A case of child trafficking has been reported from H.D. Kote taluk, Mysuru, in which a seven-month-old baby was allegedly purchased from its parents.

The parents of the child belong to the nomadic Hakki Pikki community who are settled in Bengaluru. The child was sold to a couple in H.D. Kote, whom they got to know during an online sale of herbal and traditional medicines.

E. Dhananjaya of the Child Welfare Committee in Mysuru said the incident came to light when the parents of the child approached the police in H.D. Kote seeking custody of the baby. However, the couple refused to give custody on the grounds that they had “purchased” the baby for ?1.5 lakh.

The issue came to the notice of CWC in Mysuru who informed the police that it was a clear case of child trafficking and an FIR should be registered. The CWC has taken custody of the child, who has been transferred to an adoption centre in Mandya district.

Mr. Dhananjaya said the biological parents who sold the child and the couple who “purchased” it are guilty under the law and legal action will be initiated against them. H.D. Kote police has registered a case and are investigating.

On 9 June, a debate on adoption was held in the House of Representatives with outgoing Minister of Legal Protection Dekker. During this debate, the report of the Joustra Committee, the temporary ban on intercountry adoption and the minister's exploration into an alternative public law system and stronger international supervision were discussed.

Room divided over adoption stop

The House appreciates that the Joustra report has been published and believes that Minister Dekker's apologies on behalf of the Dutch government are appropriate, because the conclusions are painful and confrontational. Opinions are divided about the temporary shutdown.

Intercountry adoption subject to conditions

Lisa van Ginneken (D'66) believes that intercountry adoption under the right guarantees can be a solution to help a child and wants to reopen the procedure for consent in principle. Ulysse Ellian (VVD) states that intercountry adoption could come from a select group of countries. Barbara Kathmann (PvdA) wants to lift the adoption freeze and offer customization. She calls for a reconsideration of the financial support for searches of adoptees. Roelof Bisschop (SGP) asks for an exception for the adoption of brothers or sisters of a child that has already been adopted. Can these parents still get a permission in principle?

Treating the most vulnerable young people as a money-making opportunity is wrong. The care review must lead to change

It is impossible, even for an appointee regarded by critics as too close to government and with overly restricted terms of reference, to look at children’s homes without being appalled by what is going on. That is the conclusion to be drawn from remarks this week by Josh MacAlister, who is several months into a long-awaited review of children’s social care. He warned that the sector is broken and that operators must cut “indefensible” levels of profit and improve young people’s experiences.

Recent years have seen numerous reports and complaints by official bodies about a dysfunctional system, in which councils on the verge of bankruptcy pay ever increasing prices (up 40% since 2013, to about £200,000 a year per child) while profits soar. The top 20 private providers are making £250m profit annually from the provision of children’s residential care in England, Wales and Scotland and the delivery of fostering services.

Opaque ownership structures make the money hard to track. Research earlier this year found some providers recording profits of more than 20% of income, while four of the seven largest provider groups had debt and liability levels that exceeded their assets, leading to concerns about future stability. Private operators now control around three-quarters of all children’s home places in England and Wales. Councils frequently have no other option than to pay whatever they ask.

Even if the children in these homes were thriving, excess profits would be a problem, particularly given the dire state of local government finances. But far worse than the waste of financial resources is the attitude to human lives and relationships that goes with it. While most children’s homes, along with most private fostering agencies, get a good or outstanding rating, Ofsted – which oversees them – believes that the current regulatory regime is unfit for purpose, casting doubt on these reports’ reliability. On its own, the fact that 60% of children are moved out of their local area when placed in a home, with all the disruption to social life and education that this entails, shows that something has gone terribly wrong.

ASSIGNMENT REVIEW · Rumors of stolen children. An investigation into crimes against humanity. The story of the stolen adopted children from Chile spans several decades and affects hundreds of divided families. Assignment review is now publishing a new series about what happened when the children were taken to Sweden.

The rumor

There have long been suspicions and rumors that children were stolen from Chile in the 1970s and 80s. In the early 2000s, Chilean journalism student Ana Maria Olivares decides to investigate the rumor and travels around the country to meet mothers who testify that their children disappeared during the dictatorship. In 2003, she publishes her essay in which she describes a network of people who in various ways have taken children from their mothers and then taken the children out of Chile - and that it is not about individual cases, but a pattern.

