1 ­       In the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, District and      Sessions Judge : South East : Saket Court, New Delhi.In the matter of :G.P. No. 16/2016        Welfare Home for Children         B­1, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar        New Delhi­110 044.        Though its Social Worker Ms. Lata Nair       .... Petitioner                                      V E R S U S        Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs        R/o Wipstraat 47 AT 2590 Berlaar        Belgium        Through her attorney Ms. Nidhi         Kataria, Adoption Officer        Welfare Home for Children         B­1, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar        New Delhi­110 044.                     .... Respondent                 Petition presented on                        :        05.12.2016                 Arguments concluded on                       :        12.04.2017                 Judgment Pronounced on                       :        12.04.2017                 PETITION   UNDER   SECTION   59   (7)   OF                  JUVENILE   JUSTICE   (CARE   AND                  PROTECTION   OF   CHILDREN)   ACT,   2015,                  FOR   ORDER   OF   ADOPTION   WITH                  RESPECT   TO   THE   MINOR   CHILD   'NITIN'                  IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. G.P. No. 16/16               WHC V. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs                                     Page  1 of 25                                                     ­ 2 ­ JUDGMENT

1.0 Vide their petition, Welfare Home for Children, B­1,  Institutional   Area,   Sarita   Vihar,  New   Delhi,   ("Petitioner  Society"  in   short)   through   its   social   worker   and   authorized  representative Ms. Lata Nair, prayed that the minor child 'Nitin'  born on 09.05.2011 ("Child" in short) be given in adoption to  the respondent Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs, as her  son and that she be permitted to remove the minor child outside  the jurisdiction of this Court for his upbringing to   Belgium,  where the respondent resides.

2.0 The   petition   has   been   filed   by  WHC  being   a  Society,   registered   as   a   Charitable   Organization   running   its  Orphanage   Homes   for   abandoned/destitute/   handicapped  children.     WHC   is   duly   recognized   by   the   Central   Adoption  Resource   Authority   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   "CARA"),  Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India, as  an agency for placing children in adoption i.e. as  Specialized  Adoption Agency  ("SAA" in short)   Ms. Lata Nair has been  duly authorized by WHC, the petitioner society to sign, verify    ­ 3 ­  and institute the petition under Section 59 (7) of Juvenile Justice  (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act" in short).

3.0 The petitioner has submitted that a minor male child  'Nitin'   born   on   09.05.2011   was   placed   with   the   WHC.     The  petitioner desires to give the child in adoption to the respondent  Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs, through her attorney  Ms. Nidhi Kataria, Adoption officer, WHC.

4.0 It is submitted by the petitioner that on 09.05.2015,  a minor male child 'Nitin' was found abandoned by the police  officials of PS Amar Colony, who handed over the custody of  the   child   to   the   petitioner   society.     The   child   was   produced  before   the   Child   Welfare   Committee,   Kalkaji,   who   permitted  the petitioner to continue to keep the child.  The parents of the  child did not come to claim him.  Vide order dated 03.03.2016  in petitioner's application/Case no. 483/15, the Child Welfare  Committee declared the child as an abandoned child and legally  free   for   adoption,   after   due   enquiries.   On   the   basis   of   the  medical   examination,  the   date   of   birth   of   the   child   was  determined as 09.05.2011.

1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in the matter of appointment of guardian of the person of female minor Babita an inmate of Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah (founding home) conducted by Rajasthan Social Welfare Department of Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The application filed by the appellant for appointment as guardian of the above mentioned minor child was dismissed by the Family Court vide its judgment dated August 12, 1986.

