Tuesday, July 23, 2013

DoS Notice: No U.S. Adoption Service Providers Currently Authorized to Facilitate Adoptions in Nepal


July 17, 2013
The Nepali Ministry of Women and Child Social Welfare (MWCSW) informed the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu that as of July 1, 2013, no U.S. adoption service providers (ASP) are authorized to facilitate adoptions in Nepal.  According to the MWCSW, the authorization of all adoption service providers expired on December 31, 2012.  The Ministry also informed the Department that no U.S. ASPs have submitted a new application or an application to renew their authorization for the two-year period beginning on January 1, 2013. 
While Nepal's adoption regulations (the Terms and Conditions and Process for Granting Approval for Adoption of Nepali Children by an Alien, 2008) permit Nepali authorized ASPs and foreign missions to submit dossiers on behalf of prospective adoptive parents, the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu cannot execute "cover letters" or submit dossier documents to the Ministry of Women and Child Social Welfare (MWCSW) on behalf of prospective adoptive parents or otherwise serve as a de facto ASP for prospective adoptive parents. Therefore, it will not be possible for prospective adoptive parents to file an application to adopt a Nepali child until a U.S. ASP applies for and receives authorization to facilitate adoptions in Nepal in 2013-2014.
Prospective adoptive parents should also be aware that, on August 6, 2010, the U. S. Department of State and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) suspended processing of new adoption cases from Nepal involving children reported as abandoned because documents presented in support of the abandonment of these children in Nepal were unreliable.  Cases involving relinquishment by known birth parent(s) were not affected by the suspension.
The U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu continues to encourage the Government of Nepal to work with the international community, including the Hague Permanent Bureau, to implement the Hague Adoption Convention and reform its adoption process to protect children and families. 
We will continue to provide updates through adoption.state.gov as additional information is received.  This link will also provide additional information and past adoption notices and alerts on the detailed concerns found in Nepal adoptions.

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Nexus of Intercountry Adoption of Nepali Children and Trafficking (National Human Rights Commission)







Trafficking in Persons Especially on Women and Children in Nepal


National Human Rights Commission

Office of the Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Women and Children

December 2012


Section 2.8.3

Nexus of Intercountry Adoption of Nepali Children and Trafficking

Nepal legalized intercountry adoption by amending the National Code of 1964 in 1976. Before it, only national adoptions were allowed. From 1976 to 2000, Nepal Children's Organization (Bal Mandir) was the only entity mandated to conduct adoption. In 2000, the Terms and Conditions issued by the Government of Nepal opened up intercountry adoption to child centers other than Bal Mandir and by 2008, 47 child centers conducted adoption. In 2011, the Government allowed 29 Child Centers for conduction of intercountry adoption for the period of 2011- 2013 (Box 2.1).

p. 49

Box 2.1   Child Homes Allowed for Intercountry Child Adoption for the Year 2011- 2013
  1. Bal Bhabisya Sangathan Nepal, Kathmandu (Child Future Organization)

