Central adoption resource authority

CENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCE AUTHORITY

Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) is a statutory body of Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India. It functions as the nodal body for adoption of Indian children and is mandated to monitor and regulate in-country and inter-country adoptions. CARA is designated as the Central Authority to deal with inter-country adoptions in accordance with the provisions of the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption, 1993, ratified by Government of India in 2003.

CARA primarily deals with adoption of orphan, abandoned and surrendered children through its associated /recognised adoption agencies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was established in June 1990 by the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India. Its primary aim is to regulate, monitor, and promote the adoption of orphaned, abandoned, or surrendered children. Its primary objective is to find loving families for children in need of care and protection.

AUTONOMOUS STATUS

Following a decision by the Union Cabinet on July 2, 1998, CARA was granted autonomous status by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment on March 18, 1999. It was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

ADOPTION PROCESS UNDER JJ ACT

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 facilitated the adoption process by involving recognized agencies and authorities to ensure safeguards in the placement of institutionalized children.

STATUTORY BODY STATUS

With the notification of Section 68 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 on January 15, 2016, CARA was designated as a Statutory Body. It has the mandate to:

·   Promote in-country adoptions

·   Facilitate inter-state adoptions

·   Frame regulations on adoption-related matters

·   Regulate inter-country adoptions

·   Function as the Central Authority under the Hague Convention for Inter-country Adoption through the Child Adoption Resource Information & Guidance System (CARINGS)

CARA'S MONITORING ROLE

CARA oversees and monitors all in-country and inter-country adoptions via CARINGS. It strives to place the maximum number of children in non-institutional care with adoptive families.

DESIGNATION UNDER HAGUE CONVENTION

In 2003, CARA was designated as the Central Authority under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (1993).

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The Central Adoption Resource Authority is led by a Member Secretary & CEO and comprises a sanctioned strength of 37 officers and staff.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ADOPTION (AS PER REGULATION 3 OF THE ADOPTION REGULATIONS, 2022)

The adoption of children from India is governed by the following fundamental principles:

(a) The child's best interests shall be the paramount consideration in the adoption process.

(b) Preference shall be given to placing the child with Indian citizens, with due regard to maintaining the child in their own socio-cultural environment as far as possible.

(c) All adoption applications shall be registered on the Designated Portal, and the Authority shall maintain the confidentiality of these applications.

STAKEHOLDERS

(a) Specialised Adoption Agencies (SAAs) and Child Care Institutions (CCIs): Established under Sections 65 and 41 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015 (amended in 2021).

(b) Child Welfare Committees (CWCs): Set up under Section 27 of the JJ Act, 2015 (amended in 2021).

(c) District Child Protection Units (DCPUs): Created under Section 106 of the JJ Act, 2015 (amended in 2021) and the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS).

(d) State Governments/UTs: Required to establish State Adoption Resource Agencies (SARAs) under Section 67 of the JJ Act, 2015 (amended in 2021) and Regulation 35 of the Adoption Regulations 2022.

(e) Authorized Foreign Adoption Agencies (AFAAs) and Central Authorities (CAs): Involved in the receiving country as per Regulation 31 of the Adoption Regulations 2022.

(f) Central Government Ministries/Departments/Attached Agencies.

(g) District Magistrates.

(h) Chief Medical Officers.

(i) Indian Diplomatic Missions Abroad.

Role of Indian Diplomatic Missions in Inter-Country Adoption

Indian diplomatic missions abroad have the following key responsibilities in inter-country adoption of Indian children:

1. Liaising with Central and public authorities to ensure the protection of adopted Indian children against neglect, maltreatment, exploitation, or abuse by Non-Resident Indians, Overseas Citizens of India, or foreign parents.

2. Interacting with authorized foreign adoption agencies and Central Authorities, participating in gatherings of adopted children and their parents, and recommending the authorization of foreign adoption agencies.

3. Issuing visas to prospective foreign adoptive parents for visiting Specialised Adoption Agencies in India, attending court proceedings, and receiving the child post-adoption approval.

4. Authorizing social workers to complete adoption formalities, including Home Study Reports, in countries without Authorized Foreign Adoption Agencies or Government departments handling adoptions.

5. Registering adoption applications of Non-Resident Indian or Overseas Citizen of India Prospective Adoptive Parents in the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System, and uploading post-adoption follow-up reports as required.