2. It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that the Inter-country Adoption Agency "Juthika" (hereinafter called as "Juthika") of Netherland, which is one of the recognised agency of Government of India, approached the Director of Social Welfare Department and Superintendent, Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur through its power of attorney holder to give minor Babita, a destitute child in Guardianship of the petitioner. The Director, Social Welfare Department gave permission for adoption of the child to a foreign parent since no Indian citizen came forward for taking the child in adoption. Petitioner through its general power of attorney holders Mrs. Hem-lata Mirazkar, 208, Olympus, Altamount Road, Bombay-4000 26 and Shri Sandeep Saxena, D-2, 'Moti-Kunj', Malviya Marg, Ashoknagar, Jaipur moved an application before the Family Court for granting Guardianship to the petitioner. This application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard both the parties and gone through the documents.on record.

4. It is contended by Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has erred in not considering the certificate of Professor of Dutch Law in Nether-

land that a Dutch man living in Netherland can take in guardianship of any child and can also adopt as many children as he likes. It is also submitted that the direction was given by the learned Judge that the State Government and Shanti Devi Shishu Grah should publish in newspapers and also publicize on television to seek persons willing to adopt the child, it is contended that this is against the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 SC 469. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has not cared to look at the Annexure 5 which satisfied all the requirements regarding appointment of guardianship of the petitioner. It is also contended that the trial Court has overlooked that it was for the paramount benefit of the child to appoint petitioner as guardian who will eventually adopt he,r in accordance with the law of Netherland. It is also pointed out that Director of Social Welfare and the Superintendent of Shanti Devi Sheeshu Grah have stated that it is in the interest of the child that she should be given in guardianship of the petitioner.

IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR                        DISTRICT JUDGE-I : DELHIGUARDIANSHIP CASE No. 22/2011Unique I.D No.02401C0033642011IN THE MATTER OF:1.          Mr. Biswanand Changoe2.          Mrs. Raathna Indra Kamaansingh            Both residents of            2911 RE Nieuwerkerk a.d.lJssel            The Netherlands           Through their Attorney:            Ms. Loraine Campos            Adoption Officer,            Delhi Council for Child Welfare,            Qudsia Garden,            Civil Lines, Delhi.                                                              .... Petitioners.                         Versus1.          Indian Council for Child Welfare,            4, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,            New Delhi - 110 002.2.          Delhi Council for Child Welfare,            Qudsia Garden,            Civil Lines, Delhi.                                                              .....Respondents.Date of institution of petition :22.01.11Date on which order was reserved :14.02.11Date of pronouncement of judgment::14.02.11 J U D G M E N T:

The case of the petitioners as disclosed in the petition is that petitioners are Dutch Nationals. They were married on 26.08.1994. Due to medical reasons, they could not have any biological child of their own. They are very fond of children. They have already adopted Miss Vaishnovi Teena from India, who is twin sister of the minor child Miss (G.P.22/2011) ( page 1 of 5) Reena and they think that Reena is a part of their family. It is stated that minor child Miss Reena was not placed with the petitioners by Church of North India, New Delhi because they wanted to wait and watch on her development. As such, the petitioners have expressed their willingness to be appointed as joint guardians of minor female child Miss Reena with permission to adopt her according to local laws of their country.

2. It is stated that minor female child namely Miss Reena (born on 17.06.2004) was relinquished/ left by her parents through a document of surrender duly signed by them in favour of Church of North India, Shishu Sangopan Griha, New Delhi on 25.06.2004. Care and custody of the said minor child was transferred to respondent no.2 institution on 04.09.2009 vide order dated 03.09.3009 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, New Delhi for placing the child in adoption. Co-ordinating Voluntary Adoption Resource Agency (CVARA) and Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) have given clearance/ no objection for inter country adoption of the child. The petitioners, through their Attorney Ms. Loraine Campos have moved the present petition under Sections 7 & 26 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 praying that they be appointed as the guardians of the minor female child namely Reena and they be permitted to remove the minor child outside the jurisdiction of this court for her eventual adoption according to local laws of their country. 3- Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and citation was also affixed on the Notice Board of the Court House. Both the respondents have filed their respective replies stating therein that they have no objection if the petition is allowed.

