Home  

Claimants Rummage through Samaritan’s Purse










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

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









 












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

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

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

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

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

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

After the licence was revoked, the board had granted Samaritan Purse access to its bank account, which had been blocked by the agency, to pay salaries of its employees for August and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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By MAHLET MESFIN
FORTUNE STAFF WRITER

Surrogate not legally a baby’s mother, judge rules

Surrogate not legally a baby’s mother, judge rules

Fotolia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Post
jbrean@nationalpost.com

Cablegate: Netherlands: Pending Adoption Cases in Romania

Cablegate: Netherlands: Pending Adoption Cases in Romania

VZCZCXRO8264 
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ 
DE RUEHTC #0617 0811558 
ZNR UUUUU ZZH 
R 221558Z MAR 06 
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5172 
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE 
RUEHBM/AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST 1111 
RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA 0418 
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 2840 
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS 0270 

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000617

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL CASC EU RO NL 
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS: PENDING ADOPTION CASES IN ROMANIA

REF: STATE 43700

1. (SBU) Poloff delivered reftel demarche March 21 to MFA 
Western and Central Europe policy officer Mara van der Poel, 
who handles accession issues for Romania and Bulgaria. The 
GONL is satisfied with the Romanian adoption law, which it 
believes (despite our arguments) is in conformity with 
international and EU conventions. Van der Poel cited 
European Commission reports that indicated Romania had the 
capacity to adopt needy children internally. Regarding 
pending cases, she said that the GONL was satisfied with the 
European Commission's call for the Romanian government to 
inform applicants of the status of their cases.

2. (SBU) When pressed by poloff, van der Poel said that, 
frankly, the Romanian accession process faces hurdles which 
are far more pressing that the adoption issue (for example, 
corruption). She said that the GONL does not feel this is an 
issue on which the Romanians should be distracted. 
ARNALL

Viewing cable 06PRAGUE305, CZECHS PROMISE TO LOOK INTO ROMANIAN ADOPTION

Viewing cable 06PRAGUE305, CZECHS PROMISE TO LOOK INTO ROMANIAN ADOPTION
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs 














Reference ID

Created

Released

Classification

Origin






VZCZCXRO9348

PP RUEHAG RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ

RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG

DE RUEHPG #0305 0821423

ZNR UUUUU ZZH

P 231423Z MAR 06

FM AMEMBASSY PRAGUE

TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7131

INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

RUEHBM/AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST PRIORITY 7236

RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA PRIORITY 0479

RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV PRIORITY 0670

UNCLAS PRAGUE 000305

 

SIPDIS

 

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

 

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: PREL CASC EU RO EZ

SUBJECT: CZECHS PROMISE TO LOOK INTO ROMANIAN ADOPTION

QUESTION

 

REF: STATE 43700

 

1. (SBU) Poloff met Dagmar Hovohradska, MFA's Human Rights

Department, March 22 to discuss reftel demarche on Romanian

intercountry adoption. Hovohradska said the Human Rights

Department will research the issue and provide a response

within a week. However, Hovohradska was unsure what the Czech

position would be in light of a recent intercountry adoption

involving the death of a three-year old Czech boy. The

Swedish couple who adopted the boy is now accused of killing

him. As a result of this case, Hovohradska predicted the

passage of a new Czech law on intercountry adoption that

would require psychiatric testing of all prospective adoptive

parents.
 

Woman drags orphanage boss to Police

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

Fielding with some of the orphans she was sponsoring

By Jackie Nambogga 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Meerwaarde adoptie niet groot genoeg"

17-07-11

Pleegzorg en adoptie

Pleegzorg en adoptie 


"Meerwaarde adoptie niet groot genoeg"

Door: Liliane Waanders

Anders dan in de Verenigde Staten of Groot-Brittannië leidt pleegzorg in Nederland niet vanzelfsprekend tot adoptie (*). Als het aan Mariëlle Bruning, hoogleraar Jeugdrecht aan de Universiteit Leiden, ligt, blijft dat ook zo. “Er zijn maar weinig situaties te bedenken, waarin adoptie voor het kind beter is dan pleegzorg.” 

