
A woman sues South Korea's government after her son was adopted abroad without her consent
In a landmark report in March, South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that the government bears responsibility for facilitating an aggressive and loosely regulated foreign adoption program that carelessly or unnecessarily separated thousands of children from their families for multiple generations.
Advertisement
It found that the country's past military governments were driven by efforts to reduce welfare costs and empowered private agencies to speed up adoptions, while turning a blind eye to widespread practices that often manipulated children's backgrounds and origins, leading to an explosion in adoptions that peaked in the 1970s and 1980s.
Children who had living parents, including those who were simply missing or kidnapped, were often falsely documented as abandoned orphans to increase their chances of being adopted in Western countries, which have taken in around 200,000 Korean children over the past seven decades.
Choi's lawsuit follows a similar case filed in October by another woman in her 70s, Han Tae-soon, who also sued the government and Holt Children's Services over the adoption of her daughter who was sent to the United States in 1976, months after she was kidnapped at age 4.
Advertisement
Suit claims illegal adoption and cites institutional failures
Choi says her son, who was 3 years old at the time, ran out of their home in Seoul in July 1975 to chase a cloud of insecticide sprayed by a fumigation truck while playing with friends — and never came back. She and her late husband spent years searching for him, scouring police stations in and around Seoul, and regularly bringing posters with his name and photo to Holt, South Korea's largest adoption agency. They were repeatedly told there was no information.
After decades of searching in vain, Choi made a final effort by submitting her DNA to a police unit that helps reunite adoptees with birth families. In 2023, she discovered through 325Kamra, a volunteer group helping adoptees find birth families using DNA, that her son had been adopted to Norway in December 1975, only five months after he went missing. The adoption had been handled by Holt, the very agency she had visited countless times, under a different name and photograph.
Enraged, Choi confronted Holt and has since worked with lawyers to prepare a lawsuit against the agency, the South Korean government, and an orphanage in the city of Suwon where her son stayed before being transferred to Holt. Her now 52-year-old son, who traveled to South Korea in 2023 to meet her, has declined to comment on the story.
The 550 million won ($403,000) civil suit recently filed with the Seoul Central District Court alleges that the government failed in its legal duty to identify Choi's son after he arrived at an orphanage — despite her immediate police report — and to verify his guardianship as he was processed through a state-controlled foreign adoption system.
Advertisement
The orphanage and Holt failed to verify the child's status or notify his parents, even though Choi's son was old enough to speak and showed obvious signs of having a family. In particular, Holt falsified records to describe him as an abandoned orphan — even though Choi had visited the agency looking for him while he was in its custody, before the flight to Norway, according to Jeon Min Kyeong, one of Choi's lawyers.
Holt hasn't responded to AP's repeated requests to comment on Choi's case. South Korea's Justice Ministry, which represents the government in lawsuits, said it cannot comment on an ongoing case.
Korea facing growing pressure to address adoption problems
Choi and Han are the first known birth parents to sue the South Korean government and an adoption agency over the allegedly illegal adoptions of their children.
In 2019, Adam Crapser became the first Korean adoptee to sue the Korean government and an adoption agency — Holt — accusing them of mishandling his adoption to the United States, where he endured an abusive childhood, faced legal troubles, and was eventually deported in 2016. But the Seoul High Court in January cleared both the government and Holt of all liability, overturning a lower court ruling that had ordered the agency to pay damages for failing to inform his adoptive parents of the need to take additional steps to secure his U.S. citizenship.
The truth commission's findings, released in March, could possibly inspire more adoptees or birth parents to seek damages against the government and adoption agencies. However, some adoptees criticized the cautiously worded report, arguing that it should have more forcefully acknowledged the government's complicity and offered more concrete recommendations for reparations for victims of illegal adoption.
Advertisement
During the March news conference, the commission's chairperson, Park Sun Young, responded to a plea by Yooree Kim, who was sent to a couple in France at age 11 by Holt without her biological parents' consent, by vowing to strengthen the recommendations. However, the commission didn't follow up before the final version of the report was delivered to adoptees last week.
The commission's investigation deadline expired Monday, after it confirmed human rights violations in just 56 of the 367 complaints filed by adoptees since 2022. It had suspended its adoption investigation in April following internal disputes among progressive- and conservative-leaning commissioners over which cases warranted recognition as problematic.
The fate of the remaining 311 cases, either deferred or incompletely reviewed, now hinges on whether lawmakers will establish a new truth commission through legislation during Seoul's next government, which takes office after the presidential election on June 3.
The government has so far ignored the commission's recommendation to issue an official apology to adoptees.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Pattern of defiance: Israel expands settlements in face of Western pressure
Israel's international allies are growing louder in their condemnation of its war on Gaza and its continued construction of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. United Nations experts, human rights groups and legal scholars have all previously told Al Jazeera that Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza and committing abuses that may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity in the West Bank. And yet less than two weeks after receiving a stern warning from its Western allies, Israel approved 22 illegal settlements in the West Bank, amounting to what has been described as the largest land grab since Israeli and Palestinian leaders inked the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993. 'Israel is all about showing [the world] who calls the shots. They are saying … you can condemn us all you want, but in the end, you will bow down to us and not the other way around,' said Diana Buttu, a legal scholar and political analyst focused on Israel and Palestine. The Oslo Accords were ostensibly aimed at creating a Palestinian state, including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with occupied East Jerusalem as its capital. However, in practice, Israel has continued to expand illegal settlements and render the two-state solution impossible, analysts told Al has often announced the building of new illegal settlements in response to signals of support for Palestinian statehood from the UN or its allies. In 2012, Israel went so far as to approve 3,000 new settler homes in the occupied West Bank after the Palestinian Authority (PA) – the entity created out of the Oslo Accords to govern swaths of the West Bank – was granted non-member observer status in the UN General Assembly. Last year, Israel's far-right Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, warned that a new illegal settlement would be built for every country that recognises a Palestinian state. The announcement came after Spain, Norway, and Ireland took the symbolic step in May 2024. 'I certainly think there is a pattern where Israel responds to pressure regarding its occupation – or anything else – by announcing settler expansion,' said Omar Rahman, an expert focused on Israel and Palestine for the Middle East Council for Global Affairs. 'We see that pattern repeated over and over again,' he told Al Jazeera. As global pressure mounts against Israel's war on Gaza, Israel has continued to test the patience of its allies. On May 21, Israeli troops fired warning shots at a group of European, Asian and Arab diplomats who were on an official mission to assess the humanitarian crisis in Jenin refugee camp, which has been subjected to a months-long attack and siege by the Israeli army since the start of the year. 'I don't know where the red line is. It is clear that there is no red line,' said Zionist militias ethnically cleansed some 750,000 Palestinians to make way for the state of Israel in 1948 – an event referred to as the 'Nakba' or catastrophe – Israel has increasingly annexed and occupied the little that remains of Palestinian land. Annexation of the occupied West Bank has accelerated in recent years thanks to far-right settlers who occupy positions in the Israeli government, said Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. He believes Israel was always planning to approve the 22 illegal settlements irrespective of the joint statement issued by France, the UK and Canada, as it fit in with the state's ultimate goal of expanding Jewish settlement of the occupied West Bank. 'Nobody can really think that if those countries didn't issue an announcement that [further] annexation wasn't going to happen. Of course, it was going to happen,' he told Al Jazeera. Rahman, from the Middle East Council, believes Israel's tactic of announcing pre-planned settlement expansion in the face of Western pressure simply aims to dissuade its allies from taking concrete action. He suspects Canada, the UK and France will likely not slap on targeted sanctions against Israeli officials, as they have threatened to do, instead using the argument that any moves against Israel will lead to a backlash against Palestinians.'[Canada, UK and France] may say they are acting for the preservation of the two-state solution by not doing anything to save the two-state solution,' Rahman told Al Jazeera. Analysts believe that sanctions on Israel would be the only way to rescue the two-state solution and end Israel's war on Gaza, but accept that comprehensive sanctions against the Israeli state would still be unlikely at this stage. Instead, Western countries like Canada, France and the UK may target sanctions at the far-right ministers most associated with pro-settler policies, Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. 'These men … are trying to jam in everything they can do now because they know there is no guarantee they will maintain their positions of power indefinitely,' Elgindy told Al Jazeera. Buttu fears that European countries will merely resort to more symbolic measures such as 'recognising Palestine', which will have little impact on the ground. 'By the time everyone gets around to recognising Palestine, there won't be any land [for Palestinians] left,' she told Al Jazeera.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - What globalists get wrong about free trade
