So this couple didn't adopt, but I've recently been interested in the effects of sperm donation on children so I'm including this here. This charming young man is providing testimony on the Iowa amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Let sex offenders adopt and work with children, says report
Adoption: blanket bans on sex offenders are open to legal challenge, the LSE report argues. Photograph: Lisa Spindler/Getty Images
The government could face legal action if it continues to ban sex offenders from working with children, according to research published today.
A report by a family law expert argues that some sex offenders should be allowed to adopt or foster children, and claims that the current blanket ban is discriminatory.
"Sex offenders shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush," said Helen Reece at the London School of Economics, who wrote the report. "People need to be carefully screened for adoption and fostering, but each case should be taken on its merits.
"There shouldn't be blanket rules. What somebody has done before is not necessarily what he or she will do again. When someone has served a sentence, as far as you can, you should treat them the same as anyone else."
The report points to legal challenges that have overturned other blanket bans on adoption, including a 2008 case in which the House of Lords said rules in Northern Ireland preventing cohabiting couples from adopting children were discriminatory.
"If we believe that blanket bans are an effective and legitimate means to protect children then we should no more allow cohabiting couples to adopt or foster than convicted sex offenders," said Reece.
But claims in the report that cohabiting couples can present more of a risk to children than sex offenders are likely to provoke anger among groups concerned with child protection.
Responding to the report, the government said child and adult safety was its priority. "It is vital that children and vulnerable adults are protected," a Home Office spokesperson said. "We are committed to ensuring that decisions on who is suitable to work with the vulnerable are proportionate and meet the test of common sense."
Sex offenders have been prohibited from working with, and adopting, children since 2006, when measures were put in place to prevent a recurrence of the murder of schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by school caretaker Ian Huntley in Soham.
The "vetting and barring" scheme introduced by the 2006 law has divided opinion, and was halted by the home secretary, Theresa May, in June after criticism that it was "draconian" and would deter volunteers .
This month a group of nurses who had been automatically placed on the barred list after they committed offences at work successfully challenged the scheme in the high court, claiming their human rights had been violated.
"The vetting and barring scheme contradicts human rights legislation and is therefore challengeable," said Reece. "I agree with this government that it should be brought back to commonsense levels."
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Bulgarian baby sellers arrested in Greece
Nov 19, 2011
Heraklion - Six people were arrested on Friday for alleged involvement in the sale of a 25-day-old baby for 12,000 euros, on the Greek Island of Crete. The illegal adoption involved the sale of a Bulgarian baby arranged by Bulgarian intermediaries.
The burgeoning black market sale of Bulgarian babies on the Greek Island of Crete was dealt another blow on Friday when six people were arrested. According to Athens News the Bulgarian mother of a 25 day-old-baby, along with three Bulgarian intermediaries, was caught in the act of attempting to sell the infant to a Greek couple on the island for 12,000 Euros ($16,000).
Ekathimerini reported that Cretan police had been monitoring a suspected illegal adoption ring and were able to catch the Bulgarians in the act of attempting to receive payment. According to a study by Bijc it is almost impossible to make a judicial case against baby sellers unless they are caught at the very moment of exchanging payment. Bijc issued a report on the illegal business in 2004 but demand is still on-going despite millions being spent to put an end to the trade.
The Greek Island of Crete is one of the most popular tourist destination's in the world, yet it has its seamy side too. Island police are aware that Albanians control the market for drug's and prostitutes, Romanians control fake passports and documents, and Bulgarians have control of illegal adoptions.
Childless couples are offered Bulgarian babies for sale, but the Greek authorities try to control the entrance of very pregnant Bulgarian women as they are aware of the illegal sales. The babies need to be born in Greece to avoid being registered on entrance to the country, so mostly the women are trafficked in illegally before they give birth, generally entering Crete by boat from Italy.
On average a baby will cost around 13,000 euros, with boys trading at a premium of 2,000 euros above girls. Major Stilianos Artzidakis of the Cretan police explained "Except the cases with the babies we do not have other serious problems with the Bulgarians."
There are some instances of Bulgarian women being held against their will and 'persuaded' to sell their newborn. Local lawyers are used to convince them that their children will have a better life than starving in Bulgaria.
Those found guilty of involvement in the arrangement of the deals receive prison sentences, whilst the mother and adopter's are subject to fines.
