Background. The issues of intercountry adoption is a matter of high importance as it is impossible to provide due unified regulation of all aspects of this procedure, especially at collision of absolutely different types of legal relationships regulation in a child’s country of origin and in a receiving country. The goal of the study is to analyze the conflict of law that regulates adoption secrecy and the right on identity in a wide sense including the child’s right to know his/her origins.
Materials and methods. Implementation of the research objectives was achieved on the basis of the analysis of two approaches to the adoption procedure, particularly the open and the closed one. The analyzed the main decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights, the Russian and foreign doctrine, determining approaches to maintain child’s interests in conformity with his/her fundamental rights.
Results. The describes the conflict of legal relations covering regulation of adoption secrecy and the right on identity, when the authorities in a country of origin and a receiving country obtain a right to decide whether to disclose the adoption secrecy or not.The legislation in countries differs much in this respect and moreover sometimes it is impossible to maintain adoption secrecy when adoption is not only intercountry but also transracial. Every country may decide how to regulate it, though when adoption is intercountry the procedure should be organized in accordance with rules of a country of origin and the rules of a receiving country, so the question of adoption secrecy maintenance directly depends on the procedure of adoption (be it open or closed).
Conclusions. Nevertheless it is important to consider the rights of native parents when they want to keep their identity in secrecy and the rights of adopters when they don’t want to disclose their identity and the fact of adoption. It is impossible nowadays to regulate the above mentioned questions by fixing them at the legislative level; under which condition it is worth to disclose adoption secrecy and the fact of adoption. This question is solved by the authorities in a formal and often subjective way in accordance with domestic legislation. Moreover, a strict prohibition of contacting with native parents does not serve the best interests of a child and terminates his/her right on identity.
1. Lebedinskaya V. P. Molodoy uchenyy [Young scientist]. 2013, no. 11, pp. 544–546.
2. Parshutkin V., L'vova E. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya [Russian justice]. 2010, no. 3, pp. 19–23.
3. Vinogradova S. A. Detskiy dom [Orphanage]. 2013, no. 46, p. 20.
4. Judith A. Adoption and adult attachment security: The role of family and search/reunion experiences. Available at: http://www.originsnsw.com/adoptees/id19.html
5. The Idea of Adoption An Inquiry into the History of Adult Adoptee Access to Birth Records. URL: http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/pdf/idea_of_adoption.pdf
6. Sbornik mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov SSSR [Collection of USSR international treaties]. 1993, iss. XLVI.
7. Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo: sb. dokumentov [International provate law: collected
documents]. Moscow: BEK, 1997, pp. 712–720.
8. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 2000, no. 15 (10 Apr.), art. 1590.
9. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo suda RF [Bulletin of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation]. 2004, no. 9. Available at: http://www.vsrf.ru/vscourt_detale.php
10. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 2010, no. 5 (1 Febr.), art. 462.
11. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 2014, no. 46 (17 Nov.), art. 6260.
12. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 2015, no. 10 (9 March), art. 1398.
13. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 2001, no. 49 (3 Dec.), art. 4552.
14. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 2002, no. 1 (part 1) (7 Jan.), art. 1.
15. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 1996, no. 25 (17 Jun.), art. 2954.
16. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 2001, no. 2 (8 Jan.), art. 163.
17. Families by Law. An Adoption Reader. Ed. by N. R. Cahn, J. H. Hollinger. New York; London: New York University Press. Pp. 124–147.
18. Vedomosti SND SSSR i VS SSSR [Bulletin of USSR People’s deputies congress and USSR Supreme Council]. 1990, no. 45 (7 Nov.), art. 955.
19. Cretney S. M., Masson J. M., Bailey-Harris R. Cretney’s Principles of Family Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2008, pp. 844–846.
20. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 2014, no. 31 (4 Aug.), art. 4398.
21. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of RF legislation]. 1997, no. 47 (24 Nov), art. 5340.
22. Byulleten' Verkhovnogo suda RF [Bulletin of RF Supreme Court]. 2003, no. 4. Available at: http://www.vsrf.ru/vscourt_detale.php
23. Rossiyskaya gazeta [Russian newspapaer]. 2006, no. 92 (3 May).
24. Counseling Psychologist. No. 31, pp. 711–744. Available at: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/ nuttgens3.pdf
25. Twila L. Perry. The Transracial Adoption Controversy: An Analysis of Discourse and Subordination, 21 N. Y. U. Rev. Available at: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/ blj/vol20/morrison.pdf
26. Bartholet E. Race Separatism in the Family: More on the Transracial Adoption Debate Available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context= djglp
27. Fanshel D. Far from the reservation: The transracial adoption of American Indian children. Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, 1972.
28. Grow L. J., Shaprio D. Child Welfare. 1974.
29. Kim D. S. Children Today 1977, no. 6, pp. 2–6.
30. Richard M. Lee. Couns Psychol. 2003, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 711–744.