6. Sending progress reports on the adopted child’s well-being to the receiving country, addressing disruptions in adoption, assisting in the child’s repatriation if necessary, facilitating root searches for adoptees, and communicating relevant observations to the Authority.

Appearance of Central Adoption Resource Authority in Official Database

Source: https://cara.wcd.gov.in/resource/adoption_Statistics.html

Case Laws

1. KARINA JANE CREED V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Hon'ble Supreme Court Order on Mandatory Requirement of NOC from Receiving Country for Intercountry Adoption

In the Supreme Court of India, Court No. 4, Section XIV, the proceedings for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13627/2019 were recorded. This appeal arose from the final judgment and order dated May 28, 2019, by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 351/2019, which upheld the Single Judge's dismissal of W.P. No. 3567/2019.

The petitioner, Karina Jane Creed, an Australian citizen, challenged the Delhi High Court's decision that dismissed her plea for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to adopt two children aged 5 and 6. The petitioner resided in India for four years and had applied to CARA in 2016 for adopting these children.

Both India and Australia are signatories to the 1993 Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption, which requires that the receiving state determine the eligibility and suitability of adoptive parents, provide necessary counseling, and authorize the child's entry and residence.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), governs all inter-country adoptions in India. Section 56(4) mandates that inter-country adoptions comply with this Act and CARA regulations. Section 59(3) outlines the application process for non-resident Indians, overseas citizens of India, or foreigners through authorized agencies. Section 59(12) requires a foreigner or person of Indian origin habitually residing in India to obtain an NOC from their diplomatic mission in India to adopt an Indian child.

The Supreme Court concluded that the statutory requirement of Section 59(12) could not be waived, and thus, the relief sought by Ms. Creed could not be granted. Despite recognizing her potential as a caring adoptive parent, the court dismissed the special leave petition and all pending interlocutory applications.

2. STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER VS STATE & ORS

In this case, the Supreme Court of India, presided by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, granted leave and addressed the rejection of applications under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The appellant, Stephanie Joan Becker, sought to be appointed as the guardian of Tina, a 10-year-old orphan, and to obtain permission to take her to the USA for adoption. Both the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court had rejected these applications, citing the appellant's age of 53, which exceeded the maximum permissible age of 45 for single adoptive parents as per Government guidelines.

The Supreme Court noted that despite the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) granting a No Objection Certificate (NOC), the lower courts did not accept this relaxation. The Court referenced the Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India case, which laid down principles for inter-country adoption to prevent abuse and trafficking. The Court highlighted that Becker’s adoption process followed all guidelines, including the preparation of Home Study and Child Study Reports.

Recognizing the appellant’s suitability and the child’s consent, the Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions, appointing Becker as Tina’s guardian and permitting her to take Tina to the USA. The Court directed CARA to issue the necessary conformity certificate under the 2011 Guidelines, thereby allowing the adoption to proceed.

3. CRAIG ALLEN COATES VS. STATE OF ANR

In this case, the appellants, American nationals with three children, sought to adopt Anil, an abandoned minor, under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Their petition was dismissed by both the District Judge-III (West), Delhi, and the High Court of Delhi.

Anil, abandoned and declared legally free for adoption, was sought by the appellants to be taken to the USA for adoption. However, the Court identified several significant concerns with the appellants' application. Firstly, the appellants did not adequately substantiate their reasons and intentions for pursuing adoption from another country. There were apprehensions that the underlying motive might involve exploiting Anil, particularly given Mr. Craig Allen Coates's condition of cerebral palsy, which confined him to a wheelchair and necessitated the use of a communication board for verbal communication.

Furthermore, the Court questioned the necessity for the appellants to expand their family further, considering they already had three children aged between 16 and 21, two of whom did not reside with them. This raised concerns about the potential lack of adequate companionship and familial support within their existing family structure. The Court critiqued the respondents' issuance of a No Objection Certificate without adequately considering these critical factors.

Referring to the precedent set in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India the Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding children's welfare in inter-country adoption processes. This case established guidelines aimed at preventing situations where adopted children might face neglect, abandonment, or abuse in foreign environments. The Court underscored that the primary objective of adoption is to ensure the well-being of the child and cautioned against scenarios where the child's safety and security could be compromised.