Kasargod child trafficking: Kundapur couple say baby was legally adopted

Kasargod child trafficking: Kundapur couple say baby was legally adopted

Silvester D'Souza / Daijiworld Media Network

Kundapur, Jul 6: In a new twist in the Kasargod child trafficking case wherein a man was arrested for selling his two infant sons, one in Kundapur and another in Mangalore, it has now turned out that the first child was not sold but legally adopted by a couple in Kundapur.

Krishnayya Achari, a resident of Chamtadi, Belur, who adopted the baby, also clarified that no exchange of money took place, contrary to earlier claims that the child had been sold for a sum of Rs 60,000.

It may be recalled that Rathish from Kasargod was arrested on charges of selling his first son one-and-a-half years ago when the child was only eight months old. Two weeks ago, he allegedly sold off his second child, a six-month-old son, in Mangalore. It was said that he had sold the sons for a total sum of Rs 1.6 lac.

It has now emerged Krishnayya and his wife had legally adopted the child from Rathish and did not pay him any money.

"We legally adopted the baby with the help of Mangalore-based advocate Ashalata Y Kamat, and the adoption was recorded at the sub-registrar's office on April 27, 2013," he said.

"I read about the case in the media which stated that the child had been sold. We were shocked by the report. My wife Shanta and I together got the adoption procedures done at the sub-registrar's office in the presence of Ankadakatte residents Ganesh Achar and Udaya Achar. Moreover, parents of the child Rathish and Prema too were present and signed the register," he said, adding that a sum of Rs 410 was paid as registration fee according to regulations.

Krishnayya also produced the relevant documents pertaining to the adoption, and said that he had adopted the child due to problems with his wife's health. "As per the information provided by the biological parents of the child, the baby was eight months old at the time of adoption and did not have any name. The baby had marks on the body and was ill. On June 26 this year, the child turned two years old. We have named him Chetan," he informed.

Krishnayya, son of Narayana Achari of Chamtadi, is 40 years old. From several years he has been engaged in the task of building the wooden frames of lorries at Hangarakatte. Last year, he shifted his garage to the premises of his house, and has been living in poverty. His wife is suffering from a heart ailment. As the couple have no child of their own, they decided to opt for adoption. The child is healthy.

As per rules, the adopted child should live with the parents who adopt it. However, in this case, the biological mother Prema had alleged that Rathish had sold the child without her knowledge. This point may prove significant in the case. On hearing the news about the child being sold, Krishnayya and his wife Shanta approached the Kundapur police on July 6 for help.

"I did not cross any legal boundaries while adopting the child. I adopted him as per procedures. He is my son now. I need justice," said Krishnayya.

Meanwhile the Kasargod police on Friday July 5 claimed that the mother of the two sons who were allegedly sold by the father, was also involved in the transaction.

Both Rathish (31) and his wife, Prema (28) from Tsunami Colony in Nellikunje here were arrested. Prema was arrested on the basis of Rathish's statement about her connivance.

The police have succeeded in locating and taking into custody the younger son, Bablu, from Mangalore.

The police want to apply for the police custody of Rathish, who is under judicial custody now, to get more information from him. As the marriage of Rathish and Prema was found to be not legally valid, the police want to find out as to whether they are connected with child trafficking cartel.


Trafficked kids are not legal

Is anyone else scratching their head with the statement made by these APs that they "legally adopted their child."
When is it EVER legal to adopt a trafficked or sold child?

Reminds me of the many kidnapped, trafficked, laundered, sold into ICA of children from other countries who are brought to the US. The statement of the AP is the same, just insert ANY country of origin.

An example is found here at http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/50462

"The adoptive parents are Timothy and Jennifer Monahan of Liberty, Missouri. A public relations firm they hired said last year that they "will continue to advocate for the safety and best interests of their legally adopted child."

legal v. not-legal

Many times, when it comes to reporting information involving a controversial ICA/infant adoption, journalists will shed light on the general topic, "illegal adoption", but few will take the time to explore the many different ways in which a person can be coerced into an adoption-plan.  As a result, I find myself asking: what makes an adoption legal, and what makes one not legal?

If criminal activity is behind one's adoption-plan, but the crimes (like kidnapping, forgery, or exploitation) can be covered-up and hidden, does that mean no crime has been committed?