  2. Sagarmatha Bal Griha, Kathmandu (Sagarmatha Child Home)

  3. Bal Sewa Griha, Lalitapur (Child Service Home)

  4. Nepal Prerana Samaj, Kathmandu (Assocatioin of Nepal Prerana)

  5. Buddhist Bal Griha, Kathmandu (Buddhist Child Home)

  6. Barosa Nepal, Lalitapur (Believable Nepal)

  7. Prayash Nepal, Kathmandu (Attempt Nepal)

  8. Sanjiwani Bal Griha, Bhaktapur (Sanjiwani Child Home)

  9. Nepal Bal Griha, Lalitpur (Nepal Child Home)

  10. Mitrata Ko Bagaicha, Lalitapur (Friends of Garden)

  11. Nepal Bal Sangathan, Kathmandu (Nepal Child Association)

  12. Aanatha Balbalika Sangathan, Lalitapur (Orphan Children Association)

  13. Aasahaya Balbalika Shichhya Kendra, Kathmandu (Abandonded Children Protection Center)

  14. Aasahaya Balbalika Sangrachhayan Foundation, Lalitapur (Abandonded Children Protection Foundation)

  15. Surya Bal Kalyan Sewa Kendra, Kathmandu (Surya Child Welfare Service Center)

  16. Bal Ujyul Bhabisya Nepal, Lalitapur (Child Bright Future Nepal)

  17. Hamro Har Nepal, Lalitapur (Our Home Nepal)

  18. Nepal Asahaya Bal Har, Nepal (Nepal Abandonded Child Home)

  19. Show Griha, Lalitapur (Self-Home)

  20. Bal Griha, Lalitapur (Child Home)

  21. Matriwatsalya Nepal, Lalitapur (Maternal Love to Children Nepal)

  22. Hopped Bal Thatha Mahila Uttathan Samaj, Lalitapur (Hopped Children and Women Promotion Society)

  23. Kathmandu Bal Bikash Samaj, Kathmandu (Kathmandu Child Development Society)

  24. Pancha Kanya Bal Bikash Shangha, Bhaktapur (Pancha Kanya Child Development Association)

  25. Bal Chhahari, Lalitapur (Child Umbrella)

  26. Samudaya Batawaran Thatha Bal Bikash Shangha, Kathmandu (Community Environment and Child Development Society)

  27. Sahayogi Samaj Nepal, Kathmandu (Help Society Nepal)

  28. Shristhi Nepal, Lalitapur (Shristhi Nepal)

  29. Kanti Bal Griha, Lalitapur (Kanti Child Home)
Source: Note of Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare about the Renewal of Child Homes on September 4, 2011

p. 50

There is no record available about the number of intercountry adoption before 1993. According to the CCWB (2012), the number of intercountry adoption in between May 1993 to 2008 was 2,234. Intercountry adoption was suspended in May 2007 when it was disclosed that a girl who had been declared as an orphan for the purpose of adoption had actually parents and she did not want to leave the country. The Government resumed adoption in January 2009 with the increasing pressure from the foreign adoption agencies and local child centers. It issued new Conditions and Procedures.

Since January 2009 to 2011, there were 344 intercountry adoptions – 224 girls and 120 boys. Among the 344 intercountry adoptions, 104 were adopted in Italy, 99 USA, 63 Spain, 24 France, 17 Denmark, 10 Norway, 8 Sweden, 7 Belgium, 5 each in Switzerland and United Kingdom and 2 in Canada (Table 2.16).


Table 2.16   Number of children intercountry adoptions by country, 2009-2011 and 2012, Nepal

Country2009-2011

2012

Girls      Boys     Total         Girls     Boys     Total
Belgium527
Canada20222
Denmark8917
France121224
Italy5945104
India00011
Norway7310
Spain441963
Sweden628
Switzerland415
United Kingdom41511
United States of America    732699
Total224120344224

Source: CCWB, 2012.


Review by Next Generation Nepal (2012) provided a review report about combating trafficking for exploitation within children’s home to NHRC. The Report defines trafficking for exploitation within the children’s homes, also deals with the demand factors, reviews

p. 51

governmental responses in relation to protection, prosecution and prevention aspects. The Report concludes that trafficking and exploitation takes place in many Child Care Homes by involving children as beggars, forced child labor in handicraft production, abuses by the foreigners as well as those who are involved in running the Child Care Homes. The Report argues that as there is elements of trafficking and exploitation in the Child Care Homes but the cases are prosecuted under the Children’s Act rather than under the HTTCA 2007. Intercountry adoptions is, therefore, linked to trafficking of children – mainly because the ‘means’ used for adoptions involves deception, fraud or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability and ‘an action’ involves that children have already been transferred from their birth place to Child Home and from Child Home to abroad. There is no research on the condition of adopted child and hence the ‘purpose (exploitation)’ of intercountry adoptions has yet to be studied. A study conducted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (2009) about the situation of intercountry adoptions in Nepal found a number of irregularities associated with adoption processes and violation of the Purposes, Principles and Safeguards set forth in the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention. It commented that the principle of the best interests of the child was completely absent – having no criteria for determining whether a child was adopted or not and the biological parents were not informed or counseled about the legal effects of giving up their child for adoption. Further, the study found that use of false documents, statements about the child's abandonment, origins, age and status, lack of transparency and accountability as other major irregularities prevailed in intercountry adoptions process in Nepal. The case of Srimiti (Case 2.5) represents how intercountry adoption involves irregularities and how Child Care Home takes advantages of a position of vulnerability of parents.

p. 52

Case 2.5   Trafficking of children by intercountry adoptions

Srimiti was admitted in a Prayas Nepal. At the time, she was about 5 year of age. Prayas Nepal published notice about her heir. When no one claimed her as heir, intercountry adoption process was conducted with the decision of Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare and she was adopted by an Italian man.

