of your preference, but you have to bear in mind that the adoption agency will place you with a child that resembles you!

Offers Gaciku: “Adopting has been made easy as Kenya subscribes to The Hague Convention on Adoption of Children, an international instrument of the United Nations to regulate and guide child adoptions worldwide.”

Once they identify a child for you, then it’s a smooth ride. The first two weeks are used for bonding, which is followed by a letter of release and placement thereafter.

“After a month or so, you go home with your child, but you will be under a three-month placement period in which we will observe you and the child,” says Gaciku.

Unlike common belief that you require a lawyer before you start the process of adoption, you actually require one as soon as you get your child.

“The lawyer comes in much later to help you file a case in court and get a hearing date on which a judge will either give you an adoption order or rejection. Only a high court judge, not even a magistrate, can issue an adoption order,” says Gaciku.





While you are at it, it is important that you get an adoption lawyer, as there are some lawyers who are not familiar with the Children’s Act.

You don’t have to have a lawyer, as these days courts are friendlier and encourage self-representation.

The whole process, in totality, takes about six months, but it could take longer if you choose to drag the whole process. It is entirely up to you to fast-track the process.

CHALLENGES

Beside the financial scare that posed a threat to adoption until Eve Woman established otherwise, the biggest challenge to adoption remains the ignorance and lack of understanding surrounding the process.

“Kenyans are yet to warm up to the idea of adopting and accepting adopted children. A lot of awareness creation is needed surrounding the adopted child and their rights,” says Gaciku.

The adoption process is also riddled with cultural taboos that forbid adoption, and surprisingly, in the Kenyan adoption scene, as Gaciku notes, there is a preference for girls as opposed to boys.

ah woman adopted from Indian orphanage THIRTY years ago now faces

Utah woman adopted from Indian orphanage THIRTY years ago now faces
deportation
By Daily Mail Reporter

|

Deportation battle: Attorneys are fighting to stop Kairi
Shepherd, who was adopted from India as a 3-month-old baby, being deported

A 30-year-old woman who has lived in the U.S
since she was adopted from an orphanage in India as a baby is facing deportation
after a court ruled she is living in the country illegally.


Kairi Shepherd, who has been orphaned twice
following the death of her biological Indian mother when she was just
3-months-old and her adoptive American mother, has described the deportation
order as a 'death sentence.'


Shepherd could be thrown out of the country
because her adoptive mother, a widow from Utah who died of breast cancer when
Shepherd was eight, never filed citizenship paperwork for her.

Last week Indian authorities highlighted the
'humanitarian dimension' of Shepherd's case - urging the U.S. to deal with the
‘utmost sensitivity and compassion.'

Adoption Order Madonna - Adoption REFUSED - Online

In Re: Adoption of Children Act CAP. 26:01; In Re: CJ (A Female Infant) of C/o Mr. Peter Baneti, Zomba (Adoption Case No. 1 of 2009)

Case No:
                    (A Female Infant)       
Judgment Number:
                    3       
Media Neutral Citation:
                    [2009] MWHC 3       
Judgment Date:
Fri, 04/03/2009
Attachment Size
3 21.28 KB
3_0 0 bytes

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY

ADOPTION CASE NO. 1 OF 2009


IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF CHILDREN ACT CAP. 26:01


AND


IN THE MATTER OF CJ (A FEMALE INFANT) OF C/O MR. PETER BANETI, ZOMBA (for the purposes of protecting the identity of the infant in these public records I will refer to the infant by the initials CJ)


CORAM: HON. JUSTICE E.J. CHOMBO

Mr. A Chinula, Counsel for the Petitioner

Mrs. Munyenyembe, Court Interpreter


IN ATTENDANCE: The Petitioner, Ms. Madonna Louise Cicoone

Mr.S.w. Chisale – Guardian ad-Litem

Mr.Peter Baneti and Mr.Chekechiwa–Family Representatives of the                      Infant CJ


RULING

CHOMBO, J


On 30 March 2009 the Petitioner, Ms Madonna Loiuse Ciccone (hereinafter called the Petitioner) presented her petition to the Court desiring to adopt a female infant CJ.  The said petition is supported by affidavits and skeletal arguments.