The baby from Friay's sale is being cared for in hospital.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/314698?mid=531#ixzz1esPdjDlg
Russia Attacks Sentence of Adoptee’s Parents
Russia Attacks Sentence of Adoptee’s Parents
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
MOSCOW — The Russian government reacted furiously on Saturday to what it described as an unjustly lenient sentence in the case of a Pennsylvania couple who were originally charged with murder in the death of their 7-year-old son adopted from Russia.
The couple, Michael and Nanette Craver, were sentenced Friday to 16 months to four years in prison for involuntary manslaughter by Judge John S. Kennedy of the Court of Common Pleas in York, Pa. Because they had already spent nearly 19 months in jail, they will not serve any more time.
The Russian government was enraged. “The Cravers, who tortured the 7-year-old child to death, were released after staying a mere year and a half under arrest,” Alexander Lukashevich, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Saturday in a statement, according to the Interfax news service. “The court verdict is amazingly and flagrantly irresponsible.”
Russian officials said they were conducting their own investigation and might seek an arrest warrant for the couple.
The boy, Nathaniel Craver, died in 2009 from bleeding caused by a severe head injury. His adoptive parents said he had serious emotional and mental problems that had caused him to repeatedly hurt himself. They said the injury that caused his death occurred when he fell and hit his head on a wood stove.
Pennsylvania authorities said the parents had abused and neglected the boy. Expert witnesses testified that he had fetal alcohol syndrome, but it was not clear whether that played any role in his death.
A jury acquitted the Cravers of murder, but concluded they were negligent and responsible for the death. They were convicted in September of involuntary manslaughter and freed pending sentencing.
Judge Kennedy, in ordering that the couple serve no more jail time, said he did not believe that they posed a danger to the community, or that a stiffer sentence would serve as an example for others. He also said that given their ages — Mr. Craver is 47 and Mrs. Craver is 56 — he did not believe they would become parents again.
In 2003, the Cravers adopted Nathaniel, who was born Vanya Skorobogatov, along with his twin sister. The sister has been living with an aunt in the United States.
Prosecutors asked Judge Kennedy to order that the Cravers have no unsupervised contact with her until she turns 18, but the judge said he would leave such decisions to child welfare officials.
Mr. Lukashevich, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the parents were directly responsible for the boy’s death. “They brutalized the child, brought him to exhaustion and inflicted a heavy head injury on him that proved to be fatal,” he said.
Russia is one of the largest sources of adopted foreign children in the United States, a relationship that came under scrutiny last year after a 7-year-old boy arrived alone at a Moscow airport after being sent back by his adoptive mother in Tennessee. She said she could not handle what she said were his severe emotional problems.
In July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov, signed a bilateral agreement on adoptions that both sides said they hoped would ease tensions. The agreement, which must still be ratified by the Russian Parliament, provides safeguards including restrictions on agencies that can participate in the adoption of any child not going to relatives.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: November 20, 2011
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the length of the Carvers’ prison sentence as 4 to 16 months.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
ABANDONED IN GUATEMALA: THE FAILURE OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION PRACTICES
ABANDONED IN GUATEMALA: THE FAILURE OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION PRACTICES
October 19, 2011 by Joint Council
This month a documentary by reasontv has been released regarding the elimination of intercountry adoption in Guatemala. The video shows a side of the elimination not often discussed in the media. We encourage our colleagues and friends to view and distribute the video at your discretion. The video can be found by clicking here.
Background and Joint Council’s position:
On January 1, 2008, under significant scrutiny and amidst allegations of corruption, child trafficking and unethical practices, Guatemala implemented the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. Guatemala’s participation in the Convention was applauded by the many governments and NGOs who had insisted on changes to the practices in Guatemala and vigorously supported Guatemala’s participation in the Hague Convention. Joint Council advocated for systematic reform, rather than elimination of services to children. Joint Council’s President & CEO, Tom DiFilipo states, “Eliminating corruption was the goal. Ensuring children live in families in a legal and ethical manner should have been.”
The implementation was seen by many as the answer to corruption and unethical practices. Unfortunately the manner in which Guatemala implemented the Convention has not resulted in an ethical intercountry adoption system or a stable child welfare system; it has resulted in no intercountry adoption system and an almost non-existent child welfare system. The implementation of the Convention has indeed succeeded in adding protections. But it has also failed in its role to serve children. Protecting children and families from harm is one of the primary roles of the Guatemalan government and their efforts must be recognized and supported. However, much like the scrutiny and attention by the international community exposed the corruption of the prior system, this same community must now refocus their attention to bring to light Guatemala’s ineffective implementation of the Convention and its subsequent impact on institutionalized children and Guatemalan families.
