The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has granted bail to a couple accused of illegal adoption of a child sold to them by Idhayam Trust director G.R. Sivakumar.

Justice B. Pugalendhi granted bail to the couple with conditions. The court took into account the fact that the couple were childless and had applied for adoption through various modes. They believed that the adoption was legal.

The key accused in the case were Sivakumar and his associate Madarsha. A woman who was unable to maintain her children had handed them over to the home run by the trust. Sivakumar claimed that one infant died of COVID-19 and then sold that infant.

He said the infant was infected with COVID-19 and said he was taking it for treatment to the hospital. Later, he told the woman that her baby died and the final rites were performed as per COVID-19 protocol.

Suspecting the activities of Sivakumar, the woman lodged a complaint. It was found out that the infant was sold to a childless couple. During the investigation it was brought to light that another infant was sold to another couple.

A series of hearings with specialists is being carried out by the Constitution, Legislation, Justice and Regulation Commission , within the framework of the general study of the project that proposes a complete reform of the adoption system in Chile.

The initiative is in its second process in the Senate and the instance agreed to know the opinions of lawyers, law professors, psychologists, foundations and social organizations linked to the issue, before voting on the initiative in general.

Along these lines, he has already heard the representatives of MOVILH and Fundación Iguales, who have expressed themselves in favor of homoparental adoption ( See related note ).

He also heard the opinions of the representatives of the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef); from the Pro Acogida Foundation; of the Chilean Association of Foster Families and of the Childhood Commission of the College of Psychologists ( Check the session here ).

During the last day, the academics Rommy Álvarez Escudero, from the Universidad Católica de Valparaíso; Leonor Etcheberry, from the Diego Portales University, and Irene Salvo; the representative of the Pro Bono Foundation, Constanza Alvial, and the lawyer and former director of Sename, Francisco Estrada.

Following several complaints that non-tribals had been illegally obtaining ST certificates by means of adoption, the Arunachal government has issued a notification addressing the same.

The notification addresses concerns in the Upper Siang district. Authorities fear unrest among the indigenous communities of the state in future, if such cases of illegal adoption of Non-APST persons do not stop soon.

“Some local people are illegally obtaining Birth Certificate for their Non-APST siblings by may of Adoption or by simply claiming to be their natural father. Once fathers’ name is entered in the Birth Certificate it becomes legal for that Non APST person to obtain ST/PRC which is highly detrimental for the very existence of our tribal society in the coming days,” read the official notification, dated August 20, 2021.

“Any village Head or person found to be involved in such an act will have to step down from his/her posts and strict action will be initiated as per appropriate provisions of law,” the order warned, further appealing to the Village heads to refrain from indulging in such unlawful practices. As per the authorities, many non-tribals appear before the office of the issuing authorities, applying for ST/PRC with the support of some local people.

The government on Monday introduced a new clause in the adoption regulations, according to which when parents with their adopted child move abroad within two years of adoption have to intimate Indian diplomatic missions of their departure and arrival at least two weeks in advance.

This information has to be given through a written communication by parents, who have to also give full contact details, according to a gazette notification of the Women and Child Development Ministry.

The notification said it shall be the responsibility of the Indian Mission of the country to which the child has moved to perform all the assigned duties under the Adoption Regulations, 2017, in respect to the adopted child.

Under the Adoption (First Amendment) Regulations, 2021, it said that ‘the amendment has been notified in accordance with the relevant sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016)’.

Earlier, there was no such provision of such intimation under the regulations.

Indian diplomatic missions abroad will now be in charge of safeguarding adopted children whose parents move overseas with the child within two years of adoption. The Centre on August 23 has notified new rules in this regard. So far, the Indian missions abroad had a role in inter-country adoption of Indian children limited to children adopted by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) or foreign parents.

The Missions had a duty to ensure protection against neglect, maltreatment, exploitation or abuse of these children. But a grey area got left out in case of Indian children adopted by parents in India, but who ended up moving abroad later, hence going out of the purview of Indian authorities and also not falling under purview of Indian Missions abroad. Some such cases came to the attention of the authorities recently.

The Centre has now notified new regulations, the Adoption (First Amendment) Regulations, 2021, which come into force immediately. Under the new rules, it has been specified that if the adoptive parents move with the child to some other country within two years of adoption, it shall be the responsibility of the Indian Mission of the country to which the child has moved, to perform all the assigned duties under the Adoption Regulations, 2017 in respect of the adopted child.

Not just this, the adoptive parents will also have to intimate the Indian diplomatic missions concerned in the country of departure and arrival, at least two weeks in advance through a written communication with their full contact details at the new place and thereafter, as per the new rules.

The new amendments have been made by the Central Adoption Resource Authority and have been notified on August 23 by the Woman and Child Development Ministry.

