When I started working in this field, there was nothing: there were no social workers, there was no question of deinstitutionalization, there was no foster care system, there were only institutions for children. At that time, for an abandoned child or one who came from a family with difficulties, the classic solution was placement in an institution.

I started working in this field effectively at zero point, that is, in December 1989. Then I received my assignment to the Children's Cradle in Onești, a place that was still called Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej at that time. I was assigned as a pediatrician, half the time at the children's cradle and the other half divided between the six nurseries of the city. On December 26, 1989, Decree 770 was repealed and while some were waving flags in the street, I received my housing assignment in Onești.

At the cradle level, there were all kinds of social-political movements. The director who had been in office when I arrived there retired, and that was pretty much the movement: people were resigning, retiring, or being dismissed from their positions. Then there were a couple of interims, but there were some very socially turbulent moments. And then, in April, they appointed me. I received this question from the County Health Directorate, whether I was willing to take over the directorship of the cradle, because the situation was chaotic in the institution and it was considered an advantage that I was from another city, Brașov, that I was young and a doctor, that I was not associated with the communist regime, that I did not know the team there, so I was objective, that I had graduated from a faculty that was relevant for that position. However, I found the proposal somewhat surprising, because I did not meet a lot of the conditions to become a director, primarily seniority. Some exemptions were requested from the ministry and, on April 1, 1990, I became the director of the daycare.

Impilo Child Protection and Adoption Services reflected on 2025, thanking donors and sponsors for a successful year.

Impilo director, Sue Krawitz, said, “Our abandoned baby rescue kits received a generous boost from a radio station, and with this donation, we were able to purchase branded bags and stock them ready for distribution. We have distributed to various police stations, support services and security companies.”

Impilo will continue to drive the project into 2026 and beyond.

Mandela Day was another highlight for the Child Protection and Adoption Services, which resulted in 100 new mom packs being filled.

The Lee Jae-myung government will push for a phased suspension of overseas adoption. The government plans to prioritize protection of domestic children such as domestic adoption, and suspend overseas adoption in the mid- to long-term.

On the 26th, the Ministry of Health and Welfare confirmed the 3rd Basic Plan for Child Policy (2025-2029) after deliberation and resolution by the Child Policy Coordination Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister.

The Basic Plan for Child Policy is a pan-governmental plan established every five years in accordance with the Child Welfare Act. The third plan is the Lee Jae-myung administration's children's policy blueprint.

Earlier in October, President Lee Jae-myung said, "The Republic of Korea was once shameful as a 'child exporting country,'" adding, "The state will be a strong fence for adoptees."

The government has been pushing for a system in which the state is responsible for managing and supervising adoption, which has been led by private adoption agencies.

South Korea, once branded a "child exporting nation," is suspending international adoption for the first time in 70 years. The move signifies the state's intention to take full responsibility for these children, given the widespread human rights violations that occurred during the adoption process. However, concerns are being raised that this may remain merely a declaration without concrete implementation plans, as this is not the first time the government has announced a suspension and the plan is to pursue a phased discontinuation over a set period. Critics have also pointed out that measures supporting domestic adoption and child-rearing within the birth family, such as support for unmarried mothers, must be implemented alongside the suspension.

On the 26th, the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced the 3rd Basic Plan for Child Policy, which contains these details. The Basic Plan for Child Policy is a mid-to-long-term national plan established every five years in accordance with the Child Welfare Act, serving as a blueprint outlining the direction of child policy for the next five years. During a press briefing on the same day, First Vice Minister Lee Se-ran stated, "We will stably establish a public adoption system and gradually discontinue international adoption." Regarding the specific timeline, she explained, "We intend to discontinue it within two or three years, and our goal is to reach zero cases by 2029 at the latest." 24 children were adopted overseas this year .

 

Content regarding the creation of a new clan name, 'Hanyang Shin,' for an adoptee in 1985 to send a newborn baby overseas. Courtesy of the Solidarity of Overseas Adoptees.

Korean overseas adoption, which began in the 1950s, has been plagued by continuous controversy regarding human rights violations. Since the relinquishment of parental rights was a prerequisite for overseas adoption, adoption agencies sometimes arbitrarily created "orphan family registers." Furthermore, it was common for dozens of children to be loaded onto airplanes like cargo and sent abroad all at once. There have also been testimonies that some children died during this process. The system in which adoption agencies collected fees amounting to tens of millions of won per child has also been pointed out as a problem. In the United States, children could only acquire citizenship if their parents went through the adoption process; it is estimated that approximately 40,000 adoptees are living at risk of deportation because they failed to do so. To date, the number of people sent overseas for adoption through these processes amounts to about 200,000.

