Washington DC – Media outlets in India are abuzz with news of Melanie Kannokada, Miss India America 2007, arriving in Bollywood to play Seeta, an Indian girl adopted by American parents. In contrast, a real life drama is unfolding for another India-born girl, Kairi Abha Shepherd, adopted into an American family as an infant in 1982 and now facing likely deportation back to her country of origin after a recent court ruling that upheld the US federal government’s right to remove her from the country.

The story began on a happy note in 1982 when 3 month old Indian orphan Kairi arrived in the US and was adopted by a Utah woman. Her adoptive mother unfortunately died of cancer when she was only 8 years old and at age 17 (still a minor under US law), Shepherd was arrested and convicted of felony check forgery to support a drug habit. She subsequently served her sentence for the conviction.

Now at the age of 30, Kairi Abha faces deportation because Judge Scott Matheson, in a 23-page decision, said the court didn’t have jurisdiction to determine Shepherd’s legal status.

The case is clouded in a maze of technicalities, as the court found there was a failure to file a second appeal through the Board of Immigration Appeals as well as Shepherd attempted to get her petition reviewed prematurely.

In a written statement to India America Today, Anjali Pawar, director of Sakhee (a Pune, India-based non-governmental organization working on child rights) said the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) in India informed her in an email from J. Pati, Joint Director, “With reference to your mail dated 11.05.2012 about the case of Kairi Shephard adopted in 1982. CARA has not processed the case. However your letter has been forwarded to US Embassy for more information.”

Pawar noted she had yet to receive a response to her letter about the case of Kairi Shephard sent to S. M. Krishna, the Indian Foreign Minister, which stated, “To deport an adoptee, who is further also suffering from multiple sclerosis, is a gross violation of existing adoption norms and undoubtedly a huge human rights violation.”

When asked if the Indian Foreign Ministry or the Indian Embassy in Washington had contacted the US, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said, “I don’t have anything for you on that.”

The Indian Federal Ministry of Welfare in its guidelines for adoption posted on the Indian Embassy’s (Washington, DC) website (http://www.indianembassy.org/guidelines-for-adoption-of-indian-children….) outline very specific procedures which must take place in order for an Indian child to be adopted abroad. Questions are being raised regarding whether the procedures are actually followed, as 30 year old Kairi Abha faces deportation to a country from which she was uprooted as a 3 month old baby.

Chapter 2 of the “Liaison with Indian Diplomatic Missions,” instructs:

“The Central Adoption Resource Agency shall maintain liaison with Indian diplomatic missions abroad in order to safeguard the interests of children of Indian origin adopted by foreign parents against neglect, maltreatment, exploitation or abuse and to maintain an unobtrusive watch over the welfare and progress of such children. For this purpose, the Central Adoption Resource Agency shall inform every Indian diplomatic missions concerned whenever an Indian child is taken in adoption or for the purpose of adoption, by foreign parents. The names, addresses and other particulars of such children and their adoptive/prospective adoptive parents shall be supplied to the Indian diplomatic missions as early as possible and in any case before the end of every quarter.”

The chapter states that “Periodical Progress reports of children from foreign adoptive parents as well as from recognized social or child welfare agencies in foreign countries” should be obtained, “to examine such reports and to take such follow-up action as deemed necessary.”

It is unknown whether Periodical Progress reports were obtained in Kairi Abha Shepherd’s case or if CARA followed up after the death of her adoptive mother.

Chapter 6, under “Rights of the Child Taken Abroad,” explicitly notes, “On adoption of the child by the foreign parent according to the law of his/her country, it is presumed that subject to the laws of the land the child would acquire the same status as a natural born child within wedlock with the same rights of inheritance and succession and the same nationality as the foreign parent adopting the child.”

Guidelines penned by a task force of members from voluntary placement agencies under the chairmanship of Justice P.N. Bhagwati (the former Chief Justice of India) declared: “Even after the adoption is legalized, the enlisted foreign agency should maintain contact with the adoptive family in keeping with the need of privacy of the adoptive family and provide support and counseling services, if necessary and safeguard the interest of the child till such time as he/she attains majority.”

It appears the repeatedly orphaned Shepherd was denied her specific “rights of the child taken abroad” from India and that there were widespread failures among the checks and balances designed to protect vulnerable minor children from India who have been adopted abroad.

“She doesn’t have any known family in India, has no contacts, has lost the ability to speak any Indian language and might just die due to her serious health ailment of multiple sclerosis, after being thrown on Indian roads,” declared Pawar, questioning, “Why after her adoption in the US, her citizenship status has not been adjusted?”