It's no secret I myself am not a fan of the sugar-coated twisting of words found in Positive Adoption Language, but when applied to the adoption process, I find the language used in Adoptionland is confusing at best, and in many cases, should not be trusted.

For instance, in America, it's not legal to steal or kidnap a child, and then trade that child, for money. But baby brokers and shady adoption lawyers have been doing just this, very successfully, for decades, because the final paper-work looks legitimate, allowing an illegal adoption process to pass as a "legal", and more offensive, "ethical", and "in a child's best interest".

These practices have been the result of a demand for children, no matter what. This demand is coming from "desperate" prospective adopters, who will chose their entire adoption-plan not on the basis of a child's needs, but rather the speed of delivery.

As with any commerce product for trade, when it comes to supply and demand, the buyers (in this case, the adopters) often start the negotiation with two main questions: what will it cost, and when will delivery take place?

Here in the USA, it is not legal to solicit money, or pay cash, for a woman's unborn-child, but it IS legal to hire a lawyer who knows how to turns these payments into expenses.. 

All this magic is done not through coercion, of course... it's done by following a very carefully-planned payment plan... a plan that may or may not be all that transparent to those signing a life away.

If a baby (a pregnant agreeable mother is readily available) the plan is easy.  Money gets paid; baby gets delivered.  Everyone goes happy, especially the one who gets the most cash for "services rendered".

The adoption-plan gets ugly if the broker gets the money, but has no baby. If the PAPs pay, and get no baby, we get to hear all about it, as journalists love to report the hardships experienced by adopters ripped apart by an "adoption scam". But for some reason, journalists forget this type of scam is the most humane in the sense  that because there was no child, no child was harmed by a self-serving adoption-plan.

People forget, there is an uglier scenario.  That scenario is: broker gets the money, and the broker has to produce a baby to be delivered. 

Should that baby be stolen from the streets?  Should that baby be stolen by a doctor or nurse mid-wife?  Should that baby be taken from a hospital or an orphanage? What will the costs be for Plan B or Plan C?  Surely those who take the greater risk will require better pay.  But those who produce have a very good chance of being used over and over, creating all sorts of success  For instance, a corrupt judge/lawyer accepting forged documents could be taking a much greater career risk than some orphanage director who isn't afraid to pay a small fee to child traffickers... but which player is more valuable... and which role could be more easily replaced?

In the legal-adoption plan, money is distributed via set charges and fees, and are often spelled-out very clearly in fun inviting commercials or brochures. These plans often have all their service-providers: doctors, counselors for the mothers, lawyers, maternity wards, waiting, ready to go.

How is the "legal adoption plan" different?  The most obvious difference is, the payment-plan is a bit more transparent. The scared unprepared pregnant female afraid of abortion, (and even more afraid to keep her child) is told, in advanced, how the money provided by the PAPs is going to be spent.  The woman giving birth knows the middle-man/adoption facilitator will ensure her bills/cost of living will be covered, temporarily.  She knows the PAPs will be paying a list of bills, with the hope that in-exchange, all sides agree:  he who pays the bills gets to keep the baby.

Payment-fees that need to be covered: ob/gyn (doctor) visits, a place for first-mommy to live (temporarily, of course), food for the growing body, clothing for the growing body-with-child, and "other" living expenses, which may  include some sort of job-training workshop and/or a fun shopping spree, WITH " extra spending money", because that, my friends, is not paying for a child -- that's paying for something else.

The good news for the child is, if he or she is lucky,  a real parent's name will be on the birth certificate.

But then again, in Adoptionland, all adoptees need to accept, the names found on a "legal" birth/adoption document may not be real, original, or as they appear.  For some reason, this, in Adoptionland, is legal.

Crazy, isn't it?