After two years, Srimiti’s mother living in Santi Nagar, Kathmandu – a squatter settlement – claimed that Srimiti was her biological daughter and that she would not like to surrender her child to the Child Home and she want to see her daughter’s face. This case was filed in CCWB. CCWB asked the details of the case and Prayas Nepal responded to CCWB that Srimiti was adopted by an Italian man by completing the legal process. Prayas Nepal also submitted an agreement paper signed by two parties (Srimiti’s mother that Prayas Nepal). The agreement paper reads: i) Prayas Nepal shall attempt to contact Srimiti through Internet within one month to show the face of Srimiti’s to her mother and ii) that condition of Srimiti shall be reported annually to Srimiti’s mother by Prayas Nepal.

Source: CCWB Office Record, October, 2012 (case developed based on letter sent by Prayas Nepal to CCWB about the child)


In this case, it appears that there is violation of definition of child who could be adopted according to the Terms and Conditions and Process for Granting Approval for Adoption of Nepali Child by Alien 2008 (Chapter 3, Sub-section 3). Accordingly, ‘an alien may be granted approval to adopt a child who has stayed at least ninety days in a child welfare home, orphanage or children's organization if the child is: i) orphan child or ii) if the child is voluntarily committed. Srimiti is neither an orphan child nor she was voluntarily committed by her parents.

Child Care Homes and Nexus of Trafficking of Children

According to CCWB (2012), there are 743 Child Care Homes in 32 districts in the country. Of the total 743 Child Care Homes, Kathmandu alone has 422 or 57 per cent of the total Child Care Homes in the country. This is followed by Lalitapur (28), Kaski (57), Chitawan (24) and Bhaktapur (21). The number of Child Homes ranges from 5 to 10 for eight districts. There are nine districts with 2 to 4 child districts and 10 districts have one Child Care Home in each (Table 2.17).

p. 53

Table 2.17   Number of Child Care Homes by districts, Nepal, 2012

DistrictsNo. of       districts    

No. of Child Care       Homes per district 

Total Child Care Homes        

% of Child Care Homes


Kathmandu142242256.8
Lalitapur112812817.2
Kaski157577.7
Chitawan124243.2
Bhaktapur121212.8
Banke110101.3
Kailali and Rupandehi28162.2
Makwanpur1770.9
Kaski and Nawalparasi26121.6
Sindhupalchok and Surkhet25101.3
Humla, Jhapa and Sunsari34121.6
Morang and Rolpa2360.8
Bara, Dhankuta, Kanchanpur and Parsa4281.1
Achham, Dhanusa, Dolakha, Illam, Jumla, Kapilbastu, Lamjung, Myagdi, Rautahat and Siraha101101.3
Total32743100.0

Source: CCWB, 2012, pp. 65.


In 2011, the numbers of Child Care Homes were reported to be 602 with 15,095 children residing in the Homes. The number of Children residing in the 743 Child Care Homes recorded in 2012 was not provided. Table 2.18 presents the distribution of children residing in Child Homes (n=602 in 38 districts) in the year of 2011 by age and sex. Data reveal that there are more boys residing in Child Care Homes against girls (56% vs. 44%). According to age groups, children residing in the Child Care Homes are from the less than three-years of age to 16 years and above. Of the total children, 7 per cent were below 3 years of age, 18.5 per cent below 6 years of age, nearly 40 per cent below 9 years of age, 64 per cent below 13 years of age and 89 per cent below 16 years of age.

p. 54

Table 2.18   Distribution of children residing in Child Care Homes, 2011, Nepal

Age groups (in years) Number

Per cent

Boys      Girls      Total           %of total      Cumulative %
under 35315421,0737.1      7.1
3-58668511,71711.4     18.5
6-81,8001,4143,21421.3     39.8
9-122,1471,5663,71324.6     64.4
13-152,1001,5903,69024.4     88.8
16 and above1,0046841,68811.2     100.0
Total8,4886,64715,095100.0
Row %56.044.0100.0

Source: CCWB, 2011, pp. 50.