4- In support of the petition, Ms. Loraine Campos, Attorney of petitioners proved Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners in her favour as Ex.P1. She tendered her evidence vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she reaffirmed the averments made in the petition. She has placed & proved on record home study report as Ex.P2; employment certificates of the petitioners as Ex.P3 & P4; their Financial declaration as Ex.P5; sterility certificate as Ex.P6; declaration of their health as Ex.P7; marriage certificate as Ex.P8; sponsoring agency letter, issued by Wereldkinderen, The Netherlands as Ex.P9; photographs of the (G.P.22/2011) ( page 2 of 5) petitioner alongwith their earlier adopted child as Ex.P10; proof of naturalization of their earlier adopted child as Ex.P11; child approval as Ex.P12; declaration of willingness as Ex.P13; and progress reports of their earlier adopted child as Ex.P14.

5- Ms. Tarini Bahadur, Secretary, Delhi Council for Child Welfare, has tendered her evidence vide affidavit Ex.RW1/A. She placed and proved on record Child Study Report as Ex.R-1; Photograph of the minor as Ex.R-2; Clearance Certificate for placement of the minor child in inter-country adoption, issued by CVARA as Ex.R-3; No Objection certificate issued by CARA as Ex.R-4 and certificate of abandonment issued by Child Welfare Committee, New Delhi as Ex.R5. She testified that minor female child namely Reena was relinquished/ left by her parents through a document of surrender duly signed by them in favour of Church of North India, Shishu Sangopan Griha, New Delhi on 25.06.2004. Care and custody of the said minor child was transferred to respondent no.2 institution on 04.09.2009 vide order dated 03.09.3009 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, New Delhi for placing the child in adoption. The child was declared to be abandoned child and legally free for adoption by the Child Welfare Committee. No Indian family living in India or abroad is willing to take the minor child as the child is suffering from spasticity, cerebral palsy with myoclonic seizure disorder, autism, speech disorder and cortical blindness. She also testified that their institution has no objection if the petition is allowed. 6- I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records carefully.

1 ­       In the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, District and      Sessions Judge : South East : Saket Court, New Delhi.In the matter of :G.P. No. 16/2016        Welfare Home for Children         B­1, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar        New Delhi­110 044.        Though its Social Worker Ms. Lata Nair       .... Petitioner                                      V E R S U S        Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs        R/o Wipstraat 47 AT 2590 Berlaar        Belgium        Through her attorney Ms. Nidhi         Kataria, Adoption Officer        Welfare Home for Children         B­1, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar        New Delhi­110 044.                     .... Respondent                 Petition presented on                        :        05.12.2016                 Arguments concluded on                       :        12.04.2017                 Judgment Pronounced on                       :        12.04.2017                 PETITION   UNDER   SECTION   59   (7)   OF                  JUVENILE   JUSTICE   (CARE   AND                  PROTECTION   OF   CHILDREN)   ACT,   2015,                  FOR   ORDER   OF   ADOPTION   WITH                  RESPECT   TO   THE   MINOR   CHILD   'NITIN'                  IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. G.P. No. 16/16               WHC V. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs                                     Page  1 of 25                                                     ­ 2 ­ JUDGMENT

1.0 Vide their petition, Welfare Home for Children, B­1,  Institutional   Area,   Sarita   Vihar,  New   Delhi,   ("Petitioner  Society"  in   short)   through   its   social   worker   and   authorized  representative Ms. Lata Nair, prayed that the minor child 'Nitin'  born on 09.05.2011 ("Child" in short) be given in adoption to  the respondent Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs, as her  son and that she be permitted to remove the minor child outside  the jurisdiction of this Court for his upbringing to   Belgium,  where the respondent resides.

2.0 The   petition   has   been   filed   by  WHC  being   a  Society,   registered   as   a   Charitable   Organization   running   its  Orphanage   Homes   for   abandoned/destitute/   handicapped  children.     WHC   is   duly   recognized   by   the   Central   Adoption  Resource   Authority   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   "CARA"),  Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India, as  an agency for placing children in adoption i.e. as  Specialized  Adoption Agency  ("SAA" in short)   Ms. Lata Nair has been  duly authorized by WHC, the petitioner society to sign, verify    ­ 3 ­  and institute the petition under Section 59 (7) of Juvenile Justice  (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act" in short).