Mariëlle Bruning: “Elk kind heeft het recht om bij zijn eigen ouders op te groeien. Dat is een basisrecht. Als een kind (tijdelijk) niet meer thuis kan wonen, heeft het recht op een gezinsvervangend thuis, waar voor het kind zoveel mogelijk rust gecreëerd wordt. Dat de mogelijkheid van contact met de biologische ouders daarbij open blijft, is belangrijk. Een kind is en blijft loyaal aan zijn ouders. Kinderen zijn veerkrachtig en accepteren veel van hun ouders, zelfs als het gedrag van ouders hen schaadt. In de ogen van hun kinderen verliezen de biologische ouders niet zo snel definitief hun kansen. 

Pleegzorg is een kinderbeschermende maatregel die tegemoet komt aan de noodzaak en wens om voor elk kind een thuis te creëren, zonder dat de biologische ouders uit beeld raken. Adoptie is dat in mijn ogen niet. Door adoptie wordt de juridische band met de biologische ouders doorgesneden. De biologische ouders kunnen daardoor formeel geen rechten meer doen gelden op hun kind. Bij elke afweging over adoptie moet beoordeeld worden of dit niet in strijd is met het basisrecht van het kind op een gezinsleven met zijn eigen ouders. Adoptie is in mijn ogen alleen te verantwoorden als een kind - zoals dat in de wet geformuleerd staat - echt niets meer van zijn ouders te verwachten heeft. Adoptie is voor een kind dat nog (enige vorm van contact met) eigen ouders heeft haast altijd een verlies.”

Adoptie: alleen in heel uitzonderlijke gevallen 

“Er zijn situaties waarin het vanuit het perspectief van kinderbescherming nodig is om biologische ouders de zorg voor hun kinderen definitief te ontzeggen. Dat zijn de situaties waarin adoptie eventueel overwogen zou kunnen worden. Dan heb je het over uitzonderlijke gevallen: over ouders die drugsverslaafd of langdurig gedetineerd zijn en over ouders die geen moeite willen doen om betrokken te blijven bij het leven en de opvoeding van hun kinderen. Zolang biologische ouders de intentie hebben om contact met hun kinderen te onderhouden en dit contact het kind niet schaadt, is adoptie een stap te ver. 

Dat wil niet zeggen dat het ultieme doel van iedere pleegzorgplaatsing is, dat een kind uiteindelijk teruggaat naar zijn ouders. Het gaat erom dat de veiligheid die het pleeggezin biedt, een kind ook in staat stelt een relatie met de biologische ouders op te bouwen of in stand te houden. Als dat binnen een voor het kind acceptabele termijn mogelijk blijkt of blijft, is dat genoeg om pleegzorg als keuze te blijven rechtvaardigen. 

Kinderrechters moeten op enig moment een besluit nemen over de toekomst van een kind, bijvoorbeeld door een gezagsontneming uit te spreken als het kind langdurig in het pleeggezin zal blijven, maar die termijn ligt niet vast. De beslissing moet van het kind afhangen. Een kind kent de betekenis en gevolgen niet van de verschillende juridische constructies, maar het kan wel zeggen wie en wat belangrijk voor hem is. Een rechter moet moeite doen om, met hulp van een gedragsdeskundige en zonder een kind voor het blok te zetten en het uitspraken te ontlokken, te onderzoeken wat het kind wil.”

Pleegzorg biedt voldoende zekerheid

“Adoptie is één van de vormen waarin een kind een gezinsvervangend thuis geboden kan worden. Toch zijn er uiteindelijk maar weinig situaties waarin adoptie voor een kind beter of noodzakelijker is dan pleegzorg. Alleen als de meerwaarde van adoptie vaststaat, is het een verantwoorde keuze. Dat adoptie meer zekerheid biedt dan pleegzorg, zit vooral in de hoofden van pleeg- en adoptieouders. 

Pleegouders zijn jaren ondergewaardeerd en kregen te maken met beperkende maatregelen wat betreft de hoogte van de vergoeding, het maximale aantal pleegkinderen dat tegelijk in een pleeggezin mocht worden opgevangen of de zeggenschap over de kinderen. In­middels is hun positie verbeterd. Een kind dat een jaar met een ondertoezichtstelling in hetzelfde pleeggezin gewoond heeft, kan daar straks door het blokkaderecht niet zomaar weggehaald worden. De biologische ouder heeft wel een voorkeurstem. Pleegouders die lang­durig voor een kind zorgen, kunnen de (gezamenlijke) voogdij krijgen. Daarmee hebben zij instrumenten om de zorg en opvoeding van hun pleegkinderen handen en voeten te geven. De realiteit blijft echter dat pleegzorg, net als adoptie, voor het kind een vervanging is voor het gezin dat het met zijn ‘eigen’ ouders vormt.” <



Liliane Waanders is (freelance) journalist en gespecialiseerd in de onderwerpen afstand en adoptie en Nederlandse literatuur.



