SEOUL, Dec. 23 (Yonhap) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that grandparents can legally adopt their own grandchild, even though the child's biological parent is alive, when the arrangement is in the interest of the child's welfare.

The top court ruled in favor grandparents who filed an appeal to adopt their own grandchildren, and transferred the case to a district court in Ulsan, 415 kilometers southeast of Seoul, for a retrial.

The decision was the first Supreme Court ruling which allowed grandparents to adopt their grandchild even if the child has living parents, given that qualifications are met and the arrangement is in the interest of the child's welfare.

The suit was filed after the grandparents wished to adopt their daughter's son. The baby was born while the daughter was still in high school, and was left with the grandparents for upbringing.

The grandson has lived believing that the grandparents are his biological parents. His actual parents divorced while he was an infant.

An article from CQ Almanac 2000

Document Outline

Senate Committee Approves Treaty On Adoption

House Passes Bill To Implement Adoption Treaty

Senate Passes Bill; Quick Conference Expected

Thiruvananthapuram: A mother who left her girl child at the ‘ammathottil’, the electronic

cradle Kerala State Council for Child Welfare (KSCCW) in which a child could be placed

anonymously, retrieved the baby after seeing an advertisement regarding the adoption

mother approached the committee after recognising her child through the advertisements.

She revealed to the officials that she was compelled to abandon her child after her partner

November was adoption awareness month. The month is dedicated to celebrate families that have adopted children because they give the children emotional, social, legal, and kinship benefits of biological children. Adoptive families provide children an opportunity to be raised in a loving and stable home. Adoption enables caregivers to become parents or to grow their families by adding a child to their family as they give the child a home.

All positive conversations adults have with adopted children make a huge impact in their lives. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises a child’s right to family life and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents or, where applicable, by members of the extended family or community.

The 2019 UN General Assembly resolution on the rights of the child recognised and prioritised the role of the family as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and wellbeing of all its members, particularly children. Families have the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children. In order for a child to achieve their full potential, he or she should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.

Sadly, 7.5 million children all over the world live in charitable children’s institutions, commonly known as children’s homes or orphanages, yet 80 per cent to 90 per cent of these children have a living parent or known relatives. In Kenya, an estimated 45,000 children live in charitable children’s institutions for various reasons such as the loss of a parent or primary caregiver, poverty at home, sickness and disability, violence, abuse, and neglect.

Some communities perceive life in a children’s home as “good” because the children have better meals, housing, and opportunities for schooling. Yet families play a critical role in a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development that a children’s institution cannot give. The government through the National Council of Children’s Services is spearheading care reforms to promote the best interest of the child to ensure that children are cared for in families and communities.

The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has informed the Delhi High Court that

it shall consider permitting advocates to appear as 'authorized representatives' to

coordinate and facilitate various formalities that are required to be undertaken in the

process of inter-country adoptions.

It also said that if virtual meetings are required by either biological or adoptive parents,

The Committee for Welfare, Public Health and Family of the Flemish Parliament is once again organizing hearings on intercountry adoption. This time, the final report of the expert panel on intercountry adoption gave the starting signal. This final report examines whether and how malpractice in intercountry adoption can be prevented. The panel of experts gave twenty recommendations to fundamentally reform intercountry adoption and accommodate victims of malpractice.

The Children's Rights Commissioner participated in the expert panel. We endorse all recommendations of the final report. Nevertheless, with our advice we will go deeper into some recommendations that touch on children's rights or complaints and reports that came to us:

States that allow or recognize adoption must ensure that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration. But simply referring to the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in adoption is not enough. It is especially relevant to describe and assess that importance in terms of content. What is in the best interests of the child cannot be determined or described in advance and can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the situation, the personal context, one's own needs and requirements. There are various sources of inspiration to fulfill that interest of the child.

The principle of subsidiarity makes intercountry adoption the exception rather than the rule. From a children's rights perspective, adoption only comes into play when all other appropriate care options in the country of origin have been exhausted. Although it is not clear from a legal point of view what exactly appropriate internal solutions are and how subsidiary intercountry adoption is compared to other care solutions, no generally unanimous answer is needed here. Every situation is different. In the interest of each child, the different care solutions must be weighed up against each other.