3.0 The petitioner has submitted that a minor male child  'Nitin'   born   on   09.05.2011   was   placed   with   the   WHC.     The  petitioner desires to give the child in adoption to the respondent  Ms. Elisabeth Clementina Josepha Jacobs, through her attorney  Ms. Nidhi Kataria, Adoption officer, WHC.

4.0 It is submitted by the petitioner that on 09.05.2015,  a minor male child 'Nitin' was found abandoned by the police  officials of PS Amar Colony, who handed over the custody of  the   child   to   the   petitioner   society.     The   child   was   produced  before   the   Child   Welfare   Committee,   Kalkaji,   who   permitted  the petitioner to continue to keep the child.  The parents of the  child did not come to claim him.  Vide order dated 03.03.2016  in petitioner's application/Case no. 483/15, the Child Welfare  Committee declared the child as an abandoned child and legally  free   for   adoption,   after   due   enquiries.   On   the   basis   of   the  medical   examination,  the   date   of   birth   of   the   child   was  determined as 09.05.2011.

1Reserved on   : 04.01.2024Pronounced on : 23.01.2024                                                        R      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024                          BEFORE         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA          WRIT PETITION No.16681 OF 2023 (GM-RES)BETWEEN:1.   SRI. U. AJAY KUMAR     S/O CHANDRASHEKAR UDNUR     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS     R/AT NO. 88, "AISHWARYA"     10TH MAIN, NTI LAYOUT     VIDYARANYAPURA     BENGALURU - 560 097.     OCC: IT ADMINISTRATOR,CRYTEK COMPANY     FRANKFURT AM MAIN, GERMANY.2.   SMT. MAITRA T. V.,     W/O U.AJAY KUMAR     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS     R/AT NO. 88, "AISHWARYA"     10TH MAIN, NTI LAYOUT     VIDYARANYAPURA     BENGALURU - 560 097.                                            ... PETITIONERS(BY SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE)                               2AND:THE UNION OF INDIAREPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARYAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERCENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCE AUTHORITYMINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILDRENDEVELOPMENT, WEST BLOCK-8, WING-21ST FLOOR, R.K.PURAMNEW DELHI - 110 066.                                                  ... RESPONDENT(BY SRI. H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI)     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THERESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONDATED 20/06/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND FURTHER DIRECTTHEM TO ISSUE NOC AND CONFORMITY CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUROF ADOPTED CHILD OF THE PETITIONERS FORTHWITH, AS PERADOPTION REGULATIONS 2022 FOR INTER COUNTRY RELATIVEADOPTION.     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVEDFOR ORDERS ON 04.01.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENTTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-                             ORDER

The petitioners, husband and wife are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider their representation dated 20-06-2023 made for the purpose of issuance No Objection Certificate ('NOC') and Conformity Certificate in favour of their adopted child in terms of Adoption Regulations, 2022 for Inter-Country Relative Adoption.

2. The facts, adumbrated, are as follows:-

The petitioners are husband and wife. The 1st petitioner/ husband is presently employed in Frankfurt, Germany and the wife is a resident of this nation - Bengaluru. Both the petitioners are citizens of India. Owing to the desire of adopting a child, as the petitioners did not have any issue from the wedlock for long years, the couple adopted a girl child of one Smt. S.Rashmi in the presence of relatives and friends. Smt. S. Rashmi gave her child in adoption by executing an adoption deed on 29-03-2023 before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkaballapura as the child was born in Chikkaballapura and the mother of the child was a resident of Chikkaballapura. Upon registration of adoption deed, as required in law, verification was done by the Deputy Commissioner and a certificate of verification was also issued along with the recommendation that adoption of the child being valid necessary action be taken upon the said adoption. The petitioners then seek issuance of an NOC and a conformity certificate in favour of adoption of the child by presenting it before the District Child Protection Unit. The District Child Protection Unit has not considered the request and has not issued an NOC as also conformity certificate of adoption. The petitioners have sent plethora of e-

mails seeking issuance of NOC and conformity certificate. It is, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction for their issuance.

