Risks of Umbrellaing

A recent court decision illustrates how an agency in an umbrella relationship with other agencies is able to successfully contractually wash its hands of liability for the actions and inactions of its subcontractors in the U.S. and abroad.

The Case
Jon and Trisha Smith filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the adoption agency Island Coast International Adoption (ICIA) after they were unsuccessful in adopting twins from India. The Smiths waited several years for the adoption process to be completed and paid more than $20,000 to the agency. The Smiths filed suit seeking damages for breach of contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In early 2004, the Smiths learned about the twins available for adoption in India and contacted ICIA. ICIA coordinated with International Families, Inc. (IFI), described in the court decision as ICIA’s “affiliated agency,” which was licensed to perform adoptions in India. The Smiths signed their contract with ICIA and paid three installments to ICIA totaling $3,750 plus a “country fee” of $20,500 which was forwarded to IFI. The “country fee” was used to cover the services performed by IFI as well as government and attorney costs in India.

The twins resided in an orphanage called Peace Home. Peace was licensed by CARA but its license expired in June 2004. IFI’s license with CARA had also expired and was not immediately renewed. In March 2005, Peace’s license was renewed, but its renewal was backdated to June 2004 because the license was valid for only one year. The license expired in June 2005. IFI was unable to process the adoption of the twins by June 2005.

Through 2004 and 2005, ICIA provided the Smiths with updates on the license renewal process, offered to allow them to switch countries and offered them a partial refund of the $3,750 that was paid to ICIA. The Smiths declined. The Smiths raised three claims against ICIA.

1. Breach of Contract Claim

The Smiths alleged that ICIA breached their contract because ICIA failed to properly coordinate the adoption process, and failed to accurately communicate with the Smiths and adoption officials in India. The Court disagreed and noted how the contract language did not support the Smith’s position. The contract included a description that ICIA’s fees may have covered coordination with foreign officials and with its foreign facilitator. According to the Court, “the plain language of this section clearly placed Plaintiffs on notice that Defendant would be working with others in India to complete the adoption. This only makes sense.” Further, the contract identified the specific services ICIA was required to perform which included, “locating the child, referring the child to the clients, and initiating the contact with the foreign orphanage and the affiliated agency.” Again, the Court found the contract clearly contemplated that Defendant would be working with other agencies in India and so ICIA’s coordination with them was both expected and appropriate.

The Smiths also argued that ICIA did not act in good faith when coordinating and communicating with IFI because ICIA did not have first-hand knowledge of the specific tasks undertaken by IFI and because IFI, not ICIA, was charged with coordinating the adoption process with Indian officials. In short, the Court stated, “Plaintiffs seek to blame Defendant for the failings of IFI, but Defendant had no contractual duty to deal directly with Indian officials. Nor do Plaintiffs allege, let alone show, that Defendant is responsible for any failure of IFI. There was no contract prohibition to subcontract services to Indian agencies or that Plaintiffs pre-approve working with those agencies. Indeed, contract language summarized above contemplated quite the opposite.” The Court ruled that there was no showing of lack of good faith. Rather, “[t]o the contrary, the evidence shows Defendant performed the services required by the contract and continuously acted in good faith, providing Plaintiffs with numerous updates on the status of the adoption.”

2. Fraud Claim

The Smiths alleged that ICIA made repeated misrepresentations about the status of the adoption process and its relationship with IFI. The Court found that ICIA sent several emails and made numerous phone calls to the Smiths (which satisfied two elements needed to establish a fraud claim), but the Smiths failed to show that ICIA’s statements were knowingly false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth or with the intent to mislead. Although ICIA passed along false statements to the Smiths, the Court pointed out that the Smiths had to prove not just falsity, but also actual knowledge or reckless behavior. According to the Court, ICIA “justifiably relied on statements made by IFI because of past dealings and successful adoptions. Defendant reasonably believed them to be true, even if they are eventually proven to be false.”

3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

In order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff in Ohio must establish several elements including “extreme” and “outrageous” conduct. The only “extreme and outrageous” conduct identified by the Smiths was that ICIA sent them pictures of the twins after the Smiths demanded that ICIA cease all contact with them. Although ICIA’s conduct may have “added, indeed aggravated, Plaintiffs’ disappointment,” the Court found that its actions fell significantly short of going “beyond all bounds of decency” or being “utterly intolerable.”

4. The Court’s Ruling

The Court granted ICIA’s motion for summary judgment on all three legal theories stating, “The Court recognizes there is much heartache that can accompany an unsuccessful adoption. Plaintiffs’ desire to be parents and raise children is clearly strong and commendable. However, there simply is no contract breach, fraud or intentional misconduct by Defendant who likewise wanted very much to bring these children in Plaintiffs’ lives.”

Important Facts Not Included in the Opinion

There is important background information that is not included in the Court’s opinion:

1. Peace Home’s licensing history

Peace’s license did not simply expire. According to a report by Sujata Mody from the Malarchi Women’s Resource Center in Chennai, “From Adoption Agencies and Institutional Practices in Tamil Nadu,” Peace was hurriedly issued a license by CARA at the behest of the Secretary of Social Welfare in 2003. The usual requirement is that an adoption agency must be registered for at least three years before it can be licensed to perform international adoptions.

Peace was inspected on October 10, 2002 and had five babies, one of which was a 13-day old infant for which there were no records. Authorities from the Department of Social Welfare observed that Peace had made insufficient efforts to identify Indian parents and had made insufficient efforts to match children with waitlisted parents. Despite this information, CARA licensed Peace on June 19, 2003.

Mody’s report also questioned the sourcing of children to Peace. She found that the number of relinquished babies at Peace were from almost every district and region in the state of Tamil Nadu. That fact is odd given that government-run cradles where infants can be abandoned anonymously are located in every district of Tamil Nadu. Despite the wide availability of these drop off locations, Mody questioned why parents arrived from geographically distant places to relinquish their babies to Peace.

There are several branches of Peace located in Tamil Nadu. In 2004, a branch was inaugurated in Kalapatti. Raman Rao was cited in a news article as the director of Peace Home and he indicated that the branch would shelter children between one week and seven years old in addition to destitute women. At the time of the article, 70 children were at the home, most of who came to the orphanage through the cradle baby scheme. In addition, it was claimed that many mothers left the children at the doorsteps at the home and fled. According to Mary Robert at the Coimbatore based Peace society, 75% of the 140 babies they had given for adoption were from the cradle baby scheme. The Kalapatti branch of Peace is still receiving abandoned infants.

According to a fact finding report issued by the Campaign Against Child Trafficking in 2005 entitled, "Fact-finding Investigation into the Functioning of Licenced and Recognised / Registered Adoption Placement Agencies and Regulatory Bodies in Tamil Nadu" a CARA inspection report, “Report of the Joint Inspection of Peace (Poor Economy and Children’s Educational Society) Home, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu”, dated July 2, 2004, Peace had indulged in “unethical practices” and its “registration was not proper.” The report pointed out that most children from the agency were being sent to IFI in Washington DC whose executive director is Mrudula Rao, mother of the treasurer of Peace. E. Raman Rao, the treasurer’s father, donated most of the funds to the agency which is one such “unethical practice” cited in CARA’s report because most of the children were being sent to IFI. According to a Frontline investigative report of adoption agencies in Tamil Nadu, the 2004 CARA report included the following allegations against Peace:

• “The agency has tampered relinquishment deeds (surrendered directly to the Home), created false siblings, followed various unethical practices, i.e., giving wrong information about [some children in the agency at the time of the inspection].”


• “While siblings A[] and A[] were admitted at different times, the relinquishment deeds indicate that they were surrendered together.”


• “According to the relinquishment deed, Maheshwari and her sibling were surrendered by their widowed mother. But the inspection team found that Maheshwari’s father was alive; she was left there for better education; and the sibling she was paired with was actually not her brother.”


• “Several registers/records are not properly maintained.”


• “The registration of the Society is not proper.”