“As long children from India adopted by US parents are faced with the threat of deportation, adoptions from India to the US should be halted altogether,” demanded Pawar in her letter to Indian Foreign Minister Krishna.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/world/guatemala-mom-seeks-mo-court-help-to-get-girl/article_643e38dd-33ae-598d-96eb-7cec33afb9df.html#ixzz1v4QIXt2m

by Danish   Raza May 16, 2012

Mayank and Esha were to get new parents. Their mother, after an altercation with her husband, Ramphal, abandoned the siblings near Kashmere Gate bus terminus, Delhi. A frantic Ramphal traced his children to Holy Cross Social Service Centre- one of the seven recognised Indian placement agencies (RIPAs) in the city. He was not allowed to see the kids, then three and five years old. The agency had started the process to place the children with an Australian couple.

“They said that I should let my kids go abroad as they would have a better future,” Ramphal told Firstpost.

He then moved the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to stall the adoption process. There he was constantly persuaded to drop the case. Haq Centre for Child Rights, a Delhi based NGO, helped Ramphal in getting a revised CWC order. The kids were returned to their father in February.

In declaring the children legally free for adoption in the first place, the CWC violated a basic principle guiding the welfare of a child – which is to first attempt to restore an abandoned child to his/ her biological family.

Ramphal with his son Mayank and daughter Esha. Firstpost/ Danish Raza

Some child welfare experts claim that Ramphal’s case is an example of widespread abuse in international adoptions, pointing to a recent spurt  of middlemen who procure children by illicit methods and provide false information about them.

“There should be a detailed investigation into procurement of children through extortion, blackmail, threats and bribery of government officials,” said Anjali Pawar of Sakhi, a Pune based NGO which filed a petition in the Supreme Court earlier this month demanding moratorium on all inter-country adoptions until a new law is in place.

This outcry comes in the midst of steadily declining numbers of international adoptions around the world and in India. Worldwide, Inter-country Adoptions (ICAs) have dipped to 29,000, down from a 2005 high of 45,000.  Adoptions originating in India have steadily decreased from 1,172 in 2003 to 613 in 2010. As of 2010, India is no longer one of the top ten countries sending children abroad for adoption.

A great part of this reduction is due to stricter ICA regulations  that were put in place in response to several high-profile exposes of illegal adoptions. In 2002, Andhra Pradesh put a ban on sending state’s children abroad for adoption, after an adoption racket was unearthed. In May 2005, police arrested five kidnappers in Chennai who had supplied over 300 children to various adoption agencies. In the same year, Delhi government ordered enquiry against 10 adoption agencies.

More recently, CBI initiated charges against Preet Mandir, an adoption agency in Pune, in 2010 after allegations surfaced that the agency had procured children through illegal means.

Among the new rules in place is the directive to agencies to follow a 80-20 ratio between domestic and foreign adoptions. If an agency has 100 children, it has to place 80 of them within the country – and will lose its license if it fails to do so. The CARA stipulates the following order of priority for placement: Indian nationals, Indian nationals living abroad (NRI), Overseas Citizen of India card holders, and lastly, foreign nationals.

But many argue that these laws do no go far enough – and, as Ramphal’s case indicates, are often violated in practice.

“There is huge money involved and when a child is sent through illegal means under the disguise of adoption, it is trafficking,” says Bharti Ali, co- director of Haq Centre for Child Rights. There is also no centralized database tracking the 60 placement agencies who undertake international adoptions, or the number of children in their care.

Pawar’s petition before the Supreme Court also pointed to the existence of 5,000 Indian parents who are still on a wait-list to become parents, even as children are being sent to foreign couples.

Others claim that international adoptions reveal a country that either cannot or will not take care of its own children.

“Just because the government fails to fulfill its obligation to provide care and protection to children, it cannot just sell them abroad in the name of inter-country adoption under the guise of giving them a better life,” says Arun Dohle of Against Child Trafficking a Brussels and Netherlands, based NGO.

Despite all above reasons, there are many who believe that demanding ‘suspension’ of or ‘ban’ on ICA is going too far.

For one, illegal trafficking cannot be solved merely by ending international adoptions. In the Preet Mandir case, for example, the CBI uncovered 5 illegal ICAs compared to 70 such domestic adoptions.

Vineeta Bhargava, assistant professor in Delhi university and author of ‘Adoptions in India: Policies & Experiences’, also points out that many children who are adopted abroad are often those who have been repeatedly rejected by Indian families.

“Children with physical handicaps, medical problems, hare lips, hole in the heart, siblings and children above three years old are rarely adopted in India,” she says, adding that foreigners often embrace such children without reservations.

