Home  

Ugandan adoption odyssey over for Washington couple

Ugandan adoption odyssey over for Washington couple

by CHRIS DANIELS / KING 5 News

NWCN.com

Posted on July 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Updated today at 12:50 PM

 

SNOHOMISH, Wash. --  -- Little Jeremiah crawls on the floor, unaware of the long journey he's already taken.

"I'm so relieved to finally be home," said Sarah Stratton, as she watches her son acclimate to new surroundings.

Stratton spent four months in Uganda, trying to finish the adoption process.  She says U.S. Embassy officials tied up the process for weeks, without much of an explanation.

"I am honestly not sure what the root cause is," said Stratton, "I wondered at a certain point, if the embassy would ever let us come home."

So did her husband Mike. "We were kinda stuck," he said.

The State Department has been paying close attention to Ugandan adoptions, even posting on their website " a U.S. consular officer must ensure that the adoption is legal under Ugandan law and that the child is qualified under U.S. Immigration Law to immigrate to the United States" and "depending on the orphan status...and circumstances...the investigation may take up to several months to complete."

After 108 days, Stratton and Jeremiah finally got the green light.  They landed in Seattle on Saturday, and the frustration quickly went away.

"Once you have that baby in your arms, you'd never do anything different," said Mike.

"It's a difficult experience, but it is worth every second," said Sarah, "He's an American citizen now, and home for the Fourth of July."

‘Human rights are simply not an EU priority’

Laura Parker, ARK

Laura Parker, country director for Absolute Return for Kids, Bulgaria, and ex EC employee:

‘Human rights are simply not an EU priority’

by Yana Buhrer Tavanier

According to you, why has the dreadful human rights situation in institutions not been recognized as an obstacle for accession in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, when we have very clear Copenhagen criteria, and there were and continue to be numerous reports about human rights abuses in these institutions?

It is clear that the decisions about enlarging the EU were primarily political ones, made well in advance of the actual formal accession process when countries’ progress began to be ‘measured’ more closely. By the time the more critical assessment of their state of readiness was made, the decision to allow Bulgaria and Romania to join the EU had already been taken. The almost total disregard for elements of the Copenhagen criteria also reflects the fact that human rights are simply not an EU priority. I am convinced that were the infringements of the rights of children and adults in institutions having an impact on business and economic interests, they would be taken much, much more seriously. For this, the EU – its Member States, the European Commission and the European Parliament – are to be blamed as much as those countries who were seeking to join the EU.

Looking back, how would you assess the pre-accession monitoring of the EC in terms of mental institutions? You worked in the EC delegation in Sofia and reported on the problems with institutions – do you feel that your position was usually taken seriously into consideration? Were you always happy with the final drafts of the monitoring reports? And do you think the EC had a realistic understanding of the situation in these institutions at the time of accession?

Those responsible for collating the information which was used to draft the Regular Reports tried to reflect the reality of the situation: I know that I, and other colleagues, certainly submitted information about the situation in institutions. And I know that senior EC officials were fully aware of what was going on as they personally visited some institutions. They may not have understood everything, because of course the Government and those running institutions were not keen to expose the truth, but they understood enough. But by the time they had been edited by various EC officials, the final official Regular Reports did not accurately represent the situation. This was a political decision. I remember quite clearly when a senior official from the EC in Brussels came on a monitoring exercise and he met with all of the ‘task managers’ in the EC Delegation except for me. As I was responsible for child welfare and social policy, I think this gives you a good idea of how seriously these issues were taken!

Do you think that the EU should require a better human-rights track-record from future Member States? Better than in the case of Bulgaria and Romania that is. When talking about institutions for children and adults, what human-rights standards should a country meet, according to you, in order to join?

Yes, the EU must require a better human-rights track record from future Member States. Otherwise, its claims to have a positive influence on human rights in the wider world, and all of its own policy on social inclusion and equality, will be completely undermined. And, the concept of EU ‘citizenship’, which the Lisbon Treaty wants to introduce, will become even more meaningless. The EU cannot claim that those who are locked away in institutions, given psychiatric drugs and medical treatment without consent, denied freedom of movement and unable to enjoy the other basic rights which the majority of EU Member States people do enjoy are ‘citizens’. Complying with international treaties – such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) –is what is required.

In the last monitoring report before accession of Bulgaria and Romania some remaining problems were identified. How, according to you, should the EC follow up on these  issues? What are the instruments available to the Commission in case it finds that these problems have not been addressed by Bulgaria and Romania? In other words – what should the EU do today, regarding institutions for children and adults in Bulgaria and Romania?

The EC should ensure that any future funding which is directed towards ‘de-institutionalisation’ or social policy more broadly is well spent. Plans are currently being developed for €20 mn EURO of European Regional Development Funding to be spent on de-institutionalisation. This money must not be wasted on unnecessary ‘mega-projects’ or disproportionately expensive buildings but should be directed towards providing the services which people really need. So, for example, instead of financing the refurbishment of existing institutions, the EC should require that investment is made in supporting new services like foster care and improving existing community based services – including schools, health and transport services – so that these can provide the support which children and families need. In this way, the old institutional system can gradually be closed down. This investment should be overseen by independent experts and those spending the money held accountable for results.

The problem of institutionalisation is not either just about ‘social policy’ or simply an ‘internal matter’ for Member States – it is about defending the fundamental human rights of all of those living in the EU which should be a concern for us all, wherever we live in the EU. The fact that all Member States have joined the EU ‘club’ should not mean that they turn a blind eye when some members are consistently breaking the club rules and acting in a way which goes against the very spirit of the EU which is supposed to embody social solidarity. The European Commission’s role as ‘guardian of the Treaties’ is precisely to speak out when core values are being breached. In addition to exerting political pressure, I think that it would be possible to take legal cases against those countries where there is such clear discrimination against people with disabilities.

How would you assess the policy of the latest Bulgarian government during the last 4 years, regarding institutions? What did it succeed to do, and where did it fail?

There has been policy on paper but not in practice. The 2008-18 National Strategy for Children has fine aims – including social inclusion – but there is little change on the ground. Investment in alternative care services for children and adults is slowly increasing but there is still little financial incentive for Municipalities to invest in new services. There is also an acute shortage of qualified social workers and other professionals throughout the country who are expected to deal with huge caseloads with very little resources. Far too limited support is given to families when they face difficulties as old attitudes still prevail and many still believe that some people are ‘better off’ in institutions. The Ministry of Health in particular has completely failed to engage in supporting policy on de-institutionalisation. Parents of disabled children, for example, are still often advised that their children should be placed in institutional care and there remains huge confusion about the difference between – and the different needs of – children and adults who have disabilities or health problems, including mental health.

Central Government should have shown leadership on this but actually appeared to want to simply wash its hands of the ‘problem’. The question of how the  institutional system could be transformed has been left almost entirely to individual Municipalities. This is totally ineffective as many Municipalities do not have the skills, expertise or finance to invest in changing the system. It is also very cynical: the Government knows that the vast majority of Mayors are going to be more interested in keeping jobs in institutions than closing them down. The Government should be both demanding these changes and helping Municipalities make them. Where there are examples of good practice, this is almost entirely down to local leadership – from enlightened Mayors, institution Directors and NGOs, with the work often financed by external Donors.