• “While more than 40 Indian parents have registered for children, the agency has not shown interest to complete home studies of the families.”
  

Despite CARA’s inspection report and an order to show cause issued to Peace that received no reply, CARA renewed Peace’s license in April 2005. Peace currently no longer has a license to perform inter-country adoptions.

2. Allegations about IFI

A visit to India-adoption related forums such as ichild and blogs will quickly confirm the long history of complaints about IFI similar to those raised by the Smiths. One mother writes on her blog in 2005:

Our agency isn’t at fault, really. Not directly, at least. They’re just too
passive. They’ve just accepted what the liason said and never questioned any of
it. This liason has a bad rap in the India adoption world – we knew this only
after we were knee-deep in the program and already in love with our little girl.
He is known for over-promising waiting families and not delivering – often
without refunding money invested by the waiting families. But we were assured
that he had never done anything negative in the years that he worked with our
agency and had, in fact, completed around 100 successful adoptions from India
with our agency. So we didn’t worry too much back then. Over the years, though,
our doubts grew. And now our doubts were confimed.

Despite its reputation and history of complaints, IFI received temporary Hague accreditation for a period of two years.

3. ICIA is not licensed by CARA. According to existing CARA guidelines, “a foreign social/child welfare agency desirous of sponsoring applications of foreign adoptive parents for adopting an Indian child shall make an application to CARA through the Office of Indian Diplomatic Mission in that country and only such foreign agencies enlisted for this purpose by CARA shall undertake this activity.”

Questions

1. Does CARA permit umbrella relationships such as that between ICIA and IFI?

2. Does ICIA or IFI have any accountability for charging a $20,500 “country fee” which is well above CARA’s guideline current maximum of $3,500?

3. Given the irregularities cited by CARA inspectors and reports by NGOs and investigative journalists about unethical practices at PEACE, what ethical responsibility did ICIA have to become aware of PEACE’s operations instead of relying solely on IFI’s statements along the way?

4. Did the unethical practices cited by CARA about PEACE, PEACE’s relationship with IFI, IFI’s long history of complaints from other families factor into its review for Hague accreditation?

Usha

Smith v. Island Coast International Adoption, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 839793 (N.D. Ohio March 27, 2008)

U.S. Department of States list of Accredited, Temporarily Accredited, and Approved Hague Adoption Service Providers as of April 15, 2008

CARA Guidelines, Rule 6.1 and List of Recognized Indian Placement Agencies in Tamil Nadu, as of April 20, 2008

“Baby girl abandoned in theatre,” The Hindu, November 28, 2007

"Adoption Agencies and Institutional Practices in Tamil Nadu: A Sociological Study”, Sujata Mody, Malarchi Women’s Resource Centre, Chennai, 2005

"Fact-finding Investigation into the Functioning of Licenced and Recognised / Registered Adoption Placement Agencies and Regulatory Bodies in Tamil Nadu", Campaign Against Child Trafficking, August 19, 2005

“The Adoption Market” by Asha Krishnakumar, Frontline, Vol. 22, Issue 11, May 21-June 3, 2005

“Behind the façade” by Asha Krishnakumar, Frontline, Vol. 22, Issue 11, May 21-June 3, 2005

AfrIndie Mum, blog post dated May 26, 2005

“Orphanage inaugurated,” The Hindu, April 6, 2004

When the Bough Breaks -- Criticisms of Tamil Nadu's Baby Cradle Scheme

A Cradle Baby Scheme was established by the Tamil Nadu, India state government in 1992 as a means to combat the problem of female infanticide in certain areas of the state. At the time, studies reported that there were about 3,000 cases of femal infanticide yearly in Tamil Nadu which approached 20% of all female infant deaths in the State.

Tamil Nadu launched the Cradle Baby Scheme under which parents could leave babies in cradles at government-designated reception centers. The Scheme started in centers in Salem, Madurai, Theni and Dindigul, the areas most notorious in Tamil Nadu for female infanticide. The scheme extended throughout the state and reception centers were set up in every district at major government hospitals and other sites.

In 1994 the State began arresting parents charged with female infanticide under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder). That year, an estimated 100 such cases were registered, resulting in a few life sentences.

As of June 1, 2007, the government had received 2,589 children through the Baby Cradle Scheme. Though the Scheme was established in 1992, most of the children, 2,495, were surrendered/abandoned through the Scheme after the year 2000.

On March 29, 2008, Renuka Chowdhury, the Union Ministry for Women and Child Development, issued a press release stating that baby reception centers would be set up in every district in the country of India. A country-wide Cradle Baby Scheme was to have been inaugurated in December 2007 but has been postponed purportedly due to a lack of funds. R. Smitha, managing director of the Puducherry Corporation for Development of Women, indicates that the nationwide program now will be launched during 2009-2010.

A special report in March 2008 by Tehelka Magazine outlines major criticisms of the Baby Cradle Scheme:

Lack of Records for Cradle Babies. The first children adopted out of the Cradle Baby Scheme would now be about 15-16 years old. But there is no information available about these children and whether the Scheme has benefited them. No records have been kept for these children and no one in the government knows what happened to these children after they were handed over to adoption agencies. In addition, although in many cases the identity of the surrendering parents are known, this information is not available for the babies who are abandoned through the Cradle Baby Scheme.

Mortality Rate of Cradle Babies. As of June 1, 2007, 404 of the 2,589 babies received under the scheme died. According to P Phavalam, project officer at the Society for Integrated Rural Development in Madurai, the infant mortality rate in Tamil Nadu is 31, but it is 162 for the cradle babies.

Relationship between Cradle Baby Scheme and the Proliferation of Unmonitored Adoption Agencies. Organizations such as the Integrated Rural Development are opposed to the Cradle Baby Scheme. They assert that the cradle babies have turned out to be an unending source of supply for adoption agencies in the State. A social worker at Peace Society in Coimbature estimates that 75% of the nearly 140 babies they had given for adoption were cradle babies. As of November 2003, 27 of the 45 babies housed at Concorde House of Jesus and 19 of the 46 children at Guild of Service were cradle babies. Critics say that the cradle babies give the adoption agencies recognition and acceptance for their activities “without excessive monitoring and interference.” It is felt that the pressure on the Department of Social Welfare to rehabilitate the babies under the Cradle Baby Scheme has made them more flexible towards the agencies and their practices.

It appears that the proliferation of adoption agencies in Tamil Nadu is intricately linked to the Cradle Baby Scheme. Between 2002 and 2006, the time frame when the government revived the Cradle Baby Scheme and extended it to all districts, the number of adoption agencies doubled from 11 to 23. In 2005, a four-month study on the functioning of adoption agencies in the State prompted by the exposure of a kidnapping and sale racket of approximately 350 children, found that there was “big competition” among adoption agencies to get babies from the Cradle Baby Scheme. It also found that these agencies received large donations from prospective adoptive parents. According to the report, “We were told these donations are not accounted for and could range from Rs. 50,000 (approximately USD $1,254) to Rs. 2 lakh (approximately USD $5,015).

Questions about Welfare of Cradle Babies. With the lack of oversight over cradle babies who have been transferred to adoption agencies comes concern over their welfare. In November 2006, a five year old cradle baby in Attur had been found to have been tortured by her adoptive parents with around 300 burns and injuries on her body. As a result, the Tamil Nadu government ordered a study on the status of children put for adoption, but its findings have not been made public. Some call on the government to require annual agency reports of the child’s welfare until the child turns 18.

Questions about Cradle Babies Placed in Inter-Country Adoption. As of January 1, 2007, 1,472 cradle babies were adopted within India and 115 were adopted outside the country. Some opposed to the Cradle Baby Scheme are concerned that the cradle babies internationally adopted are growing up in an alien culture contrary to the subsidiarity principles set forth by the 1989 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the 1993 Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption. A. Renganathan, director of the Salem-based NGO Village Reconstruction and Development Project asks, “Can the government establish that no Indian parent was willing to adopt any of those 115 children?”