1         IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P. NARAIN               CIVIL JUDGE : DELHISUIT NO.1640/06Mr. Johann KleuskensS/o Mr. Hubert KleuskensR/o Lilienthalstrasse 3815831, Mahlow, GermanyThrough his SPA HolderSh. Bhavesh Kumar ChaudharyS/o Sh. G.S. Chaudhary age about 38 yearsR/o F-1538, Netaji NagarNew Delhi-23.                                               Plaintiff.     Versus1.Union of India  Through its Secretary  External Affairs  South Block, New Delhi2.Ms. Pawana Devi  D/o Late Sh. Jagat Ram  R/o Village Dukhi Mohan  P.O. Utrala, Tehsil Baijnath  District Kangra (H.P.)                                            DefendantsJUDGEMENT:

By this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that plaintiff is a German national holding German passport number 2665054121 and Bhavesh Kumar Choudhary is the special power of attorney holder. That the plaintiff was married to Mrs. Sylille Heike and has two daughters namely Ms. Andrea and Ms. Kristina. That the plaintiff and his wife are not blessed with any son and plaintiff and his wife decided to adopt a newly born male chile and plaintiff and his wife learnt about the pregnancy of defendant No.2 Ms. Pawana Devi. That defendant No.2 gave birth to male child on 11.10.06 in Simran Hospital, District Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) and as per the arrangement between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 the name of the plaintiff was recorded as father in the birth certificate of child Master Shiven. That the birth certificate dated 16.10.06 was issued by the Local Registrar. That Defendant No.2 voluntarily handed over the custody and care of Master Shiven on 11.10.06 and plaintiff and his wife voluntarily took the custody and care of the child from defendant No.2. That the plaintiff and defendant No.2 executed an adoption deed at New Delhi on 5.12.06 duly registered with Sub Registrar VII at Sl. No.1206, Book No.3. That the plaintiff and his wife applied for permission for adoption from Government of Germany and same was accorded on 2.11.06 and thereafter plaintiff and his wife got the documents of adoption attested and certified by the Embassy of India at Berlin. That the plaintiff wants to take the child to Germany and for taking the child to Germany the following things are to be done:

(i)Certification of birth certificate

(ii)Certification of adoption deed

(iii)Courts decree with regard to the adoption of the child.

The jury that will decide the fate of Thalia Driessens (37) was appointed at the Leuven Assize Court on Friday. Starting next Wednesday, the woman will be tried for the murder of her adoptive mother Brigitte Vanaudenaeren (68) in July 2023 at her home in Steenokkerzeel.
Kim Aerts 18-04-25, 16:55 Last update: 17:13
In the night of 11 to 12 July 2023, Brigitte was killed at home along the Tervuursesteenweg in Steenokkerzeel. She had lived there for four decades and no one could say a bad word about her. However, that evening things got out of hand between Brigitte and her adopted daughter. The local police had to go to the scene twice, but when the officers had to return, Brigitte was already dead in the living room. She died of suffocation. The victim worked for the municipality of Zaventem for many years in the Tax Department.
Victim Brigitte Vanaudenaeren. © Marc Baert / rv
Accused Thalia Driessens, born in San Salvador, will be tried in the Leuven Assize Court from Wednesday 23 April for the manslaughter of her mother. Seven men and five women were drawn to judge her guilt. The public prosecutor is represented by Attorney General Marcel Verbelen. Driessens is assisted by Wouter Van Driessche and Jan Donkers. The chair of the Assize Court is Veerle Aelbrecht.