What should the new government focus upon? What, according to you, should be its first steps in the field?

The new Government should focus on doing something rather than seeking to defend the appalling track-record of the last two Governments or (as the last Government did) seeking to deny that there is a problem in the first place! It should:

- agree to a long-term plan for closing down all institutions and set clear targets for this to happen: within 10 years all large-scale institutions for children could be closed and within 20 years, all of those for adults. This is ambitious but realistic. All relevant Ministries – including Health, Education, Justice and Finance, as well as Labour & Social Policy – should be involved in this plan the implementation of which should be overseen by a Deputy Prime Minister;

- start now to conduct an analysis of all institutions in the country to determine how many people there are resident then systematically conduct an assessment of each and every individual, and their families, to determine what services are needed for them;

- freeze all expenditure on institutional buildings unless this is absolutely critical to the well-being of residents – so, for example, heating systems should work, institutions should be clean and safe and residents must be given adequate medical care. But all other investment should be made in trying to reintegrate residents with their families or create alternative care services where this is not possible (such as foster care for children or protected homes for adults) and investing in the number and quality of the institutional care staff who can be subsequently employed in community based services. This includes any EU or other donor funds which are available.

- agree to the introduction of a moratorium on the placement of infants and children under 3 years in institutions – this is the entrance way to the institutional care system and if this is not tackled, other efforts will be wasted. This moratorium can be agreed now, to come into force in three years time, during which investment should be made in creating alternative services for young children and increasing work on prevention of abandonment.

- agree not to make any further cuts in the number of social workers – without properly staffed Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection Departments, it is not possible to conduct the assessment of the residents of institutions or to build up alternative care services.

Institutions Remain Dumping Grounds for Forgotten People

Full-length investigation

Institutions Remain Dumping Grounds for Forgotten People

Reform is coming too slowly to institutions for adults with intellectual and mental health disabilities in Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia, where chronic neglect, filthy conditions, and the use of physical restraints and high-dosage drugs to control behaviour remain routine.

~

By Yana Buhrer Tavanier in Sofia, Goren Chiflik, Svilengrad, Radovets, Oborishte, Belgrade, Kulina, Churug, Bucharest, Mocrea and Gura Vaii

~

Someone is screaming.

Someone is screaming her head off in what seems a desolate part of the yard. There is a fence surrounding some shacks and, with each step taken towards it, the shrieks get louder. Ten more steps and there’s a gate in the fence. Another ten and all hell is let loose.

There is the screaming woman – barefoot, skinny and dressed in rags.

There is another woman, unable to walk, rolling on the ground outside. She is literally covered in flies – fifty, perhaps a hundred flies on her face, filthy clothes, bare feet, hands and the two chunks of bread she’s holding.

There is also a girl, who dips her dry bread in the dirty puddle in front of the outside toilets. And then eats it.

No-one pays attention.

It is lunchtime in Goren Chiflik, an institution in a remote village in eastern Bulgaria, housing 90 women with intellectual and mental health disabilities. It was renovated recently, but the place of horrors, the shacks for the “most disabled” residents, was left untouched. It is well hidden; so well hidden, in fact, that the head of the regional directorate for social protection says she has never seen it, despite having paid numerous visits to the institution. The 30 women here are not allowed to eat with the others. Instead, they are given their food behind the fence that is usually locked, effectively turning it into a cage.

This investigation, mostly conducted undercover in institutions for adults with intellectual and mental health disabilities in Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia, uncovered evidence of human rights abuses, inhuman and degrading treatment and appalling neglect. It showed that reform in this field remains patchy and slow, and too often leaves the most vulnerable behind.

Bulgaria and Romania, both EU members since 2007, and Serbia, which seeks the same status, have a grim track record when it comes to institutional care. This investigation suggests that they are still failing to meet international standards. Inadequate policies result in underfunding and a failure to recruit qualified, motivated staff. Residents are not being treated so much as controlled. Many are gradually destroyed by constant exposure to harmful, high-dosage medication. People do not leave their beds for years. Children are being kept tied down for most of the time. Living conditions are appalling beyond imagination. And the process of deinstitutionalization is as phlegmatic, that death still is the only reliable way out.

Two out of three governments showed no readiness to talk about policy. The recently elected Bulgarian government was the only one ready to answer questions – but in writing. Much is at stake for these counties if they do not improve things. The European Commission has said it may suspend payments under the European Social Fund in case of serious irregularities in Bulgarian and Romanian institutions. As for Serbia, many important voices insist that the EU must demand a better human rights track record from future candidate countries. However, in practice, Brussels has been turning a blind eye to such abuses for years.

~

Tied up with drugs

In the institution for adults with mental illnesses in Radovets, I meet 76 unusually lethargic men. Too many hands are trembling, faces stiff and movements heavy. I am about to find out why.

Radovets is a tiny village in southeast Bulgaria. Like most institutions, this one is as remote as can be. Attracting qualified personnel here is practically impossible.

Officially, I am in Radovets as a researcher for the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, BHC, the country’s most influential human rights NGO. This was the way I chose to gather most information for this investigation, as journalists make institutions nervous. The time needed for a journalist to get a permission to enter an institution gives the staff the necessary weeks to “cover their traces” – which could include cleaning, dressing people up, telling them what to say, untying people, making them appear “busy” in the day rooms, even hiding neglected and malnourished people in locked rooms. That’s why it’s important that visits are either unannounced, or announced shortly beforehand – otherwise appalling living conditions and inhuman practices could be hidden, or at least made seem not so bad.

Although almost all the residents are diagnosed with schizophrenia, Radovets does not have a full-time psychiatrist. The director of the institution, Krayo Kraev, says just one such specialist works within a radius of 50km, and he only visits once a month.

One consequence of this neglect is that all the men in Radovets are on the same therapy, haloperidol, in every medical record we see. No matter what the diagnosis, current condition, or concomitant illnesses are. The director confirms this. “All residents have been prescribed haloperidol by the psychiatrist,” he says. He sees nothing wrong with this state of affairs.

Medical experts maintain that haloperidol, an old antipsychotic drug, has extremely strong side effects, including tardive dyskinesia – involuntary movements of the face, hands and feet; akathisia – manifested in rocking while standing or sitting; lethargy and sleepiness. Because of its sedating effects, the US have massively used haloperidol during deportations of aliens, until the press found out about this in 2008.

The men in Radovets have taken haloperidol every day, sometimes for years. Records show that doses are high and the drug is given without consent. This means tranquil residents and untroubled staff. Though what it really means is blurred minds and harmed bodies.

“This is not treatment, but taking control of people,” Krasimir Kunev, head of the BHC, says. “I’ve never seen side effects so widespread.” At that moment we observe the men having dinner. Many hands are trembling. Holding a full spoon seems like a devastating challenge.

During our visit, the men either sleep or sit in the yard doing nothing. Hristo is one. “I have no energy to do anything”, this 32-year-old, once an award-winning chess-player, says slowly: “I wake up, have breakfast, take my pills, but they suck all my energy out and I fall asleep. I wake up, go to lunch, thankfully we are not given pills then, so I play some chess; dinner comes, I take my pills, I am exhausted, I go to sleep.”