Questionable Impact of the Cradle Baby Scheme on Female Infanticide Rates. Female infanticide rates have not decreased. According to M. Shankar, convenor of the Tamil Nadu chapter of the Campaign Against Negligence of Girl-Child, “Dharmapuri’s sex ratio in the 0-6 age-group is 877 compared to the state’s ratio of 939. Similarly, the female infanticide rate is 73 against the state’s rate of 55.” A. Renganathan says that some parents prefer to kill unwanted girl children rather than handing the children over to the government saying, “It causes grief for a few days, then it’s over. To hand over the child for adoption would give them life-long worry.”

The Cradle Baby Scheme Legitimizes Traditional Discrimination Against Female Children.
Instead of alleviating discrimination against females, critics charge that the Cradle Baby Scheme actually reinforces it. For example, the highest number of babies received under the Scheme were in Dharmapuri. The Scheme was launched in Dharmapuri in 2002. By February 27, 2008, the reception center at the Dharmapuri government hospital received 1,044 babies. According to the director of the center, only 41 of the 1,044 babies were male and most of these males had some disability. Thus, critics say, the message is clear that male babies are abandoned only if they have a disability, whereas a girl is dumped because of her gender.

Lack of Adequate Funding for the Cradle Baby Scheme. The Tamil Nadu government has not allocated sufficient funding to the Cradle Baby Scheme. According to the Social Welfare Department, funding has ranged between Rs. 6 lakh (approximately USD $15,045) and Rs. 12 lakh (approximately USD $30,090). Activists allege that the Scheme is poorly funded and there is no exclusive staff devoted to operating it. As a result, there are no people on hand at the various reception centers to counsel parents who come to surrender their children.

The Cradle Baby Scheme Leaves Other Alternatives Unexplored. The group Social Movement Against Female Infant Mortality recently urged the government to suggest alternative schemes to save female babies. The group suggested that it provide more financial assistance to girls in the family. For example, a marriage assistance scheme provides Rs. 15,000 (approximately USD $376) to one girl in a family. If this assistance could be extended to other girls in the family, it could bring about a change in attitude it says. In Mettur, Salem district, the Welfare Centre for Women and Children, has come up with a new program that identifies pregnant women and places those who have two or more girl children in a high risk category who are then closely monitored. The director, R. Sampath, says this close watch has had an effect on reducing female infanticide.

Usha

“The Cradle Babies,” by Asha Krishnakumar, Frontline, Vol 22, Issue 11, June 3, 2005.

“Where Do Rejected Little Girls Go…”, by PC Vinoj Kumar, Tehelka, Vol. 5, Issue 12, March 29, 2008.

“In the Interest of the Mother and the Child,” by Khushboo, Tehelka, Vol. 5, Issue 12, March 29, 2008.

“Killer Districts” by PC Vinoj Kumar, Tehelka, Vol. 5, Issue 12, March 29, 2008.

Book Review: Once a Mother: Relinquishment and adoption from the perspective of unmarried mothers in South India by Pien Bos

Pien Bos is an education specialist and anthropologist who worked in the adoption field before becoming a researcher in 2001. Once a Mother is her dissertation published resulting from two years of field work in South India with mothers, families and social welfare NGOs. Pien Bos defended her dissertation on January 10, 2008 for which she received a PhD with distinction from Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

The subject of the book is the mostly unheard “supply side” of the adoption equation: first mothers in India. The goal of Bos’ research was to fill this knowledge gap and document and probe the process of child relinquishment from the perspective of their mothers. In this respect, Once a Mother is equivalent to The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade in that Bos documents present-day relinquishment practices in South India which are in many ways reminiscent of the Baby Scoop Era in the United States.

Bos interviewed 36 mothers whose factual circumstances varied widely, both in their socioeconomic station in life as well as the circumstances of their children’s conception. Seven of these mothers had relinquished their child at least 15 years earlier. The other 29 were in the process of relinquishing. In addition, Bos interviewed 16 other mothers who decided not to relinquish and were raising their children on their own.

From her fieldwork, Bos developed three main findings:

1. Many mothers who relinquished their children considered themselves married, not unmarried.

The social stigma of unwed motherhood is generally assumed to be the primary reason why children are surrendered for adoption in India. However, Bos notes that many of the mothers she interviewed adopted a more flexible and informal definition of marriage, specifically the tying by a man of a “tali” to a woman without regard to other ceremonies and formalisation. The varying interpretations of marital status tended to be denied by institutions.

2. Blood bond in general, and the blood bond between mother and child specifically, has an extremely significant cultural meaning in Tamil culture. The cultural significance of motherhood, in combination with the meaning of the notion mother in its broader cultural sense implies that motherhood is irreplaceable and life-long. Despite the legal significance of relinquishment, mothers continued to view themselves as their children’s mothers who handed over care of their children to others, but not their motherhood.

Although care of the child was transferable, motherhood is not. According to Bos, “[b]iological mothers of surrendered children still felt and eventually claimed to be the only true mother, and this aspect explained feelings, hopes and eventual expectations after adoption, for instance with regard to possible future reunions with their children.” Bos found that some mothers tended to relinquish out of a sense of gratitude to the NGO for taking them in: “[K]eeping the baby would imply the breach of an informal agreement and some mothers also assumed they would be charged an amount comparable to adoption fees for reclaiming their child.”

Reunion with a surrendered child was a recurring theme in Bos’ research. For this topic, in particular, differences in the individual perceptions and processes of mothers emerged. Whereas one mother raised the issue spontaneously as a consolation after surrendering her beloved baby; for another, the idea of reunion appeared a worse-case scenario. Bos discovered that time was an influential factor in a mother’s attitude towards a potential reunion. Some mothers who took into account their circumstances decades after relinquishment did not immediately reject a future reunion. Married mothers in particular expressed a strong urge to meet their surrendered children again. Despite the interest of many adoptees and biological mothers in reuniting, Bos found that adoption agencies typically do not seriously cooperate in searching for biological families to the point of actively obstructing such searches. The people working for NGOs typically assume that secrecy is demanded to protect the lives of mothers, without regard to the circumstances of the actual mother sought to be traced.

3. The relinquishment process is the equivalent of a “fyke” (a funnel-shaped net used to trap fish) where women who enter the social welfare system upon an unexpected pregnancy are set on a single-minded trajectory toward relinquishment.

Bos writes:

“From the moment of admission in a licensed agency, the internal flows and
forces, determined by prevailing dominant discourses, isolation, hierarchy,
loyalties and money are pushing her deeper inside the fyke. She is trapped
until the day she signs a surrender deed. On that day, the mother is
released from the institution and the child receives the status of ‘parentless
child’ until it is placed into an adoptive family.”

Bos finds the discrepancy between the stated objectives of formal adoption rules and daily practices “shocking.”

Bos notes that the consequences of a premarital pregnancy and the decision to relinquish expands beyond the mother and also encompasses her family and community. Hierarchically, mothers are not in a powerful position owing to their youth, lack of money, education and opinion that they “went astray” through engaging in premarital sex. Like mothers in Western countries, particularly during the Baby Scoop era, Indian mothers are strongly influenced and at times completely overruled in their decision of whether to relinquish by family members and/or staff of institutions. “Counseling” of unwed mothers by NGOs typically means advising relinquishment; other options are more commonly explored in the case of married mothers. Some mothers acknowledged the desire to hand over the decision-making process to others, however, Bos met other mothers who revealed that they were manipulated and essentially forced to relinquish against their will. Bos felt that good communication between mothers and their relatives would be beneficial, however, during her field work she discovered that pregnant women or new mothers more often than not were isolated with limited contact with family since they were sequestered through institutionalization or hospitalization. Input in the decision-making process by relatives was often conducted outside the presence or prolonged time spent with the mothers themselves. Bos pleas for informed decision-making; a transmission of cumulative knowledge and sharing with mothers who did or did not surrender.