Supreme Court of India

Pinki vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 April, 2025

2025 INSC 482                                                              REPORTABLE                                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1927 OF 2025                            (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 4658 OF 2025)             PINKI                                                     …APPELLANT(S)                                               VERSUS             STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.                         …RESPONDENT(S)                                                 WITH                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1928 /2025                                 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 592/2025)                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1929 /2025                                 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 590/2025)                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1930 /2025                                 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4660 / 2025)                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1931 /2025                                 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4661 / 2025)                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1932 /2025                                 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4662 / 2025)                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1933 /2025                                 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4664 / 2025)                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1934 /2025   Signature Not Verified   Digitally signed by                                 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4665 /2025)   VISHAL ANAND   Date: 2025.04.15   12:47:38 IST   Reason:                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1935 /2025                                (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4666 of 2025)CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1936 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4667/2025) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1937 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4668 / 2025) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1938 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4670 / 2025) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1939 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4671 / 2025) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1940 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4672 / 2025) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1941 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4673 / 2025) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1942 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4674 / 2025) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1943 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4675 /2025)CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1944 /2025(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) 4676 / 2025)         JUDGMENT

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

Shalina Gomes is still looking for her biological mother in Bangladesh, now that the woman from official documents turns out not to be her real mother. She sings it off with her first Frisian single 'Wy kinne it net opnij dwaan'. Photo: Johan Vogelzang

About forty years after Shalina Gomes arrived in Leeuwarden as an adopted child from Bangladesh, she releases her own Frisian single on streaming services such as Spotify and as a video clip on YouTube. She sings it completely in Frisian, because she feels Frisian through and through. She also sings about the fact that she is still looking for her biological mother in Bangladesh, and is being obstructed by authorities.

Someone of foreign descent may indeed be Frisian and feel that way. Johan Derksen's sneer at Habtamu de Hoop last year gave her the strength and inspiration to continue with the Frisian song she wanted to make again. “I like that people from outside the Netherlands are coming from harren and Frisian love girls, I would like to carry the boat.” She is combative. "The melody of the music ignites the passion and draws my personality."

'We can't do it again'

She has been singing for decades in various bands and background vocals throughout the Netherlands, in various genres as well, but had never released her own song. 'Wy kinne it net opnij dwaan', is the title of the song written by Minke Adema, with music by guitarist Rick Meijer. It will be released on May 9, two days before Mother's Day. That is of course no coincidence, because of the adoption story. It can be heard via streaming services such as Spotify and can also be seen via Shalina Gomes' brand new YouTube channel.

Public opinion in Sri Lanka inflamed by sensational articles in popular morning newspaper

9 minutes reading time Turn off hatching

Police investigations into illegal adoptions in Sri Lanka have not uncovered any criminal offences. Even if a Sri Lankan mother accepts money when she gives up her child for adoption, she is not committing a crime. A mass outcry fuelled by rumours cannot be used in court as evidence of alleged baby trafficking.

The life of Sri Lankan police inspector B. Sumanadasa has taken a cheerless turn. After raiding a beach hotel where, the police officer assumed, a lively baby trade was flourishing and Western tourists were paying a lot of money for a newborn child, he is unable to provide evidence of illegal adoptions. The natural mothers of twenty babies deny that they were forced to give their children up for adoption. Their persistence has aroused the inspector's displeasure, but he has become really worried since these women filed a lawsuit against him for violating their constitutional rights as citizens. The concerned police officer has not been assigned a lawyer by his superiors. In the meantime, he has put a small fortune on the table to pay for his defense in this civil case. He fears that his actions will leave him financially ruined. The controversial adoption center is located in the town of Wadduwa, thirty kilometers south of Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka. Owner Dawn de Silva takes in mostly unmarried mothers in the resort who want to give up their child for adoption. She also offers shelter to Western European couples who are staying in Sri Lanka to take in these children. Through the mediation of the foundation Kind en Toekomst in Brummen, some 200 Dutch couples stayed last year in the centre of "miss Dawn", as she is called by her guests. Doubts The West German weekly Stern had