Delhi High Court - Orders

World View Adoption Association vs Sh Indevar Pandey & Anr on 23 August, 2021

$~22 (1)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CONT.CAS(C) 571/2021

A 1978 law tried to remedy adoption practices created to forcibly assimilate Native children. Now conservative lawyers are arguing that the law constitutes ‘reverse racism’

Members of the Mosakahiken Cree Nation hug in front of a makeshift memorial at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School to honor the 215 children whose remains have been discovered buried near the facility, in British Columbia.

Members of the Mosakahiken Cree Nation hug in front of a makeshift memorial at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School to honor the 215 children whose remains have been discovered buried near the facility, in British Columbia. Photograph: Cole Burston/AFP/Getty Images

Mon 23 Aug 2021 11.23 BST

George Armstrong Custer of the Seventh Cavalry was infamous during the 19th-century Indian wars for riding into the enemy camp, holding Native women, children and elders hostage at gunpoint, and forcing the surrender of the tribe. He systematically attacked and captured civilians to crush Indigenous resistance, which is partly how he defeated the Cheyenne at the Battle of Washita River in 1868. Cheyenne, Lakota and Arapaho warriors later killed Custer as he fled after trying the same hostage-taking ploy at the Battle of Greasy Grass in 1876.

Beneficial, benevolent and progressive as the amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act may seem to be, they are myopic and do not seem to be in tandem with parallel family law legislations

Both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have approved the 2021 amendments to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), which allows district magistrates to issue adoption orders instead of civil courts. Amending provisions of the JJ Act to recognise executive magistrates as a competent authority authorised to issue adoption orders will allow speedier adoption of children.

Beneficial, benevolent and progressive as the proposals may be, they are myopic and do not seem to be in tandem with parallel family law legislations. The cited reasonings — delay in civil courts and adoption processes being non-contested litigations — ignore the “interest and welfare of child” principle. The purpose defeats the ends. Further, it may create statutory conflicts with contradictory and inconsistent interpretations in issues relating to marriage, adoption and guardianship. The wholesome solution then may be to not amend the act or incorporate similar amendments in other existing laws.

Adoption of children under the JJ Act, which is outside the scope of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), is guided by Sections 56 and 57 of the JJ Act, wherein irrespective of religion, orphan, abandoned and surrendered children can be made wards of single or divorced persons as per procedure laid down under the Adoption Regulations, 2017. The process entails a robust and protective mechanism routed through the Central Adoption Resource Authority (Cara). Ultimately, under the JJ Act, all Cara approved adoptions require an adoption order from a court, which under the JJ Act “means a civil court, which has jurisdiction in matters of adoption and guardianship, and may include the district court, family court and city civil courts.” Section 61 of the JJ Act mandates that before issuing an adoption order approved by Cara, the court shall satisfy that the adoption is for the welfare of the child, as per the wishes of the child and without consideration, payment or reward for the adoption.

Interpretation of “court”

This is the 12th article in an adoption series. So far, this series has covered the right to origin of adoptees from Korea. The second phase of the series will discuss the historical development of the politics surrounding inter-country adoption with an aim to move beyond those sad stories of the past often depicted in the media. Instead, the next set of articles will illustrate how the system of inter-country adoption that led to such stories remains to this day and continues to govern the politics of adoption.

By Lee Kyung-eun

History is the sum of the choices that we, as a nation, have made thus far.

This graph shows the number of children who were born in this country but left shortly after birth (more than 90 percent were under the age of one) to become the sons and daughters of families in Western countries. Each dot on the graph represents human beings cast out of the protection of this nation.

While more than 80 countries throughout the world have sent their children overseas for adoption, Korea's experience remains noteworthy. It began as the birthplace of inter-country "orphan" adoption in 1953 and has persisted in engaging in the practice. This nearly seven-decade-long history of exporting children is not found anywhere else in the world and has led people both inside and outside the country to ask, "Why can't this country stop this practice despite its economic achievements and progress?"

Guys they are, but nice guys. They want to crown their years of love with a child, a baby of their own. But how do you get a baby as a gay couple? Adoption is the only option.

Because they absolutely want a baby of their own, an older child is not adopted and they have to look for a surrogate mother. He will, inseminated with the semen of one of the two, give birth to a child and give it to them after birth. The search for a suitable surrogate mother begins.

Co-aging with your best friend. Sounds like a dream scenario, it is, but actor Rick Paul van Mulligen (38) and his husband René (33), fathers of two children, sometimes run into the law as a modern family. Read it on Kek Mama .

They do not like a Dutch surrogate mother. Friends of those who have chosen this path had to deal with a surrogate mother after the birth of their child, who started to act very difficult. A surrogate mother from an Asian country is also not an option. It is true that you can find one relatively cheaply and easily in countries such as Thailand or Vietnam, but the young and poor women who act as surrogate mothers are often exploited. They don't want to cooperate.

On their quest they end up in the United States. There, surrogacy is well regulated by law and, as far as is known, there is no exploitation of women. A surrogacy followed by an adoption will be very expensive in the US, but because both men have a good salary, they can afford it.