Background

The said infant CJ is presently three years old whose 14 year old mother died shortly after the birth of CJ in Zomba. The Probation Officer and Guardian ad-litem, Mr. S.W. Chisale submitted comprehensive reports on the circumstances that have led to the said infant being the subject of this application. A full and comprehensive report of


the Petitioner disclosing all the necessary information for the purpose of an adoption was also submitted.   


The Court had opportunity to find out from the family representatives if they had been properly counseled on the implications of an adoption.  They both confirmed to the Court their understanding of the implications of adoption and their family’s decision to have the said infant adopted; which facts confirm the affidavits of the Petitioner and I find the same to be true. 


The Law

I will restrict the discussion in this section to two provisions of the law under the Adoption of Children Act,

  1. Section 3(5) of the Act provides that:


An adoption order shall not be made in favour of any applicant who is not resident in Malawi or in respect of any infant (child) who is not so resident.


Notably the word resident is not defined in the Act. Much discussion dwelt on the issue of residence in the previous adoption case by the same Petitioner before Court.  At the close of the day Nyirenda J, (as he then was) came to the conclusion that:


It might well be that the definition of ‘residence’ is at large and might be equated, in the circumstances of the case, to mere physical presence in the country at the time of the petition so that the court can make its own assessment of the Applicants and how committed they are in the undertaking.  The requirement as to residence, in my view is also intended to enable the system in Malawi to verify the standing and disposition of the applicants with some degree of certainty.  But all these considerations in my judgment are intended to establish that the infant child will be in safe and secure hands


There is a wealth of authorities from different jurisdictions that has dealt with the interpretation of the word ‘residence’in a comprehensive way that I have found to be instructive and I would like to borrow from. This may, of necessity, involve lengthy quotations to buttress the point being raised. The National Court of Justice in Papua New Guinea in GN and RN, an Application{1985} PNGLR 121 (17 May 1985) quoted with approval the words of Ashworth J, in the case of Brokelmann v Barr{1971} 3 All ER 29 at 36 that:


In the judgment of this court, there has gradually been developed and established a rule of construction that prima facie at leastresidence involves some degree of permanence. As was said by Lord Justice Wdgery in Fox v Stirk

(9 supra) ‘It is imperative to remember in this context that residence implies a degree of permanence,  In the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, it is concerned with something which will go on for a considerable time.  Consequently, a person is not entitled to claim to be a resident at a given town merely because he pays a short, temporary visit, some expectation of continuity, is a vital factor, which turns simple occupation into residence. (underlining supplied)

Section 6(4) of the Adoption of Infants Act of Fijiis almost word for word with that of Malawi. In November 1997, Byrne J in re S (an infant) 1997FJHC 183 quoted with approval the holding of Harman J in RE Adoption Application No. 52/1951 {1952} 1 Ch. 16 as follows:


His Lordship then quoted the remark of Lord Cave L.C. in Levene v IRC{1928} A.C 217 at 222 who cited the Oxford English Dictionary saying:

the word ‘reside’ is a familiar English word and is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning ‘to dwell permanently or for a considerable time,to have one’s settle or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place…Again I quote from Mr. Justice Harman in Adoption Application No. 52/1951 at p.23 referring to an argument by counsel for the Applicants that while the Applicants were on leave in England, they were for the time being ‘resident’ there.  His Lordship said “I should say they were for the time being staying here”, and I do not think that is the same as being resident.


It was further observed by His Lordship that “residence denotes some degree of permanence. It does not necessarily mean the applicant has a settled headquarters in this country.  It seems dangerous to try to define what is meant by residence.  It is unfortunate that it is not possible to do so, but in my judgment, the question before the court is in every such case whether the applicant is a person who resides in the country.  In the present case I can only answer that question in the case of the wife by holding that she is not resident in this country; she is merely a sojourner here during a period of leave. (underlining supplied)


And Byrne,J. went on to say that:

The court must be able to postulate at the critical date that the applicant is resident, and that is a question of fact. (underlining supplied)



According to information from the global media the Petitioner jetted into the country during the weekend just days prior to the hearing of this application. I take judicial

notice of the reports in the media that the last time that the Petitioner was in the country was in 2008 at the time of the final adoption order for David Banda.  In my considered opinion this would completely remove the Petitioner from the definition of a‘resident’as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and adopted in the celebrated cases sited herein.