Child Care Homes are supposed to provide an alternative care for abandoned children and children without parental care. But there is no information about whether all the children in Child Care Homes are abandoned or children without parental care – who require an alternative care outside the family. There has been report that children from the remote areas such as from Mugu, Humla districts are lured to Child Care Homes in Kathmandu by the agents by promising good education. CCWB monitoring and investigation reports show that some Child Care Homes do not comply with the minimum requirements of the Child Care Homes provisioned by the Government and not all children are actually in need of alternative care.

The Government has issued Standards for Operation and Management of Residential Child Care Homes (2012a). It has identified 78 standards to be complied by the Child Care Homes in relation to the following:

Entry Process and Admission Procedures of Children: consider Child Care Home as the final recourse of child’s care; prepare and update personal profile of children residing the Child Care Home; if children victims of violence, abuse, torture and discrimination admitted, they should be provided immediate health check-up, psychosocial counselling, and legal aid as necessary; children admitted in the Child Care Home should be provided adequate food, shelter and clothing; formulate policy and rule of the Child Care Home about admission process of children, facilities and services available in the Home,

p. 55

responsibilities and duties of staff and children, privacy, discipline and plan for farewell of children and monitoring; provide information about children if parents were found; take responsibility of protection of child’s property, inheritance property if any in coordination with concerned Government organization.

Residential Care Facilities, Infrastructure and Environment: the building of the Child Care Home should be with minimum standards and accessible to children; provide safe, easy and sound sleeping facilities for children; arrange separate toilets and bath rooms for girls and boys; arrange safe water for drinking and other personal use; have separate reading room, First Aid room, kitchen, dining room; arrange adequate playing ground for children to play; manage garbage in the Child Care Home adequately; have adequate physical facilities of the Child Care Home against earth quick, fire and other natural disaster.

Realization of Basic Rights of Children Living in Residential Care Homes: Related to Food- provide adequate fresh and nutritious and balance diet to children; regularly monitor the nutritional status of children; arrange clean and easily accessible kitchen to children; arrange adequate drinking water for all children; don’t force children to eat and not to eat unless children are sick; don’t provide food from outside the Child Care Home. Related to Education - arrange formal education for children according to their age; arrange training to children about civic education, better life options, vocational skills and socialization; have separate room for reading and library; regularly monitor the child’s progress in education and update the information; staff must take the responsibility as guardian of children. Related to Health - provide regular health check-up to children from an authorized medical doctor; arrange adequate First Aid materials, drugs and health related human resources; arrange adequate health treatment to children if they are injured; arrange health insurance for all children; arrange appropriate medical treatment if a child is psychological problem; don’t target particular children to examine STIs or HIV/AIDS; inform parents/guardians or children’s desired persons if children are seriously ill or injured or died; ensure that the children are not used for any medical research/or libratory work.

p. 56

Related to Entertainment and Play - have adequate facilities for regular physical exercise of children; ensure that the child to participate in games, literature, songs etc completion inside the Child Care Homes or outside it; ensure safety for children while they participate in games or any other completion; allow children to watch cinema, video, television and use of computer and internet according to their age; arrange adequate entertainment room and play ground for children; formulate plan for playing or entertainment with the participation of children. Related to Psychosocial Counselling- arrange psychosocial counselling services to all children as necessary; ensure that the privacy of the child is maintained while counselling to other children; aim to reunite the child while counselling.

Pre-requisite for Running a Child Care Home and its Management, Finance and Human Resources: (arrange adequate residence facility for children, constitutions of the organization must reveal that it works for child care; no staff should be employed who have criminal history; make provision of volunteers, internship and training, employ child friendly staff and develop operation guideline of the child care home.

  • Children’s departure, reintegration or reunion plan
  • Mechanism and procedure for monitoring of residential child care homes

In order to effectively monitor the Child Care Homes as per the new Standards, the Government has provisioned of Central Monitoring Committee under the Chair of Executive Director of CCWB at the Central level and Assistant CDO at the district level.