The formation of a spectrum of services including Family Preservation, Kinship Care, Domestic Adoption and Intercountry Adoption is desperately needed to ensure that children retain their right to a family and are protected from the detrimental effects of institutionalization, or even an unnecessary death. Joint Council calls on all stakeholders who previously asked for reforms to move with speed in order to provide these much needed services. Again, Tom DiFilipo, “Adoption reform in Guatemala has not resulted in the prosecution of criminals, nor has it served the best interest of children. What it has done is force thousands of children into orphanages, onto the streets, or even worse.”
As part of Joint Council’s ongoing Guatemala 5000 campaign and the passage of the Ortega Law, we have continually advocated for the ethical and legal finalization of all adoptions initiated prior to the closure of intercountry adoption in Guatemala. Joint Council in partnership with its member organizations and the Guatemala900 again call for a swift conclusion to all pending adoption cases and the immediate implementation of the much needed services which will provide more Guatemalan children with the ability to grow and thrived in a safe, permanent family.
Help adoptees reach first parents
Published: May 12, 2011 7:10 PM
By
By
Ask the man on the street if people who were adopted as babies should be able, as adults, to find out the identities of their original parents, and the typical answer is: Sure, isn't that their right?
Only for the fortunate few. In all states but six -- and New York isn't among that half-dozen -- individuals adopted at birth are still denied the unrestricted right to even look at a copy of their original birth certificates. Without that piece of paper, it's hard to have that longed-for mother-and-child reunion.
Even for infants adopted recently under rules that enabled the surrendering mother to meet the adoptive parents, the right to obtain the original birth certificate is crucial. Yet that all-important document remains locked up because of laws written long ago. The thinking then was that individuals would be secure in their new families and wouldn't need to know where they came from. And with the records sealed, their mothers -- their first mothers -- wouldn't be able to interfere in their lives. Those mothers would grieve in silence and then "forget" these children.
But that simplistic idea of how people are hasn't stood the test of time. Stories about reunited mother and child, or siblings, are in the news precisely because the heart understands what the law ignores: Neither does a mother forget, nor can questions of identity be stilled. They ring deep in the breast, and neither time, nor the love of an adoptive family, can erase them.
In New York, a group called Unsealed Initiative, made up of adoptees and first parents, are lobbying to repeal the 1935 law that sealed the original birth certificates of anyone adopted in this state. I'm one of them -- a woman who relinquished a child in 1966 -- and we've been at this battle for decades. We get so far, and then the bill gets lost in the morass of Albany when the session comes to an end.
This week, New Jersey's Assembly passed a bill giving adopted people the right to know who they are; it has passed the Senate and awaits a decision by the governor. In New York this year we have an energetic sponsor in Assemb. David Weprin (D-Queens). In the Senate, Velmanette Montgomery (D-Brooklyn) and William Larkin (R-Newburgh) are sponsors. We have dozens of co-sponsors and, it seems, even enough votes to get the bill passed -- if we can get it to the floor of the legislature before time runs out once again.
It's not that the legislators are mean-hearted people who would simply deny adoptees the right to know who they are. But they persist in thinking that they somehow must "protect" the women who surrendered their children when having a child out of wedlock was coated with shame and humiliation. Even if the state never promised anonymity to these women -- and it did not -- the understanding is that it was an implied promise back then. But that puts government in the untenable position of protecting one group by trampling the rights of another.
The great majority of us not only welcome meeting our children, now grown, but we anxiously hope for it. While some women would choose anonymity, their temporary discomfort and embarrassment are hardly reasons to keep the records sealed in this day and age.
Further, this position doesn't address the issue that all women, whether they wanted anonymity or not, were made party to this unjust pact with the state. If we had to surrender our children to the care and keeping of strangers, we had no choice but to be anonymous. And we have no choice today to undo what has been shown to be hurtful to our children, who are now adults and want medical histories and answers to questions of ancestry.
Another argument for keeping the records sealed is that abortions will go up if mothers cannot relinquish in secrecy and count on it forever. But data from states that allow adoptees to claim their original birth certificates proves this to be false. Abortions do not increase. Nor do adoptions decrease.
Yet no matter what happens to those numbers, they are side shows to the main issue: People adopted as children should have the same rights as the rest of us, that is, to fully answer the question: Who am I? It's only human to want to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)