New legislation guarantees adopted people the right to obtain their birth certificates

Joan McDermott, who grew up in Mitchelstown, Co Cork, fought for 16 years to track down her firstborn son, to whom she had given birth at the Bessborough mother and baby home in Cork when she was just 17.

The two finally met in 2015 when he was 47 years old.

“I will never forget it. Within an hour of meeting him he said: ‘How old am I really?’” McDermott, who now lives in Midleton, told The Irish Times.

Expressing “elation” at the legislation to guarantee adopted people the right to their birth certificates, she said her son had told her that he had spent a decade unsuccessfully trying to track her down.

A woman in Japan is giving up her baby and suing her sperm donor after discovering he lied about his ethnicity and educational background.

The woman, identified as a married 30-year-old from Tokyo, has sued the sperm donor after finding out he was Chinese, not Japanese. She has asked for 330 million yen ($2.86 million) in compensation for emotional distress, VICE reported.

The woman has also alleged that the man lied about his education and had not graduated from Kyoto University, and was married, not single as he claimed, according to Tokyo Shimbun.

The woman had decided to seek out a sperm donor after finding out that her husband carried a hereditary disorder that could be passed on to his offspring.

After hooking up with the donor via social media in March 2019, they had sex 10 times before the woman, who was not identified, successfully got pregnant three months later.

A Japanese woman is giving up her child and suing her sperm donor after she learned he lied about his ethnicity and educational background.

The woman, a Tokyo resident in her 30s, shares a child with her husband and was seeking to have a second child. But after learning her partner had a hereditary disease, the woman decided to find a sperm donor on social media. The donor she chose claimed he was Japanese and a graduate from the prestigious Kyoto University, and they had sex 10 times to get pregnant, Japanese newspaper Tokyo Shimbun reported.

But after getting pregnant in June 2019, the woman discovered that the donor was actually Chinese. He also went to a different university and hid the fact he was married. By the time she knew of his true identity, it was too late to abort the baby, and she has since given up the child for adoption. The woman filed a lawsuit against the sperm donor last month for 330 million yen ($2.86 million) for emotional distress.

In Japan, sperm donations are practically unregulated.

The entire country of 126 million has just one commercial sperm bank, which was only founded in June. Artificial insemination by donor—a procedure that involves inserting sperm into a person’s uterus—is limited to married couples, thereby excluding single women and LGBTQ couples. Even for those eligible, a mere 12 hospitals in the entire country conduct such fertility treatment.

'Can you quickly reform a system that has turned out to be rotten for decades,' asks Renate Van Geel on the eve of the hearings on the theme that will be organized in the Flemish parliament this week. 'Why do the adoptees themselves and the parents from the sending countries have so little to say?'

At the beginning of December, the new decision framework for intercountry adoption, intended to strengthen ties with the sending countries, was approved by the Flemish government. This framework can provide a slightly hopeful starting point for the reform of intercountry adoption. Everything will depend on how this policy framework is further specified and implemented. The success of this policy framework can only be measured by its effects at the micro level, namely in the opportunities it brings for children and their families in the sending countries, in respecting their rights and whether they perceive this reform as an added value. Something to which intercountry adoption has contributed nothing in the past 60 years.

Hearing days are still scheduled for January in the Committee on Welfare, Public Health and Family. So-called stakeholders (and stakeholders?) can share their experience and vision with the committee members. Each group could invite those involved to do so. Although we have read and heard rumbling statements in recent months about the interest of the child and the interest of the adoptee, I note that there are exactly two adoptees who are given speaking space. Adoption services, adoptive parents and candidate adopters do get, as is 'good' custom, a podium in the form of several people to defend their 'interests'. They even looked across the border to give a Dutch adoptive mother the floor.

Intercountry adoption reform: when will the government dare to look into its own pockets?

It would be interesting to ask the young respondents from that study again about their experience in 10 to 20 years' time. What irks me even more, if anything, is the fact that no parent (originally) has even been nominated and there is therefore no one to represent them in an important political forum where input is given on the future of intercountry adoption in Flanders.