Due to brevity of time it has not been possible to consult the Hansard at Parliament and investigate the spirit of the law at the time the Adoption of Children Act came into being. That notwithstanding I wish to hazard a rationale that this was primarily for the protection of the child, who has to adjust to her/his new family in the local jurisdiction under the supervision of the probation officer with a possibility of discontinuance of the adoption should adverse traits be observed in the infant.Section 7 provides that where the court decides to postpone the determination of an application for adoption the court may make an interim order which shall not exceed the period of two years.My convictions are further fortified by the proposal of the Malawi Law Commission in a Bill that is still before Parliament which, among other things, provides that a new Section 3(5)be enacted to include that:


(d) The applicants or one of the applicants if not a relative of the child, has, while in Malawi, fostered the child for a period of one year.


Whilst there is a felt need to open a window for inter-country adoptions there is caution and clearly some felt tension between the rights of the child to adequate welfare and the need to protect the subject of the adoption.


Put simply courts do make law by the process of precedents, and Ms Madonna may not be the only international person interested in adopting the so-called poor children of Malawi.  By removing the very safeguard that is supposed to protect our children the courts by their pronouncements could actually facilitate trafficking of children by some unscrupulous individuals who would take advantage of the weakness of the law of the land.  It is necessary that we look beyond a particular petitioner, and maybe even a particular benefactor but go beyond them, and consider the consequences of opening the doors too wide.   Anyone could come to Malawi and quickly arrange for an adoption that might have grave consequences on the very children that the law seeks to protect.     


Records at the High Court Registry will actually show that the adoption of David Banda is not the first inter-country adoption. The sole sore-thumb difference is that the residence of the applicants therein was never an issue.  To date there has only been one case that has departed from the mandatory requirement of the period of residence prior to the making of an application for adoption. The issue of residence, I find, is the key upon which the question of adoption rests and it is the very bedrock of protection that our children need; it must therefore not be tampered with.  As wisely

put by G. K. Chesterton, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up”.


  1. The Adoption of Children Act Section 4(b)

The second issue to be considered is the issue of the welfare of the child. In my attempts to make sense of this requirement under Section 4 of the Act I referred to two international instruments; the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACHPR) to which Malawi is a signatory. Section 4provides as follows:


The court before making an adoption order shall be satisfied-

(b) that the order if made will be for the welfare of the infant, due consideration being for the purpose given to the wishes of the infant, having regard to the age and understanding of the infant.

The Act does not however offer any definition or interpretation as to the meaning or what constitutes ‘the welfare of the infant’,especially where the infant has no capacity to make any decision of its own as in the present case; thus my referencing the two international instruments.  The welfare of the child has occupied many a minds culminating in the birth of these two instruments.Article 3(1) of the CRC and Article 4 (1) of the ACHPRprovide that the ‘best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration’.  In qualifying the term ‘the best interest of the child’ as provided for in the two instruments above I want to rely on some profound pronouncements of Bhagwati J in the case of Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs Union of Indiaof 6 February 1984 found in AIR 1984 SC 469


It is obvious that in a civilized society the importance of child welfare cannot be over-emphasized, because the welfare of the entire community, its growth and development, depend on the health and well being of its children.  Children are a ‘supremely important national asset’ and the future well being of the nation depends on how its children grow and develop….  Now obviously children need special protection because of their tender age and physique mental immaturity and incapacity to look after themselves.


