There is a need to change the statute of limitations so that compensation can be paid to adoptees if their human rights have been violated. In addition, the government should set up an independent board that can in future initiate investigations and make decisions about possible compensation for victims.

The Danish state's responsibility in cases of illegal international adoptions should be thoroughly investigated. If the state has violated human rights, the state may be obliged to pay financial compensation. Therefore, the statute of limitations should be changed as soon as possible, so that there is no doubt that the state can pay compensation to the adopted.

This is the assessment of the Institute for Human Rights in a new analysis in the wake of recent media coverage of a large number of cases of illegal international adoptions.

" It is absolutely crucial to find out whether the Danish state has committed human rights violations in the adoption cases in question. In particular, it is important to map out whether the Danish state has violated human rights by failing to protect the right to family life, " says Marya Akhtar, head of legal affairs at the Institute for Human Rights.

According to international conventions, Denmark is obliged to ensure that adoptions take place in the best interest of the child and with respect for fundamental rights, including the right to family life.

From 1991 to 2005, 120,000 Chinese children were adopted to Western parents. Now all grown up, many question the decisions that shaped their lives.

This article originally appeared on VICE Netherlands.

In the 90s and early 2000s, China became a hub for international adoptions. After implementing its one-child policy in 1979, families who conceived more than once were forced into unwanted abortions and sterilisations, or to abandon their “over-the-quota” children. This problem was especially prevalent in poorer, rural areas, where serious allegations of child trafficking also emerged over the years.

In the 80s, many abandoned children were informally adopted by Chinese families and kept off official records, with dire repercussions. In 1991, China opened itself up to international adoption – at least in part – to prevent the tradition of informal adoption. Between 1991 and 2005, over 120,000 Chinese babies were adopted by foreign parents. Up to 90 percent of them were girls under the age of two, and over half of them went to U.S. couples.

by Espen Slavensky

The children's room is clear, and she has looked at pictures and videos of the adopted child she was matched with again and again.

Louise Stenstrup shows a picture on the chest of drawers in the decorated but empty children's room

- This is my son, who is waiting in South Africa, she says.

She was happy when she was told in August that there was finally a match. She was to be the adoptive mother of a boy from an orphanage in South Africa.

Miriam, what star sign are you?

No idea.

Why not?

Because I don't know when and where I was born.

Whaaat? Not even the day?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday said that it is important to save the institution of marriage and India cannot go in the direction of Western nations where children being born out of marriage is not uncommon, Times Of India reported. The top court made the observation while denying a 44-year-old single woman to bear a child through surrogacy.

The petitioner, a 44-year-old woman working at a multinational corporation, had approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of one of the sections of India's surrogacy regulation law.

The section that she sought to challenge -- Section 2(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act -- defines an 'intending woman' as "an Indian woman who is a widow or divorcee between the age of 35 years and 45 years'.

Intending woman, here in, is a woman who seeks to have a child through surrogacy, a method by which another woman bears a child for a couple or another woman.

A Delhi court upholds inheritance rights of an adopted son under Muslim Personal Law. The court rules that a Muslim individual who doesn't file a declaration under Section 3 of the Shariat Act has opted out of Muslim Personal Law.

NEW DELHI: In a verdict that may have legal and social ramifications, a Delhi court has upheld the inheritance rights of an adopted son of a deceased man.
Additional district judge Praveen Singh held that a Muslim individual who doesn’t file a declaration under Section 3 of the Shariat Act has in effect opted to stay out of the purview of Muslim Personal Law as far as adoption, wills and legacies are concerned.'

The judge said such a person could adopt a child, who would be a legitimate child of his adoptive parents with all rights, privileges and responsibilities attached to such a relationship.
In the process, the court rejected the dead man’s brothers to a “natural” claim on three-quarters of deceased’s self-acquired property under Muslim law. Instead, the court gave the share to his wife and adopted son in a first-of-its-kind ruling on adoption-related inheritance rights of a Muslim individual since adoption in Islam is not legally recognised.
“It is not that in all cases a Muslim by religion has to be bound by Muslim Personal Law and has no choice to move out of the purview of Muslim Personal Law,” the court ruled on a partition suit filed by Iqbal Ahmed, the brother of the dead man, Zamir Ahmed, seeking a share in his property.