Bos does an excellent job of noting the inherent conflicts on the part of NGOs that engage in adoption:

“My conclusion is that people on the work floor, practitioners and counselors
working in or for NGOs work with extremely complicated dilemmas. They
balance on a continuum with the voice of their personal conscience, their
perception of acceptable and suitable solutions for women on one side and
financial responsibilities on the other. On the one hand, they need to act
according to the politically correct conventions concerning mothers and their
children; on the other, they need to ‘sell babies’ to adoptive parents to be
able to run their agencies. NGOs are trapped by the construction of an
adoption field where financial income and the placement of children in adoptive
families are intertwined.”

Although legal adoptions are painted as a non-profit endeavor, the fact is that adoption is a lucrative financial means to maintain a flow of money from adopters to licensed NGOs. Bos cites the deleterious impact institutionalization has on the health and welfare of children, and therefore acknowledges that the outflow of children from institutions into foster or adoptive family care can upgrade their lives. However, her research examines how adoption simultaneously “sucks children into residential care” by putting pressure on women to supply babies. Bos concludes that “adoption, as it is legally organized, induces a flow of children towards institutions.”

Bos’ thesis is valuable because it offers a unique exploration voices of the mothers we in the West do not have the opportunity to hear while simultaneously affirming common place present-day attitudes and procedures that conflict with ethical adoption practices.

Once a Mother can be ordered by contacting Pien Bos at p.bos@maw.ru.nl The price is 15.00 euro plus postage.

Usha

Once a Mother: Relinquishment and adoption from the perspective of unmarried mothers, Pien Bos, ISBN 978-90-9022453-4, 2007

Indian women giving up their children for adoption affected by lack of information, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, January 15, 2008

India's Rules on Adoption Fees and Donations

A rule is only as good as it is enforced. What good is an adoption rule that is intended to curb child trafficking when that rule is not followed and when no government takes any action when the rule is regularly broken?

India’s Rules on Adoption Fees and Donations

CARA is the central authority in India that regulates intercountry adoptions from India. Since 2006, CARA’s guidelines contain two specific rules about adoption fees and donations:

(1) CAP ON FEES: In intercountry adoption, an adoption fee of a fixed amount of U.S. $3,500 is payable by prospective adoptive parents to the Indian placement agency through the U.S. agency. See Section 5.17(a) of CARA’s Guidelines.

This fee is an “outer limit” of recoverable expenses that may be reviewed for cost of living increases once every five years.

The recoverable expenses the fee is supposed to cover include the cost involved in providing quality child care, medical and legal services, passport, visa, payment towards professional staff, monitoring, correspondence, preparation of child study reports, medical reports, etc.

(2) NO DONATIONS: CARA’s rules are clear that no donation should be received by an Indian placement agency either from a foreign prospective adopted parent or from a foreign adoption agency. Section Section 5.17(b).

CARA’s Guidelines state that if the Indian Placement agency charges excess fees, CARA may suspend or withdraw its license to do intercountry adoption and may recommend the agency for criminal prosecution.

If the foreign adoption agency induces an Indian placement agency by offering more money than the prescribed fees, CARA may de-enlist that foreign agency with a recommendation that the agency be prosecuted as per the law of that country.

CARA’s guidelines with respect to the maximum permissible adoption fees and donations were derived from the India Supreme Court directives outlined in LK Pandey v. Union of India, 2 S.C.C. 244 (India Supreme Court 1984). The restrictions on fees and donations were formulated expressly to safeguard against the "profiteering and trafficking of children." See LK Pandey, 2 S.C.C. at 264, 270, 273. This objective also lies at the heart of the Hague Convention.

Earlier this year, CARA issued draft revised guidelines. It is expected that CARA will issue final rules effective January 1, 2008. In anticipation of the rules changing, this post records existing U.S. agency practice regarding fees and donations for India adoption programs.

U.S. Agency Practice

Set forth below is each of the U.S. agencies listed on CARA’s website that is currently licensed to place children from India that has information about its India program on its website (even if the India program is on hold). Linked to each agency name is the part of its website that discloses fees and donations for its India program (if any).

Agencies that do not publish fee information on its websites:

The following agencies do not publish information about its fees on their websites:

Love Basket

Children’s House International

Alliance for Children, Inc.

Hope Adoption & Family Services International, Inc.

Crossroads Adoption Services

Americans for International Aid and Adoption

Bal Jagat Children’s World Inc.

International Families Inc.

ACCEPT An Adoption and Counselling Centre

Children of the World, Inc. International Adoption and Relief Agency

The Barker Foundation

Commonwealth Adoptions International, Inc.

International Family Services

Hope Cottage, Inc.

Hope for Children

Wide Horizons for Children, Inc.

Agencies with published fee information on their websites:

The following CARA-licensed agencies contain information about fees on their websites:

Illien Adoptions International, Inc.

Lists a country fee of $9,000

Children’s Home Society & Family Services
India Program Fees consist of:

$3,500 for child care/maintenance/legal fees

$5,000 for “CARA approved and CHSFS approved International Child Welfare Projects”

Holt International Children’s Services

Adoption Program fee: $8,190.

Bay Area Adoption Services International Adoption

Lists partnering agency fees as ranging from $6,000-$10,000

Holy Cross Child Placement Agency, Inc.

India processing fee: $3,000 – $9,000 (varies based on Indian orphanages)

MAPS International

Indian foreign program fee: $4,500 (includes “orphanage donations”)

Journeys of the Heart Adoption Services

India Program Maintenance Fee -- $2,000

Contributions (Mandatory) -- $5,000. For “humanitarian relief projects which Journeys supports in India (paid to regulated non-profits for child nurturing, vocational training and such, i.e. Care and Share, or Hands to Hearts International.)”

Orphanage Fee (varies by orphanage) -- $2,500 - $3,500

Families Thru International Adoption

International Fees: $9,000. “Fees for child investigations, attorney, legal/court costs, recognized Indian placement agencies (orphanages) as allowed by CARA, passport, staff in India, maintenance of program, licensing, DHL, phone, fax, and assistance when families travel. FTIA provides support for welfare projects so that part of every international fee is a donation.”

World Association for Children & Parents (WACAP)
Lists no separate India program fee. Instead, total costs are:

Application fee: $250

Initial processing fee: $4,000

2nd processing fee: $4,000

Final adoption fee: $4,000

Adoptions from the Heart

In-country orphanage child maintenance process: $3,500

Support of child welfare programs: $3,500 (“This covers the donation to the Child Welfare Programs to support orphanages throughout the country.”). Preet Mandir, an orphanage in Pune India, is the only charity mission listed on this agency’s website.

Dillon International, Inc.

International Fee -- $3,500

Maintenance support fee -- $1,450

Children of India, Inc.

India Program Fee: Listed as $3,500 for non-resident Indians. Not published for non-NRIs. Website notes that some orphanages accept less than the CARA approved amount of $3,500.

Questions
The fee information described above raises a number of questions:

Why don't all agencies list fee information on their websites? Is there a “best practices” approach for transparency of fees charged by U.S. agencies?

Of the amounts of foreign fees in excess of $3,500, how much goes to Indian orphanages contrary to CARA guidelines?

Regardless of what is listed by a U.S. agency as its international, program or foreign fee, how much does the agency actually remit to its Indian partners (for example, do agencies remit amounts that come out of its own administrative portion of agency fees)?

Why do some U.S. agencies permit and in most cases require prospective adoptive parents to pay fees and donations that are prohibited by CARA guidelines?

Why is no action taken against Indian placement agencies or U.S. agencies for routinely violating CARA’s guidelines governing fees and donations?

Are there any U.S. agencies that can publicly account for the portion of adoption fees it charges that go to India? That go to any country?

Usha

Update in an Indian Adoption Scandal -- Kidnap and Adoption

In 2005 another horrid adoption scandal broke in India. In May 2005, the Central Crime Branch of the Chennai police arrested several people for allegedly kidnapping and selling about 350 children to the Malaysian Social Service agency. Also arrested were the director of Malaysian Social Service, P.V. Ravindranath, his wife Vatsala and their son, Dinesh Kumar who were booked under the criminal penal code provision for kidnapping.

