Zineb Khemissi is an Algerian final year PhD researcher at Portsmouth University, School of Area Studies, History, Politics, and Literature. Funded by the Algerian Embassy in London, her research explores the experience of Korean American adoptees’ identity formation processes within the realm of third space theories. She is interested in history, psychology, literature, and international relations.

Transnational and transracial adoptions are an ongoing phenomenon that have not received enough interest from within academia. The marketisation of children from poor to rich countries might not be of importance to all, or it might be another reality ‘hidden in plain sight,’ one in which hundreds of thousands of ‘unwanted’ mixed-race children and ‘war orphans’ are de-rooted, displaced, and transplanted into majority ‘White’ backgrounds. Transnational adoption (TNA) is the inclusion of nationally different children within white households (Barn, 2013). Transracial adoption (TRA) refers to adoptees’ different racial and ethnic backgrounds, foregrounding their race as the main concern in the processes of integration and self-identification.

Saving Children by Selling Them

A global market of adoption was established in the aftermath of the Korean War (1950-1953), to ‘save war orphans’ and ‘pitiful victims’ of that tragedy. Such rhetoric emanated from the American discourse of rescue and was emphasized by the media as a solid justification for child displacement. The US is the leading receiving country, while South Korea has the longest programme for international child adoption, spanning over sixty years (McKee, 2016). One reason for the dominance of the US in international child adoption has been the sense of duty of the ‘Christian Americanists’ (Oh, 2015), i.e. a dogma of religious beliefs used during the post-Cold War period as a political justification to obtain the transnational community’s consent for international adoption.

The constant flow of adopted children from poor to rich countries is a lucrative source of revenue that benefits the institutions and organizations that grant child transfers. ‘The Transnational Adoption Industrial Complex’ (TAIC) (McKee, 2016) goes beyond the valuation of human beings, dehumanising children through commodification under the call of capitalist gain. For example, child trafficking offered a source of revenue for the South Korean government; it brought in an estimated sum of US $15–$20 million in annual income (Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2008, cited by McKee, 2016). This commodification is both dehumanising and victimising children.

It starts today

Identity, family history: this DNA test that changed everything!

France 2

magazines

58 mins

It might seem lucky that Cristian Johnston met his wife while on a trip to Peru, although that’s not quite the beginning or the end of the story.

This fairytale of sorts begins with Cristian growing up in an orphanage in Peru and then being adopted by Kathy Houlihan and her husband, Daniel Johnston, a couple from Corfu. It was when Cristian, 26, went back to visit that same orphanage that he first reconnected with the house mother who cared for him as a baby.

And then he met her daughter, Rosita. They fell in love and got married, and now have a son, Iker. The story unfolds into a full circle, as Cristian decided to give back to his roots by helping out financially and through hands-on labor.

Consider it luck or fate or happenstance, he has immense gratitude for what he’s been given by his adopted parents and his life ever since.

“It’s a night and day difference. It’s quite a privilege to see my life — I had two very different possibilities,” Cristian said during an interview with The Batavian. “It’s very eye-opening from where I stand.”

Hindu and Christian personal law treat adopted child on a par with natural-born ones

Under Hindu law, an adopted son or daughter is treated exactly the same as a natural-born child

The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that adopted children have the same rights as biological children and can’t be discriminated against when they apply for their deceased parent’s job on compassionate grounds. The court, in the case of Girish, s/o Vinayan K Muttatti Vs State of Karnataka & others, said that the state government must give a compassionate appointment to the adopted son.

.

The first in a series of programs on searching, with a focus on search angels, birth searches, and the difference between domestic and intercountry adoptees in finding their own truths.

Join Lynelle Long of Intercountry Adoptee Voices (ICAV) and Annette O’Connell of Adoptees United for an introduction to search, not only for US-born adoptees but also for intercountry adoptees. We’ll discuss as many questions that you have, plus a few that we have already:

What should I know about the process even if I wanted to search?

What are the differences between a domestic (US-based) search and one involving a specific country and intercountry adoption?

What’s a Search Angel and how do I find one? What do they charge, or aren’t they supposed to be free?

Mysuru: In a fresh development Mysuru-based NGO Odanadi has alleged that the Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra (SJM) Mutt authorities offered Rs 3 crore to it to hush up the two POCSO cases filed against erstwhile pontiff Shivamurthy Sharana.

The allegation gained significance as the four minor victims who filed POCSO case against seer in Mysuru after authorities and police in Chitradurga refused to book case against seer. The Odanadi gave shelter to victims and assisted to file first FIR against seer under POCSO in Nazarbad police station on August 27 .