As this applies for all the residents, it becomes clear why the old isolation unit – a tiny closet under the stairs – no longer has to be used. Drug-based restraint has become a substitute for physical restraint.

Challenged about the therapy, the director of Radovets says he will look into the issue. But he states he is very worried that if he has to stop using the services of the current psychiatrist, he won’t be able to find a new one at all.

“In these places, it’s the staff that de facto administer medication. As the psychiatrist is not around to monitor, the staff tell him who ‘needs’ more sedation,” Kunev says. “The staff in these institutions are, by default, unqualified and insufficient. Thus, it’s a temptation to turn medical treatment into a method of controlling behaviour.”

The Bulgarian government says the remote location of so many social care homes is a key factor behind the lack of qualified staff. “A great deal of the specialized institutions for people with disabilities are located far away from big cities [...] This is why very often it is not possible to ensure enough qualified personnel to take care of the residents. This [remoteness] also hampers their access to the necessary health services”, reads the official position of the Bulgarian social ministry. It says it is committed to solving this problem.

The men in Radovets are not the only ones kept restrained with high-dosage tranquillisers. It is the same in Oborishte, a care home for adults with intellectual disabilities, situated in eastern Bulgaria, one-third of whose 98 residents have a mental illness.

A look at the medical records in Oborishte also reveals the widespread use of haloperidol. Many residents have been on 9mg per day for years. Professor Toma Tomov, a leading psychiatrist, says such strong doses should only be given for short periods and for acute conditions.

Professor Tomov asks the part-time psychiatrist at Oborishte why such high doses are routinely given to people who do not need them. “At night, we have only one guard and one nurse and it’s scary,” she says, visibly embarrassed.

Her answer confirms that here, too, people are over-medicated with potentially harmful drugs to guarantee peace for the insufficient staff.

The director of the institution, Ilcho Goranov, defends the use of the drug on the grounds that “it is being administered by a professional”. He has makes it clear that he has no plans to change dosages. Even though the existing practice of overmedication is in direct contradiction with Bulgarian medics’ ethics code, and the country’s public health law.

“Institutions are places where people are stored, not treated. These are not hospitals. Residents are not there till they get better. They are put in institution for an undetermined period of time, usually for life. ?he stay is therefore aimless. In a situation like this emotional reactions of protest and aggression could occur – and this is what makes staff use high doses of anti-psychotics, such as haloperidol”, professor Tomov says.

The mayor of the nearby town Vulchi Dol, Mr. Veselin Vasilev, who is de facto responsible for the institution in Oborishte, is unaware of any problems with the medical treatment. “We have established a monitoring mechanism. And there have been numerous checks by the social services. Nobody has found anything wrong”, the mayor insists. And then adds: “we should always bear in mind that the work in these places is extremely unpleasant and difficult”. The mayor is very happy with Mr. Goranov, the new director of the institution – “he is young and capable, able to write projects, the living conditions are much better now”. The head of the regional social support directorate shares his feelings.

There is a document, placed on the wall of the medical room in Oborishte, which reads that everyone has the right to file a written complaint to the director, who has to register it in the book for complaints, and then inform the mayor. The director of Oborishte, who has signed the document, laughs out when I ask him to show me the book for complaints. It does not exist. “No one could complain here, I accept only praise”, the director giggles.

~

Those most in need get least

“Why is this child tied up?”, I ask after I’ve abruptly opened a closed door in Kulina. Up to this moment I’ve been only shown “approved” rooms in this institution in southeast Serbia housing 500 adults and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. “Because this is a very self-abusive child. We are doing this to protect it”, a startled staff member answers. But medical experts agree that self-abuse occurs because of lack of human contact or stimulation. Children prefer to feel pain than to feel absolutely nothing. And loving attention, not tying up, is the best way to prevent it.

In most institutions in Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania, one problem is that those who need help most get least. There is not only a lack of financial and human resources and good medical care. There is a lack of understanding. As a result, people in the gravest conditions tend to suffer most.

In all the institutions visited, reform is patchy. Most have some renovated buildings and some “transitional facilities” for a handful of residents. But improvement in overall standards of care, the provision of therapies apart from drugs, and programmes preparing people for a return to the world all seem a long way away.

Kulina offers one of the striking examples. The institution got international attention in 2007, when Mental Disability Rights International, MDRI, which promotes human rights in this field, published a damning report on Serbia, highlighting habitual use of physical restraints, seclusion, lack of staff, degrading treatment, lack of medical care and life-threatening physical conditions in Serbian care homes.

Serbia’s authorities angrily rejected the accusations and still seem in a state of complete denial. Asked to comment on the current state of its care homes, Serbia’s ministry for social affairs merely forwarded its emotional reply to the 2007 MDRI report to me.

“We identified what we consider to be torture […] Children tied down to beds. A man, who was in bed for eleven years. The question is whether those abuses have been brought to an end. I do not know the answer”, says Eric Rosenthal, executive director of MDRI, when I meet him in Belgrade this June.

The answer is no.

When I visit Kulina a month later, there is some evidence of improvement. An attractive new building for “supported living”, housing ten adults, has been erected. There is also a new sports field and day rooms, where less disabled children can draw and play.

But, as in so many of these institutions in the region, parallel universes operate in Kulina.

The “severely disabled” children spend their time motionless in bed – sometimes physically restrained – or tied to chairs in empty day rooms. Some rock back and forth on the floor for lack of attention. To spend your entire lifetime without the opportunity to move, or to feel – that’s what many human rights activists call torture. I see many such forgotten children. Bed-ridden teenagers look no older than four. Children in cribs are horribly thin, arms and legs atrophied from disuse. “You will often hear from government officials or from staff members that “they are simply like that, this is part of their condition”. But children and young people lying in cribs became like that, because they had no stimulation, no activities”, says Dragana Ciric, country-director for Serbia of Mental Disability Rights International. “And these who hurt themselves are the ones that didn’t give up. The next step is to give up and let yourself die. In Kulina there was a girl, a teenager, lying in a crib, she was very self-abusive. And then suddenly stopped. Her eyes became blank. She has given up, wanting to die”, Mrs. Ciric adds.

In the two-storey pavilion for immobile residents, there is no elevator. Upstairs, I find people tightly packed in dark rooms, their world defined by the four sides of the bed. Teenagers and elderly, men and women – they are never taken out. Each room is looks and feels like the next. It is dead quiet.

“Two years ago we saw a man who had not left his bed for eleven years. We were appalled, but the staff told us – “don’t worry, he’s so severely disabled that he is not aware what’s going on”. But then the staff also said that this young man cries every time his mother comes to visit, once a month. So that should oppose their thinking that these people don’t feel the difference. Of course they do. But they are not given the opportunity to feel it”, MDRI’s Dragana Ciric comments.