(*) Als in dit artikel sprake is van adoptie gaat het om binnenlandse adoptie.

0 reacties:

American adoptive parents do not face death penalty

American adoptive parents do not face death penalty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. families celebrate children's ties to Romania

U.S. families celebrate children's ties to Romania

Ruxandra Giura - Fall 2003 December 9, 2003 1:00 am

WASHINGTON -- Five-year-old Laura Robak kept running up and down the stairs at the ornate Romanian Embassy. Every now and then she stopped to ask her mother: "When is Santa coming?"

Soon she was playing with some of the other 80 children at the Christmas party Saturday. Like her, they had all been adopted by American families who traveled to Romania to find and adopt children over a dozen years.

“When I first saw her, I thought she was very beautiful,” said Linda Robak of Wilton, Conn., who adopted the little girl she calls Lala in May 2001 from the Romanian town Sfantu-Gheorghe, following a six-month legal adoption process.

US RESOLUTION H. RES. 578

1
IV
109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. RES. 578
Concerning the Government of Romania’s ban on intercountry adoptions
and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOVEMBER 18, 2005
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. CARDIN, Mrs. NORTHUP, Mr.
PITTS, Mr. PENCE, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. JO
ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire,
and Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts) submitted the following resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
RESOLUTION
Concerning the Government of Romania’s ban on intercountry
adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned
children in Romania.
Whereas following the execution of Romanian President
Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989, it was discovered that more
than 100,000 underfed, neglected children throughout
Romania were living in hundreds of squalid and inhumane
institutions;
Whereas United States citizens responded to the dire situation
of these children with an outpouring of compassion
and assistance to improve conditions in those institutions
and to provide for the needs of abandoned children in Romania;
VerDate Mar 21 2002 14:24 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\022806M\26345.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26345a.AAB
3
2
HRES 578 IH
Whereas, between 1990 and 2004, United States citizens
adopted more than 8,200 Romanian children, with a
similar response from Western Europe;
Whereas the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported
in March 2005 that more than 9,000 children a
year are abandoned in Romania’s maternity wards or pediatric
hospitals and that child abandonment in Romania
in ‘‘2003 and 2004 was no different from that occurring
10, 20, or 30 years ago’’;
Whereas there are approximately 37,000 orphaned or abandoned
children in Romania today living in state institutions,
an additional 49,000 living in temporary arrangements,
such as foster care, and an unknown number of
children living on the streets and in maternity and pediatric
hospitals;
Whereas, on December 28, 1994, Romania ratified the
Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation
in Respect of Intercountry Adoption which recognizes
that ‘‘intercountry adoption may offer the advantage
of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable
family cannot be found in his or her State of origin’’;
Whereas intercountry adoption offers the hope of a permanent
family for children who are orphaned or abandoned
by their biological parents;
Whereas UNICEF’s official position on intercountry adoption,
in pertinent part, states: ‘‘For children who cannot
be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative
family environment should be sought in preference
to institutional care, which should be used only as a last
resort and as a temporary measure. Inter-country adoption
is one of a range of care options which may be open
VerDate Mar 21 2002 14:24 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\022806M\26345.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26345a.AAC
4
3
HRES 578 IH
to children, and for individual children who cannot be
placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of
origin, it may indeed be the best solution. In each case,
the best interests of the individual child must be the
guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.’’;
Whereas unsubstantiated allegations have been made about
the fate of children adopted from Romania and the qualifications
and motives of those who adopt internationally;
Whereas in June 2001, the Romanian Adoption Committee
imposed a moratorium on intercountry adoption, but continued
to accept new intercountry adoption applications
and allowed many such applications to be processed
under an exception for extraordinary circumstances;
Whereas on June 21, 2004, the Parliament of Romania enacted
Law 272/2004 on ‘‘the protection and promotion of
the rights of the child,’’ which creates new requirements
for declaring a child legally available for adoption;
Whereas on June 21, 2004, the Parliament of Romania enacted
Law 273/2004 on adoption, which prohibits intercountry
adoption except by a child’s biological grandparent
or grandparents;
Whereas there is no European Union law or regulation restricting
intercountry adoptions to biological grandparents
or requiring that restrictive laws be passed as a
prerequisite for accession to the European Union;
Whereas the number of Romanian children adopted domestically
