NEW DELH: Nandini (name changed) and her husband had registered with the Central Adoption Resource Authority in 2018. After a long wait to be matched with a child, the Pune based couple was finally able to bring their 6 - month old daughter home as foster parents in April 2021. The child turns 2 later this week but the parents are yet to get the adoption order with the court where her matter was listed on the 12th of this month for a hearing getting deferred to September 30 and parents concerned over what lies ahead as new rules notified by the central government on September 1 sought immediate transfer of all pending cases in courts to the district magistrate.

Incidentally, amid rising worries of parents, on September 12 the ministry of women and child development wrote to all states to direct the concerned authorities to transfer all cases from the courts to the DM to prevent any further delay in passing of adoption orders. This was in keeping with the notification of the Juvenile Justice Model (Amendment) Rules 2022 that came into effect on September 1. There are over 900 cases estimated to be pending in Courts at different stages of hearing across the country.

Going by the rules the DM will have to dispose of an application for making an adoption order within a period of two months. However, the adoption regulations that will lay out the process are yet to be notified. According to the ministry of women and child development the notification will happen this week.

With September 30 as the next date of hearing listed in the court, an anxious Nandini for now is clueless about the fate of her case. She wrote to the concerned authorities dealing with adoptions on September 13. She is still awaiting a response to her mails. “I am emotionally drained.. I will be celebrating my daughter’s second birthday this week but her grandmother who lives in another city has yet to see her as rules do not allow me to take her out of the city I live in till the adoption is complete,” Nandini said.

Nandini's case reflects the dilemma of parents whose cases are at an advanced stage in court and who are seeking clarity on if and when the court will transfer their case to the district magistrate and how quickly will the latter take it up. The fear of further delay due to the administrative process of transfer of cases and then in passage of adoption orders is worrying parents like Nandini.

A parliamentary panel has found that a rise in the number of child abandonment cases may lead to a rise in the number of illegal adoptions.

—–

Why was the adoption process in the news recently?

The Parliamentary Panel on the Review of Guardianship and Adoption Laws has recommended a district-level survey of orphaned and abandoned children, given the huge mismatch in the number of children available for adoption in Specialized Adoption Agencies (“SAA”) and the persons in line to become adoptive parents. Even though a large number of children are orphaned or abandoned, very few find their way in the formal adoption process.

The need of the hour, therefore, is the easing of the adoption process and the disincentivization of child abandonments. For parents who no longer wish to keep a child, a spree of social considerations may stymie their decision to surrender their child to an SAA, and abandonment may seem an easier choice. One such consideration is the anticipated future repercussions of the decision to surrender, especially in the absence of a guarantee against public dissemination of its information. A root search lies exactly at the heart of this consideration, which is an adoptee’s search for their biological parent in pursuit of obtaining knowledge of their identity, biological heritage and their sense of self.

Abstract

The right to personal identity begins with the right to life. Therefore, the notion of individual identity and personality has been encouraged. Whenever there is question of adoption, and in particular about inter-country adoption, all the different elements that constitute the identity of the child, including not only name, nationality and family relations, but also cultural environment, must be taken into account. This chapter deals with children’s right to identity, guiding principles/policies, understanding the surrendering process, feedback from recognized adoption agencies in India and information tips for older adoptees.

Two sisters who were adopted as babies and lived thousands of miles apart have been reunited thanks to a home DNA test.

The popularity of at-home DNA testing has boomed in recent years, as anyone can purchase a simple kit for themselves or a loved one and uncover secrets hidden in their own DNA.

MyHeritage, a leading genealogy site, ran a pro bono initiative called DNA Quest in 2018, where it donated 15,000 tests to adoptees to support them in being reunited with their birth families through DNA testing. This resulted in hundreds of reunions, according to the company. Sisters Ashleigh Brown and Laurinda Collado are one of those.

Brown and Collado are now aged 33 and 35. Born in the Dominican Republic to the same biological parents, Collado was adopted when she was 5 months old and raised as an only child in Bristol, Connecticut. Two years later, her adoptive parents were given the choice to take in her sister Ashleigh but they chose not to. Instead, Brown was adopted at 6 weeks old and grew up in Barbados.

While each knew that they had biological siblings somewhere, they lived with the fear that they might never meet their biological family, with nothing but pictures of their biological parents in baby albums. It wasn't until the DNA Quest initiative was launched by MyHeritage that they were able to take steps to find each other.

parliament

Canton of Zurich investigates illegal adoptions in Sri Lanka

The canton of Zurich will historically prosecute illegal adoptions from Sri Lanka since the 1970s. The cantonal council on Monday approved a candidacy of the SP, GLP, Greens, Center and EPP for government with 92 votes to 67.

Many adoptions from the 1970s were illegal, especially those from Sri Lanka. The canton of Zürich will now handle complaints historically, as many of these children were taken in by parents in the canton of Zürich.

Theme image: Sandra Ardizzone / LUW

More than a year after the Joustra Committee painted a devastating picture of intercountry adoption, Minister Franc Weerwind presented plans for improvement last week. Former top official Tjibbe Joustra is not yet convinced. 'The interpretation will be decisive.'