CCWB monitored some of the Child Care Homes whether or not they complied with the Minimum Standards of 2060 (2003). The Report reads as (paraphrased based on the Monitoring Report by CCWB)

Children are brought without the permission of the concerned authorities in Child Care Homes and children with parents. Of the total 454 Child Care Homes, 392 were running without fulfilling the Minimum Standards of 2060 (2003). These Homes did not have

p. 57

trustworthy sources of income thereby increasing the risk of children for exploitation and trafficking at any time.

It appears that Child Care Homes become as profit making enterprises rather than service oriented ones as many of the Homes have been established for the purpose of adoption.


Some of the Child Care Homes were reported to be running without registration with 2 to 4 children placed in a house. There are cases of renewals of Child Care Homes by the CDO office without the recommendation from CCWB. It is also found that Child Care Homes consider volunteers as donors and children are transferred from one place to another and one Child Care Home to another without permission from either CDO office or from DCWB or CCWB. The transfer happens when any disputes arise among the persons who run the Child Care Homes. Many of the Child Care Homes have maintained records of personal profile of children residing in - which may result to trafficking of children.

The Monitoring Reports of CCWB point out the problems related to foreign volunteers in the Child Care Homes (Case 2.6). They were found to be residing in some Child Care Homes and engaged in abusing children using drugs and vulgar words. It is reported that Child Care Homes receive US $ 1000 from a volunteer but only Rs. 5000 to Rs. 7000 is recorded in the account of Child Care Homes. There are 5-7 volunteers in some Child Care Homes whereby considering volunteers as the sources of income for the Child Care Homes. Although foreign volunteers are involved in teaching, playing or cleaning of the children, some of them were found to be sleeping with a child, taking a child for a visit and giving the gifts only to a child who they favour of. This has created feeling of discrimination among children residing in the Homes. It is reported that volunteers attempt to convince the donors on their self-interest and thereby increasing funding instability in the Child Care Homes. Volunteers generally do not show the details of donation they collected. Foreigners come to Nepal in Tourist Visa and work as volunteers. They bring the Photos of Nepali children and collect donation.

p. 58

Case 2.6   Rape and sexual abuse to the children in the child care home

The Managing Director of Abinash Anatha Ashram, Dev Daha, Rupandehi was accused of sexually abusing two girls for the last one and half year. The girls were of 11 year olds old. He was also accused of committing rape of two girls of about 15 years. He was abusing the girls time and again. In addition to sexual exploitation to the children, the Managing Director used to make children massage in his body and show the pornography to the children.

This news was published in Kantipur Daily on June 12, 2012. The DCWB Rupandehi informed about it to the CCWB and Ministry of Women and Children and Social Welfare for necessary action to the culprit and to rescue the children from the Home. The CCWB wrote to the DCWB that all children residing in the Child Care Home should be transferred to another Home. At the time, there were 33 children (18 boys and 15 girls) who were referred to another Child Care Home. Among the 33 children, two were below 5 years of age, 9 were in the age range of 5-9 years and 21 were 10 years and above.

Source: Kantipur Daily June 12, 2012 and Letter of Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare to the CCWB dated July 3, 2012 (2069/3/3) and Letter of District Child Welfare Board, Rupandehi to CCWB dated July 1, 2012.


Monitoring Report by CCWB of Morning Star Children’s Charity Home

On the complain that Morning Star Children’ Charity Home has violated the Minimum Standards of Operation of the Child Home, CCWB utilizing the power of Children’s Act 1990 (Sec. 44, Sub-sec 1) and Child Regulation 1993 (Sec. 8, Sub-sec. 6) monitored the Home in April 19, 2012 and observed the following:

There were 41 children residing in the Home. Since three years, the Managing Director has raped four girls time and again. In addition, the Director used to sexually abuse other girls above 11 years of age by touching their sexual organs, making them nude, going to see while they are on a bath, using the vulgar words to the children. The Director’s wife compelled girls to have sex with her husband one-by- one and when she used to go to the maternal house, she also compelled girls to sleep with her husband’s sleeping room.

p. 59

Children were beaten by burning firewood and rode and it was found that two children hands were broken. Children were forced to work as domestic servants – washing of cooking posts, cleaning rooms and washing of clothes of the Director and his wife. Although the children were sexually exploited for the last 2 or 3 years, they were afraid of complaining it because of fear of revictimization. Some six years ago, the Director forced Sunita to abort her child and now she was not in the Home

Given these facts, the CCWB recommends that children from the Home must be transferred to other Child Care Homes for their proper safety and an immediate need of providing psychosocial counselling to them. It decides that this Child Care Home shall not be permitted to run in the coming fiscal year as its management and environment was found to be against the best interest of the child.