Churug, a Serbian institution housing 206 men and women with mental illnesses, is another example of reforms that leave the most vulnerable behind. Churug contains three pavilions, of which two have been renovated. The third, housing “severe cases”, has not. It is an old army building with dirty, dusty, stinking rooms. The manager says the people here take a “collective shower” once a week. They receive no therapy apart from drugs. Activities in the day rooms are reserved for the “more able” residents. The “less able” could “pick up leaves, or help with the laundry”, I am told. The director of Churug, Mr. Miodrag Mijatovic, says he doesn’t believe that a renovation of the building will happen any time soon – “but we are persistent in our efforts to get funding”. He doesn’t mention involving the people in the third pavilion in occupational, art or psychotherapy.

In the home for women with mental illnesses in Svilengrad, Bulgaria, it is the same story. A cosy new transitional facility (for four) coexists with a pavilion for the immobile. There, it is the stench that hits you – the sickening smell of floors and mattresses drenched with urine and faeces. Women are packed in bare rooms. One woman is quietly crying. She is lying in her own excrement.

“Reform in Bulgaria is supply-driven, rather than demand-driven. It is patchy, certain changes are made to absorb funds, not to achieve a real improvement in the life of all institutions’ residents”, says the BHC director Mr. Krasimir Kunev.

Goren Chiflik, the Bulgarian institution introduced at the beginning of this article, offers perhaps the most shocking case of parallel universes. The small new transitional facility, the main building, an empty new pavilion and the horrifying stables, where 30 women are locked up, are all in the same yard.

Director Stanislav Enchev is not planning to move the women from the old stables to the new pavilion because he fears that “they’ll break everything”. He admits that “this place is our sore” and says the authorities should grant funds to build one more pavilion.

But Borislav Natov, the local mayor, says such funds will not come from the municipality. “We have no budget to ensure normal living conditions for these people,” he says.

Maria Chankova, head of the regional social support directorate, promises “urgent measures”. She has paid numerous visits to Goren Chiflik, but says she has never seen the women in the old stables.

I find Liliana in the old stables, covered in flies. She is paralysed, crouched like a grasshopper, the skin on her legs yellowish-blue. Liliana, even though she is as big as her pillow, is 62. She looks malnourished, her face too pale, her body strikingly thin. “I think this woman is about to die”, I say. “No, no, she is like that”, says the sanitary worker standing next to me. “But you know, she used to look better, she does seem very pale lately”, interrupts the other one. “Do they ever leave their beds? Do you take them outside?”, I ask. The first sanitary worker gives me a sad smile. “Usually I am alone here, and I have to take care of 30 women. There’s no time. There’s no way”. Liliana is a victim of this lack of care since 1999.

According to the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee at least five of the women in Goren Chiflik are in dire need of hospitalization, and there’s a risk for their lives.

Another place where care is provided for some and not others is Mocrea psychiatric hospital in western Romania. 70 out of its 160 patients are chronically ill. The institution has recently been renovated and physical conditions of the buildings have drastically improved. Other changes are also coming – a sports room, a therapeutic garden… However, about half of the patients are effectively prisoners, locked in their rooms, only allowed out under supervision for 30 minutes at lunch and 40 minutes for a walk. The resident psychiatrist explains that some “might run away”, and that others are “very aggressive”. I am not answered why then not have more guards and a change in the medical treatment. For a huge part of its residents, Mocrea is nothing more than a shiny prison.

In another Romanian institution, Gura Vaii, there is not even consistent access to running water. “For five years our sanitary system is practically non-existent”, says Dr. Aneta Vladoiu, the manager of the Gura Vaii ward. She explains that the county hospital in Turnu Severin doesn’t have the money to allocate for solving the problem. The 56 patients take a shower once a week. The toilets on the first floor are unusable.

Despite numerous promises, the Romanian health ministry never answered a series of questions about the conditions in Mocrea and Gura Vaii.

“We insist that the Gura Vaii ward is closed down”, says Georgiana Pascu from the Center for Legal Resources, the most influential Romanian NGO working in the field. But not the dreadful living conditions are the biggest concern in Gura Vaii. The real problem is the complete standstill in this place, the total lack of care. There’s nothing to do. The two day rooms are locked and unused. There’s no physical or occupational therapist – even though Dr. Vladoiu says they are desperately needed. There even are no pencils, or paper.

“Is anything else going on here apart from medication?” I ask.

“Well, the music outside,” the manager answers, referring to the loud sound of the radio blaring in the yard. Equally shocking is the manager’s statement that most of the patients in the chronic psychiatric ward are not mentally ill but intellectually disabled, suffering from dementia or simply homeless. In the yard, they rock back and forth or stare into space.

And by the time I leave, even the music outside has stopped.

~

Getting away with murder?

“The European Commission is fully aware of the current problems in Bulgarian and Romanian institutions […] substantial progress has been made, but the Commission is aware that still more remains to be done” the EC said in response to my questions.

This spring EC has warned Greece that if it does not come up with a road map for psychiatric reform, EU funding will be cut from social projects across the board. Regarding the question could this happen to Bulgaria and Romania, the answer was “there is always a possibility of payments being suspended under the The European Social Fund in certain cases, basically serious deficiencies in management, serious irregularities, or a serious breach of obligations under the ESF regulations”.

Although many experts think the EU should require better track records on human rights from candidate countries, as one of the Copenhagen criteria for accession is respect for human rights, the Commission has refused to comment on this assertion.

“Bulgaria and Romania were quite literally getting away with murder. People were, and are still, often subject to the most grotesque neglect and abuse”, Oliver Lewis, executive director of international human rights organisation Mental Disability Advocacy Center, says. “When Bulgaria and Romania were joining, it was blatantly obvious what the situation was, there was no lack of information about the human rights abuses in institutions. The situation was even mentioned in the progress reports of the European Commission. But the Commission failed European citizens by totally ignoring this situation. There has been no change since these countries joined the EU, and there are few mechanisms for the Commission to improve the rights of people in its Member States”, Mr. Lewis adds.

Laura Parker, who worked as social policy advisor for the European Commission in Sofia before Bulgaria joined the EU, says: “It is clear that the decisions about enlarging the EU were primarily political ones. The almost total disregard for elements of the Copenhagen criteria also reflects the fact that human rights are simply not an EU priority.”

Parker was one of those responsible for collating the information which was used to draft the EC’s Regular Reports. “[We] tried to reflect the reality of the situation. And I know that senior EC officials were fully aware of what was going on as they personally visited some institutions.[…] But by the time they had been edited by various EC officials, the final official Regular Reports did not accurately represent the situation”, says Mrs. Parker, who is currently head of the Bulgarian office of Absolute Return for Kids, an international charity.

“The life-threatening, degrading conditions, the torture, the arbitrary detention, the stripping away of legal capacity without due process – those are all issues that can be solved immediately and the EU has the capacity to do so. Immediately. If they insist on it”, says Eric Rosenthal from MDRI.

Far from the eyes of Brussels and the minds of national governments, institutions housing the most vulnerable citizens in Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia remain no better than dumping grounds for forgotten people.

The graveyard of Radovets is a metaphor for this state of neglect. This is where the loneliest men are buried. For about half a century, the institution has had its own plot – for the residents no one wants to take care of, even after death, and dozens of former inmates lie beneath this overgrown field. However, there are only a couple of tombstones. Anonymity in death is a logical end to a life spent without rights or identity.