'How does the minister want to guarantee that abuses no longer occur with adoption from abroad?' That is what former top civil servant Tjibbe Joustra wonders after studying the new plans of Minister Franc Weerwind (Legal Protection, D66). 'I looked for which elements should lead to improvement. They are quite difficult to find.'

More than a year ago the report of the Joustra Committee was published, which painted a devastating picture of intercountry adoption. Adoption from abroad was suspended immediately. In the meantime, a new plan was being worked on.

Last week, the minister wrote a letter to the House stating that adoption of children from abroad will be possible again. A new intermediary organization to be established, closely linked to the government, must ensure that corruption, child trafficking and fraud are eradicated. Moreover, it is always necessary to first look for suitable reception in the country of origin.

Searching for concrete points for improvement

WAGENINGEN - Lotte van Dijk (23) from Wageningen is critical of Rob Marrevee's candid story about his two adopted sons from Ethiopia. “My fear is that, with all the attention that is now being paid to his story, this will become the new image of adoption.” She would like to let her positive experience speak.

The adoption of children from abroad has long been under discussion. It was even temporarily banned, but in April the cabinet announced that 'intercountry' adoption will be possible again.

Rob Marrevee from Nijmegen is an adoptive father, but now wonders aloud whether you should adopt children. He and his wife adopted two biological brothers from Ethiopia over twenty years ago. When his eldest son was 18 years old, he said to his father: 'I would rather have stayed there than been adopted'. Rob now thinks it's time to tell the other side of what he calls "the adoption fairytale."

See also: Rob adopted Ethiopian brothers: 'I would not have done it with knowledge of now'

'Adoption is not a nightmare either'

The trauma and harm to families and communities caused by intrusive child welfare system interventions is well documented by multiple sources – to the degree that many argue the system can be more accurately viewed as the family policing system, family regulation system, or foster care industrial complex. In our paper It Is Not a Broken System, It Is a System That Needs to be Broken, we outline research that shows that the act of forcible separation of children from their parents is a source of significant and lifelong trauma. As we summarized in the article, “trauma associated with separation has been shown to result in cognitive delays, depression, increased aggression, behavioral problems, poor educational achievement, and other harmful outcomes.”

Youth and parents who have experienced child welfare services regularly testify to the harm of separation and the failures of and trauma created by both short- and long-term involvement with the foster care system. Advocates and those working to reform child welfare from both within the system and without, regularly document this harm. For example, in the most recent court report, M.D. ex re Stukenberg v. Abbott, a consent decree focused on reforming Texas’ child welfare system, the federal court monitor stated on page 11: “The Texas child welfare system continues to expose children in permanent managing conservatorship to an unreasonable risk of serious harm.”

It is within the context of this knowledge and understanding and our many years of concerted reform efforts that we have launched the upEND movement, an emerging collaborative aimed at creating a society in which the forcible separation of children from their families is no longer an acceptable solution when help is needed. This movement seeks to protect the health of children, which requires us to center our work around keeping them with their families and communities.

Despite system acknowledgment and efforts to keep children with their families, supporting families is not the organizing priority of child welfare interventions. The upEND movement seeks to change that. It values families and requires an investment in what they need to be successful. To meaningfully do that, we need to reimagine the supports families have and the systems that provide them.

The upEND movement is rooted in the deep history of the disproportionate harm the system has and continues to cause Black children and families. Not only does the child welfare system have a history of disproportionately surveilling and separating Black children from their families and communities, research points to the ways that the system criminalizes and polices Black mothers, is more likely to substantiate cases against Black families, and penalizes poor families for issues related to poverty and material hardships. Even child welfare reforms that attempt to change how services are delivered within the system still reproduce the system’s coercive power, further marginalizing families and communities already disenfranchised by structural racism.

Six countries are in focus in the government investigation of the international adoption agency to Sweden: Sri Lanka, Poland, China, South Korea, Colombia and Chile.

MUMBAI: Granting bail to a Worli businesswoman accused of running a child trafficking racket, a sessions court said the charge of "trafficking for exploitation" does not appear to be applicable as the child was sold for adoption. Instead, a case can be made out for the child's sale.

The FIR says there is trafficking of a newborn child and its purpose is mentioned as "giving in adoption". Section 370(4) of IPC is about trafficking of a person for exploitation. "Therefore, prima facie offence under Section 370(4)... does not appear to have been committed," said the court in its detailed order granting bail to 35-year-old Julia Fernandes and her aide, Shabana Shaikh, 40.

Section 370(4) prescribes rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of 10 years up to a life term. However, the court pointed out that another charge under the juvenile justice Act, punishable with up to five years imprisonment, is applicable.

"If Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act is seen, it is about sale and procurement of a child for any purpose. In view of the allegations, applicants along with other accused sold the child for adoption... I am of the opinion that if the case of prosecution is taken into consideration, it is about sale for the purpose of adoption," said the court.

Since the child was in safe custody and the money involved had been seized, further custodial interrogation of the two women was not required. "Taking into consideration the previous crime registered against applicants, they may be released on heavy bail by imposing conditions," said the court.