Monitoring Report by CCWB of Rasuwa-Lamtang Liring Aanatha Sastha, Sanothimi, Bhaktapur

Pursuant to Children’s Act 1990 (Sec. 44, Sub-sec 1) and Child Regulation 1993 (Sec. 8, Sub-sec. 6), CCWB and DCWB of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur monitored and observed Rasuwa-Lamtang Liring Aanatha Sastha in May 27, 2010 to understand the situation of children in the Home and it observed and recommended the following:

There were 18 children in the Child Care Home. It was not running as per the Operation Guideline of Child Care Home. It was not renewed since 2007/08. Children were frequently transferred from one place to another without informing and taking permission from District Administrative Offices of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur, and DCWB and CCWB. The physical environment of the Home was very dirty and bad smelling coming up. The rooms were not cleaned and toilet smelt very badly. There was no sign board and the Home has not had house rent agreement, either. The Director collected donation from Baudda Gumba of Kathmandu, Musjid of Rani Pokhari, Saibaba temple of Anamnagar and Rs. 15,000 per child annually from Australia but no office account is maintained.

p. 60

It is suspected that the Child Care Home conducted unauthorized intercountry adoptions in time and again. The Home has not maintained details records of children – their address, name and age and sex of the child, parental status – making it difficult to know whether children residing in the House were really abandoned and/or without parental care. The Director of the Home confessed that some two years ago, he brought eight children to Bangalore, India but he did not have the details records of them.

Of the 18 children reported in the Child Care Home, only 13 children were attending schools while the rest were not attending in school.

Given these facts, CCWB’s monitoring team decides that the Director of the Child Care Home should be brought to justice. It recommends to the Kathmandu and Bhaktapur District Administration Offices for necessary action to the Director.


Monitoring Report by CCWB of Mukti Nepal, Maharjgunj, Kathmandu

Pursuant to Children’s Act 1990 (Sec. 44, Sub-sec 1) and Child Regulation 1993 (Sec. 8, Sub-sec. 6), CCWB and DCWB of Kathmandu and Bhaktapur monitored and observed Mukti Nepal in April, 2010 to understand the situation of children the Child Care Home and observed the following:

There were 24 children in the Home. All children – boys and girls – were residing in a single room. The Home was so dirty that it was as like a public toilet. Goods were messy; the gate of the house and water pond inside the Home was opened. The sleeping bed was so dirty that it could easily cause communicable diseases. There were no staff to take care of children; children cooked themselves and washed pots.

p. 61

The Director of the Home refused to provide the personal profile of children residing in the Home (name, address, age, sex, schooling and medical status). There was no medical report of the child who died some six months ago due to physical torture in the Home. Further, a child referred by Community Police to Nirantar Bikash Sastha was found in this Child Care Home – revealing that children are transferred from one Child Care Home to another for business purposes. The organization was renewed in CDO office Kathmandu. But, a question arises how it was renewed as violated the minimum standards of operation of the Child Care Home.

Given these facts and testimony results from the children themselves, the monitoring team recommends to the concerned authorities for the necessary action to the Child Care Home. The records of the CCWB show that all the 24 children were transferred to Sri Himali Nawin Samaj, Bishnu Budanilakanthak, and Kathmandu for their protection.

Mukti Nepal Testimony

Drawing on the narratives of the children residing in the Mukti Nepal Child Care Home which was developed by CCWB monitoring team, the Director of Mukti Nepal (a woman) appears to be very cruel and inhuman and was involved in trafficking of children in the name of intercountry adoption. The following are some of the examples of offences committed by her against children residing in the Home.

Some six months ago, one of the residents – Sangita Shrestha – died due to severe physical torture by the Director. The medical report also proves that her death was due to physical torture. In another case, a staff of the Child Care Home incarcerated a child in a small shelf for 7 days – not allowing going toilet and talking to others.