There is nothing wrong if such children are provided with a better life outside their country of birth, argues Dr Bharti Sharma, former chairman of Delhi CWC.

“The right of a child to a family should not be violated. All the policies and debates should be centered on that right,” he said.

AMSTERDAM – Een Amsterdamse pedofiel, die de gemeente op
de korrel had na gesprekken in een zogenaamde pedo-chatbox, bleek een
adoptieprocedure te hebben lopen.

De pedofiel was een van de mannen die gruwelijke fantasieën uitwisselde op
internet en die naar voren kwam in het proces tegen Robert M. De gemeente
Amsterdam is bezig pedofielen te achterhalen aan de hand van hun IP-adressen en
stuurt de chatters – inmiddels 23 – een waarschuwingsbrief waarin hulp wordt
aangeboden.

Toen de gemeente ontdekte dat de man bezig was een kind te adopteren, werd de
procedure onmiddelijk stopgezet. Familieleden van de man zijn ingelicht en
krijgen hulp aangeboden, meldt de Volkskrant.

De gemeente is, nadat de zedenzaak van M. aan het licht kwam, hard bezig een
vergelijkbare situiatie te voorkomen. Zo krijgen veroordeelde pedoseksuelen hulp
bij het vinden van een andere huurwoning, om niet meer in de buurt van
slachtoffers terecht te komen. Voorwaarde is wel dat zij extra toezicht of
behandeling accepteren na hun gevangenisstraf.

ON THE ‘RAHUL CASE’ – the allegedly kidnapped child from India, adopted by a Dutch couple

Speaker: Secretary of State Fred Teeven

Then I turn to India. India is indeed a story apart. I remember that from the time that I was sitting at the other side of the table. Then I also spoke about India.

With the information-exchange with the Indian Central authority in India things are not very smooth. I remind the fact that the information from the Central Authority in India dates from September 2007. At that time, the Central Bureau of Investigation of India initiated an investigation. Since then we did not hear much from the Indian authorities. I am not satisfied with that, and in this I express myself carefully. I hereby inform the Committee that I have decided to invite the Indian Ambassador for a meeting at the Ministry in order to provide clarity on this issue.
LINK Transcript Parliament

This is quite a change of heart of Secretary of State Fred Teeven, as in his letter of 22 December 2011 he informed the Dutch Parliament that he had not received any news from the Indian authorities, and did not expect to receive it in future. However, if ever news would reach him, he would inform the Dutch Parliament.
LINK Letter 22 December 2011

So, now there is a pro-active approach.

ACT welcomes this approach, as ACT posesses a certified copy of the CBI investigation.  So, it exists…

Also, the Indian family whose child was allegedly kidnapped, transmitted this CBI investigation to the Dutch police in June 2011. As reported by Dutch TV Netwerk

Recently a delegation of my ministry made a working visit to Uganda. The reason of this ministerial working visit was that I got some very worrying signals fro the Dutch Embassy in Kampala about the carefullness and the purity of the adoption procedures in Uganda. The preliminary results of the ministerial delgation confirm these worrying signals. This can lead to theh fact that I will decide on short term to suspend adoptions from Uganda. I will send a letter to the Parliament in which I will inform the members about the outcome of the working visit and the conclusions I draw from that. I still wait for some information from Uganda, but I do think that the Parliament should not be suprised in a couple of weeks by a letter from me, if today we speak about adoptions and difficult relations with countries. That letter will come and it is possible that I will suspend adoptions from Uganda.

So, the Parliament now knows this.

Transcript of meeting – in Dutch

Kaumudi Gurjar
9 May 2012

Action follows complaint by NRI about Society of Friends of Sassoon Hospital demanding exorbitant adoption fee

SIX months after an NRI parent alleged that the Society of Friends of Sassoon Hospital ( SOFOSH) was charging an exorbitant adoption fee, Child Adoption Resource Agency ( CARA) temporarily suspended the institute’s inter- country licence for 10 months in a decision taken last week.

According to officials of the state Women and Child Development department, an NRI parent had complained to CARA around six months ago stating that the institute officials had demanded extra fees from him during the adoption process.

According to CARA rules, adoptive parents can pay an adoption fee of US$ 5,000 to recognised Indian placement agencies through enlisted foreign adoption agencies.

Deputy director, CARA, Jagannath Patil confirmed that the institute’s license had been suspended.

“ Due to some lacunae, we have taken action against the institute,” Patil said.

Deputy commissioner of Women Child Development Department, Rahul More, told MiD DAY that the action was taken after the parent complained six months ago.