Since at least the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, major media outlets have decried the impending end of globalization. These lamentations have only accelerated since the Trump administration declared April 2 'Liberation Day,' with our trading counterparties' unfair practices to be summarily addressed through increased and partially reciprocal duties (along with a minimum tariff level). To hear the media tell it, such tariffs are the death knell for a beneficial global trading order and will immiserate billions. But such valedictories for the end of globalization advance a straw-man fiction about what is now supposedly lost: namely, that President Trump's policies contravene an agreed framework whereby goods, capital and labor move across national boundaries in a mostly unencumbered manner. If one believes in the merits of free trade and cross-border capital flows, it is essential not to confuse the ideal with the real. In truth, there have always been (often significant) friction and costs associated with such movements. Today's so-called free trade regime recalls Western support for Soviet communism, snarling 'real communism has never been tried' in defense of its myriad failures. Love it or hate it, what exists today is hardly real free trade. If what we have today isn't it, what does free trade closer to its Platonic ideal look like? This notion, that trade conditions are rarely wholly free or unfree, also confuses the media. The reality is that trading conditions sit uneasily along a continuum, and relatively free trade only occurs under certain conditions. These include (among others): Mutually agreed-upon rules for international commerce, consistently applied or at least generally observed, allowing for relatively open and reciprocal market access; Exemptions for strategic industries, a form of insurance for nations, insulating them from being caught short in a subsequent conflict with trading partners; Reliable cross-border supply chains, allowing for the disaggregation of production into its constituent parts (trading resource control for cost efficiency) and An ideologically unipolar historical moment, or a multi-polar world in which international trade largely occurs within the poles. These and other trade-friendly conditions were largely obtained in the decades leading up to the First World War, and in the 20 or so years following the end of the Cold War. While a world war is an obvious culprit ending an earlier era of globalization, what explains its current travails? A rules-based trading order can withstand certain restrictions (tariffs, regulations, quotas) — in fact, protecting strategic sectors demands some of them. But excessive use, along with outright cheating — subsidies, intellectual property theft and currency manipulation, as in the case of China — gives rise to a prisoner's dilemma with suboptimal outcomes. Similarly, the extended supply chains that proliferated over the last 30 years assumed the only national interest that mattered was economic advancement. Consider the terms made fashionable over the last three decades: 'a borderless world,' 'global citizens,' 'the end of history' and 'soft power.' The disaggregation of business models previously housed under a single corporate roof never anticipated revisionist challenges to Pax Americana, such as the retrograde gunboat diplomacy of China's Belt and Road Initiative, much less the rise of transnational terrorist organizations disrupting commerce and producing failed states. Moreover, the unipolar moment has ended. As China, under the rule of the Communist Party, displaced the Soviet Union as our primary geopolitical adversary, its admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 conferred upon it a degree of economic leverage over the United States that Joseph Stalin could only have dreamed of. The return of history, with not only China but Russia, Turkey and others asserting spheres of influence and advancing parochial interests while embedded within a global economic system and multilateral institutions, further vitiates unfettered trade and capital movements. Failing to understand that globalization — the mutually beneficial interdependence and integration among nations, entailing a largely unrestricted flow of goods, capital, information and people — only flourishes under certain conditions, is only half of what the media and establishment elites get wrong. The other is the fetishization of globalism as an ideology. One can support globalization without being a globalist. Free trade and capital flows do not themselves comprise a belief system, but are