Children were beaten by thick metal rods, metal water jugs, other kitchen utensils and belts. They were punished for talking, playing,

p. 62

laughing or even walking loudly. Children were neglected when they were sick and they were not provided adequate food. The so called lower caste children were not allowed to enter into the kitchen and touch water. The Director used to call children by humiliating naked names. Several children used to wet the bed at night due to fear of the Director. These children were punished by not giving food in the next morning and they had to sleep in an open floor in the next evening. Children were not allowed to call at home or with relatives so that they would inform about their condition to their parents/relatives.

Girls had to massage the Director’s body – her pelvic area during her menstruation and her big fat belly. Girls were treated as domestic servants – forcing them to wash clothes, clean the rooms and toilet and not allowed to study.

Children had to pretend that they did not have their parents in front of strangers and foreigners. They were not allowed to come close with the volunteers to talk about themselves.

It is reported that the Director stole two children while they were on the school and the family did not find these children. One child was illegally adopted and when the child’s father claimed for his child, he was beaten. One child was adopted in Spain but parents know about it.

From -- National Human Rights Commission:



For more on Mukti Nepal -- see Victims of Balmandir (Pound Pup Legacy):



For more on Prayas Nepal -- see Fake police document to adopt a girl (Kantipur):





Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Monday, December 31, 2012

DOS Notice: U.S. Department of State Continues to Recommend Against Adopting from Nepal






Nepal

December 31, 2012


Notice: U.S. Department of State Continues to Recommend Against Adopting from Nepal

The Nepali Ministry of Women and Child Social Welfare (MWCSW) informed the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu that as of December 2012, there are seven U.S. adoption service providers authorized to facilitate adoptions in Nepal at this time, and another ten U.S. adoption service providers whose authorization is pending payment of a $5000 fee to the Nepal Child Right Fund.  According to the MWCSW, the authorization of all adoption service providers, including those currently authorized and those with pending authorization requests, expires on December 31, 2012.  The MWCSW is currently soliciting new or renewed accreditation by international adoption service providers for dossiers submitted during a two-year period beginning on January 1, 2013.

Before embarking on an adoption in Nepal, prospective adoptive parents are strongly urged to confirm with the MWCSW that their adoption service provider is authorized to facilitate adoptions in Nepal.  Contact information for the MWCSW may be found on the Country Information Sheet for Nepal.  A copy of the MWCSW’s current list of Nepali authorized foreign adoption service providers may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Embassy at adoptionsnepal@state.gov.

By way of background, on August 6, 2010, the U. S. Department of State and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) suspended processing of new adoption cases from Nepal involving children claimed to have been found abandoned because documents presented in support of the abandonment of these children in Nepal were unreliable.  Cases involving relinquishment by known birth parent(s) were not affected by the suspension.  In December 2011, the Government of Nepal informed the U.S. Department of State that there may be a small number of children who will be found eligible for intercountry adoption by the Government of Nepal as relinquishment cases.  The U.S. Department of State continues to strongly recommend that prospective adoptive parents refrain from adopting children from Nepal due to grave concerns about the reliability of Nepal’s adoption system and credible reports that children have been stolen from birth parents, who did not intend to irrevocably relinquish parental rights as required by INA 101(b)(1)(F).  We also strongly urge adoption service providers not to accept new applications for adoption from Nepal.

The U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu continues to encourage the Government of Nepal to work with the international community, including the Hague Permanent Bureau, to implement the Hague Adoption Convention and reform its adoption process to protect children and families.

We will continue to keep you updated through adoption.state.gov as additional information is received.  This link will also provide additional information and past adoption notices and alerts on the detailed concerns found in Nepal adoptions.  Please refer to USCIS.gov for Special Instructions for How and When to File Adoption Petitions on Behalf of Nepali Children.



Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Salleri teacher in seven year wait for salary (The Himalayan Times)









Salleri teacher in seven year wait for salary

The Himalayan Times

2012-07-22

SOLUKHUMBU: A teacher at Balmandir located in the district headquarters, Salleri, has not got her salary after the end of monarchy in the country.

The teacher, Sunita Kayastha, has not got her salary since 2062 BS. The Balmandir was established in 2039 BS.

Denied salary for the past seven years, she has now been visiting the Department of Education and Central Office of Nepal Children's Organization (NCO) asking for salary.