Court asks Centre to aid CBI in Preet Mandir probe

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

Preet Mandir: Bombay HC tells CBI to file Report

Preet Mandir: Bombay HC tells CBI to file report

Mayura Janwalkar / DNA
Thursday, June 10, 2010 0:50 IST
Email Email
 
Print Print
 
Share Share

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Wednesday said the case against Preet Mandir adoption home in Pune was “serious” and sought a status report from the CBI.

Investigations made by the CBI, as written in an FIR lodged on May 12, showed that the agency had fraudulently given away children in foreign adoptions , and had set up a temporary shelter home for distressed women to procure children from unwed mothers. The centre demanded exorbitant amounts from adoptive parents.
Jamshed Mistry, advocate for Advait Foundation, an NGO, said,

“The court said the adoption centre should be under surveillance till the next date of hearing.”

The FIR said that “inquiry revealed that during the period 2005 to 2010, in as many as 70 instances, Preet Mandir received excess money in the form of donations by extortion from Indian parents, amounting to more than Rs50,000”.

The court was informed that despite these findings of the CBI, two 
adoptions have been carried out by the centre. Justices BH Marlapalle and Anoop Mohta will hear the case on June 16.

Trade of Children (Voice of Children)


Sunday, June 13, 2010 

Trade of Children (Voice of Children) 

Some Disturbing Allegations from Voice of Children

"What seems confusing here is that one can still make fake papers to show that a child is an orphan, and it can be adopted in the same way as has been practiced earlier."



English translation of an article published in Voice of Children -- July 2008

Trade of Children in the Name of Protection

Rajesh Sharma

Kathmandu


Most of the Children Homes established to protect the orphan children have been involved in trade of these children. These homes are buying children from Agents. They make fake documents to prove them "orphan" and send them abroad with foreigners as Adopted Child.

It has been found that there is a huge flow of money in this business, and persons with high social status like politicians, lawyers, retired police officers, journalists, government officials, and individuals from the tourism sector are also involved.

It's been found that owners of such children homes are earning a minimum of 10,000 Euro by sending a child abroad in the name of Adoption. The real parents of such children get only Rs 20,000, and the agents who bring children to these homes get Rs 5,000 to 25,000.

Smaller the children higher the price


Agents have admitted, in research conducted by Voice of Children, a child magazine, that they are involved in supplying children to these homes. Rita Bhandari (name changed), living at Putalisadak Kathmandu, admits that she's been supplying children to the children homes for more than 7 years. She has so far taken 63 children to the various children homes. She said, "Price is set according to the age and health of the child; higher price is paid for the children of smaller age. So, I prefer to seek newly born babies."

She once took a pregnant lady to the maternity hospital and sent the newly born baby to the children home. "Last year, I made Rs 20,000 for giving a newly born baby to Bal Samanwaya Samiti," she says. More than 20 such female agents have been found active in the capital alone. They manage to take children from the women working in garment factories, restaurant, massage parlors and labor women. These agents say that they provide money to the parents on condition that they do not reclaim their children once they have been given. After that, these children are turned into orphans by preparing fake documents. Like Rita, some other agents are Ramlashi Lama, Kalpana Rana, Krishna Gurung, Tara Shahi, Buddhalaxmi Baraili, Rima Shrestha (all names changed).

"We just get Rs 5,000 to 10,000, but they make up to Rs 800,000 to 1,000,000 by sending a child abroad," says Krishna Gurung. She has been supplying children to the homes like Sagarmatha Children Home, Buddhist Children Home, Sanjivani Children Home, World Nepal. She says, "Whenever I see a pregnant lady in a poor economic condition, I follow her. If you can persuade her with a sum of money, she readily gives you her child."

Rima Shrestha of Dhumbarahi, Kathmandu says that she supplies children to whichever home pays her the most money. She says "there is a big demand among the children homes for newly born babies." According to her, when she was not paid the promised amount of Rs 15,000 for supplying a 6 months old baby to Ms Mani Joshi, chairman of Prayash Nepal, she ceased to deal with her anymore. Now she is giving babies to Nepal Asahaya Children Home. But Mani Joshi declares that she is not getting babies from agents.

Mani says that whenever police inform her about finding children, her organization publishes notices in newspapers to claim the children if they belong to anyone, but if no one claims, we go into the process of proving the children are orphans. Rima says that she has so far supplied 9 children to Mr Hemanta Rijal of Asahaya Children Home. She says, "Most of the children have been sent to Italy." Another agent, Ramlashi Lama, says that Mr. Lokendra Khatri of Bharosha Nepal promised to pay high price if she brought children, but she didn't get paid. Shila K.C., a worker in a garment factory, earned Rs 15,000 by giving her 20 days old baby to Mani Joshi through an agent. "My husband didn't care to support me and our baby, and I was not able to manage alone to nurture my baby. Then I happened to meet Rima Shrestha at that time; she took the child and paid me. Now I hear that my child is in Italy with a well-to-do family."

Most of the persons working in these homes didn't want to come into contact with this reporter. If called on mobile, they would promise to call back and arrange time to meet the following day. But the mobile would kept switched off the following day.

Real Orphans or Fake Documents


Nepal government has formulated a law in B.S. 2057 regarding the Adoption process. According to it, a 21-day notice has to be published calling on the guardians or parents, if any, of the support-less child to reclaim. If no one claims the child, the District Administration Office declares such children as "orphan." The final decision regarding adoption of such child is made by the Recommendation Committee of the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare. This 5-member committee consists of co-secretary of Home Ministry, co-secretary of Ministry of Law, a legal officer of Ministry of Women and Children and a representative from CNFN. A foreigner can adopt a child after getting approval from this committee.

According to a source from the CNFN, children are brought to the homes through agents. At first, the parents of such children are induced by offering a sum of money. Then with the help of police, a fake report is prepared stating that the child is support-less and found in a helpless state. On the basis of that report, a 21-day notice is published for re-claiming the child by its guardians, if any. In 2007, 387 and in 2008, 118 such notices have been published. What is interesting here is that no phone numbers have been included in such notices published by 58 organizations; instead only P.O. Box and the location of these organizations were given. It has been found that, in some cases, the photos of the children have been blurred in the notice, and they are not properly distinguishable.

According to a new provision recently formulated by the government, a notice has to be forwarded to the CCWB and Center for Finding Missing Children within 7 days of bringing a child to a children home, and a notice with a recent photo has to be published in newspapers. The re-claiming period has now been extended to 35 days.

According to Bijay Sainju, former chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Children Homes, the notices produced in newspapers about the children may not always be true. "How can you find a support-less child alive under Bagmati Bridge, in the jungle of Bankali, Swoyambhu, Katunje and along the river bank of Bishnumati river? This is all ridiculous."

According to Upendra Keshari Neupane, a member of the Recommendation Committee, once a child is proven to be an orphan, the committee cannot question anymore. "We know that there is a lot of non-transparency, but what can you do when they show you a document of proof?" says Mr Neupane. "It's completely impractical, in today's context, to claim your missing child from P.O. Box," says Mr. Dharmaraj Shrestha of the CCWB. But according to Mr. Binod Kumar Adhikari, co-secretary of Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare, it's very difficult for the children home to approach the Ministry with a fake document, because the file is not forwarded if it is found to be a fake.