It is commonplace knowledge that there are irreconcilable differences between the western world and, specifically, Malawi and what the Petitioner can provide for the infant CJ. The point need not be overemphasized that material needs of a child in America and the West in general are better provided for than in Malawi. And, I must confess that there is a gripping temptation to throw caution to the wind and grant an adoption in the hope that there will be a difference in the life of even just one child.  However in our guest to ensure that the children are well provided for it should be borne in mind that inter-country adoptions may not and are not the only solutions.  I

have no doubt that the framers of the international instruments had this in mind when in their wisdom they included Article 24 which provides that States Parties, which recognize the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interest of the child shall be the paramount consideration and they shall:


(b) recognize that inter-country adoption in those States who have ratified or adhered to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child or this Charter may as the last resort, be considered as an alternative means of a child’s care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin.(underlining supplied)


Clearly inter-country adoption is supposed to be the last resort alternative. In my internal struggle to come to some sane conclusion I asked myself a number of questions.  Can CJ be placed in a foster or adoptive family? Incidentally the Act does not define what‘a foster or adoptive family’ is.  The answer therefore is neither here nor there.  It is evident however that CJ no longer is subject to the conditions of poverty of her place of birth as described by the Probation Officer since her admission at Kondanani Orphanage. In the circumstances can it be said that CJ cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in her country of origin?  The answers to my questions are negative.  In my view ‘in any suitable manner’refers to the style of life of the indigenous or as close a life to the one that the child has been leading since birth.   Presently CJ is in the care of Kondanani Orphanage and no evidence to the contrary has been brought as to the inability or unwillingness of Kondanani Orphanage to continue looking after CJ.  This situation must be distinguished from the case of David who, according to facts on record, was to be returned to his biological father within a period of six months from the time that Mchinji Orphanage had admitted him.  This is the same father that had desperately appealed for help after the death of his wife because of his incapacity to look after David and the unwillingness of wife’s family to care for the child. And, after six months the child was supposed to be returned to him.  It is not known how much would have changed within six months. 


CONCLUSION

As I make the order I am acutely aware of the high expectations that the family of CJ, and possibly other independent well-wishers, had about the unlimited opportunities that the proposed adoption would avail CJ. I have no doubt that all hope is not lost with the Petitioner’s noble and immediate ideas of investing in the improvement of more children’s lives with her projects in Malawi. It is my prayer that CJ would be among the first children to benefit from that project.  Having said all this then, at the end of the day I must decline to grant the application for the adoption of the infant CJ.

MADE in chambers this 3rdday of April 2009.




E.J. CHOMBO

JU D G E

Haiti. Toward a resumption of international adoptions?

 


Therefore it must be repeated yet again that the right of the child does exist, when the child is declared adoptable, to give priority to finding a foster family in the country of residence, and subsidiarily in another country if there is no other solution; but no right is recognized to the families to dispose of a child whatever the motivations of the families wishing to adopt. Additionally, it is the sole competence of the country of origin (in this case Haiti) to decide to authorize the adoption, it is not up to the foster country to exercise pressure to obtain children.

 

 

Haiti. Toward a resumption of international adoptions?

 

Editorial by M. Jean Zermatten

 

For many years, Haiti has been a country of origin for international adoptions. At the time of the earthquake, the press related a very high number of children who had been adopted in the days and weeks following the tragic event.

 

In 2009, we estimate that 1'200 children were subject to international adoption. In 2010, that is to say after the earthquake (12.01), this number rose to 2’400 children. In relation to the total number of 37’500 children having been subject to international adoption worldwide, this signifies that in 2010, Haiti, a country of 10 million inhabitants, practiced 6,4% of all international adoptions!

 

It is indeed an alarming number. All the more when one knows of the weakness of the control system and the inexistence of a Haitian central authority, while awaiting the ratification of the Hague Convention. It is proof of an observation made many times: the lower the exigencies for international adoption are and the more haphazard the control, the more a country is at risk of seeing their children outbound towards foster countries. Currently Haiti is a country where one comes too easily to adopt children.

 

 

In addition, numerous adoptions are done directly, without going through the Institute of Social Well-Being and Research which should function as a control body, by the contact between an adoptive family (or an adoption agency) and a nursery through the exchange of money, either directly or indirectly, to provide care, housing and food to the child, the candidate for adoption. The monthly amounts thus allocated are very high compared to the local standard of living, which often leads to the slowness of the process in order to secure a substantial revenue for a longer period of time. These practices are known and are being fought by the IBESR, which has already shut down several nurseries; the reasons for these shutdowns are not solely motivated by these practices, but also by the unsanitary conditions of certain places and the unsuitability of the care provided to little children.