Malaysian Social Service placed children for adoption between 1991 and 2001 or 2002. Several of these children had been sent for adoption abroad. Police investigations showed that records relating to children at the agency, specifically the surrender affidavits, bore signatures of false witnesses. Several affidavits didn’t even have signatures. Malaysian Social Service Agency previously lost its license in 1998 after some children who had been reported missing were identified as those that they agency had made adoptable. The agency’s license was restored a few months later and revoked again after the scandal in 2001.

After the news broke, the police were besieged by scores of parents looking for their stolen and missing children. The details about how the children were allegedly abducted over a decade varied. M. Habib said that in March 1998 his wife came to Chennai with their 3 year old son, Amaruddin. While his wife was trying to see the number on the bus, her son was kidnapped. Another woman, Sivakami, said that in 1997 her 1 year old son, Subash was playing outside their house in Pulianthope when he disappeared.

Only a few parents were able to recognize their children from photos seized from the orphanage. Not only had they been given new names by Malaysian Social Service, but reports indicate that the agency did not take pictures of the children when they took them in.

An in-depth report by Frontline in May 2005 of this and other scandals in Chennai traces the root of the problem, of course, to money:

“Foreign adoptive parents pay their local agencies, which send the sums as
‘grant-in-aid’ to their Indian counterparts. It is difficult to find out how
much each parent in the foreign country has paid – but, according to some
estimates, it ranges from $10,000 to $50,000. There is, however, a clear link
between inter-country adoptions and foreign contributions. In fact, many
agencies admit they cannot survive without doing intercountry adoptions.”

Following the arrests, a few parents filed court actions demanding the return of their children. One petitioner said his son Satishkumar was taken in March 1999, another said his four year old son was abducted by a gang in an autorickshaw, and a third said that his 1 year old child had been missing since February 1999.

Last month, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court ordered an immediate investigation by the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Central Bureau of Investigation into all three cases. A special team has been formed to probe these cases. According to one senior CBI official, “We have already collected the case details regarding the adoption racket case. There are a minimum five to six cases that we will be investigating with regard to the illegal adoption of children. The case details show that the children are sold to various parts of the world.”

Usha

Adoption monitoring agency ‘should be given more powers’, The Hindu, May 15, 2005,

Parents can’t identify missing wards, The Hindu, May 9, 2005

Missing child’s photograph identified, The Hindu, May 6, 2005

Police bust child abduction racket, The Times of India, May 16, 2005

Behind the facade, Frontline, by Asha Krishnakumar, Vol. 22, Issue 11, May 21-June 3, 2005

The Big Racket of Small Babies, boloji.com, by Ambujam Anantharam, June 12, 2005

Chennai lady waits for kidnapped son, IBNlive.com, June 30, 2005

Adoption: CBI registers three cases, The Hindu, by K.T. Sangameswaran, October 4, 2007

CBI to register case in child adoption racket, newindpress.com, by K Praveen Kumar, October 3, 2007

India: Baby Farming for Domestic Adoption Using Young Household Servants

An investigative team from CNN-IBN in Delhi, India has uncovered a trafficking scheme in which impoverished rural village girls, many of them tribals, are being recruited by employment agencies who ostensibly place them in larger cities as domestic servants. Subsequently cut-off from contact with their village families, the girls also fall victim to a much more sinister, profitable (for the agency) scheme.

According to allegations, the girls, while working for minimal or non-existent pay, also reportedly become unwilling baby-producers for the placement agency. Reportedly arranging to have the girls raped so that they become impregnated, the agency supposedly continues to monitor the girls (who continue working as domestic servants) as the babies are gestated. When the girls give birth, the newborns are, according to news reports, taken by the placement agency and sold on India's thriving domestic adoption black market.

The racket was busted when, after receiving a "tip-off," two members of CNN-IBN's Special Investigation team posing as an adoptive couple wanting a baby for domestic adoption, visited a particular Delhi placement agency with a hidden camera.

While negotiating a price for a baby, the investigative couple met both the mother of a child who had previously been adopted out and also the midwife who had delivered her baby 20 days earlier. During the meeting, the midwife and the agency representative, with the mother in question looking on, had a disagreement about the mother's age--was she or was she not an minor?

Apparently the CNN-IBN investigative team later followed up with the midwife who told them not only that the mother was a minor but also that:

"They [the placement agency] have been involved in getting young girls pregnant, making them give birth to children. Whoever they give the baby to, they take a lot of money from them."

The midwife insisted that she had been "smelling a rat for some time."

The investigative team called the local police who proceeded to conduct a raid. With information from the midwife, the police and the investigative team were able to locate the family who had bought the young mother's baby.

"The family [who had adopted the baby] claimed that they had no clue as to where the baby had come from. According to them, they collected the baby from the chamber of a lawyer..."

The infant was taken into protective custody.

Police subsequently returned to the placement agency. By day's end, they had arrested and/or taken in for questioning, the placement agency director and some agency personnel, the young mother, and the adoptive family. The lawyer who supposedly effected the transfer of the infant from agency to adoptive family was also located, but denied all knowledge of the situation.

The racket and similar ones involving other placement agencies, are being investigated by Delhi police. According to press reports, since the original arrest, several other young women who were being similarly exploited as baby producers have been taken into protective custody.

At last press report, according to North-West Delhi DCP (Deputy Commissioner of Police--the ranking police chief of the area), the crimes that were to be booked in the case included kidnapping, rape, confinement, abduction (of the baby), intimidation, and the intention to commit all the above crimes.

The discovery of this racket has created special concern among those on the Delhi Child Welfare Committee. They have "asked for strong action against the culprits."

The racket has also created serious public concern in India, bringing into sharp public focus at least three related areas of concern--areas of concern that have helped make possible the exploitation of these minors as baby-producers for the adoption market:

• the activities of placement agencies who routinely comb villages to recruit older children


• the plight of domestic servants within India


• the adoption climate--the market for and supply of adoptable children within India


• and finally, the state of Indian laws that govern these activities

This blog post will look quickly at each of these concerns so as to better understand the news story.

According to news reports, an abundant number of placement agencies recruit children, mostly from rural areas, to work in larger nearby cities, most often as domestic help. Many of these placement agencies are not registered businesses, but rather transient entrepreneurial "mom and pop" operations run by a husband and wife team. Most placement agencies are not registered businesses; most do not keep records of their own activities. Many hire young tribals as agents to go from village to village to find the child workers and are paid according to the numbers of children they find.

"Supplying child laborers as domestic workers is big business for agencies in Delhi.

Once taken from their villages, the working children and their families are frequently, purposefully cut-off from communication with each other. A placement agency calling care is the only way parents have to trace their child and check on his or her whereabouts and safety. However, when an anxious parent concerned by the lack of subsequent to work placement communication from his or her child calls to check on the child, the parent is shocked to discover that either the calling cared phone numbers do not work at all or else the person on the other end of the line has no information on the child--in fact, he/she has never heard of the child. Concerned parents who continue to trouble agencies about missing children often meet not only with non-cooperation, but also threats.

One press report tells of a man named Ghusari who is missing both a son and a daughter:

The agent took my daughter later he threatened me that if I register a complaint with the police, I will not be able to see my daughter ever again.

In spite of nasty threats like these and a police force that is not always kindly nor responsive to the concerns of impoverished rural folk, rural parents DO file police reports asking for help in finding missing children taken by recruiters.

"The list [of missing children taken by recruiters] available with CNN-IBN shows that over 700 children are missing from Sarguja district in Chattisgarh. And this village, Cheerapara, is missing no less than 64 of its children....

What are the chances that these parents will see never see their children again? Father Theodore Lakda, director of an NGO which rescues children trafficked from Chattisgarh reports that 20-30 percent of the children taken by recruiters will never be seen again.

Some who manage to come home again, tell of long work hours, abuse, and all too often of failing to get paid for the work they have done. As for justice for these children and their families, it is rare.

