Just over 200 adoptions were finalised in Australia last year - an all time low and dramatic decline since reporting began more than 50 years ago.

The Australian government started recording adoptions in 1968-1969.

The number of children adopted increased from 6773 in the first year to a peak of 9798 in 1971-1972.

But the latest data in a report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows a combined 201 domestic and inter-country adoptions were recorded in 2022-2023, a decline of 98 per cent since the early 1970s peak.

Over the last five years the number of adoptions has decreased from 330 to 201.

Erik Staal (59) has recently been called Redering again: the surname he was given by his biological mother. Erik was adopted as a child via the transition home Moederheil in Breda. And that adoption was annulled by the judge last week. That is quite unique at his age: it only happens once a year. Still, Erik had no choice: "It is a bizarre situation that you can be an orphan in the eyes of the law but still sit next to your mother."

Erik's mother José de Vos (75) gave her son Erik up for adoption in the 1960s at the Moederheil maternity clinic. She did so under great pressure, but that happened more often in those days. José was not married and an unmarried woman who had a child was a disgrace to the entire family.

At a later age, Erik was 46, he went looking for his mother. When children get to know their biological parent at a later age, the contact is sometimes difficult and distant. There is too little in common. But with Erik and José it went more than well. They feel a deep bond with each other and see each other every Thursday.

“Why didn't I do it sooner?”

For years Erik had been thinking about undoing his adoption. He had no good contact with his adoptive parents and they have since passed away. So Erik went to court, with José at his side.

Inconsistent jurisprudence related to adoption for Muslim couples renders parents and the young rudderless. These circumstances are enabled by a backward looking and rigid politics of the Muslim Personal Law Board (MPLB).On March 4, 2024, Live Law published a report of the Supreme Court rendering an important judgment in a custody matter in which both the parties were Muslims. What made this March 4 verdict quite distinct and path breaking? The SC didn't just reiterate the jurisprudence in matters of custody while highlighting the inconsistencies of the Orissa HC order, but also called out the flaw of court in framing the issue erroneously.In this article, the author engages with some case law on the subject to show how inconsistency creeps into judgments and what the extant jurisprudence on the matter is.

Legal certainty is one of the cardinal guarantors of the rule of law. However, when judgments end up losing sight of legal certainty, and infirmities and inconsistencies creep into jurisprudence set by constitutional courts — either by way of framing of issues or through analysis—it is the rule of law that gets undermined. The evolving jurisprudence of child’s custody, in cases where both the parties are Muslims is one such domain wherein one can witness such glaring legal uncertainty.

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court in Shazia Aman Khan & Ors vs The State of Orissa & Others (hereinafter ‘Shazia’) while setting aside an order passed by the Orissa High Court altering the custody of a minor girl child observed that “she cannot be treated as a chattel at the age of 14 years”. This is a very important and much needed judgment in terms of setting the record straight on jurisprudence on custody between Muslim parties in India.

In Shazia, the Supreme Court essentially made two important points. Firstly, unlike the Orissa High Court which observed that “in absence of adoption, the custody of the minor child is liable to be termed as illegal detention”, the Supreme Court did not just make the fine distinction between adoption, custody, and guardianship, but also noted that the three concepts (or definitions) are neither same nor interchangeable.

Secondly, in matters of custody, besides welfare, the Apex Court underscored, “Stability of the child is also of paramount consideration”. These two observations by the Apex Court, significantly, didn’t just further the principles of natural justice, but are also in conformity with the mandate of and jurisprudence under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The glaring error that the Supreme Court identified in the High Court order, might have occurred on two counts. This could be either due to a misreading of these legal concepts (adoption, custody and guardianship) and their relationship to the stance of the Muslim Personal Law Board (MPLB) or may have been rendered in sheer haste in keenly framing the issue.

Anne Linnet's adoption of two Romanian children aged 7 and 12 is far from normal practice. So far that the association Adoption & Samfund sees the possibility of easier access to adoption for singles and homosexuals in the future.

The well-known singer and composer's adoption of the siblings, Peter and Maria, was the subject of a heated discussion over lunch when the Adoption & Society association held a national meeting at the weekend.

"We see it as a softening of the practice that has been in force until now, which must have fundamental importance for future adopters. Especially for single adopters and homosexuals. If other adopters are not treated according to the same principles, it will be an expression of double standards,' says the chairman of the association Adoption & Samfund, Lars Kluver.

There are three factors in particular that the association sees as completely fundamental in Anne Linnet's adoption case:

She already has three biological children and with the adoption of the sibling couple, she reaches a group of five children. She is single and has publicly confessed that she is sexually attracted to both men and women.