 

A Kyunghyang Shinmun article from February 10, 1989, titled 'Korea's Baby Trade Boom'. Naver News Library

 

EOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea's government said it plans to end its waning foreign adoptions of Korean children, while United Nations investigators voiced "serious concern" over what they described as Seoul's failure to ensure truth-finding and reparations for widespread human rights violations tied to decades of mass overseas adoptions.

The announcement Friday came hours after the United Nations human rights office released South Korea's response to investigators urging Seoul to spell out concrete plans to address the grievances of adoptees sent abroad with falsified records or abused by foreign parents.

WATCH: Finding family: a reporter shares her personal story of adoption and reunion

The issue had rarely been discussed at the U.N. level, even as South Korea faces growing pressure to confront widespread fraud and abuse that plagued its adoption program, particularly during a boom in the 1970s and 1980s when it annually sent thousands of children to the West.

The country will phase out foreign adoptions over a five-year period, aiming to reach zero by 2029 at the latest as it tightens welfare policies for children in need of care, Vice Minister of Health and Welfare Lee Seuran said during a briefing.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea’s government said it plans to end its waning foreign adoptions of Korean children, while United Nations investigators voiced “serious concern” over what they described as Seoul’s failure to ensure truth-finding and reparations for widespread human rights violations tied to decades of mass overseas adoptions.

The announcement Friday came hours after the United Nations human rights office released South Korea’s response to investigators urging Seoul to spell out concrete plans to address the grievances of adoptees sent abroad with falsified records or abused by foreign parents.

The issue had rarely been discussed at the U.N. level, even as South Korea faces growing pressure to confront widespread fraud and abuse that plagued its adoption program, particularly during a boom in the 1970s and 1980s when it annually sent thousands of children to the West.

The country will phase out foreign adoptions over a five-year period, aiming to reach zero by 2029 at the latest as it tightens welfare policies for children in need of care, Vice Minister of Health and Welfare Lee Seuran said during a briefing.

Introduction:

In Ram Kumar v. Narain and Others [WRIT – C No. 1001378 of 2000], the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling clarifying the legal sanctity and evidentiary value of a registered adoption deed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The case arose out of a long-standing revenue dispute rooted in family succession and the legal consequences of adoption. The petitioner, Ram Kumar, claimed rights over ancestral property on the basis of a registered adoption deed executed in his favour by his adoptive father, Ram Asrey, who had no biological children. The respondents, who were collateral relatives, disputed the petitioner’s claim during mutation proceedings after the death of Ram Asrey. The matter travelled through various revenue authorities, culminating in an adverse order passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, who dismissed the petitioner’s revision and cast doubts on the adoption deed without it being challenged in any independent legal proceedings. Aggrieved by this approach, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, contending that the statutory presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act had been completely ignored. Justice Irshad Ali was thus called upon to determine whether a registered adoption deed, duly proved and never challenged in independent proceedings, could be brushed aside on mere suspicion by revenue authorities and whether such an approach was legally sustainable.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioner Ram Kumar, it was argued that the entire foundation of his claim rested on a registered adoption deed dated 08.02.1982, executed by his adoptive father Ram Asrey, who was issueless and had adopted the petitioner from his natural parents in accordance with Hindu law. It was contended that Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, creates a statutory presumption in favour of the validity of an adoption once a registered adoption deed is produced before a court and is signed by the person giving the child and the person taking the child in adoption. The petitioner submitted that this presumption is mandatory in nature and remains operative unless the adoption is specifically disproved through independent legal proceedings. It was further argued that neither the respondents nor any other interested party had ever instituted any suit or statutory proceeding challenging the adoption deed on the grounds of fraud, illegality, or non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. During the mutation proceedings, witnesses were examined, the adoption deed was duly proved, and even in cross-examination its legality was not questioned. Therefore, the initial order allowing mutation in favour of the petitioner was legally sound. The petitioner strongly criticised the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and later by the Commissioner, contending that both authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction by casting aspersions on the adoption deed without recording any cogent reasons or pointing out any legal infirmity. It was argued that the Commissioner dismissed the revision in a mechanical manner, without applying his mind to Section 16 of the Act, thereby rendering the order perverse and unsustainable in law. The petitioner emphasised that revenue authorities are not competent to invalidate or doubt a registered adoption deed unless it has been set aside by a competent civil court in appropriate proceedings.