The Odanadi also provided assistance to file second FIR against Shivamurthy Sharana on October 13 at Nazarbad police. Later both cases were transferred to Chitradurga rural police station. The police submitted 694-page chargesheet against the prime accused Shivamurthy Sharana , hostel warden Rashmi and mutt manager Paramashivaiah in first FIR .The investigation in to second POCSO case is underway. The NGO Odanadi which has been striving for welfare of victims and child trafficking was also booked by Chitradurga police 15 days back for hatching conspiracy against SJM mutt which was refuted by Odanadi directors. The Odanadi director K V Stanley told this reporter that it is nothing but a desperate effort by mutt to hush up the case. He said the mutt authorities first attempted to hush up cases by luring victims family members.

The role of CWC and District child protection unit (DCPU) is also suspicious as both did not unearth illegal adoption centre run by mutt since decades. He said the State Child Rights Commission ordered for an enquiry against DCPU and CWC for trying to shield mutt.

In a fresh development the mutt through a politician offered Rs 3 crore to Odanadi to give up the cases. He said Odanadi supported thousands of victims since four decades and would never give up the agitation against offenders.

A combined reading of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2015 as amended by the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 (JJ Act), Juvenile Justice Model Rules 2016 as amended by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Amendment Rules 2022 (JJ Model Rules) and Adoption Regulations 2022 (AR 2022) reveals critical lacunae making the relevant provisions hard to understand and difficult to implement.

Adoptable children hereby refer to orphan, abandoned and surrendered children who have been declared legally free for adoption (LFA) by the Child Welfare Committee as per section 38 of the JJ Act. Orphan, abandoned and surrendered (OAS) children are defined in Sections 2(42), 2(1) and 2(60) of the JJ Act, respectively.

It has been sufficiently established and well recognized in the law that adoption should be the priority for rehabilitation of adoptable children, especially those below 6 years of age. The relevant provisions under Section 44(9) of the JJ Act, Rule 23(3) and Rule 44(1)(i) of the JJ Model Rules, make it clear that placing a child in adoption is the preferred recourse for OAS children, and if that is not possible, foster care is the next suitable alternative for them.

This article highlights inconsistencies and gaps in the foster care related provisions from the perspective of adoptable children, with regards to the following:

A) Absence of a provision for foster care for adoptable children with special needs who do not get a family through adoption

MELISSE (26) WAS ADOPTED FROM CHINA: 'I DIDN'T KNOW THAT ADOPTION WAS A TRAUMA'

BACKGROUND

LINDA.GIRLS

REALLIFE

28.11.2022 | 3:25 PM | KIM HARTRING

November 28, 2022 - The 'Out-of-home placement' guideline has been revised and sent for authorization to professional associations BPSW, NIP and NVO. After all professional associations have authorized the guideline, we will publish the new guideline on this website. This is expected to be mid-January 2023.

Click here if you would like to receive a notification as soon as the revised guideline is online.

Important changes in the revised guideline

• The revised guideline places a greater emphasis on relocation compared to the current guideline. That is why the name of the guideline has been changed to: Out-of-home placement and return guideline.
• The guideline has a clear focus on 'growing up as at home as possible', including in the case of (temporary) out-of-home placement. This is preferably placed in a (network) foster family or a family home. And where parents remain involved in their child's life as much as possible.
• The guideline has a broader approach with regard to preventing out-of-home placement. And this has been expanded with more interventions to prevent out-of-home placement
• Instead of a proposed acceptable period within which decision-making on out-of-home placement or return should take place, the revised guideline offers a new assessment framework for decision-making on out-of-home placement and return.
• The revised guideline pays much more attention to joint decision-making with parent and child in all steps of decision-making. The basic principle is that decisions about out-of-home placement and return are made together with parents and child as much as possible.
• The directive has a major impact on the family and the uncertainty of the outcome of the decision is great.
• In addition, the guideline pays more attention to the use of the informal network and social support in supporting parents and child.

Review in collaboration with the field

Only recently, a proposal for paid paternity leave was approved in the referendum of 27 September 2020 and the resulting law came into force on 1 January 2021. Since then, fathers can take two weeks of paid paternity leave within six months of the birth of their child.

The growing need for care and nursing, the new types of family structures as well as the steadily increasing employment rate among women have also led to a reform in the area of balancing gainful employment and child or family care. Since 1 January 2021 and 1 July 2021, the law has provided an entitlement to paid care leave of up to three days for the necessary care of relatives and up to 14 weeks for the care of children with serious health problems.

The extension of leave for mothers and fathers and the resulting improvement in the compatibility of family and gainful employment have so far not extended to the area of adoption. Although the issue of an adoption allowance had already been the subject of several parliamentary debates, parents who adopted a child had until now had no legal entitlement to leave when the child joined the family.

This will change from 1 January 2023 as both adoptive mothers and fathers will have a statutory right to two weeks’ paid adoption leave.

Gainfully employed persons who adopt a child less than four years old are entitled to the adoption allowance. Adoption leave is a necessary supplement to adoption allowance. In other words, only those who meet the requirements for an adoption allowance are also entitled to adoption leave.