Iqbal argued that in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law, only one-fourth of Zamir’s properties should go to his widow with the rest being distributed among his siblings. Zamir’s three sisters were entitled to 15% share and the remaining 60% to the plaintiff and five brothers of the deceased.
The suit claimed that Zamir died childless on July 3, 2008, and inheritance was governed by Muslim Personal Law. In reality, Zamir and his wife, Gulzaro Begum, had adopted a son, Abdul Samad aka Sameer, without making any declaration of this under the Shariat Act.

Under Muslim law of Inheritance, there are three classes of legal heirs: sharers, residuary and distant kindred. The court noted that of the 12 Quranic sharers, only the widow of the deceased survived and said that since the deceased was survived by his widow and a son, the inheritance had to be decided accordingly. It also observed that under the Shariat Act, a Muslim retained the right to stay out of the purview of Muslim Personal Law on certain aspects.
“Deceased Zamir Ahmed had elected not to be governed by Muslim Personal Law on the subject of adoption and thus, if he had adopted a child as claimed by defendant no. 1 (Gulzaro Begum), the said adoption shall be governed by general law of the land,” the court declared.
The court said it couldn’t bring Zamir within the fold of Muslim Law by an indirect route and doing so would be in violation of the choice given to the deceased by law. ADJ Singh said, “The son being a residuary excludes the brothers and sisters of deceased Zamir Ahmed. This being the case, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff and the defendant brothers and sisters are not entitled to the partition as prayed for.”

The Waimanalo couple accused of murdering their 6-year-old adopted daughter in 2021 apparently have retained their parental rights over three of the victim’s young sisters.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: AsktheEU Team <team@asktheeu.org>
Date: Tue 6. Feb 2024 at 18:58
Subject: New response to your FOI request - Complaint related to Romanian Children File - 2002-2006
To: Arun Dohle <arundohle@gmail.com>
 

You have a new response to the access to documents request 'Complaint related to Romanian Children File - 2002-2006' that you made to European Ombudsman.

To view the response, click on the link below.

https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/complaint_related_to_romanian_ch?nocache=incoming-51953#incoming-51953

When you get there, please update the status to say if the response contains any useful information.

Although all responses are automatically published, we depend on you, the original requester, to evaluate them.

-- the AsktheEU.org team

The Supreme Court denied a 44-year-old single woman's surrogacy plea, citing the importance of preserving marriage in India and rejecting Western norms of children born out of wedlock.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused the plea of a 44-year-old unmarried woman to become a mother through surrogacy, saying that the institution of marriage must be protected and preserved in the country, and it cannot follow the model of Western countries where children are born outside of marriage.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarthana and Augustine George Masih stated that a single woman bearing a child outside marriage was the exception rather than the rule in Indian society.

According to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, only those women who are widowed or divorced and between the ages of 35 and 45 years can avail the surrogacy route. This means that a single unmarried woman is not allowed to become a mother through surrogacy.

"It is a norm here to become a mother within the institution of marriage. Being a mother outside the institution of marriage is not the norm. We are concerned about it. We are speaking from the point of view of a child's welfare. Should the institution of marriage survive or not in the country? We are not like Western countries. The institution of marriage has to be protected. You can call us and tag us conservative, and we accept it," the top court observed while hearing the woman's plea.

According to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, only those women who are widowed or divorced and between the age of 35 to 45 years can avail the surrogacy route. This implies that a single unmarried woman is not allowed to become a mother through surrogacy.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (February 5) said that the institution of marriage needed to be protected unlike the West, where children are born outside of marriage, while hearing a petition on allowing surrogacy for unmarried women.

The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, expressed its reservation while hearing the petition of a 44-year-old woman who approached the court seeking permission to become a mother through surrogacy, the Times of India reported.

According to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, only those women who are widowed or divorced and between the age of 35 to 45 years can avail the surrogacy route. This implies that a single unmarried woman is not allowed to become a mother through surrogacy.

“It is a norm here to become a mother within the institution of marriage. Being a mother outside the institution of marriage is not the norm. We are concerned about it. We are speaking from the point of view of (the) child’s welfare. Should the institution of marriage survive or not in the country? We are not like western countries. The institution of marriage has to be protected. You can call us and tag us conservative, and we accept it,” Justice Nagarathna observed.