A Big Flow of Money


There is no legal provision for the payment when a foreigner adopts a child. But most of them have been paying 20,000 to 100,000 Euro. They pay half of the amount, during the publication of the 21-day notice, for agents, parents, registration and for other legal processing, and the remaining half is paid when they finally take the child with them. According to sources, foreigners have to pay even for the help of other children living in the homes in the form of donation which is normally 10,000 Euro. According to CNFN's (Child NGO Federation Nepal) rule a children home may charge up to USD 5,000 for the whole process of adoption. "CNFN takes Rs 5,000 from the children homes for its daily functioning of CNFN," says Mr. Govinda Adhikari, coordinator of the Advisory Board of CNFN, "If the money is taken from the children homes as a contribution to run CNFN, why should other children homes which are not involved in the Adoption program be included in the network of CNFN? The process is not transparent because there is no legal basis also as to how much one should pay for adopting a child."

According to Mr Bijay Sainju, advisor of CNFN, taking Rs 5,000 from the children homes means that the CNFN is protecting the illegal organizations and without any legal basis CNFN cannot charge that amount. Likewise, there is no legal basis for paying 300 USD to Nepal Children's Organization during the adoption process. According to the rules of Nepal government, an adopting parent has to pay the expenses for monitoring the situation of the children once they are adopted. This sum of money is used for the plane tickets of Minister, his/her P.A. and other officials. According to sources at the Ministry, all other expenses including lodging and food are incurred by the foreign organizations. But once the delegation returns, they again forward the bills to the Ministry. Last year, Minister for Women and Children Mrs. Urmila Aryal, after returning from monitoring, spoke out that she had to face a shameful situation there because of the lack of transparency in the process. She also said that there was lots of embezzlement in the monitoring process. After her remark, the Ministry postponed all processing of Adoption.

Agents' Mischief


There are international agents who coordinate among the Nepalese children homes and the organizations for adoption in foreign nations. These agents are appointed by the organizations there. It has been found that there are 20 such agents from 8 different countries. Children homes provide the documents of a child to these agents. The agent forwards the files to his main office abroad. Those organizations then seek a family there. Such families study the files, and if they like the children, come to Nepal. Once they are in Nepal, the agents and the children homes bargain for the price on the basis of the child's age and health status. Once the price is fixed, the foreigners go to the children home. Then the children home initiates the legal procedure. According to sources, an agent makes up to USD 15,000 for arranging all of these things.

This reporter talked to all 20 of these agents; 19 of them admitted that they were involved in this business. MrRamesh Khatiwada is an agent working for Namaste Saludo Nepal with its office in Spain. He says that he coordinates among the children homes and his main office and takes only 10,000 to 15,000 Rupees for his service. Another agent, Mr. Basanta Rijal, working for AIPA, Italy, says that he is working on fixed salary basis. "I manage everything here and get the salary from my main office."

Another man, Mr. Uttar Tamata, working for Faith International, U.S., says that he was just "helping" his office, but not as an agent. These agents are not legally registered. "According to the new rules formulated by the government, 13 child adoption agencies have applied for registration," says Mr. Prakash Kumar Adhikari, a legal officer at the Ministry for Women, Children and Social Welfare.

How did the Adoption Process stop?


The adoption business formally started in Nepal in 1976 A.D. There is no authorized number of children sent abroad for adoption between the years 1976 to 1981. Before the formulation of the Ministry for Women, Children and Social Welfare, 532 children were adopted between 1976 to 2000 A.D. according to the Home Ministry. 2275 children have been adopted between April 2000 to January 2007 A.D.

Nepal Children's Organization, Bal Griha, Bal Sewa Griha, Prayash Nepal, Nepal Asahaya Ghar, Community, Environment and Children Development Organization Nepal, Swastik Bal Griha have sent greatest number of children so far. Those children were sent to Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and America.

After learning that one can make big money in Adoption Business, people from various sectors became involved in it. Former members of Coordination Committee of Nepal Children's Organization, ex-government officials, and peons have opened children homes; except for 2 members, all of the members of the Coordination Committee of the CNFN have their own children homes. There is a big network of agents, police, lawyers, politicians and ex-officials of Nepal Children's Organization and journalists. According to sources, 56 children homes in the capital and 2 in mofussil (*) are involved in this business.

442 files postponed in 2007 due to lack of transparency have been forwarded again on the basis of the same law, and 402 children were sent abroad according to Mr. Binod Kumar Adhikari, co-secretary at the Ministry. There was big diplomatic pressure from the prime ministers of 3 European nations (France, Spain and Italy) to the Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to open the ban on Adoption. An amended law was formulated thereafter in May.

What the Law says?


(i) Old provision

Before the formulation of the Adoption law in 2057 B.S., children were adopted according the Muluki Ain, 12b. In the new law of 2057 B.S., it was clearly stated the two conditions for adoption of any child: either the child has to be an orphan, or the birth parents should give their consent for adoption. For proving a child as an orphan, the children home should publish a 21-day notice for claiming the child by its guardians. If no one claims the child, the District Administration Office declares the child to be an orphan, and the file goes to Recommendation Committee where the final decision is made at the Ministry. In the second case, if the birth parents want to give up their child, a legal paper has to be prepared stating their consent. One of the parents has to prove that he/she has applied permanent family planning methods. After consideration of the file, if it is proved correct, permission is granted from the Ministry.

(ii) New provision

After finding various weakness and loopholes in the existing laws, the government formulated a new law in 2065 B.S. It was believed that the law would come into effect immediately after its formulation, but in practice, all procedures are going ahead according to the old laws. According to the new laws, the files registered in the D.A.O. till B.S. 2064 Jestha, would be processed on the basis of the old law. The new law though seems more effective but is not complete. There is a provision for a child psychologist or a doctor on the Recommendation Committee as recommended by the CCWB. Formerly, children homes used to seek the family for adopting a child, but now it should be done by a committee consisting of a legal government officer as coordinator, director of CCWB as a member, and a representative from the Ministry of Law as a member. The new law clearly states the role of Nepal Children's Organization. According to the new law, a child can be adopted if she/he is proved an orphan, or if the child is provided by the birth parents at their consent. What seems confusing here is that one can still make fake papers to show that a child is an orphan, and it can be adopted in the same way as has been practiced earlier.

An agent says:


"I am Rita Bhandari. I live at Putalisadak. My husband is a taxi driver. 7 years ago, a girl named Sita B.K. working in a garment factory at Boudha gave birth to a baby without a legal father. She was my neighbor. I was confused as what to do with the baby; then at that time I met one staff of Nepal Asahaya Balghar. I requested him to keep the child in the home. He replied that he would accept the baby, but it might be sent abroad also and tried to ask for the mother's consent. Sita decided that that there was no problem in sending abroad her child who didn't have a legal father, and hence left the baby there at the center.

A month later, Mr Hemanta Rijal of the same children home called me and promised to pay if I brought more children. With the help of Sita, I found other children. I used to get Rs 5,000 then. I even persuaded some parents not to reclaim once their child was sent to the home. I then started working for other homes also.