is far less than the number abandoned and has declined
further since enactment of Law 272/2004 and 273/
2004 due to new, overly burdensome requirements for
adoption;
VerDate Mar 21 2002 14:24 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\022806M\26345.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26345a.AAD
5
4
HRES 578 IH
Whereas prior to enactment of Law 273/2004, 211 intercountry
adoption cases were pending with the Government
of Romania in which children had been matched
with adoptive parents in the United States, and approximately
1,500 cases were pending in which children had
been matched with prospective parents in Western Europe;
and
Whereas Romanian children, and all children, deserve to be
raised in permanent families: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) supports the desire of the Government of
Romania to improve the standard of care and well4
being of children in Romania;
(2) urges the Government of Romania to com6
plete the processing of the intercountry adoption
cases which were pending when Law 273/2004 was
enacted;
(3) urges the Government of Romania to amend
10 its child welfare and adoption laws to decrease bar11
riers to adoption, both domestically and inter12
country, including by allowing intercountry adoption
13 by persons other than biological grandparents;
14 (4) urges the Secretary of State and the Ad15
ministrator of the United States Agency for Inter16
national Development to work collaboratively with
17 the Government of Romania to achieve these ends;
18 and
VerDate Mar 21 2002 14:24 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\022806M\26345.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26345a.AAE
6
5
HRES 578 IH
(5) requests that the European Union and its
member States not impede the Government of Ro3
mania’s efforts to place orphaned or abandoned chil4
dren in permanent homes in a manner that is con5
sistent with Romania’s obligations under the Hague
Convention on Protection of Children and Co-oper7
ation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
Æ
VerDate Mar 21 2002 14:24 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\022806M\26345.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26345a.AAF
7
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The world first learned, in 1989, that
100,000 underfed, neglected children were living in hundreds of
squalid and inhumane institutions throughout Romania. As a matter
of fact, about 4 weeks after the fall of the Ceausescu regime,
having been there several times when he was the dictator, I visited,
along with Dorothy Taft on our staff, one of those orphanages
and saw in one place 60 young babies who were left there as orphans
who could not be turned even because there was such a
shortage of people to attend to them.
However, the good news is that between 1990 and 2004, more
than 8,000 of these children found permanent families in the
United States; thousands of others joined families in Western Europe
and elsewhere.
Sadly, Romania’s child-abandonment rate has not changed significantly
in 30 years. Today, approximately 80,000 children still
live either in institutions or in non-permanent settings such as
‘‘foster care.’’
Hopefully, a time will come when child abandonment in Romania
is just a painful memory, and hopefully the country will someday
have the capacity to help all of the children in need, but that day
has not yet come, and today there is great need for adoption, both
foreign and domestic. But despite this need and the positive outcomes
of most adoptions, outrageous and unsubstantiated allegations
have been made about the fate of adopted children and the
qualifications and motives of those who adopt internationally.
Baroness Emma Nicholson, a member of the European Parliament
who recently served as the rapporteur for Romania’s accession
to the European Union, equates intercountry adoption with
child trafficking for pedophiles and slavery rings. She believes that
it is ‘‘totally false’’ to assume that, for a child, a foreign adoptive
family is better than the family which cannot care for him or her.
Earlier this month, she publicly equated pro-adoption advocates
with organized criminals. Rather than focusing on the best interests
of the child, Romanian policymakers caved in to Lady Nicholson
by banning intercountry adoption in an effort to secure Romania’s
EU accession.
I would note, parenthetically, that as the author of the three
trafficking laws for the United States, the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act of 2000, 2003, and 2005, I and Members of this Subcommittee
take absolutely no back seat when it comes to trafficking.
Adoption is not trafficking.
When the ban was enacted by the Romanian Parliament, I would
point out, there were approximately 200 cases pending in which
children had been matched with adoptive parents in the United
States; approximately 1,000 more had been matched with parents
in Western Europe, Israel, or Australia. These cases will be denied
if the Romanian Government applies the ban retroactively.
Each of these so-called ‘‘pipeline cases’’ involves a prospective
family who has proven their good faith by waiting for years for
these children. Many cases involve older children, Roma children,
and children with special needs who will not be domestically adopted
in Romania. In at least three cases, children with severe medical
needs are already in the United States on medical visas and
living with their prospective adoptive parents. Each was abandoned
VerDate Mar 21 2002 14:24 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\022806M\26345.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