In the last two years, reports of crimes committed against domestic help, many of them young people, have increased by forty percent, but during the same period, conviction rates for the same have stayed steady at ten percent of the total.

"Many activists feel believe that there's a predominant feeling within the civil society that because it's a domestic help--perceived to be a helpless creature--anyone can get away with anything. 'Yes, they sometimes feel that they are feeding and clothing a young person and there is no control or no standards imposed. They don't pay the salaries of these people; it's a total question of bonded labor.'

--Leila Baig of the domestic arm of CARA.

It is in this climate of exploitation, injustice, and disregard for basic human rights that the racket of exploiting young domestic servants to involuntarily produce adoptable babies for the black market takes place.

But what of the adoption climate in India?

According to Western popular knowledge and press reports, India is fairly overflowing with adoptable young infants--so many infants that Western adoption agencies beg for parents for these children. In such a climate, why would there be an adoption black market? Why, if there is an overabundance of adoptable infants, would anyone bother to gestate yet more adoptable babies and in a way that was clearly criminal--and so put themselves in danger of criminal prosecution?

With some thought we could imagine many possible answers to this question--perhaps Indians don't like the formal process for one reason or another, perhaps some people are shut-out of the process for one reason, perhaps the cost of a formal adoption is too high, or perhaps some people want to adopt in such a way that their adoption is secret or hidden, etc. etc. etc.

Rather than speculate as to the reasons why someone would go to the trouble of hatching such a scheme if the country were overflowing with adoptable babies, let's let an expert on Indian adoption--an official spokesperson of the Indian government's agency charged with overseeing and regulating the adoption of Indian children both domestically and abroad, answer the question herself.

Leila Baig, Secretary of CEVARA (the Central Voluntary Adoption and Resource Agency), a domestic arm of CARA (Central Adoption Resource Agency), was a guest on a segment of CNN-IBN's Sunday Special, an in-depth TV show that examines critical issues in India. The show's host posed this question:

'Just why do such cases [of exploiting minor domestic help to gestate babies for the adoption trade] happen? Are laws--or the lack of them--to blame? Is that the reason why trafficking of children is now becoming a part of adoption practice in the country [of India]?'

And Leila Baig of CARA answered thus:

"It's not entirely adoption laws which are at fault over here but there is a huge demand for children now. There aren't enough children coming into the regulated system."

A "huge demand for children now?"

"There aren't enough children..."??

Hmm....how interesting.

And it comes straight from the lips of a CARA official. You can watch the video yourself by clicking on one of the links below.

Demand for legally adoptable infants exceeds supply.

Something that we who have been watching the adoption climate in India--both domestic and international--have suspected for some time.

It could make sense of a good many things.

More on this later in another post.

Desiree

Initial Video Which Broke the Story:
Exposed! Delhi's Baby Sellers Exploit Minors, IBNLive.com, 2 Sept 2007

Corresponding Text:
Exposed! Delhi's Baby Sellers Exploit Minors, IBNLive.com, 2 Sept 2007

A Series of Four Videos which comprise CNN-IBN's Sunday Special "Babies for Sale" (a longer investigative TV format looks at the issue in more depth and with expert guests):
Video Part I--Babies for Sale, CNN-IBN's TV show Sunday Special, IBNLive.com, 2 Sept 2007

Video Part II--Babies for Sale, CNN-IBN's TV show Sunday Special, IBNLive.com, 2 Sept 2007

Video Part III--Babies for Sale, CNN-IBN's TV show Sunday Special, IBNLive.com, 2 Sept 2007

Video Part IV--Babies for Sale, CNN-IBN's TV show Sunday Special, IBNLive.com, 2 Sept 2007

Corresponding texts for four part video report:
Text--Minor Mothers: Ill-Fated Girls Pawns for Sex-Racket, IBNLive.com, 3 Sept 2007

Domestic Help: How Trafficking Takes Place?">Domestic Help: How Trafficking Takes Place?, IBNLive.com, 2 Sept 2007

Follow up report:Welfare Board Takes Abused Minors into Protection, IBNLive.com, 2 Sept 2007

Petition for Adoptee Rights

As follow-up to the earlier post on adoptee rights in India, here is a message from Arun Dohle, adult Indian adoptee:

Please sign the comments and circulate the link widely. We need a lot of signatures, so that CARA really considers our comments.

http://www.petitiononline.com/adoptee/petition.html

Basically CARA acknowledges that many of us Adoptees do want to search for Roots and specifically open the records.

But sadly they explicitly close the records in case of children born to unwed mothers.

Practically that means many of us- if not most- are effectively stonewalled from any search and prevented from knowing our original identity.

However since there is a chance of our voices being considered, before that comes into effect, let´s all try our best to achieve positive change.

Since the comments have become a bit long, here the three main points summarised.

a) Birthrecords: that Adoptees, do also get an original BirthCertificate, with the names of their biological parents

b) Right to access to our files and records, even in case of childrenborn to unwed mothers

c) Support and Setting up of independent Post Adoption Services

Thanks for your support!

Warm regards
Arun Dohle
www.people.freenet.de/connectedindianroots

Adoptee Rights Considered by India

The governing administrative authority for India adoption is the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). CARA is considering guidelines that for the first time would contain an open records provision.

On this point, the draft guidelines provide:

5.9 Rights of the Child

The child has a right to his/her identified information such as background information. Except in cases of unwed mother, the details of biological parent/s may be made available to a child when he/she becomes adult or is old enough to understand such intricacies. SAAs are required to offer psychosocial services to all parties concerned when a search for origins is undertaken. Every child with a court order from an Indian court shall enjoy all rights and privilege of a biological child when he/she joins the adoptive parents in their countries.

Note the significant exception for adoptees of unwed mothers. “SAAs” are defined as specialized adoption agencies that are recognized by the state government for the purpose of domestic adoption.

CARA will undoubtedly hear from agencies. It’s not always in the interest of agencies for adoptees to obtain their background information or to search. The truth can be pieced together that way. It's important that CARA hear from those whose rights are at stake and others who are also knowledgeable about open records.

CARA is inviting comments reportedly until August 15. Please consider sending a comment.

CARA’s Draft Guidelines are here.

Comments may be directed to:

Central Adoption Resource Authority
Ministry of Women & Child Development
West Block 8, Wing 2, 2nd Floor
R.K. Puram
New Delhi 110066 INDIA

or

cara@bol.net.in

Usha

India: Lost Children and Adoptable "Orphans"

We take certain things for granted in the developed world. One of these is the speedy return to their parents (by the government) of accidentally lost or missing children.

This is not the case everywhere in the world.

According to an article on India's Tehelka online, one of these places is Delhi, India.

There, purportedly, the discovery and reunion to their parents of lost and missing children is sometimes purposefully being made more difficult or even impossible in order to supply adoptable "orphaned" children to profiteering private adoption agencies.

Given India's child welfare system this should NOT be happening.


India's Child Welfare System In Regard to Lost Children and Adoption
Theoretically and practically, India's child welfare system has made excellent provision, not only for aiding the return to their parents of lost children, but also for the regulation of adoption to prevent child trafficking:

• India has a national missing child hotline, Childline


• India's national Juvenile Justice Act contains, among other things, exemplary nationally mandated procedures and regulations to facilitate the discovery and reunion to their parents of lost and stolen children


• India has a functioning national system of local Child Welfare Councils who are invested with the authority and judicial power to protect "the welfare of children who need care and protection"


• India has a federal governmental committee, the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) with the mandated authority to regulate and oversee both the domestic and foreign adoption of Indian children.


• The Central Adoption Resource Agency or CARA has exemplary, nationally-binding, clear, concise, and well-thought-out regulations for adoption (specifically written with an eye for keeping adoption from morphing into child trafficking)


• India has adequate governmental organization, local police forces, and local NGO's which should be knowledgeable about laws, be able to report abuses, be able to follow/enforce regulations, and be able to coordinate child welfare efforts according to mandated procedures and applicable laws.