doubts

about the sincerity with which Dawn de Silva cares for the unwanted babies and their mothers at the end of last year. The magazine reported extensively on dubious adoption practices, which were said to be based on profit motives. In a shortened version of the Stern article, Nieuwe Revu worried adoptive parents in the Netherlands, who had received their child through the mediation of the foundation Kind en Toekomst. In the donor country, the popular English-language morning newspaper Sun shocked the public on 9 January with the headline: Unmasked: Million-dollar scam involving Sri Lankan babies". A day later, inspector Sumanadasa parked his police jeep in front of the steel gate of the adoption centre in Wadduwa. The inspector thought he had intercepted 22 babies who were about to be sold to European couples, including ten Dutch adoptive parents. Inspector Sumanadasa arrested Dawn de Silva and 21 Sri Lankan women. "Most of the women turned out to be unmarried and came from different parts of the island," says the policeman. "They claim that they wanted to give their children up for adoption voluntarily and completely legally." The police inspector still cannot accept that explanation,but his disbelief seems to be mainly motivated by public opinion and newspaper reports that lead the Sri Lankan population to believe that adoption is identical to a reprehensible baby trade.

Experiments

Any evidence of the alleged trade was of no importance in shaping public opinion in Sri Lanka. It took the form of a national popular anger, which demanded redress. People thought they could see the shadows of the old slave trade and urged an immediate end to "this devilish traffic in human flesh and blood". Trembling with horror, rumours were spread that adoptive parents were enslaving Sri Lankan children or, worse, abusing them for organ transplants. Some cynically added the supposed infant trade as a modern export product to a range of traditional goods such as tea, rubber and coconuts. The horror stories spread like an epidemic from the bottom to the top of society. The head of the Colombo district police, deputy inspector-general WB Rajaguru, and his personal assistant, superintendent JW Jayasuriya, ask me in all seriousness whether Sri Lankan children are being used in the Netherlands for medical experiments.
For the reliability of their gruesome stories, many refer to the tabloid columns of the Sun. This newspaper fuels the national frenzy with articles on "babygate" based on unknown sources. The Stern article has led the Sun to launch a crusade against the "baby mafia". "Even abortion, a crime, may have mitigating circumstances in some cases," said a Sun commentary, "but the widespread, diabolical, cold-blooded trade in innocent babies is sinful through and through."

Mourn

The Sun demanded that "baby tourists" be thrown out of the country to save the island's moral and ethical values. "Sri Lanka's Rachel cannot continue to mourn her innocent babies," raged a Sun commentator. "Our moral traditions will not allow a modern-day 'maniacal Herod' to run riot."
It is clear that Inspector Sumanadasa felt supported in his actions by a public opinion that was favourably disposed towards him. However, fabrications from the Sun could not be used as evidence in court. The natural mothers of the babies spent several weeks in prison and were then released on bail. An adoption judge put an end to the anxious uncertainty in which the Dutch couples found themselves. He gave them permission to take the adopted children home with them.

No evidence

Inspector Sumanadasa has been given until 5 May to gather evidence against Dawn de Silva and the mothers he suspects. If he appears in court empty-handed again, all those involved will be acquitted of further prosecution.
"I have no evidence," Sumanadasa admits, but for the time being he is more concerned about the civil trial in which he is involved. Sumanadasa sighs somberly: "It costs me all my savings, while I have only fulfilled my duty as a police officer." The lawyer Mr. Manilal Fernando is sharply critical of the inspector's performance of duty. The name and address of this lawyer and his colleague Mr. Daya R. Perera are stated on a copied letter that a guard of the adoption center in Wadduma hands to me through a small hatch in the wall around the complex. The heavy gate remains firmly closed. Later, Mr. Fernando will apologize to the owner: it is only on medical advice that she refuses to speak to reporters.