8
at birth and was legally adoptable until the new anti-adoption law
took effect in Romania. If returned to Romania, they will live in institutions
and will not receive the medical care that they need.
Passage of H. Res. 578 will put the Congress on record as, one,
supporting the Romanian Government’s desire to improve the
standard of care and the well-being of children—they state that
that is their desire; urging the Government of Romania to complete
the processing of the intercountry adoption cases which were pending
when the ban was enacted; urging the government to decrease
barriers to adoption, both domestically and intercountry; urging the
State Department and USAID to work with Romania to achieve
these ends; and requesting that the EU and its member states not
impede Romania’s efforts to place orphaned or abandoned children
in permanent homes.
H. Res. 578 is premised on the belief that all children deserve
to be raised in a permanent family. The Romanian Government’s
current laws and policies do not reflect this principle, and I strongly
urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith on H. Res. 578 follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITHREPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
H.RES578
I introduced H.Res. 578 to express my deepest disappointment that the Romanian
Government has instituted a virtual ban on intercountry adoptions. This ban has
serious implications for the welfare and well-being of orphaned or abandoned children
in Romania. Last September, I chaired a hearing of the Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe which explored these issues in depth. H.Res. 578
has 24 co-sponsors and, on February 14, it was reported favorably by the Subcommittee
on Europe and Emerging Threats.
The world first learned in 1989 that 100,000 underfed, neglected children were
living in hundreds of squalid and inhumane institutions throughout Romania. Between
1990 and 2004, more than 8,000 of these children found permanent families
in the United States; thousands of others joined families in Western Europe and
elsewhere.
Sadly, Romania’s child abandonment rate hasn’t changed significantly in 30 years.
Today, approximately 80,000 children still live either in institutions or in non-permanent
settings such as ‘‘foster care.’’
Hopefully, a time will come when child abandonment in Romania is just a painful
memory. And hopefully, the country will someday have the capacity to help all the
children in need. But that day has not yet come and today there is a great need
for adoption—both foreign and domestic. But despite this need, and the positive outcomes
of most adoptions, outrageous and unsubstantiated allegations have been
made about the fate of adopted children and the qualifications and motives of those
who adopt internationally. Baroness Emma Nicholson, a Member of the European
Parliament who until recently served as rapporteur for Romania’s accession to the
European Union, equates intercountry adoption with child trafficking for pedophiles
and slavery rings. She believes that it is ‘‘totally false’’ to assume that for a child,
a foreign adoptive family is better than the family which can not care for him. Earlier
this month she publicly equated pro-adoption advocates with organized criminals.
Rather than focusing on the best interests of the child, Romanian policy makers
caved in to Nicholson by banning intercountry adoption in an effort to secure
Romania’s EU accession.
When the ban was enacted there were approximately 200 cases pending in which
children had been matched with adoptive parents in the United States; approximately
a thousand more had been matched with parents in Western Europe, Israel
or Australia. These cases will be denied if the Romanian Government applies the
ban retroactively.
Each of these pipeline cases involves a prospective family who has proven their
good faith by waiting for years for these children. Many cases involve older children,
Roma children, and children with special medical needs who will not be domestically
VerDate Mar 21 2002 14:24 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\022806M\26345.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
9
adopted in Romania. In at least 3 cases, children with severe medical needs are already
in the U.S. on medical visas and living with their prospective adoptive parents.
Each was abandoned at birth and were legally adoptable until the new adoption
law took effect. If returned to Romania they will live in institutions and will
not receive the medical care they need.
Passage of H. Res. 578 will put the Congress on record
• supporting the Romanian Government’s desire to improve the standard of
care and well-being of children;
• urging the Government to complete the processing of the intercountry adoption
cases which were pending when the ban was enacted;
• urging the Government to decrease barriers to adoption, both domestically
and intercountry;
• urging the State Department and USAID to work with Romania to achieve
these ends; and
• requesting that the EU and its member States not impede Romania’s efforts
to place orphaned or abandoned children in permanent homes.
H.Res. 578 is premised on the belief that all children deserve to be raised in permanent
families. The Romanian Government’s current laws and policies do not reflect
this principle. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Would anyone else like to be heard
on this resolution?
[No response.]
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Are there any amendments to it?
[No response.]
...

[Message clipped]  View entire message