All of these pieces together should ensure that lost/missing children are found and returned to their parents in a prompt manner. It should ensure that vulnerable children aren't co-opted for a lucrative adoption market.

But somehow, it doesn't seem to do so.

To help readers understand just how such a system could be and is failing families and children, the Tehelka article tells the anecdotal story of an Indian family whose child is lost from them and then examines the a "confidential" 2005 report on the functioning of private adoption agencies within the child welfare system.

Difficulties in Retrieving A "Found" Lost Child
The anecdotal story of one Delhi couple illustrates just how hard it can be to retrieve a child from the system even after he is "found."

A Delhi couple's young son was kidnapped by someone hoping to "settle a score" with them and then purposefully "lost" from his parents by being set loose alone in a major railway station.

As soon as the horrified parents discovered their son was missing, they began frantically searching for him.

A day later they found him at a local home run by a private adoption agency. Instead of returning their lost son promptly as required by law, orphanage officials were reportedly "extremely uncooperative"--to the extent that they even refused to let the parents see their son.

"After hour of waiting and pleading, [our son] was finally shown only to my wife and that too from a distance of some 10-15 yards."

--An Indian father speaking of what happened when he located his missing son at a private adoption agency

The orphanage refused to return the son and the parents were told to come back three days later, on Monday.

"They again refused to entertain us on Monday. We then had to go to the juvenile court, which directed us to the Child Welfare Committee [in another area of town.]"

--An Indian father speaking of what happened when he located his missing son at a private adoption agency

A day later, four full days after finding their lost son at the orphanage, the parents were finally allowed, with the intervention of the Child Welfare Committee and "some good Samaritans," to take their son home again.

Not all parents are so fortunate or resourceful. Not every couple is able, on their own, to successfully trace their missing child and find him. Not all parents have the tenacious hopefulness that it takes to keep trying to in the face of serious or seemingly insurmountable hurdles. In a extremely economically stratified and socially hierarchical society, those "at the bottom" may have already learned that they "can't win" and that their efforts will only bring them more misery--poor people in someplaces have been conditioned to expect beatings whenever they complain or ask for help and justice from those in authority. Not all parents are as resourceful in finding appropriately helpful aid.

In short, the Delhi couple was lucky in that their story ended happily. Many similar stories don't.

In Delhi India alone, during the three years of 2004, 2005, and 2006, a total of 6,687 children, reported missing by their parents, were declared "untraceable" by the Crime Branch's Missing Person's Squad.

This means that 6,687 families, who had enough tenacity and hope to make the effort to file police reports in an effort to get help in tracing their missing child(ren), have been told that there is little to no hope of finding their children. For all practical purposes these children might as well have vanished into thin air.

"A senior Department of Social Welfare (DSW) official lays the blame for this on voluntary adoption agencies. 'They [the missing children] are fated to live either an orphan's or an adopted child's life, all thanks to various voluntary organisations.'"

The Problem of Missing Children and the "Confidential" 2005 Department of Social Welfare Report on the Functioning of Voluntary Private Adoption Agencies
According to Tehelka online which claims access to this "confidential" report, the Department of Social Welfare found that voluntary adoption agencies including the specific one in the previous anecdotal story, "routinely flaunt norms and rules" concerning lost children and adoption. But the problem goes beyond the voluntary adoption agencies alone:

"[The] 2005 DSW report states, 'Childline and the police are unduly helping [the adoption agencies] in procuring children for [themselves] in violation of statutory provisions.'"

Violations of child welfare provisions, according to the report, purportedly include the following:

• "Found" lost children taken directly to private adoption agencies without first registering them with the police or the local Child Welfare Committees.


• Adoption agencies failing to notify (as mandated) the police, the local Child Welfare Committee, and Childline (the national hotline for missing children) of the receipt of "lost" children into their institution.

Note: If governmental authorities are not notified that "lost" children have been taken into care, there is no official record of their having been "found." Children "found" in this way, despite being "in care" effectively disappear without a trace for all practical purposes. Taking children off of the streets and into an institution without reporting their whereabouts to the proper authorities actually makes it harder, not easier, for their parents to find them. Without official records that can be shared between official governmental offices, parents are must visit every possible institution within a city in order to look for their lost children. In a large city like Delhi this could make it practically impossible for children to be found once they are lost from parents.


• Adoption agencies who receive lost children failing to prepare individual child histories and failing to review individual children's cases in a timely manner or at all.



"Such history sheets could help in tracing the natural parents of a lot of children. These agencies have thus separated innumerous children from their natural homes...in their urge to mint money through adoptions."

• Complying with the Juvenile Justice Act's requirement that found "lost" children be advertised in newspapers, in such a way that it is unlikely that searching parents would either 1) see the ad and 2) recognize their child in the vague and inaccurate information contained therein.



"The JJA states that before putting up a child for adoption, the adoption agency must publish his particulars in at least four leading newspapers, of which two must be in regional languages. But 'private adoption agencies ... have resorted to just a farcical eyewash by publishing their self proclaimed names [presumably names given the child by the adoption agency itself--not necessarily the name by which the child is known to his parents] and self-estimated dates of birth without any photograph--that too only of a few children, in some less popular newspapers, off and on only. The [DSW] report says that the agencies do this, 'to avoid finding 'their natural parents'.'Commenting on this, a CWC member asks, 'How can parents recognise their offspring by such an absurd publication which does not even have the child's correct name?'"

• Neglecting by numerous failings to follow mandated procedures, the expressly stated principle of the nationally binding Juvenile Justice Act in regard to lost children which states: "Every effort should be made to restore the child to his or her biological parents."


• Violating the clearly stated, nationally binding regulations of the Central Adoption Resource Agency including the following:


• Charging in excess of the allowable adoption fees as set forth in CARA guidelines.


Note: According to the Tehelka article, the maximum allowable domestic adoption fee is 10,000 rupees, and yet, according to the same article, the average amount a domestic Indian couple pays to adopt a child is 20,000 rupees.
From the CARA guidelines themselves, I glean that the maximum amount allowable fee for a foreign adoption is $3500 (about 10 times the maximum charge for a domestic adoption). Yet, American adoption agencies often charge $5,000 -$7,000 for the "foreign fee"--the part of the adoption fee that goes to the Indian orphanage. Recently one American adoption agency stated through private correspondence to a potential client that their Indian fee was $11,000.
Which brings us to another point in our long laundry list...


• Preferring foreign adoptive parents to domestic Indian adoptive parents because they have the ability to pay more money for the child--despite the fact that Indian Supreme Court and CARA guidelines for adoption clearly state that Indians must be given preference over foreigners for the adoption of Indian children. And also, its domestic corollary...


• Preferring middle class and wealthy Indian parents over poor ones because of their ability to pay fees beyond the legal limits.

That agencies must go to great lengths to secure adoptable children and once secured, that agencies are able to pass over some adoptive parents for others, points up the fact that, despite claims to the contrary, India is not overflowing with children who are legally free for adoption.

In fact, according to Tehelka article statistics, there are on average approximately 200 Indian parents on the adoption waiting list at each of the approximately 10 of the adoption agencies in Delhi.

As the middle class in India grows, the demand for adoptable children also grows. Where there is demand, there will be those who seek to make money by filling it.

"Had [the family in the anecdotal story]not have [traced him to the orphanage where he was themselves], says a senior DSW official, 'he would have been in [the orphanage] for months without the required effort to trace his family. The agency then would have secured a release order--mandatory to give a child in adoption--from the CWC, finally to give him to a total stranger in return for a huge sum of money.'"

Officially, he'd have been listed as one of the missing "untraceable" children. Children who disappear from their parents never to be heard of again.

In my mind I see an internationally adopted child struggling to come to terms with the fact that he was abandoned by his first parents--didn't they love me?--while on the other side of the world first parents are forever haunted by the memory of the child they loved and lost.

And somewhere else someone else is enjoying wealth and accolades for helping "orphans."