It may be recalled that last year, during a surprise raid conducted by District Women and Child Development officer Suvarna Pawar, four pregnant girls were found to be staying at the adoption centre. Pawar had issued a show- cause notice to the adoption centre following this discovery.

“ The proposal to ban in country adoption was moved after officers found four pregnant girls staying at the institute, which lacks permission to provide shelter to women in a vulnerable situation,” More said.

He added that the proposal was stayed during a ministerial level meeting and the matter is being heard before the State Child Rights Protection Commission.”

Apex court notice to Centre, CBI, CARA

THE Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre, the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI) and the Child Adoption Resource Agency ( CARA) while responding to a writ petition filed by NGO Sakhee and Mumbai- based Advait Foundation on Friday. The NGOs have demanded suspension of inter- country adoption in the absence of a law monitoring such adoptions. A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai issued notices on the writ petition after the NGOs argued that adoption has turned into a lucrative business and adoption agencies are giving undue preference to prospective adoptive parents. Reacting on the recent case of inter- country adoption licences being suspended by CARA, Anjali Pawar, director of Sakhee, said, “ The few institutes that are being exposed for overcharging of adoption fees are just the tip of iceberg as compared to total number of adoption agencies involved in this murky business.

The agencies are taking undue advantage of vulnerable prospective adopting parents who are desperate for children. This fleecing of parents under the name of charity should be immediately stopped.”

By CLARENCE ROY-MACAULAY, Associated Press
Tuesday, May 8, 2012

(05-08) 06:32 PDT FREETOWN, Sierra Leone (AP) –

Parents in Sierra Leone who claim their children were adopted without their permission in the late 90s said they support the government’s decision to order a police investigation that could lead to criminal charges.

In a statement read by coordinator Abu Bakarr Kargbo, the parents of the 29 children also called on the police and government to look into whether more children were adopted without proper consent.

Sierra Leone’s government on April 13 mandated police to reopen an investigation into the 1997 adoptions of children placed at the Help A Needy Child International center, known as HANCI, during the country’s brutal civil war.

“The police, using their professionalism, will now be at liberty to proffer criminal charges against any person responsible for the plight of the children, especially their movement from Sierra Leone to a foreign territory,” the April government statement said. The decision was made by the government in response to recommendations by a Commission of Inquiry set up in 2010 to investigate the parents’ claims.

The parents in Sierra Leone said they had left their children at HANCI for a better education and safety during the war. HANCI contacted Maine Adoption Placement Services to foster U.S. adoptions, and MAPS says it placed 29 of the 33 children with adoptive parents in the U.S. HANCI maintained the parents gave informed consent.

MAPS had said it had no knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of their Sierra Leone staff, and that they were fully cooperating with any investigations.

In 2004, HANCI’s director and two of his employees were arrested and charged with conspiracy to violate adoption laws. Those charges against them though ultimately were dropped and the case disbanded, according to court records.

On Monday, many of the parents in Sierra Leone gathered at a press conference to respond to the decision to mandate criminal investigations.

“The commission has proven to be credible and transparent in the dispensation of justice by bringing out the perpetrators of this heinous crime to light,” the parents’ statement said. “We say thanks a million.

“Even though the commission has worked tirelessly hard to unearth the truth, there are discrepancies as to the number of children trafficked by HANCI,” it said. “We are outrightly ready to aid the Sierra Leone Police in their investigation to ascertain the validity of the number of children involved in the saga.”

A government white paper in April also gave police the mandate to access all documents used by the commission during their investigations. It gave police six weeks to conclude investigations.

Parents had told The Associated Press in 2010 that the children were adopted in 1998, but their statement Monday and the commission’s inquiry said the 29 children were adopted in 1997.

The HANCI adoption case in Sierra Leone began amid the country’s devastating decade-long war that ended in 2002, a conflict dramatized in the film “Blood Diamond.”

Rebels burned villages, raped women and turned kidnapped children into drugged teenage fighters. Tens of thousands of civilians died and countless others were left mutilated after rebels cut off body parts with machetes. The U.S. State Department says 134 children were adopted between 1999 and 2003, the year after the war ended.

Posted: May 08, 2012 at 0108 hrs

Adoption agency at it again, now charges ‘donations’Preet Mandir, a Pune-based adoption agency that gained notoreity over alleged malpractices last year, is in the news again for reasons that seem as ignoble as the earlier charges. A CBI chargsheet notwithstanding, the agency, which has permission to give away only 40 children remaining at its Kalyaninagar unit for ‘in-country adoption’, has allegedly been accepting ‘donations’ from parents. This is in gross violation of Child Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) rules.

