Minors' protection through adoption. Critical analysis on new regulations

AuthorLaura Cetean-Voiculescu
PositionUniversity '1 Decembrie 1918' Alba Iulia, Romania
Pages113-117
AGORA International Journal of Juridical Sciences, http://univagora.ro/jour/index.php/aijjs
ISSN 1843-570X, E-ISSN 2067-7677
No. 2 (2017), pp. 113-117
113
MINORS’ PROTECTION THROUGH ADOPTION. CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON NEW
REGULATIONS
L. CETEAN-VOICULESCU
Laura CETEAN-VOICULESCU
University "1 Decembrie 1918" Alba Iulia, Romania.
*Correspondence: Laura Cetean-Voiculescu, 15-17 Strada Unirii, Alba Iulia, Romania
E-mail: lauravoiculescu@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Adoption is one of the main measures to protect the minor in difficulty, which
represents the minor who does not even benefit from the protection of one of his parents.
Adoption is a measure of the minors’ protection because it ensures a substitute family, being
understood that the child develops best physically and mentally within a family. The adoption
procedure in both its forms (administrative and judicial) is perfectible, having suffered many
changes in recent years, the last change being made in 2016. Among other important
changes, the new regulation emphasizes the importance of one of the principles of adoption -
celerity, setting new deadlines to be respected in adoption procedures or reducing existing
ones. KEYWORDS: adoption, minor in difficulty, family, alternative care/protection.
INTRODCTION
Adoption, as a measure of protection of the minor deprived of the care of at least one
of his parents, is currently governed by Law no. 273/2004. Recently, this regulation was
modified by the appearance of Law no. 57/2016. Regarding the new regulation on the
adoption procedure [1], Law no. 57/2016 brought a number of changes and repeals, some of
them desirable and other questionable.
I. THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED IN THE
NAME OF THE PERSON OR OF THOSE WHO ADOPT
Regarding the conditions that are required to be fulfilled in the name of the person/of
those who adopt, it can be noticed that the persons convicted of the crime of child
pornography were added to those who have been convicted for a crime against a person,
family or for drug trafficking. Of course, we agree with this option of the legislature, since it
is inconceivable that such a convicted should become adopter. This is obviously inconsistent
with the overriding interest of the child [2] that should govern the whole adoption procedure.
However, if we analyse the elimination from the legal text of the interdiction to adopt by a
person who has been convicted for consumption (not traffic) of illicit drug, this modification
is open to criticism for two reasons. Firstly, it is obvious that the person who consumes drugs
is not able to ensure harmonious growth for a minor, and secondly, by this disposal, it is
ignored the correlation between the reasons why a person cannot adopt and those for which
one parent is deprived of parental rights. According to Article 508 Civil Code, loss of parental
rights can be issued by the court of guardianship if the parent endangers the life, health or
development of the child by consumption of alcohol or drugs, among other things. Or, if a
parent is liable to the penalty of loss of parental rights by the mere consumption,
unaccompanied by traffic, why should another person be allowed to become a parent in cases
where he/she is guilty of this consumption?

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT