1. The CRC and Intercountry Adoption The CRC appears to take a very limited view of when intercountry adoption is appropriate. The critical text requires that state parties “[r]ecognize that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child’s care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin.”

The CRC’s preference for in-country over intercountry adoption is compatible with the Hague Convention. However, the CRC also specifically prefers in-country foster care over intercountry adoption, and initially appears to favor in-country institutional care over intercountry adoption. These latter positions are more controversial, and appear to conflict with the Hague Convention.

It is notable, in this regard, that the United Nations Children’s Fund (“UNICEF”) recently issued a public position on intercountry adoption which appears to favor intercountry adoption over incountry institutional care.24 The statement cites both the CRC and the Hague Convention with approval. In regard to institutional care, however, UNICEF states: For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care, which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. Inter-country adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution. In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption. 

One could argue that, under the language of the CRC, institutional care is not a “suitable manner” for the permanent care of a child. Therefore, a plausible interpretation of the CRC is that it prefers intercountry adoption to in-country institutional care. By such interpretations, the international community is apparently working toward a harmonization of apparent conflicts between the CRC and the Hague Convention.

Article 20 of the CRC states that when a child is deprived of parental care
the state should provide alternative care which may include foster care,
kafalah,8
adoption or placement in a suitable institution. Article 21(b) of the CRC specifies when intercountry adoption may be used. It directs that
countries shall “recognise that intercountry adoption may be considered as
an alternative means of child’s care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster
or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the
child’s country of origin”.
It is clear that article 21(b) accords first priority to national adoption or
foster care, or any other suitable form of national care, and rates intercountry
adoptions as a second-best solution.9

Although the key phrase “in any
suitable manner” is not defined, a reading of article 20(3) together with
article 21(b) of the CRC suggests that all appropriate forms of national care
have priority over intercountry adoption.10 Article 20(3) requires that in
selecting care “due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a
child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic
background”.
Similarly to the CRC, article 24(b) of the AC characterises intercountry
adoption as a last resort, less preferable than national adoption, foster care,
or other domestic alternatives.11 However, in one important respect it is more
restrictive than the CRC. It directs state parties to place children in
intercountry adoptions only in destination countries which have signed the
CRC or the AC.12
In contrast to the CRC and AC, the Hague Convention seems to prioritise
all permanent family solutions equally, regardless of their national or
international character. Its Preamble at paragraph 1 recognizes that “for the
full and harmonious development of his or her personality” every child
“should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness,
love and understanding”. And paragraph 2 gives unqualified support to
intercountry adoptions, stating that they “may offer the advantage of a
permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his
or her State of origin”. Article 4(b) of the Convention permits intercountry
adoptions when competent authorities “have determined, after possibilities
for placement of the child within the State of origin have been given due
consideration, that an intercountry adoption is in the child's best interests”.
Since the Hague Convention prioritizes all permanent family solutions it
can be interpreted13 as preferring intercountry adoption over national foster care and institutionalization.14 This has been supported by the Permanent
Bureau of the Hague Conference.15 It declared:
“It is sometimes said that the correct interpretation of ‘subsidiarity’ is that
intercountry adoption should be seen as ‘a last resort’. This is not the aim of
the Convention. National solutions for children such as remaining permanently
in an institution, or having many temporary foster homes, cannot, in the
majority of cases, be considered as preferred solutions ahead of intercountry
adoption. In this context, institutionalisation is considered as “a last resort”.16
A difficulty with this is that it does not fit with the wording of the CRC and
the AC. As shown above these prioritise national forms of care, including
foster care and institutionalization, over intercountry adoptions.
Commentators have noted the different approaches in the conventions.
Bhabha, for example, mentioned that in the Hague Convention “the CRC’s
emphasis on the primacy of domestic placement is replaced by a weaker
reference to the unavailability of a ‘suitable family’ in the home country and
the obligation to merely give ‘due consideration’ to adoption within the state
of origin”.17 Maravel went so far as to argue that the Hague Convention
“rejected the UN Convention’s preference for nonpermanent foster care or
institutional care in the State of origin”.18
The differing provisions of the AC, CRC and the Hague Convention have
become a battleground for proponents and critics of intercountry adoptions.
No clear solution to the tensions in wording has been agreed upon
internationally. And unfortunately the guidance from international bodies
remains inconsistent.19 This complicates the situation, especially for countries like South Africa which are parties to the Hague Convention, the
CRC and the AC. As a way forward Duncan proposes that it is unnecessary
to interpret the Hague Convention as prioritising intercountry adoption over
domestic foster care or institutionalisation in all cases. Referring to article
4(b), he argues that its wording leaves some flexibility in deciding on
possibilities for placing a child nationally and on how to give “due
consideration” to alternatives.20 This elastic interpretation can be used to
produce a realm of discretion for state parties.