As per details available with The Indian Express, for 12children who were to be placed under foster care, the agency has charged adoption cost as well as “donations” from parents.The CARA guidelines state that for in-country adoption, there is a Rs 1,000 registration fee, home study report and post-adoption follow-up charges of Rs 5,000, and Rs 40,000 as Child Care Corpus. The total payment to be made to the agency is Rs 46,000. Preet Mandir, however, charged donations (as the agency has labeled the entries in its books) ranging from Rs 17,000 to Rs 1 lakh apart from the adoption cost.Parents who have adopted children from Preet Mandir, however, claim that they were not aware of the rules or the total amount they are supposed to pay the agency.

A parent said that she was asked to pay a donation of up to Rs 1 lakh. “After our process was over, they asked us to pay the over-and-above expenses. As we were keen to complete the process we gave the donation.’’Another parent, who also gave almost Rs 1 lakh, said the agency haddemanded the amount as “maintenance charge”, besides the adoption charge for the child.However, the current managing trustee of Preet Mandir, D P Bhatia, has justified these donations claiming that the agency does not have government aid and hence, depends on ‘donations” to take care of the children. “We have shifted the children to the Kalyaninagar unit from our Camp unit. We were not allowed to keep children older than six at the Camp unit, but at at Kalyaninagar, we can keep children up to 12 years of age. We have permission only for in-country adoptions. If parents are willing to donate to us, we do not refuse them,” said Bhatia.When told about the ‘donations’, CARA deputy director Dr Jagannath Pati said it was against CARA rules. He said it was the state government’s responsibility to take action if the agency was indeed violating rules. “It is a clear case of violation. In no circumstances should any parent be forced to pay donation. The state needs to lookinto this at the earliest,’’ said Pati.The district women and child welfare department is responsible for keeping a tab on such adoption agencies.

However, an official said after the CBI chargesheet, there has hardly been any check on the current activities of the adoption agency. “We have already sent them a notice asking them to furnish details about the adoptions that happened over the last year,’’ said the official.A member of Child Welfare Committee, too, said that ‘taking donations’ is a violation of rules. “How can the agency violate rules again after all that has happened earlier,’’ said the member.

Minister of Women and Child Welfare, Varsha Gaikwad, had recently ordered that all divisions and district-level officers must check the functioning of adoption agencies as well as the number of adoptions done in the last one year. “If any malpractice is found, stern action will be taken against the agency,’’ said a state government official.MurkypastFormer managing trustee of Preet Mandir, Joginder Bhasin and other members was charged by the CBI in an adoption racket last year.

The CBI chargesheet stated that between 2002 and 2010, Bhasin entered into criminal conspiracy with wife Mahinder, son Gurpreet Singh, Vasudev Gangadhar Darshane, social worker Chandrashekar Admane and former chairman of CARA Janindrakumar Mittal to collect children from Maharashtra for adoption and earn huge sums from foster parents. The CBI studied 70 in-country and five inter-country adoption cases of Preet Mandir. The trustees allegedly misappropriated trust’s funds to the tune of Rs 47 lakh. The agency’s licences for foreign adoption and new admissions were cancelled.

PUNE: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Union government, CBI and the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA), an autonomous body under the ambit of the Ministry of Women and Child Development(WCD), in response to a writ petition demanding suspension of inter-country adoption in the absence of a law monitoring such adoptions.

A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai issued notices on a petition filed by a city-based NGO Sakhee and Mumbai-based Advait Foundation, arguing that inter-country adoption has turned into a lucrative business, as adoption agencies are giving undue preference to prospective adoptive parents in foreign countries over Indian couples in need of children.

The petition has also alleged that many ‘missing’ children reach adoption agencies from where they are shipped out to foreign destinations.

“Without involving adoption agencies, the government should give higher budgetary allowance to the ministry of women and child development. Also full rights must be given to access all documents related to their adoptions so as to enable the children to find back their identity and biography, who have been already sent to foreign countries, who were deprived of their original identity, their citizenship, their religion, their language and culture. The ministry of overseas Indian affairs to set up a special programme / scheme for all the about 40,000 children/ adults who have been shipped abroad for inter-country adoption, so as to enable them to , to trace back their roots and Indian families, to learn the Indian language and get acquainted with their original religion and culture,” stated the petition.

WRIT PETITION

- The petition has sought a detailed investigation into the procurement of children through extortion, blackmail, threats and through bribery of government officials.

- The NGOs have sought directions from the Centre to enforce all the obligations of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child