HYDERABAD: After o vercoming the grief of losing their four-year-old son to Down's Syndrome, when M. Raghavan and his physically challenged wife Geetha decided to go in for adoption of a child, little did they know the steeplechase of challenges they would have to navigate.

Three years of running from pillar to post and knocking the doors of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, there seems to be no end to the couple's agony "all because of the unhelpful attitude" of authorities in the State-run adoption home, Sishu Vihar.

Elusive joy

The couple's anxiety to adopt a child as early as possible is understandable because time is running out for them. Working in the Defence Laboratories at Kanchanbagh, both of them are on the verge of crossing the age bar for adoption. But caught in the web of bureaucratic red tape, their bundle of joy remains elusive.

"We registered with Sishu Vihar as prospective adoptive parents in April 2003 and when our turn came, we selected five-year-old Rupesh. Instead, we were offered twin boys. We were prepared to take them but on legal advice that adoption of two children of the same sex was not allowed under Hindu law, we expressed our helplessness and preferred Rupesh. The tussle went on for several months and Sishu Vihar told us in January 2005 that he was being given to a foreign national for inter-country adoption," he bemoaned.

A dejected Raghavan moved the High Court pointing to certain infirmities. In his petition he maintained that the Directorate of Women Development and Child Welfare was giving children in inter-country adoption ignoring the claims of Indian adoptive parents and in violation of the Central Adoption Resource Agency guidelines. The court held that the guidelines clearly contemplate preference to Indian parents and directed the respondent to take action, in giving Rupesh to the petitioner.

That was on March 11, 2005. Nearly 10 months and several rounds of Sishu Vihar, the court order has not been honoured. When contacted, an official of the Directorate said it was awaiting a clarification from its legal department and refused to comment on the inordinate delay.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail