In Switzerland, 14 cantons want to work more closely together to help adopted individuals find their biological parents. In the past, not everything was always done by the book.

Why were there so many international adoptions in the past?

“Adoption industry is the fault of the State that sits on the fence”

Her siblings hated Leanne. She had small eyes and black hair. Leanne was the only person of Asian descent that lived in her small neighborhood located in the city of Detroit, Michigan. Her three siblings bullied her and her adoptive parents abused her. It was a different story though when Leanne was first received into the arms of her adoptive parents in December of 1966. They voluntarily adopted Leanne. They must have once had sympathy for a baby coming from a poor country.

An interpretation of the Hankyoreh21 article (I’m really distraught because I purchased a digital voice recorder but didn’t hit save prior to turning off the recorder so it all got lost – the instructions were all in Korean, so I didn’t know – and she read 90% of the article translating every line – argh!) as relayed to me roughly by my translator.  (I will add links with references and supporting data this week after I write my lesson plan)

They begin the article with my sad story and briefly touch on some of the difficulties encountered in my search for the truth.  Basically, they use me as an example of what could go wrong yet also use my struggles for identity as a mirror into the future of all the babies currently being sent abroad for adoption.  They say the mess is left up to the children to deal with, but it’s the country’s fault from beginning to end.

They go over the history of adoption in Korea and compare figures that tell a tale of adoption rates increasing after war reconstruction, when the opposite should be the expected result.  They break down the number of Korean children going to each country, from each of the four main international adoption agencies. (Holt, Social Welfare Services, Eastern, and Korea Social Services)  From Holt’s website, they list the adoption fees for available children from different countries and note some of the language Holt uses now and in the past regarding Korean children and the fees they command.  It looks like pricetags.  It looks like shopping.  And Korean children are valued more.  Because they are smart, taken as infants, and well cared for in foster homes.  There is also less paperwork and it is easier to get a Korean child than a child from some other countries.  They break down how much money international adoption generates for Holt International and how much Holt Korea gets of that.  Holt Korea will not disclose how they spend their percentage of these adoption fees, though they give a statement as to the nature of the work they do and their relative costs.  They also illustrate (the translation was fuzzy on this) how the distribution is supposed to be spread evenly amongst the purchasing countries, but somehow the United States has always taken the lions share of children.  The higher fees might have something to do with this imbalance.  It is pointed out that adoption here is a small industry and how many people Holt employs. (something around 270 if my memory serves me correctly)

Korea did not sign the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption.  Neither did they sign the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Korea has responded in the past to criticism about exporting children by either making meaningless gestures or by reducing transparency.  After public attack by North Korea about their adoption policy, Korea privatized what little governmental oversight was left of their ministry of health and welfare adoption section (not the exact name) so as to diffuse the criticism.  Also as a result of this privatization, adoption agencies were free to demand non-disclosure agreements from all of its employees, further exacerbating the dissemination of information to adoptees in search.  After renewed global criticism of Korea’s continued international adoption in the wake of its show-case development during the 1988 Olympic Games held in Seoul, Korea unveiled a quota system to gradually reduce adoptions and ultimately eliminate them by 2015.  (The late-breaking news from TRACK is that the end date of international adoption has been struck from the draft revisions to Korea’s Special Adoption Law going to vote by the National Assembly this year – this is an incredible setback – the opposite of progress – no exit strategy in sight) And in 1998, the late president Kim Dae Jung issued an apology to those adopted Koreans living in Korea.  YET, despite the apology, no change in policy materialized.  (Currently, they are attempting to create an independent body overseeing adoption matters as required by the Hague Convention, yet the body they have created is not a governmental body so not in keeping with the intent of the convention.  Korea’s dancing around the Hague Convention is much like the United States’ record with the Kyoto Protocol)

There are something like 72 (I’m doing this by memory and need to double-check this somehow) homes for unwed mothers RUN BY or affiliated with ADOPTION AGENCIES in Korea.  (no conflict of interest there)  The largest share being run by or affiliated with Holt.  In Korea, there is no waiting period required before a mother can relinquish her child, and this can be done while the child is in utero.  (This practice is illegal in the United States because it was an opportunity for coercion on a mass scale up until the 60’s and these unwed mother’s homes were referred to as “baby farms.”)  Unwed mothers (up until the end of this month, where it will be doubled) who keep their babies can receive only 50,000 won per month in assistance.  (That’s equivalent to $40.00 U.S. at today’s rates – foster families receive double that – and this is in an economy where incomes and the cost of living is on par with the U.S.)  The article goes on to describe how adoption is offered as the FIRST option to unwed mothers upon giving birth, and keeping the baby as the SECOND option.

The Supreme Court has directed the Chennai collector and the district child protection officer to entertain and process a plea filed by a single adoptive mother, who is an overseas citizen Of India (OCI) and seeking ‘verification’ of adoption of…

The Supreme Court has directed the Chennai collector and the district child protection officer to entertain and process a plea filed by a single adoptive mother, who is an overseas citizen Of India (OCI) and seeking ‘verification’ of adoption of her twin adoptive children, born to her brother by surrogacy.

By Han Boon-young

Twenty-seven years ago, in one of the famous prison letters to his wife, Kim Dae-jung brought up the issue of transnational adoption from Korea.

While contemplating the moral aspects of inter-country adoption in a time of economic growth and national prosperity, he was equally moved by the existential struggle of the adoptees returning to Korea and ashamed of the nation's reckless abandonment of its sons and daughters.

During the long years in opposition and exile from his own country, Kim and his wife had many opportunities to meet with individuals and representatives from communities around the world.