• New revelations

In 2018, SVT will, together with Chilean journalists, present new revelations about how adopted children in the 1970s and 80s may have been taken without the consent of mothers. Networks of adoptees are created and several Chilean parents get in touch with children whom they say have long believed to be dead or missing. Demands for a Swedish, state investigation are beginning to be made.

The possibility for adoptive parents to have their child's parentage data removed from the Basic Registration Persons (BRP) must be ended.

That is what the Christian Union thinks. The party will therefore submit a proposal on Wednesday to remove this possibility from the law.

PEDIGREE DATA

The adoptive parents can still choose, if their adopted child is younger than 16, to delete, for example, the name of one or both biological parents or the nationality of the child. According to the ChristenUnie, if this happens, an extra threshold will be raised for adoptees who (at a later age) want to know where they come from.

In addition, this authority for the parents is at odds with the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the party states.

The possibility for adoptive parents to have their child's parentage data removed from the Basic Registration Persons (BRP) must be ended. That is the view of the Christian Union (CU). The party will submit a proposal on Wednesday to remove this possibility from the law.

The adoptive parents can still choose, if their adopted child is younger than 16, to delete, for example, the name of one or both biological parents or the nationality of the child. According to the ChristenUnie, if this happens, an extra barrier will be raised for adopted children who want to know where they come from.

In addition, this authority for the parents is at odds with the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the party states.

“Everyone has the right to know where he or she comes from,” says ChristenUnie MP Don Ceder. “When an adopted child embarks on that quest, there should be no unnecessary obstacles. The interests of the (adopted) child must be paramount during this process.”

The House of Representatives will debate the BRP on Thursday. The CU's proposal is also discussed.

see attachment

On Tuesday, Jaap Jonkers from Joure presented a petition to the permanent parliamentary committee for Justice and Security, for the preservation of international adoptions. The signatories do not agree with the decision of outgoing minister Sander Dekker to temporarily suspend international adoptions because of previous abuses.

Photo: ANP Photo

With the decision of Minister Dekker, adopted children are victims, say Jonkers and 13,500 other signatories. Jonkers himself was adopted from Bolivia as a little boy.

"The MPs were impressed. It is now up to them to make sure that the minister reconsiders his decision," says Jonkers. "Good questions were asked and compliments given."

Report

.

On May 28, 2021, NCFA met via video conference with several African country adoption authority representatives to discuss transparent and ethical intercounty adoptions. I am currently a NCFA intern focused on communications and intercountry adoption policy, so I was very grateful to be invited to join the meeting to observe and learn, and to share a little bit about my family’s experience with intercountry adoption from an African country.

Meridian International Center arranged the meeting with representatives from Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Madagascar, Republic of Congo, Senegal, South Africa, Togo, and Zambia. The virtual meeting centered around the emotional, physical, and psychological benefits of family permanency, misconceptions about intercountry adoption, and the foundations for an ethical adoption program.

NCFA’s Director of Strategic Initiatives and Communications, Kristen Hamilton, began by reviewing the trends in intercountry adoption and why a strong adoption program is vital. Unfortunately, in recent years, intercountry adoption has significantly declined worldwide, while millions of children remain vulnerable or institutionalized globally. Adoption provides children and youth with the opportunity to achieve family permanency so that they can become healthy, thriving members of society.

NCFA President Chuck Johnson provided an overview of the Child Welfare Continuum, explaining that the continuum of care for a child does not begin with intercountry adoption. Ideally, the child could be reunified with a birthparent or a biological family member. If neither of those options are available, domestic adoption becomes an option. Finally, a child can be adopted by a family outside their country of birth. This range of care works best when there is common recognition that family permanency is always in the child’s best interest and should be the driving goal for all decisions.

Research has consistently shown myriad detrimental effects on children, who live in institutions and group care, including negatives impacts on their physical growth, emotional developments, and language acquisition. Inadequate caregiver attention delays or weakens children’s behavioral and social competencies. While group homes and orphanages can supply a child’s basic needs, they lack the resources to provide the type of nurture and attachment that only a permanency family unit can provide. Even with the best intentions, the majority of children living outside permanent, parental care experience a cycle of neglect and impaired development. Conversely, a permanent family, properly trained and supported, allows children the stability and care to thrive and grow.