On the other hand, the respondents Narain and others opposed the writ petition by contending that the mutation proceedings had been rightly interfered with by the appellate and revisional authorities. They argued that mutation entries do not confer title and are only meant for fiscal purposes, and therefore the authorities were justified in examining the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim. It was contended that suspicious circumstances surrounded the adoption and that the petitioner had failed to conclusively establish that the adoption was validly performed in accordance with Hindu law. The respondents sought to rely on alleged inconsistencies and surrounding circumstances to cast doubt on the adoption deed, arguing that mere registration of a document does not automatically validate an adoption if the substantive requirements of law are not fulfilled. They further contended that the revenue authorities were within their rights to refuse mutation when serious disputes regarding title and succession existed and that such disputes should be resolved by a competent civil court. According to the respondents, the Commissioner’s order did not suffer from any illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the writ petition deserved dismissal.

Written by: Rahul V Pisharody

4 min readUpdated: Dec 25, 2025 03:33 PM IST

While one of the petitioners had adopted a four-day-old boy from an unmarried college student who could not support the child, another petitioner had paid Rs 1,50,000 to biological parents who already had four girls and offered their fifth child for adoption.

Make us preferred source on Google

Ahmedabad: A city civil court here rejected a Muslim couple's application seeking permission to adopt a child because the couple followed the process of preparing an adoption deed and getting it registered. The couple urged the court to grant the adoption permission under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. However, the court stated that Muslims cannot adopt a child in this manner due to legal incompatibility with the existing adoption law applicable to Muslims.In this case, the couple was married for 18 years but was not blessed with a child. They decided to adopt a relative's son, who was born in 2017. They adopted the child in Oct 2021 by entering into an adoption deed and got it registered with the sub-registrar Ahmedabad-1 (City). On the strength of this registered adoption deed, the adoptive parents and the biological parents approached the court for permission for adoption.

03:23

Ahmedabad Headlines Today — Key Stories You Shouldn’t Miss.

The parents submitted before the court that the adoption deed suggested that the adopted child is protected and his interest is preserved in the family of adoptive parents because the couple has a good financial position. The deed also revealed the willingness of the biological parents.Despite the mutual agreement and the financial stability of the prospective adoptive parents, the court found the application legally untenable. Additional district judge P I Prajapati pointed out the limitations of adoption under Muslim personal law, which does not recognise adoption in the same manner as other legal frameworks in India.The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision of 2014 in Shabnam Hasmi v/s UOI, which allows adoption for Muslims through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 only, rather than through personal law. Until then, Muslims were not legally entitled to adopt a child but could only claim guardianship rights of a child.The court also cited a notification issued on Sep 23, 2022, by the ministry of women and child development, which framed "the Adoption Regulations 2022". The court further stated, "As per the provision of said regulation read with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present application because said adoption deed is not valid and does not confer any rights to the applicants. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the present application deserves to be dismissed."

Origional Text[France, des enfants ont en effet été adoptés sans l'accord des parents biologiques. Une incroyable histoire vécue par deux sœurs, que leur mère, éthiopienne, a mis plus de 20 ans à retrouver.

Cette femme, comme des milliers d'autres en Ethiopie, a été contrainte financièrement de confier ses filles aux grands-parents qui ont décidé, sans son accord, de faire adopter ces 2 sœurs. Tsione et Béza arrivent en France, près de Nantes en 2004. Elles ont 4 et 5 ans.

"À l'aéroport, j'avais une tête... Je vois sur les photos mon regard tellement absent, vide. Je me souviens que le premier soir en arrivant dans la maison à Sucé-sur-Erdre, ma sœur s'est assise à côté de la porte d'entrée en pleurant et elle a passé plusieurs heures là. Je me dis : si elle craque, c'est que ça ne va pas", raconte Tsione.

Se voiler la face

Les parents adoptifs s'occupent bien des filles, mais préfèrent ignorer leur histoire, leur origine. "Ils avaient entendu de notre bouche que nous avions un père et une mère, mais ils ont préféré se référer au dossier qui disait qu'on n'avait aucune information sur le papa et pour la maman, la case cochée était : disparue."