Nancy Baney managed to get a trafficked kid to the US

Don't forget about the lovely Nancy Baney -- who set out to adopt a trafficked Pakistani girl she called Marina Grace and got her to the US on Humanitarian Parole AND is in the process of adopting said trafficked child, despite the fact that those granted entry to the US on HP *cannot* use it to circumvent immigration laws:

Nancy abandonned her previously-adopted son Nick (whom she parented via Skype for a year) to live in Pakistan trying to complete her adoption of a trafficked kid AND is totally okay with her (deplorable) actions -- comparing it to military and diplomatic employees who get deployed/posted abroad for their jobs. Because agreeing to move as a condition of employment is so very much like moving to another country by CHOICE. Nancy also feels it is perfectly acceptable to adopt a trafficked child -- cuz why should an innocent kid (who may well have been trafficked bc of BIG BUCKS PAPs like her are willing to pay) suffer for the actions of grownups?

Against Adoption of Trafficked and Laundered Children

I am an AMom. I am (and I sure that there are others APs as well who are ...) against the adoption of trafficked and laundered children.
It is totally UNACCEPTABLE. Though I can sympathize being in the position of being referred a child and worrying about their future. With that said...

What was the adoption agency's advice on how to handle her situation when it came to light that the child was trafficked and laundered?

Worth reading is the "Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction" and how it pertains to ICA.



Folks who *advocate* for the adoption of trafficked kids. Barf!!

Oh look - yet another US adoption "advocate" insisting that corruption in international adoption isn't a big problem, programs should never ever be closed as a result of fraud / corruption AND that it should be legal for Americans to adopt foreign kids whose bioparents cannot be found (since itd be worse to just leave the child to "languish" abroad). That its okay to bring a trafficked kid because the ends justifies the means?!??

Barf! Barf! Barf!

The blogger writes:

"But we’ve become trapped in a false dichotomy. Regardless of the level of fraud, we should NEVER simply close a country’s international adoption program. We should keep these programs open and allocate all the money from visa fees to properly staff our embassies and work through the transparency issues.

Our government never closes emigration to the adults of entire countries based on any reason, even numerous fraudulent visa applications. To do so would violate their human rights. And yet we do just that to children simply because those children don’t have a voice. This lack of a voice, and lack of advocates, has enabled our government to ignore children’s best interests and unique human rights.

When embassies encounter fraud in adult visa applications, they refine the process and hold bad actors accountable. They can do the same for children’s visas. If an embassy is really worried about a country, it can check with the local law enforcement for reports of missing children, file notices of publication, and conduct good field investigations. And they should conduct investigations selectively and efficiently, and not rotely; presuming that every single application is fraudulent is a waste of government resources, and a waste of many childhoods.

Not that the embassy workers want to rigorously investigate every single application. They merely do so to slow the process and disincentivize adoptive parents from applying to that country’s adoption program. That’s not a baseless accusation, it’s simple economics. Perhaps the biggest barrier to reforming our embassies’ review process is that embassy staff are incentivized to shut down country adoption programs. Why? Because USCIS takes all the visa fees and makes the embassies do most or all of the work. Of course embassies want to shut down adoption programs! Otherwise, the program will continue to grow and overwhelm a small, set number of embassy staff. Think about it. If you could get rid of most of your workload simply by complaining and dragging your heels, wouldn’t you do it? (OK, maybe YOU wouldn’t. But you have to admit that a lot of people would.)

Another reason that the U.S. closes country programs is to strong-arm countries into becoming Hague countries. But many countries cannot afford to rearrange their governments to the exacting specifications of the international community. These are usually the countries with the most children in need of families. Moreover, it is debatable as to whether the Hague Convention, despite all its supposed safeguards, has actually improved transparency in international adoption. Indeed, the failure of the Hague Convention to serve the best interests of children has been amply demonstrated in country after country that has closed to implement the Hague, only to either never reopen its program or to reopen, tentatively, at a trickle while hundreds of thousands of its children live in orphanages or on the streets.

In cases where fraud is found, let’s punish the bad actors, NOT the child. Let’s stop automatically denying visas for children whose families tried to sell them. Let’s stop denying visa applications for abandoned children with no known living relatives simply because of discrepancies in their paperwork or investigations. The children didn’t do anything wrong. Before consigning a child to an orphanage, our embassies and USCIS need to ask, “What happens to this child now? Is there anyone in their birth country that has stepped forward to raise this child?”

If there are problems with a country’s international adoption program, we need to buckle down and work at refining the system and catching the problems. But we can’t just give up on unparented children. They need us, and governments, to protect them rather than just trying to pass the buck. Get involved today in demanding change."


Pound Pup Legacy