Much of today’s debate is connected
to two important instruments of international law: the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption10 (the “Hague
Convention” or the “Convention”). These two documents disagree over the proper
role of intercountry adoption in addressing the needs of children and their families.
The CRC condones but does not demand adoptive placement for a child who is
deprived of his or her “family environment.”11 Adoption is merely one alternative for
such a child. Other alternatives include foster care or a “suitable institution.”12 Properly interpreted, the CRC does appear to favor adoption, or at least foster care
over institutionalization.13 However, the CRC’s mild approval of adoption is mainly
for adoption within a child’s nation of origin. The CRC endorses intercountry
adoption only if the child cannot be placed in “any suitable manner” in the child’s
nation of origin.14 According to some interpretations, “suitable” placement within the
nation of origin might include an institution or an undefined form of foster care.15
The CRC’s preference for any “suitable” local placement over intercountry adoption
is sometimes referred to as the “principle of subsidiarity.”16 The strict view of
subsidiarity is that intercountry adoption is the last resort for a child for whom there
is no “suitable” local placement.17 The other major international adoption law, the Hague Convention, adopts a
modified version of subsidiarity that moves the rank of intercountry adoption up one
notch, at least for a limited number of nations that have signed the Convention. The
Preamble states that “intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent
family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her State of
origin.”18 In other words, family placement (adoptive or foster; local or intercountry)
is favored over institutionalization in most cases, but “suitable” local family placement
(foster or adoptive) trumps intercountry adoption. The Hague Convention’s
endorsement of adoption is not as powerful as one might expect given the Convention’s
principle purpose of facilitating intercountry adoption by a set of international rules
and procedures.19 Naturally, a blanket endorsement of adoption for all children in all
situations of need would be inappropriate. Still, the Hague Convention falls short of
speaking clearly to the issues of what constitutes suitable local family placement or
when efforts at local adoption should be abandoned in favor of intercountry
adoption.20 These two documents—the CRC and the Hague Convention—frame the debate:
Does international law fail children by improperly encouraging, discouraging, or
ranking intercountry adoption, and is the law sufficiently protective of children and
other parties involved in adoption? The major participants in the debate can be divided roughly into three groups: cynical critics of intercountry adoption, moderate
critics of intercountry adoption, and vigorous advocates for intercountry adoption.

Bhubaneswar: As many as 188 children of Odisha found adoptive homes in 2022-23 financial year, said Basanti Hembram, Minister of Women and Child Development Department on Wednesday. 

She was speaking at a programme organised to mark National Adoption Awareness Month in Bhubaneswar. “The state government has facilitated adoption of children through 33 specialised adoption agencies across 28 districts. In 2023-24 fiscal, 130 children have been adopted till October 31,” she said at the programme, organised by State Adoption Resource Agency under the aegis of the department.

The objective of the programme was to promote adoption of older children, especially in the age group of 6-18 years, and familiarise the adoption process as well as promotion of legal adoption.

The minister further said, “Our government’s proactive approach to childcare and protection reflects a deep commitment to the well-being of our youngest citizens. Our state stands out for its effective implementation of the JJ Act, 2015. In the realm of adoption programmes, our achievements at the national level are commendable.”