"The adoption departs from the counties' previous principles that special questions are asked when adopting a third child when there are already two children in the family. This case strongly undermines that principle, so that in future the counties should no longer look at the number of children in the family,' says Lars Kluver.

"The principles in the case must in future make it easier for single people to adopt, so that special requirements are no longer made.

Thirdly, I see it as a principled attitude towards gay adopters in this decision, which must have consequences for future practice.

Today, single adopters are asked questions, i.e. women, about whether they have regular contact with men, so that the child can have a natural relationship with men. With this decision, I think the logical consequence must be that these kinds of questions are no longer asked of single, female adopters. After all, this is a public figure who has made his sexuality known to both men and women,' says the chairman of Adoption & Society, who is not aware of similar cases that have so violently affected a current practice.

The adoption association is not enthusiastic about the way Anne Linnet has adopted the two Romanian children that she previously had as holiday children:

"It should not become a back road to adoption that you first take a holiday child with the aim of adopting later. Today it is a potential back road, but it should ideally not become the case that you automatically adopt holiday children. There are completely different criteria for being approved as a family for a holiday child than for an adopted child,' says Lars Kluver.

It is the association DanAdopt in Birkerød that has helped Anne Linnet get the adoption papers in order with the Romanian authorities. Here, office manager Ole Bergmann states that only very few children are adopted from Romania, i.e. maximum of five children per year.

"Romania is a very difficult country to work with because the information about the children is not always correct. It is a country where you have to be careful not to fall into the clutches of people who are corrupt and do not have good motives," says Ole Bergmann, who has four other cases on his table involving the adoption of holiday children."
 

Wasuthon who also goes by the nickname “Guide” now has his adoption approved under Danish law. After the family got the adoption rejected twice, the Appeal Authority of Denmark has now overruled the verdicts and the family can file for a Danish adoption for Guide, Fredericia Dagblad writes.

The case of Wasuthon has attracted a lot of attention from the media and politicians in Denmark lately.

The mayor of Wasuthon’s home city Fredericia announced that he was going to write the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Mattias Tesfaye, asking him to urge authorities for a speedy process on the case.

Despite the two rejections for approval of the adoption by The Agency of Family Law, the Appeal Authority have ruled in favor of Wasuthon and approved the adoption. The latest rejection was based on the fact that Wasuthon’s younger brother Chayapon still lived with his grandmother in Thailand and that it therefore would be differential treatment if an adoption on Wasuthon was approved.

But now the Appeal Authorities is saying that the adoption cannot be denied on that basis.

Meeting Commissioner Rehn with DG Enlargement

Brussels, 29 November 2004

Question Roelie Post

The Commission monitored children’s rights in Romania under the Copenhagen criteria. It found that children’s rights were not sufficiently protected. Following this the Romanian government addressed this issue.

However, this issue exists also in other countries in the region. It may even increase there, after Romania’s successful approach.

. Wenceslasz de Lobkowicz sent the position paper of DG Enlargement to Francois de Combret

. 

Dozens of adoptive parents have stood up for Ray of Hope, the adoption service that has been suspended by Minister Vogels, in recent days. The parents of Ethiopian adopted children in particular praised the smooth handling of their file and the openness of Ray of Hope. But there are also parents who are not happy about the "unacceptable incompetence" of Ray of Hope. This is evident from the story of three couples who were promised a child from South Vietnam.

by Geert NEYT

Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 04:30

"We had placed our trust in an organised adoption service because we did not want to adopt freely. But Ray of Hope put us on a plane to a foreign country and left us to our own devices." The anger of Danny and Nathalie Noels from Geraardsbergen, Bernard and Hilda Deckers from Vlezenbeek and Wim and Katleen Cornilly from Pittem has not cooled down after a year and a half. Their experiences were just one of the many elements that prompted Kind en Gezin and Minister Vogels to withdraw the recognition of Ray of Hope.

The now closed adoption agency DIA knew their employee in South Africa was working double jobs, but they hid the information from the Danish Appeals Board. DIA also acknowledges that the employment was a way of circumventing aid.

Back in December, the Danish Appeals Board suspended all adoption mediation from South Africa. Barely a month later, the Ministry of Social Affairs, Housing and the Elderly also decided to suspend the last five countries from which DIA was still mediating adoptions.Michele Spatari/AFP/Ritzau Scanpix

An employee at the adoption agency Danish International Adoptions (DIA) in South Africa has worked for both DIA and their South African partner, the organization Impilo, which mediates orphans for national and international adoption. 

DIA was aware of the double-dealing, but on several occasions chose not to inform the Danish Appeals Agency. 

The adoption agency also acknowledges that hiring the employee was a way of providing financial support to Impilo after it was decided in January 2022 that it was no longer legal to give it directly to organizations like Impilo.