Illegal

"The police only tried to justify the raid on the adoption center afterwards," Mr. Fernando believes. "Inspector Sumanadasa did not even have a search warrant. Without bothering to formulate a charge, he rounded up everyone and took them to the cell. So far, the police have not been able to find anything that violates the Sri Lankan adoption law. On the contrary, the police action was completely illegal. For that reason, Inspector Sumanadasa, who personally led the raid, has been prosecuted. He is believed to have been driven crazy by the Sun newspaper article."
Mr. Perera is convinced that Sumanadasa acted contrary to his instructions and that is why he must pay his own lawyer. The lawyer describes Dawn de Silva's activities as "very sensible." Mr. Perera: "Pending the legal proceedings, this woman is bringing the natural mothers and their babies and the adoptive parents together in a complex." Stories about the trafficking of babies are dismissed as absurd by Mr. Fernando and Mr. Perera. Perera: "Even if a mother were to receive money for giving up her baby, that is not an offence under our law. You can call it immoral, but it is not illegal. I refuse to talk about baby trafficking until the adoption law is changed. Moreover, as a lawyer, I am not interested in the moral aspect of this practice. Only the question of whether it is illegal or not is important."

Even more shocking

Ten days after the sensational raid on Dawn de Silva's adoption centre, the police made "an even more shocking discovery" in the fishing village of Negombo, 30 kilometres north of Colombo. The police surprised 23 children and their carers in a Swedish children's home, which in reality was supposed to be a front for a profitable trade in newborn babies. Behind the scenes, the Swedish nurse Inga Lill-Lundström was supposedly responsible for the fraudulent practices.
Police inspector KDL Dalpatadu suspects the Scandinavian nurse of kidnapping Sri Lankan children. One day before the court rules on Friday 27 March that she is not to blame, the inspector gives his suspicious version of the facts. His people are said to have prevented 23 children from being sold to Swedish couples with the unexpected raid. The inspector reluctantly admits that "we are not able to prove anything".
Only thanks to her willpower did Inga Lill manage to look the world in the eye with a smile when her name was dragged through the mud on the front page of the Sun. She thinks back with horror to the police raid, which followed an anonymous complaint to the Department of Child Welfare. The Swede has been living in Sri Lanka since 1984, where she works as a nurse in the home for disabled children, which was founded by the Maria Aid Association in Negombo.

Happier childhood

"When the home for disabled children was established here, many other, often poor parents and unmarried mothers also came to us for help for their children. That is why we opened a second home, where children stay who return to their parents after a short or long time," says Inga Lill. "Personally, I do not see adoption as an easy and quick solution for unwanted children. In many cases, in my experience, it is possible after much discussion for the parents or other family members to take care of such a child. If that proves impossible and the child is waiting for a future in a shelter, I am convinced that it will have a happier childhood in an adoptive family."
According to the nurse, 20 to 25 children are adopted by Swedish couples each year through the mediation of a government-controlled organization. Inga Lill: "Three of the 23 children who were staying in the home during the police raid were intended for adoption. They have now been taken to Sweden by their adoptive parents with the permission of the judge."

Mediators

The Swedish nurse's lawyer, Mr. Nimal Senanayake, has the impression that a handful of lawyers and a few dozen Sri Lankan mediators earn quite a lot of money from adoptions. Mr. Senanayake: "They know the ways to make an adoption go smoothly. They know how much bribe money has to be paid to the officials involved, because if you don't pay you will face long delays. That's what happens in this country. The European adoptive parents probably like to pay for services."
Mr. Senanayake, who was president of the Sri Lanka Bar Association until the end of March, suspects that a commission of inquiry set up by the Minister of Justice will press for the removal of commercial intermediaries from adoption channels. "But it would be much better if Sri Lankans themselves would take care of our unwanted children and protest less loudly against adoptions by foreign couples."

The second article on the adoption of children from Sri Lanka, which will appear on Tuesday, will highlight the role of the intermediaries on the island and their earnings.