The Kerala High Court has recently laid down that the Family Court with the respective territorial jurisdiction is empowered to give a child in adoption

After perusing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the 2014 Rules framed

thereunder and the Adoption Regulations 2017, Justice M.R. Anitha observed:

"In the said circumstance, the finding of the learned District Judge that the court

is not a proper forum and they have to approach the Child Welfare Committee is

A couple have received an apology and a "very significant" financial payout from a council over a failed adoption.

Sonny and Sarita Simak spent three years fighting to be reunited with a boy they planned to adopt after he was wrongly removed by Bradford Council.

They were approved by an independent expert and two adoption panels - but the council then told them he wasn't suitable for adoption.

The council said it put the "interests and wellbeing" of children at its core.

The young boy was a toddler when he was first placed with the Simaks. He is now going to school and is likely to now stay in long-term foster care.

FAYETTEVILLE -- The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed the sentencing of an adoption attorney who ran a human trafficking ring in which he paid pregnant women from the Marshall Islands to come to the United States and give up their babies.

Paul Petersen, of Mesa, Ariz., received a prison sentence of six years and two months from U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks in December 2020. Brooks also levied a $100,000 fine on Petersen.

Petersen appealed both the sentence and the fine, arguing Brooks shouldn't have gone above the sentencing guideline ranges. A three-judge panel said both the sentence and fine were reasonable.

Brooks found the guidelines "failed to adequately account for Petersen's role as an attorney and public official, his role as a leader and organizer of the offense, and the duration of his crime," according to the opinion. "The district court did not commit a clear error of judgment."

Peterson was federally indicted in October 2019, accused of running the baby-selling operation in three states: Arkansas, Arizona and Utah.

Under-fire social services being probed over Star Hobson's murder pay out five-figure settlement over botched adoption that left boy with a 'family waiting for him' in long-term foster care

Caring parents Sonny and Sarita Simak spent three years fighting for the boy

They were told he could go back to them but then Bradford Council made U-turn

The Simaks took legal action and the council settled with them a five-figure sum

The council that missed numerous chances to stop tiny Star Hobson being murdered by her evil 'stepmother' have been ordered to make a 'very significant' payout to a couple they wrongly deprived of their child.

LGBTQ+ activists in the country called on the government to extend adoption equality to all same-sex couples

TAIPEI – Weeks after a historic ruling in Taiwan allowing a married gay man to adopt the non-biological child of his husband, LGBTQ+ activists in the country called on the government to extend adoption equality to all same-sex couples.

The family court’s historic Dec. 25 ruling, made public last week, found that it was in the best interest of Wang Chen-wei’s (???) adopted child, nicknamed “Joujou,” for his husband Chen Chun-ju (???) to become a legal guardian, as well.

It marked the first time in Taiwan that a same-sex couple has been allowed to adopt a child that didn’t have a biological relationship with either person.

The couple fought for Chen to be able to adopt Joujou for over two years.

Jaipur: Even as the international adoption increased steadily from 2019 to 2021, the overall adoption of children from government Shishu Grah in city went down marginally in the same period.

While in 2019, only one child was adopted by international citizens, in 2021, total eight children were adopted by foreigners. Officials claimed that international citizens were open to the idea of adopting special children while Indians were not. In 2019, a total of 27 children were adopted which came down to 24 in 2020. Out of which four were international adoptions, while in 2021, 20 children were adopted.

Panwar Kiran, superintendent, Gandhinagar Shishu Grah, elaborating on this trend, said, “The number of international adoptions did go up in the past two years as people from abroad are keen to adopt even special children. This might be because the medical facilities abroad are possibly better and more importantly the international governments bear their medical expenses so it makes it somewhat easier.”

The adoptions are processed through Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) which is a statutory body of Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India. It functions as the nodal body for adoption of Indian children and is mandated to monitor and regulate in-country and inter-country adoptions. CARA is designated as the Central authority to deal with inter-country adoptions in accordance with the provisions of the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption, 1993, ratified by Government of India in 2003. CARA primarily deals with adoption of orphan, abandoned and surrendered children through its associated /recognised adoption agencies.

Most of the adoptions were of girl children which included both domestic and international adoptions. In the latter, people from countries like Spain, Canada and others adopted children from India.