2 years ago I took a newly born baby from a mother at the Maternity Hospital and gave it to Mr. Binod Karki of Balgriha Samanwaya Samiti (Children Homes Coordination Committee). The sum of Rs 20,000 I earned at that time is the biggest amount I have ever earned. I have supplied children to several children homes. Women working in garment factories, restaurants, slums, hotels and labor industry give me children. I take them to the children home. I charge the price on the basis of the child's age. I can make up to Rs 20,000 to 25,000 from smaller children and Rs 5,000 to 15,000 for other bigger children."


LIST OF THE INTERNATIONAL AGENTS


Representative
Organization
Country

1 -- Mr. Manoj Kandel
Choices Adoption
Canada

2 -- Ms. Mani Joshi
----------
Germany

3 -- Mr. Tej Kumar Subba
ANPAS
Italy

4 -- Mr. Basanta Rijal
AIPA
Italy

5 -- Mr. Sanu Prajapati Maharjan
N.A.A.A.
Italy

6 -- Mr. Sharad Raj Gautam
AdopsJons Forum
Norway

7 -- Mr. Ramesh Khatiwada
Namaste Saludo Nepali
Spain

8 -- Mrs. Mukta Shrestha
Consul Lluis Belvis
Spain

9 -- Mr. Kiran Shahi
ECAI Bal Balika
Spain

10 -- Mr. Dil Pahari
Mani Watch / Victor
Spain

11 -- Mr. Arun Kumar Gurung
Children's Without Frontiers, Madrid
Spain

12 -- Mrs. Maya Tamata (Jaya Ram Tamata)
ASEAN
Switzerland

13 -- Mr. Binod Karki
Commonwealth
USA

14 -- Mr. Kiran Man Shrestha
Adoption Associates
USA

15 -- Mr. Uttar Tamata
Faith International
USA

16 -- Mr. Keshav Regmi
----------
USA

17 -- Namita Lamsal
Holt International Children's Services
USA

18 -- Kedar Dahal
----------
Belgium, USA

19 -- Mr. Bhraman Shrestha
1. Florida Home Studies, 2. Amici Trenti
USA, Italy

20 -- Jaya Rajbhandari
Florida Home Studies and Adoption
USA

Voice of Children -- July 2008


Translation by Purushottam Lamsal for Voice of Children.

Voice of Children
 is a leading child rights magazine in Nepal. It is supported by international donors.

* definition of mofussil (for readers outside of South Asia):


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mofussil 

DF: Stop adoptioner fra Indien

DF: Stop adoptioner fra Indien

21. jun. 2010 06.00 Politik

Efter 21 Søndag i aftes fortalte, at en indisk mand har fået franarret sine børn, som er blevet bortadopteret til Danmark uden hans accept, vil Dansk Folkeparti have stoppet for adoptioner fra Indien.

Både SF og de Konservative er også villige til at se på muligheden og kræver samtidig sammen med Socialdemokraterne, at det indiske adoptionsmarked bliver grundigt gransket.

- Dansk Folkeparti mener, at al samarbejde med de indiske adoptionsmyndigheder bør ophøre, og at al adoption fra Indien til Danmark bør indstilles, indtil adoptioner kan genoptages på betryggende vilkår, siger Marlene Harpsøe, Dansk Folkepartis medlem af retsudvalget. 

Otte år uden sine børn
Udmeldingen kommer efter, at 21 Søndag i går fortalte historien om den indiske mand Ramesh Kulkarni, som har fået franarret sine børn, der nu er i Danmark. 

Ramesh Kulkarni har nu ikke set sine børn i otte år.

I 2002 afleverede Ramesh Kulkarni nemlig sine børn til børnehjemmet Preet Mandir i Indien, der efterfølgende bortadopterede børnene uden faderens viden og uden hans accept.

Nu vil han have sine børn igen, siger han til DR Nyheder.

- Det er en dybt tragisk sag, som ikke må finde sted, lyder det fra Marlene Harpsøe (DF).

Sagen genåbnet
Men sagen om Ramesh Kulkarnis ikke nogen nyhed for de danske myndigheder. I 2007 dokumenterede 21 Søndag for første gang det indiske børnemarked - heriblandt Ramesh Kulkarnis sag.

Det betød, at Danmark lukkede for al adoption fra Indien. Men efter en undersøgelse slog fast, at faderen havde sagt ja til bortadoption, blev adoptionsgrænserne åbnet igen

Nu viser en undersøgelse, at Ramesh Kulkarni intet vidste, og at sagen ikke kun handler om en far, som er blevet snydt af et korrupt børnehjem, men om korruption helt op på statsligt niveau i Indien.

Korrupt indisk adoptionsmyndighed
- Det er frygteligt og fuldstændig uacceptabelt , at sådan noget kan ske, lyder det fra Vivi Kier, de Konservatives familieretsordfører.

Det indiske forbundspoliti - CBIs - nye undersøgelse af sagen har nemlig også fundet spor af korruption hele vejen op til de indiske adoptionsmyndigheder. Et centralt og meget farligt advarselssignal, som vi ikke kan ignorere, mener flere politikere herhjemme.

- Der skal straks iværksættes et tilbundsgående udredningsarbejde af hele området, siger Vivi Kier (K).

Flere partier villige til at lukke for indiske adoptioner
SF og Konservative er også parat til at se på, om der igen skal lukkes for adoptioner fra Indien. I hvert fald indtil reglerne er skærpet.

-Jeg syntes, at ministeren må gribe ind nu og sørge for midlertidigt at få bremset adoptionerne, i hvert fald indtil vi er sikre på, at der ikke foregår noget forkert, lyder det fra Vivi Kier.

Fra SF meldingen:

- Jeg vil høre ministeren ad, om det ikke er fornuftigt at få et stop for adoptioner fra Indien. Og derefter bliver vi nød til at have nogle skærpede krav til de organisationer, der foretager adoptioner fra Indien til Danmark, siger Karina Lorentzen Dehnhardt, retsordfører for SF.

Socialdemokraterne vil endnu ikke tage stilling til, om de mener adoptionerne skal stoppes, men understreger, at vi hurtigt muligt skal iværksætte en undersøgelse, siger Karen Hækkerup, Socialdemokraternes retspolitiske ordfører.