The District Education Office (DAO) had given recognition of Primary level to the Balmandir in 2045 BS. After that, the DAO had provided one teacher in quota and day meal was provided to one teacher and students by the NCO, but the teacher could not get salary and students could not get the day meal for all these seven years.

Teacher Kayastha said that she worked with the assurances of getting salaries but was not successful so far.

She added that the DAO has been providing Rs. 1,800 per month under EDC class.

According to the District Education Officer, Devendra Raj Khanal, the DAO did not provide the salary as the Balmandir is under the Nepal Children's Organization. There are 21 students in the Balmandir.

© 2012 The Himalayan Times

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Salleri+teacher+in+seven+year+wait+for+salary&NewsID=340506




Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Friday, August 3, 2012

USCIS Revised Country Information for Nepal

USCIS has published an updated version of its country information for Nepal. According to USCIS, "These revisions do not present any significant updates on adoptions in Nepal . Rather, they consolidate existing information and explain the current process for adopting children from Nepal. As this information is intended to help the public, please feel free to share this information."
  
The revised text of the country information section on Nepal is as follows:
The U.S. Government is currently adjudicating intercountry adoption petitions filed on behalf of Nepali children who have been relinquished by a known birth parent(s) whose identity and relationship can be confirmed.  The U.S. Government is not adjudicating adoption petitions filed for Nepali children who are described as having been abandoned.  On August 6, 2010, the U. S. Department of State and U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) suspended processing of new adoption cases from Nepal involving children claimed to have been found abandoned because documents presented in support of the abandonment of children in Nepal have proven unreliable. 
USCIS and the U.S. Department of State continue to strongly recommend that prospective adoptive parents refrain from adopting children from Nepal due to grave concerns about the reliability of Nepal’s adoption system.  We also strongly urge adoption service providers not to accept new applications for adoption from Nepal.
The U.S. Government continues to encourage the Government of Nepal to work with the international community, including the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, to implement the Hague Adoption Convention and reform its adoption process to protect children and families. 
There are special filing instructions in place for adoption petitions under the orphan system involving Nepali orphans.  For more information, please see the page called “Special Instructions for How and When to File Adoption Petitions on Behalf of Nepali Children.

USCIS and Department of State Roles
USCIS is responsible for the adjudication of the Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative.  In overseas locations where USCIS does not have an office, such as Nepal, USCIS has delegated limited authority to Department of State consular officers at U.S. embassies and consulates to accept in-country filings of Forms I-600 in certain circumstances and to approve petitions that are clearly approvable.  Form I-600 petitions found by the consular officers to be “not clearly approvable” are then forwarded to the USCIS office overseas with jurisdiction over that location for adjudication.  The USCIS office in New Delhi, India, has jurisdiction over petitions filed with the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal.

Recent History
On August 6, 2010, the Department of State and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services jointly decided to suspend adjudication of new adoption petitions and related visa issuances for children who purportedly were abandoned in Nepal.  
In early August 2010, a joint assessment team from the U.S. Department of State and USCIS travelled to Nepal and performed a detailed analysis of the evidence being presented to document the abandonment of children in Nepal.  The team found that information presented in support of orphan petitions included vague and self-contradictory testimony and documents.  Local officials were often uncooperative or appeared to purposefully mislead or deter investigations.  The U.S. Government committed to complete the processing of the 65 cases where U.S. families had received an official referral of a Nepali child before the announcement of the suspension (these cases are referred to as “pipeline” cases).
On January 5, 2011, Nepal’s Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare announced that children found by the police and considered abandoned will not be available for intercountry adoption until further notice.
In January 2012, Nepal’s Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare announced on its website that there may be children who could be considered eligible for intercountry adoption by the Government of Nepal as relinquishment cases (meaning that the children had become orphans by virtue of having been relinquished by their birth parent(s)).  Due to the concerns regarding the reliability of Nepal's adoption system, any future relinquishment cases received by the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu will require thorough investigations, which may include birth parent interviews and DNA testing.  USCIS cannot estimate the time any investigations may take to complete.  Prospective adoptive parents should be aware that investigations may require significant time and would likely result in an increased financial burden. 
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ecab18a1f8b73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=ecab18a1f8b73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD


Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/