e-mail
In the ongoing mess that is the Casa Quivira orphanage grab fiasco in Guatemala, it’s easy for some to forget about the impact on the adoptive parents caught in the tangled tango.
This story from Denver looks at one dad and his sad and scary sojourn in limbo.
Chinese orphans have reportedly just had their rights boosted … and in the ‘added to’, not the ‘ripped off from’ sense.
Starting this week unregistered orphans have been included under the hukou system of household registration.
Although touted as a plus in that registration is required to get a job, go to college and get married, it also places restrictions on movement and is considered by many to be discriminatory toward the rural population, although some reforms have been made in the past few years.
With 15 orphanage in Beijing housing an unknown number of orphans, and an estimated 2,000 children adopted into Beijing families recently, the change will be significant … although likely slow.
The only snag could be that household adoption may be held up as police must first confirm the identity of the parents, if possible.
This is to prevent family-planning violations, Wei said.
Some families have reportedly sought hukou for their kids under the orphan adoption route, thereby attempting to circumvent the nation’s one-child policy.
Yeah … well, that would happen, wouldn’t it?
A report out of India is confusing me this morning.
Said to be a “CNN-IBN expose” of a “baby selling racket in Delhi”, the story posits all sorts of grim scenarios as proof of something that’s not at all clear. Kidnapping, rape and babies for sale are all tied into a sloppy package … actually, two sloppy packages … suggesting what may sound like young girls being forced to have babies in order to feed “over 1,2000 unregistered placement agencies” in Delhi.
I’m having a couple of problems this is that … first, there is NOTHING about this on any CNN site I can find, and, second, nowhere in either story is there any attribution or substantiation.
Although Yahoo picked the story up, their version is simply a reprint of the unsubstantiated stuff that appeared in the first place.
I’m thinking this must be some load of hooey. If there was more to it, there would be more to it, if you get me. This has the odor of more of the same sort of blather that is meant to end up like the Casa Quivira debacle. I know I may be sounding just a wee bit cynical about the press, but the headline switcheroo the other day in the Sunday Telegraph has me even less inclined than usual to take the media’s word for anything.
Read for yourself, and if anyone finds any real information on this, I would love to hear about it.