Shubha Sharma, secretary, Women and Child Development Department said the government’s commitment extends beyond the adoption process to the holistic well-being of adopted children. "Support systems are actively being developed to address their unique needs including educational, psychological and emotional aspects.”

Parenting is always challenging, but for adopted people becoming a mum or dad can be extra demanding, as well as extra special—according to research from the University of East Anglia.

A new study is the first to investigate the lived experiences of adopted people in the UK as they become parents. "How do adopted adults see the significance of adoption and being a parent in their life stories? A narrative analysis of 40 life story interviews with male and female adoptees" is published in the journal Children and Youth Services Review.

It finds that they are affected by issues that link back to their adoption and to difficult experiences in their past—related to loss, rejection, abuse and neglect.

Because of these difficult early experiences, many adoptees experience significant challenges, particularly as teenagers and young adults.

These included mental health problems, emotional and behavioral difficulties, education and employment, relationship problems, and substance misuse.

Research into twelve adoptions from Ethiopia shows that several children were not given up voluntarily. Minister of Welfare Crevits also calls on adoptees from other countries and their families to come forward if they suspect that their adoption file is incorrect.

It will be a "huge disclaimer" if Norway stops adoptions from abroad, several adoptive families believe.

The short version

• Adoptive families believe it will be a "huge disclaimer" if Norway stops adoptions from abroad
• Five families also criticize VG's adoption coverage for being one-sided.
• Sissel Kruse Larsen, who has adopted a daughter from Peru, believes that a temporary halt to adoptions to Norway will have major consequences for children.

- From one day to the next, families have their lives turned around by the Norwegian authorities, says Øyvind Bakke Reier to VG.

"For me, the welfare of the girl is paramount. I am scared to send her away. How can I ensure her welfare there," Justice Devan Ramachandran asked. 

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday appointed Advocate Parvathy Menon as amicus curiae to assist the court in the petition filed by a couple seeking permission to return their adopted child and annul the adoption.

The couple adopted the child (now she turned 18 years old) based on the order issued by the Guardian Judge, Ludhiana, Punjab, but they wanted to annul the adoption alleging that she was unable to integrate with the family.

When the petition came up for hearing Justice Devan Ramachandran said that the contents of the report of the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, who interacted with the child, are distressing, particularly as to the plight of the young woman.

It stated that the girl, who recently turned 18 years old, expressed an intense desire to return to her parental state in Ludhiana, Punjab. This may be because she feels forlorn and virtually destitute in Kerala being 'abandoned' by her adoptive parents.

Russian State Duma has prepared a bill aimed at prohibiting the adoption of Russian children by foreign citizens of those countries that permit sex change procedures to be carried out, the state news outlet Ria Novosti reported on Monday, Nov. 20.

This follows the adoption of a law by Russia in July that prohibited its own citizens from undergoing sex change surgery or treatment.

Speaking at a parliamentary commission meeting focusing on the “criminal actions of the Kyiv regime” against minors, the head of the legislative body’s Committee on Security, Vasily Piskarev, underscored what he saw as the necessity of the proposed legislation.

He said that the primary objective is to “guarantee an adopted child that he will not end up in a same-sex family” and to ensure that the child grows up in what is deemed a “normal family” made up of parents of both sexes.

“In this regard, we have developed a bill that proposes to prohibit the adoption of a child for foreign citizens if a sex change is allowed in their state, both by producing appropriate documents and by using medical and all kinds of forms of intervention,” Piskarev said.

"I think that at different stages of life, we need to continually adjust our commitments to find a balance that is aligned with our values and priorities."

​

Mia Dambach, Co-Founder and Executive Director for Child Identity Protection, on her work as a children’s solicitor in Australia, why ensuring children’s identity protection worldwide is important and the role of her many backgrounds in her daily life.

Dear Mia, you have studied at University of Sydney were you did a Bachelor in Law and a Bachelor in Commerce with a triple major in accounting, marketing and economics before doing your Master of Laws (LL.M.). How did you end up volunteering at a local children’s court during your studies?