rather a means to an end: actualizing individuals' aspirations and the nations that represent them. Free trade is the handmaiden of liberty, not vice versa. Reifying trade at the expense of other liberal values risks perverse outcomes; offshoring a nation's pharmaceutical production capacity to potentially belligerent nations is but one example. Another danger in globalism as an ideology is that of falling prey to historical determinism. Seeing deepening global integration as inevitable presents several risks. Believing it impervious threatens underinvestment in its sustenance (see the collapse of the WTO's Doha Round); competing objectives such as national self-determination and defense of borders may also be subordinated to globalism's tenets, destabilizing the very nations seeking to benefit from globalization. The proposed Trump tariff regime is not the full-throated attack on a functioning trading order critics make it out to be. To acknowledge this is not to defend blindly the administration's policies. Tariffs have their place as leverage against trading counterparties with onerous trade restrictions of their own. They are also useful to support strategic sectors in an increasingly dangerous world. What tariffs won't do is revive a rust-belt economy, which isn't coming back. Comparative advantage, alas, remains undefeated. Nor should tariffs be sold to the public as a governmental revenue-generator while incumbent income, sales and other tax regimes remain firmly in place. Globalization improves lives and should be promoted. Free trade and capital movements have consistently shown themselves, when the requisite conditions are present, to be mutually beneficial. How these benefits are distributed and whether the unchecked movement of people across borders is similarly beneficial are more complex matters. But the promotion of globalism as an inviolate creed, either for its own sake or as a counterpoint to 'America First' policies, fails to appreciate that globalization cannot be summoned by magical thinking and that it is the servant of liberty, not its master. Richard J. Shinder is the founder and managing partner of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Russian ‘retaliatory' airstrikes across Ukraine kill 5, injure 28
June 5 (UPI) -- At least five people were killed, including a child, and 28 injured after Russian forces launched more than 100 drones, guided bombs and missiles against seven Ukrainian regions overnight. All of the fatalities occured in the northern city of Pryluky, a city of 51,500 people 90 miles east of Kyiv, where attack drones set residential areas on fire and razed houses, according to the the State Emergency Service. Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said three of those killed were the wife, daughter and 1-year-old grandson of Pryluky's fire chief whose home was struck as he was out directing the emergency response to the attack. "The rescuer who had just responded to the Russian strike with his team, lost them all, said Klymenko. Viacheslav Chaus, governor of the Chernihiv region, confirmed that a 1-year-old child and two women were among five people confirmed killed in the attack, with six of the injured hospitalized. "Police, rescuers, and other emergency services are working at the sites of enemy strikes," he said. In the east, four children were among at least 17 people injured in Kharkiv, Ukraine's second largest city, in a combined drone and missile strike targeting residential districts in the south of the city. Two men were injured in the southern city of Kherson after four Russian guided bombs struck the central business district, causing extensive damage, with the administrative headquarters for the region almost completely destroyed, Gov. Oleksandr Prokudin said in an update on social media. The airstrike also badly damaged a nearby apartment building, he added. Emergency services in Odessa in the southwest of the country said that a medical facility, a children's center and a high school were destroyed after the region came under attack from Russian drones. Noting that the one-year-old boy killed in Pryluky was the 632nd Ukrainian child killed in since Russia's full-scale invasion, President Volodymyr Zelensky said Donetsk, Odessa, Sumy and Dnipro provinces had also come under attack. "This is another massive strike by terrorists -- Russian terrorists -- who kill our people every night," Zelensky said in a post on X, adding that it demonstrated the need for "maximum sanctions," from Ukraine's Western allies. "Russia is constantly trying to buy time for itself to continue the killings. When it does not feel strong enough condemnation and pressure from the world, it kills again. We expect action from the United States, Europe, everyone in the world who can really help change these terrible circumstances. "Strength matters, and the war can only be ended through strength. We need to put pressure on Moscow with all available tools and step by step deprive it of the ability to continue this aggression," wrote Zelensky. The airborne assault from Russia came hours after U.S. President Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin had told him during a phone conversation Wednesday he would have to retaliate over Ukrainian attacks at weekend targeting Russian aircraft on the ground at airfields deep inside its territory. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.