Informed consent from children from 12 years and from the first parents is required. The Children's Rights Commissioner finds the age limit of 12 years to give permission arbitrary. By analogy with the decree on the legal position of minors in Integrated Youth Care, we argue for a presumption of competence from the age of 12, but with the option of deviating if the minor who is younger is indeed sufficiently mature and competent to make certain decisions. to take. Whether the law in the country of origin expressly requires the consent of the first parents must be decisive in deciding whether or not to cooperate with a country of origin.

The Committee for Welfare, Public Health and Family of the Flemish Parliament is once again organizing hearings on intercountry adoption. This time, the final report of the expert panel on intercountry adoption gave the starting signal. This final report examines whether and how malpractice in intercountry adoption can be prevented. The panel of experts gave twenty recommendations to fundamentally reform intercountry adoption and accommodate victims of malpractice.

The Children's Rights Commissioner participated in the expert panel. We endorse all recommendations of the final report. Nevertheless, with our advice we will go deeper into some recommendations that touch on children's rights or complaints and reports that came to us:

States that allow or recognize adoption must ensure that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration. But simply referring to the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in adoption is not enough. It is especially relevant to describe and assess that importance in terms of content. What is in the best interests of the child cannot be determined or described in advance and can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the situation, the personal context, one's own needs and requirements. There are various sources of inspiration to fulfill that interest of the child.

The principle of subsidiarity makes intercountry adoption the exception rather than the rule. From a children's rights perspective, adoption only comes into play when all other appropriate care options in the country of origin have been exhausted. Although it is not clear from a legal point of view what exactly appropriate internal solutions are and how subsidiary intercountry adoption is compared to other care solutions, no generally unanimous answer is needed here. Every situation is different. In the interest of each child, the different care solutions must be weighed up against each other.

Informed consent from children from 12 years and from the first parents is required. The Children's Rights Commissioner finds the age limit of 12 years to give permission arbitrary. By analogy with the decree on the legal position of minors in Integrated Youth Care, we argue for a presumption of competence from the age of 12, but with the option of deviating if the minor who is younger is indeed sufficiently mature and competent to make certain decisions. to take. Whether the law in the country of origin expressly requires the consent of the first parents must be decisive in deciding whether or not to cooperate with a country of origin.

Mariela Sr Coline Fanon

Author - Book "Mom, I am not dead" Kennes Editions

1w

The Lost Roots Foundation - Raíces Perdidas submitted its request to

Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) to become an Observer. This will be accepted or refused after the vote of the signatory states of the #LaHaye convention

Hartini van Rijssel and MayaSari van Rijswijk, both adopted, searched in vain for relatives in Indonesia. After forty years, the two half-sisters find each other in the Netherlands. “A Christmas miracle.”

Hartini (40) cannot believe her eyes at the beginning of this month when she reads the results of the DNA test. After years of searching, she has a close family match. What? With her? I've known her for a long time, but I never expected this.

There was one woman who thought she was my mother, but a DNA test showed that we are not related at all.

Hartini of Lille

Alone on the world

A French forty-year-old from Fréjus (Var) was sentenced by the Draguignan prosecutor's office to 10 months suspended imprisonment on Thursday, December 17 for neglect of a minor. She had abandoned an orphan child after adopting him in the Congo.

A Frenchwoman was given a 10-month suspended prison sentence for neglecting a minor by the Draguignan prosecutor's office. According to Var Matin , this forty-year-old from Fréjus (Var) had abandoned a child she had just adopted in the Congo.

After launching the process in 2015, Ingrid L. obtained the full adoption of Michel in 2017, taken in at only 8 months by an orphanage. He obtained French nationality in 2017. However, after meeting him in 2018, the Frenchwoman abandoned him in Brazzaville (Republic of Congo). The child, now 8 years old, was then found on the steps of a church.

"During the week I spent with him, he was unmanageable. He had to be watched constantly. All the time, every minute. I felt that he would finally be better at the orphanage than with me" , tried to justify herself Ingrid L. Arguments which did not convince the correctional court of Draguignan which also pronounced with regard to this social worker in an educational action service in an open environment, a ban on exercising a professional activity in contact with minors, thus depriving her of her job. La Fréjusienne also said that she did not realize that the adoption procedure she had launched was final.

“He experienced a trauma”