What a world we live in....and how little we understand it all...from our own side of the elephant...

Desiree

Article: "Missing Children: The Business of Adoption," Tehelka.com, July 1, 2007

Resources: CARA Guidelines Governing Adoption

The Juvenile Justice Act (India)

India: Obstetrician and Social Worker Charged in Scheme of Selling Newborns for Adoption

An apparent scheme for illegally selling newborn babies to agencies and families for the purpose of adoption was recently uncovered in the city of Navsari in the state of Gujarat, India.

The discovery of the alleged scheme happened when a woman gave premature birth to her baby at Krishna Maternity Hospital. She apparently had not intended to give birth at this facility, but had gone there after being refused treatment at a local hospital. When the woman later returned to reclaim her premature infant the doctor would not give the baby back--presumably because the child was not there.

(It is not clear from the articles exactly why she left the child behind in the first place. Did she leave the child behind for treatment of the child's prematurity? Or did she leave the child behind because she intended to relinquish the child and then changed her mind within the legal 60 days window for reclaiming children?)

At any rate, when she could not get her child back, the woman went to the local police.

This set in motion an investigation of the Krishna Maternity Home, the doctor who ran it, his wife (who is a social worker), and the wife's involvement in a local charity, the Ayappa Bal Asha Trust, an organization "to help the needy" which is registered with the Social Welfare Deparment.

According to the news articles, neither the Krishna Maternity Home nor the Ayappa Bal Asha Trust were registered to faciliatate the adoption of children.

Despite the lack of license to do adoptions, the doctor and his wife, according to news accounts, had "sold" for adoption (to both individual families and also to agencies, more than 60 children).

Police were attempting to track down where individual babies came from, and where exactly they went, but this was made harder by the fact that doctor and his wife apparently did not keep good records.

In apparent violation of the law, many of the births and deaths were not recorded.

The children allegedly sold for adoption were widely dispersed, ending up in various places in Gujarat as well as in the cities of Pune, Mumbai, and Thane, and also, allegedly "abroad"--outside of India. (Hmmm....)

As a result of the preliminary investigation, the Gujarati obstetrican/gynecologist and his social worker wife were arrested and charged with "concealment of birth by secret disposal of bodies, [the] selling of minors, causing miscarriage without consent, wrongful confinement or abduction, forgery, and criminal conspiracy" in India in March of 2007.

Despite the impressive number of news reports covering this case (as listed below), the details of the scheme of which these two are suspected and the details of the crimes with which they were charged, are hard to piece together.

With this dearth of information and only the facts of the case as they are presented in the news accounts, it might be possible to imagine this case as one of the doctor and his wife simply failing to follow proper paperwork procedures while carrying out essentially legal activities. (and this may yet turn out to be the situation)

However, the zealous way the police have pursued the case and the serious charges filed against the doctor and his wife suggest otherwise.

There was an argument for not covering this case on my blog until more facts were known, but the huge number of children involved makes this an important case.

As does the fact that the case may potentially shed light on the reportedly large underground domestic adoption trade in India.

I'll update this blog entry as further facts on the case become available in the press.

Desiree

Navsari adoption racket still out of police probe range, Yahoo News India (India Express), 4/04/07

Adoption scam: Doctor, wife remanded in police custody, Yahoo News India (India Express),3/31-07

Cops to Probe Mumbai Link in Gujarat Child Adoption Scam, MumbaiNewsline, Indian Express, 04/29/07

Cops to Probe Mumbai Link in Gujarat Child Adoption Scam, Yahoo News India, 04/29/07

Gujarat Gynecologist and his social worker wife arrested in adoption scam, Gujarat Global.com, 03/27/07

Adoption scam: Baby’s remains recovered near Navsari temple, Ahmedabad, 03/27/07

India: Kidnappers Arrested in Adoption Racket

Police in Hyderabad, India have uncovered what appears to be a kidnapping for domestic adoption scheme.

It began on Saturday when a woman was captured by residents of Saibaba Nager on as she allegedly tried to abduct a boy from his home.

The woman, identified as Kalki Darmi AKA "Sujatha," was upon investigation found to have allegedly abduced at least four other children. These included:

• Ten month old Yesu Babu who was kidnapped from Madhapur and then sold to a childless couple in Bhiwandi


• Two year old Atheef Khan who was kidnapped from Banjara Hills and then sold to another couple in Bhiwandi


• A child sold to adoptive parents in Medak district, Andhra Pradesh


• A six month old who has not yet had a chance to be identified by his original parents, but who is suspected to be Kartik from Fateh Nagar

Sujatha is the sister of a man named "Narsya" who allegedly was known have been looking for childless couples who wanted to adopt.

According to the The Times of India Online article:

The children had price tags ranging from Rs. 7,500 to Rs. 25,000.

"She sold children like cattle"

(7,500 rupees is about $167 US; 25,000 rupees is about $556 US. This would figure out to about a month's salary for a middle class family; or about a six month's earnings for a poor family)

It would appear that sister and brother had implemented a profitable business. Sister allegedly abducting the babies and brother allegedly providing the same to adoptive parents for a tidy sum.

Kidnapper a cog in adoption racket?, The Times of India Online, 03/26/07

IMO, this story illustrates the idea that healthy young children are monetarily valuable where there exists market demand for them. And because of this, there is financial incentive for the unscrupulous to obtain healthy young children by whatever means possible, to fill this market demand. This is the case even in a country which we in the West usually understand to be teeming with "orphans." The truth also may be that India may not be quite as teeming with (healthy young) orphans as we've been led to believe. It may also have a bigger bevy of infertile, middle class couples who are willing to pay for healthy young children then we've been lead to believe.

Desiree

News: Mother Finds Son After 25 Years

Twenty-five years ago, Mary, a 55 year old Indian-born nurse who now lives in Great Britain, was married and living in Chennai, India. In 1998, her husband Phillip, who worked on a ship, deserted her and her three children: two sons - Selvaraj and Manicka Yesuraj - and a daughter Lourdu. Mary was left alone to support herself and her children--an especially tough task for a woman alone in India.

She turned to the local Catholic Church, Church of Our Lady of Consolation at Vysarpadi for help with her children.

‘‘I trusted the priest Fehlooz and admitted my son there. However, one day, my son [Manicka Yesuraj] went missing mysteriously. I had approached the local police station to trace my son, but they closed the file after declaring me as mentally deranged,’’ alleged Mary.

A decade later Mary was finally able to learn something of what became of her son when a church worker helped her locate a photo of him along with some text written in Dutch.

Meanwhile, Mary became a nurse and immigrated, along with her remaining children, to Great Britain. There she continued to wonder about what had become of her son and to continue her search as to his whereabouts.

Mary's daughter Lourdu also became involved:

‘‘I inquired with my friends and got the address in Holland in 1998. I struggled for more than six years to trace Yesuraj. I approached many social service agencies, the Holland Embassy and even private detective agencies. Finally, when I finally got the address of Yesuraj in 2004, his adopted parent T--- P---, did not allow us to meet my brother. They had changed his name to Manicka Yesuraj T--- P---,’’

According to Lourdu, their family had been "cheated by the priest" and the "whole process of [her brother's] adoption is illegal."

According to Lourdu, to facilitate the international adoption, her brother Manicka Yesuraj had been given a new identity. With this new identity Yesuraj had been represented as being an orphan and was offered for adoption. Subsequently he was internationally adopted by the his Dutch adoptive parents and left India on March 14, 1978 using a passport with his false identity.

Mary and her two children were finally allowed to see their son/brother Manicka Yesuraj about two years ago.

Manicka Yesuraj himself was "taken aback by the new development" and subsequently asked Mary to prove that she was his mother

Mary must now do so. (presumably with DNA?)

Meanwhile, Mary has filed a complaint with Indian police who are investigating.

‘‘We have received a petition and if necessary, we will re-open the original missing case registered in 1978,’’ said one of the police officers.

This post is based on an article in the Indian Express:

After 25-year search, Woman Traces Son

Desiree