 

Additionally, the documents permitting the child to exit Haiti are often falsified, as are those related to the child’s age and identity, and those which counterfeit the authorizations of the IBESR. This question also brings up that of the complicity of certain lawyers and the weakness of birth registrations.

 

After the media hype, the situation concerning adoptions was "frozen" by some countries, on their own initiative and for more than a year, in order to permit Haiti to ratify the Hague Convention on Protection of children in respect to inter-country adoption (1993), and in order to adopt a national law on adoption as well as to designate a central Authority. These procedures have not achieved their goal, even if the parliament is considering a bill and the State has signed The Hague Convention (02.03.2011) and President Martelly announced his upcoming ratification; nevertheless the countries which had auto limited themselves announced the imminent resumption of the practices of international adoption.

 

This situations remains preoccupying, since in reality nothing has changed and Haitian children are not protected against fraudulent adoptions; their best interest is not guaranteed and there are high risks of child sale, as it is proscribed by the Optional Protocol of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (2000) to which most countries are a party to.

 

Therefore it must be repeated yet again that the right of the child does exist, when the child is declared adoptable, to give priority to finding a foster family in the country of residence, and subsidiarily in another country if there is no other solution; but no right is recognized to the families to dispose of a child whatever the motivations of the families wishing to adopt. Additionally, it is the sole competence of the country of origin (in this case Haiti) to decide to authorize the adoption, it is not up to the foster country to exercise pressure to obtain children.

 

The continuation of the freezing of adoptions in Haiti seems to be required!

 

 

 

Swiss re-elected to UN child rights committee

Dec 18, 2008 -
08:06

Swiss re-elected to UN child rights committee


Jean Zermatten will sit for another four years on the 18-member UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

Image Caption: Jean Zermatten will sit for another
four years on the 18-member UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (Swiss
Mission to the UN)

Swiss child rights advocate Jean Zermatten has been re-elected for a further
four-year term on the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
(CRC).

The
extension of Zermatten's position on the 18-member committee, which oversees the
implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is an
affirmation of Switzerland's position on human rights and development, the
country's ambassador to the UN in New York says.

ATD Advisory Committee

Advisory Committee

 

Mary Jo Bane
Thornton Bradshaw Professor of Public Policy and Management at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
The Most Rev. Alvaro Corrada del Rio, SJ
Catholic Reg. Bishop of Tyler, TX
Francois de Combret
Lazard Freres and Co.

Deported woman seeks MEA’s help

Deported woman seeks MEA’s help

May 28, 2012

 

In a letter to Krishna, Jennifer Edgell Haynes, claims that she was a victim of child trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation after she was adopted by an American couple when she was seven years old.

Seeking the minister's help. Image courtesy PIB

 

“Until three years back I believed I was a citizen of the United States. Now I realize that I was a victim of child trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation,” Hayens said in an email sent to the minister through Anjali Pawar, of Sakhee, a Pune-based NGO.

“When I was just seven years old, I was adopted from an Indian orphanage by an American couple from Atlanta Georgia via American Aid for International Adoption,” she said.

“Unfortunately the adoption was a fraud and within a year of arriving in the United States I found myself placed with a foster family who later adopted me, where I was sexually abused and physically beaten. Thereafter for the next ten years I was shuffled from foster home to foster home,” she said.

“Never did I think that I was not an American citizen until I was arrested for a minor drug charge and send immediately for deportation.

“In 2008 I was separated from my husband and two children in the US and sent back to India, a country which I had forgotten and which had forgotten me,” Hayens said.

“I’m trying desperately to return home to my kids Kadafi, 9 and Kassana, 8 who are missing me a lot and need their mother,” she said adding that her case is also pending in the Supreme Court of India.

The petition before the Supreme Court, she noted, will “take years together for adjudication”.

“By then my children who are yet minor will be grown up. I request intervention by your office…” Haynes said in her email dated 28 May.

The copy of the email sent to Krishna was released in Washington today.

Washington:

An Indian orphan who was deported from the US in 2008 following her arrest on drug charges today wrote to External Affairs Minister SM Krishna asking him to help her get back to the US so that she can live with her two children – eight and nine year olds.