Our shared journey

We are an adoptee-led not-for-profit organization that offers search services for Vietnamese intercountry adoptees and their families. As an adoptee-led organization, know that you will be supported by a network of people who will bring lived experience and insight to support you on your journey.

We work from the perspective that each journey is unique and that understanding the story of each person we work with is integral to the process of searching. We operate from the principles of integrity, accountability, and empathy and place priority on the person at the center of the journey.

Our work involves collaboration with other trusted organizations within Vietnam that can provide access to translators and advocates who help to navigate cultural barriers and language differences. We have access to records that may further assist you with your search.

SEOUL, SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA, March 19, 2025 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Recent data and developments have prompted adoptees to call for closer examination of the funding and operations of South Korea’s National Center for the Rights of the Child (NCRC). This comes as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) prepares to release findings and adoptee files are scheduled for transfer by July 2025, marking a significant period for South Korea’s adoption system.

Funding Details Emerge
Records published on March 1, 2025, indicate that the NCRC contributed 55% of the 2024 budget for G.O.A’L, a well-known adoptee-run NGO. G.O.A’L is also the sole adoptee-focused organization represented on the NCRC’s board, according to available documentation. This financial and governance connection has led some adoptees to raise questions about the NCRC’s structure.

Record Access Under Review
A January 14, 2025, MBC documentary, The Disappeared Adoption Records: The Country That Erased Me, detailed issues with a 2 billion KRW digitization project managed by the NCRC from 2013 to 2022. The NCRC responded on January 15, 2025, confirming internal reviews and audits initiated in 2024. Parliamentary data shows that between 2021 and 2024, only 16.4% of 6,087 adoption record requests were granted.

Notable Recent Cases
Several events have highlighted challenges with the NCRC’s processes:
On October 10, 2024, Norwegian adoptee Alice Andersen requested her biological family’s medical history due to health conditions but was denied access.
On October 7, 2024, Han Tae-soon filed a lawsuit against the government and Holt Children’s Services, claiming insufficient efforts to locate her family before her daughter’s 1976 adoption. Case: 2024-Ga-57382, Jihyang Law, Phone: +82(0)2.3476.6002.
A Danish adoptee’s lawsuit, filed August 4, 2024, seeks her late father’s identity under the Special Adoption Act, with the NCRC declining to provide the information. Case: 2024-Dan-39214, Jihyang Law, Phone: +82(0)2.3476.6002.

TRC Investigation Progresses
The TRC announced on March 5, 2025, that preliminary results from its review of 367 forced adoptions from the 1960s to 1980s will be shared by late March. Operating independently of the NCRC, the TRC’s mandate extends through May 2025, with adoptee files set to transfer by July 2025, a timeline noted by adoptee groups.

Government Outlines Changes
On May 10, 2024, the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced plans to transition adoption oversight to government entities, including the NCRC, by July 19, 2025. Historical issues, such as incomplete or altered records, continue to be documented.

Adoptees Request Further Insight
Adoptee advocates have expressed interest in reviews of the NCRC’s funding sources, board makeup, and record management procedures before the July 2025 file transfer. With the TRC’s findings approaching, they see this as a key moment to explore longstanding aspects of South Korea’s adoption system.

JK Song
Punch Digital Marketing
namelessadoptee@proton.me

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.

Onno uit Enschede was een rotjoch, een klootzak. Op z’n 30ste werd hij gevonden in de duinen van Hoek van Holland. Vermoord. Voor zijn zusje Joske Kuut een schok, maar de dag erop ging haar leven weer gewoon verder. Ogenschijnlijk, want op vakantie brak ze. „Ik kan nu zeggen dat ik van hem houd.”

Dit verhaal gaat niet over Onno, een van de beruchte ‘tattookillers’, mannen met Chinese karakters op hun rug die in opdracht liquidaties uitvoerden. Dit verhaal gaat over zijn zusje, zijn enige zusje. Het zusje dat op 26-jarige leeftijd haar grote broer verloor.

In the United States, an adopted child can be resold online like an object. This system, called rehoming, affects 25,000 children each year, transferred to other families without any oversight. A scandal that reveals the serious flaws in the American system.

Behind the facade of adoption in the United States lies a sordid reality: adopted children are being resold online as mere objects . This system, known as rehoming , allows adoptive parents to part with a child by giving them to another family without any oversight from the authorities . A frightening practice that affects approximately 25,000 children each year and takes advantage of a worrying legal loophole .

Rehoming: A market for unsupervised adopted children

In many US states, adopting a child requires only a few days of training and a clean criminal record. But if parents feel the child doesn't meet their expectations , they can simply resell them online . Private agencies, operating without any official regulation , offer platforms where children are listed with photos, detailed descriptions, and even prices . "Here, it's a money-back guarantee. After adopting a child, you can decide you don't want them anymore." - Seven  to Eight.

Het contrast is groot. De Hardenbergse Pullen werkt niet meer aan de rand van het Oegandese dorpje Mpigi, maar woont in een nieuwbouwwoning in Hardenberg. Met haar vijf geadopteerde kinderen van Oegandese afkomst is ze uit Afrika gevlucht. Haar woning is bekostigd door een Hardenbergse weldoener. Zelf geld om er een te huren of te kopen heeft ze niet.

„Ik ben het land ontvlucht na een hele hoop negatieve ervaringen die me gewoon te veel zijn geworden.’’

Overval en verkrachting

Vooral een overval begin 2020 op haar weeshuis van stichting Home of Hope and Dreams heeft er bij haar ingehakt. „Ik was in Nederland toen ik erover hoorde. Waarschijnlijk werd de overval gepleegd door vijftien mannen en onder aanvoering van een oud-medewerker. Er zijn wel mensen opgepakt, maar tot een berechting is het nooit gekomen.’’