Fakta om Ramesh Kulkarnis historie

  • I mart 2002 dør Ramesh Kulkarnis kone af gulsot få måneder efter, at deres sidste barn er født.
  • Efter nogle uger bryder Ramesh Kulkarni sammen. Han kan ikke give børnene mad, når han er på arbejde. Derfor forlader han sit job og flytter sammen med sin familie. Han indser, at han ikke kan tage sig af børnene, og cirka en måned efter sin kones død afleverer Ramesh Kulkarni sine børn til børnehjemmet Preet Mandir. Han får at vide, at han når som helst kan hente sine børn igen, når han er kommet økonomisk og mentalt overpå.
  • Børnehjemmet beder ham underskrive et papir. Papir, som han tror er indskrivningsdokumenter, men som i virkeligheden var bortadoptionspapirer.
  • En måned efter kommer familien for at hente børnene, men de er væk.
  • Børnehjemmet Preet Mandir forsøger at afpresse familien og kræver penge for at give børnene tilbage. Desværre har familien ikke pengene.
  • I foråret 2003 tror Ramesh Kulkarni stadig, at hans børn er på børnehjemmet Preet Mandir, men børnene er blevet bortadopteret til Danmark.
  • Ramesh Kulkarni nægter at give tilladelse til bortadoption og bliver forbudt at komme på børnehjemmet.
  • Faderen sætter gang i søgningen med advokat, men må give op på grund af pengeproblemer.
  • Først i oktober 2006 gør Ramesh Kulkarni endnu et forsøg på at se børnene sammen med sin bror. De tager til børnehjemmet, men børnehjemmet viser dem nogle helt andre børn, der ikke er hans. Protester fra faderen og broderen gør, at de bliver smidt ud af børnehjemmet. 
  • I April 2007 beslutter hele familien at køre sammen til børnehjemmet. Her får de at vide, at børnene er i Danmark.
  • Familien melder sagen til det lokale politi i byen Pune, til kriminalpolitiet i Mumbai og børnerettighedsorganisationen Child Line. De vil have børnene tilbage.
  • Sagen bliver vist i 21 Søndag i juni 2007, og den får den konsekvens, at Danmark stopper midlertidigt for adoptioner fra Indien. Men efter at en undersøgelse fra Indien fastslår, at Ramesh Kulkarni godt vidste, hvilke papirer han havde underskrevet, lukker Danmark igen op for adoptioner fra Indien, og børnehjemmet Preet Mandir og AC Børnehjælp bliver frikendt for anklagerne.
  • I 2010 finder indisk politi ud af, at den politimand, som stod bag undersøgelsen i 2007, er korrupt og i ledtog med børnehjemmet Preet mandir. Han bliver fyret.
  • Ny undersøgelse iværksættes. Den slår fast, at Ramesh Kulkarni fik franarret sine børn. Samtidig finder CBI, Det Indiske Forbundspoliti, ud af, at der er korrupte embedsmænd ansat i CARA, den indiske adoptionsmyndighed, som også i ledtog med børnehjemmet i Preet Mandir.
  • Nu vil Ramesh Kulkarni have sine børn tilbage til Indien.

Indian children stolen for adoption

Indian children stolen for adoption

Shaikh Azizur Rahman, Foreign Correspondent

  • Last Updated: June 28. 2010 11:13PM UAE / June 28. 2010 7:13PM GMT

Nagarani, with her husband and two children in the background, at their home in Pulianthope slum in Chennai. Their bid for a DNA test to confirm whether a boy adopted by a Dutch family is their son kidnapped 11 years ago was turned down. Shaikh Azizur Rahman / The National

CHENNAI, INDIA // When Nagarani and her husband, Kathirvel, reached the Netherlands from India this month, the couple believed they would be able to prove that a 12-year-old Dutch boy was their son Sathish, who had been stolen from their home in a Chennai slum 11 years ago. 

But a Dutch family court last week turned down the couple’s request for a DNA test on the adopted son of a Dutch ethnic Indian family, ruling that it risked inflicting severe emotional trauma to the minor.


“I am dead sure that Rohit is none but our Sathish. I went all the way to the Netherlands, I am disappointed that I was not even allowed to meet my son,” said Nagarani on her return to India last week,

“I am not angry with the Bissesars for taking my son into adoption. We felt very bad that the adoptive parents did not even want to meet us. I wanted to tell them that we became distraught after Sathish was lost. One day I hope Sathish will understand at least our pain we have lived through since we lost him.”


The struggle to retrieve their son by the couple highlights the plight of dozens of Indian parents who are searching for their children after they were apparently stolen by child traffickers and then sold into adoption in foreign countries, without the knowledge of their birth parents. 

According to Bachpan Bachao Andolan, or Save Childhood Movement, an Indian child-rights non-governmental organisation, 45,000 children go missing in India every year. Most of the lost children end up as prostitutes, bonded labourers or among the homeless population in big cities. Some of the missing children land in orphanages, and a percentage of those reach their adoptive families in India and abroad.


One night in 1999 when Nagarani and Kathirvel, who only use one name each, were sleeping with their three children in front of their slum hut, one-year-old Sathish was snatched from their bed. Months of searching for the baby proved futile, but the couple suspected that Sathish had been stolen by child traffickers to be sold abroad.

Then in 2005, when police arrested a gang of child traffickers in south India, it was found that they had secretly supplied the children, Sathish among them, to the Malaysian Social Services (MSS), a Chennai-based orphanage that had the permit to send children for adoption abroad.


The investigation revealed that in the previous decade MSS had illegally sent at least 350 Indian children abroad for adoption.

From the office of the orphanage, police recovered in 2005 photos of scores of children who apparently had been stolen from their parents, and Nagarani and Kathirvel identified one child, sent for adoption in the Netherlands, as their son.

As India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) began investigating the case of Sathish, Against Child Trafficking (ACT), a Netherlands-based non-governmental organisation fighting for the prevention of child trafficking for international adoption, contacted the Dutch family in the city of Almere in 2006 and broke the news that their adopted son, Rohit Shivam Bissessar, may have been stolen from his original family in India.


The Bissessar family, who paid US$35,000 (Dh128,555) to adopt the child, have refused to take a DNA test, fearing that the child could be taken away. Nagarani and Kathirvel, with the help of ACT activists, last Tuesday filed a complaint with the Almere police against officials of the Meiling Foundation, the intermediary Dutch adoption agency that placed Rohit, and the Bissesars, accusing them of kidnapping.


In the complaint to Dutch police the couple alleged that Dutch courts and legal authorities were “shielding the Dutch kidnappers” and that “the Netherlands have been promoting kidnapping of children from other countries to their land”.

The Dutch police is of the opinion that the Bissesar couple had no role in kidnapping and trafficking the child. In a Chennai court India’s CBI, following its investigation in the case of Sathish, charged the child traffickers and Indian MSS officials with kidnapping, fabricating records and sending him for illegal adoption.


There are more than 11.5 million abandoned children in India, according to Bachpan Bachao Andolan, and authorities regularly urge western countries to adopt children from the country’s hundreds of orphanages. According to India’s Central Adoption Resource Authority [Cara], about 1,000 Indian children go for adoption abroad yearly with most going to the US.

Cara guidelines say that a foreign couple adopting an Indian child should not pay more than $3,500 to the Indian orphanage. However, in reality, foreign parents often are forced to pay up to 10 to 12 times that to private adoption agencies that act as middlemen, making adoption a lucrative business in India.


The Child Welfare Committee of Tamil Nadu (CWC) believes trafficking and selling children into adoption in foreign countries is still common in south India.

“Last week we discovered that one Chennai-based orphanage, having licence to send children for adoption abroad, had virtually stolen five babies by fooling their birth parents, apparently to sell them into adoption to wealthy families – possibly in foreign countries,” said P Manorama, the chairman of CWC in Chennai, referring to the adoption agency Guild of Service, which is currently under investigation for its role in illegal adoption.


“Children are continually getting lost and many are remaining untraced. We have reason to believe that kidnapping of children for business is still going on in the region.”

foreign.desk@thenational.ae