Misplaced Pages

Baby 81 incident: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:50, 30 May 2007 editBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits rv back per multiple editors on talk. Move forthcoming.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:28, 28 December 2024 edit undoSunuraju (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,582 editsNo edit summary 
(103 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|Baby 81|the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club album|Baby 81 (album)}} {{redirect|Baby 81|the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club album|Baby 81 (album)}}
{{pp-move-dispute|small=yes}}


The '''Baby 81 incident''' was a widely reported ] about a baby who survived the ] and became an emblem of the effect of the disaster on the families involved.<ref name="china"/> Many of the details in initial reports of the events were subsequently disputed.<ref name="lanka"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004415/http://lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=450378004&no_view=1 |date=27 September 2007 }}, Lanka Business Online, 19 February 2005</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060220170147/http://desicritics.org/2006/02/19/095455.php |date=20 February 2006 }} at ] 19 February 2006</ref><ref name="alertnet"> at ] 6 June 2007</ref>
'''Abhilasha Jeyarajah''' (born ], ]), sometimes spelled '''Abilash Jeyarajah''' and known as '''Baby 81''', was a claimed survivor of the ] and the subject of a parental identity dispute.


== Overview ==
Abhilasha was reportedly found on the beach of the ]n town of ] in the midst of debris and dead bodies. He was taken without any family to Kalmunai hospital on the day of the disaster (], ]) after no relatives were found in the vicinity. He was named ''Baby 81'' after being the 81st victim taken to that hospital after the tsumani hit Sri Lanka.
The baby, around 2 months old, was reportedly found on the beach of the town of ] on the day of the disaster, 26 December 2004, in the midst of debris caused by the ].<ref name="times">, '']'', 16 January 2005</ref> Kalmunai is located in ] on the east coast of ], approximately 180&nbsp;miles east of ]. No relatives were found in the vicinity, so he was taken to Kalmunai hospital. He was said to be the 81st victim taken to that hospital after the tsunami hit Sri Lanka, and so named ''Baby 81''.<ref name="china"> at China Daily, 3 February 2005</ref>


Nine couples attempted to claim the child for themselves, though only one pair took legal action to prove the baby's identity &ndash; Murugupillai and Junitha Jeyarajah claimed he was their four-month old son, Abhilasha. They said how the boy had slipped from his mothers arms when the waves hit, and that the documents of his birth, along with all their other possessions, were washed away in the disaster. After remaining unclaimed for several days, nine couples were reported to have said that the child was theirs,<ref name="times"/><ref>, ], 9 February 2005</ref> although this{{Clarify|reason=|date=May 2020}} was later disputed.<ref name="lanka"/><ref name="alertnet"/> After initial attempts to take custody of the baby were blocked by the hospital, the Jeyarajah family took legal action to prove the baby's identity, claiming that he was their four-month-old son, Abhilasha.<ref name="china"/> They described how the boy had slipped from his mother's arms when the waves hit,<ref>, ] 19 February 2005</ref> and how the documents of his birth, along with all their other possessions, were washed away in the disaster.<ref name="china"/>


The courts initial attempts to take custody of the baby were blocked by the hospital. On ], ], they ordered ] tests of both the baby and the couple in an attempt to prove the case. The judge stated that the court would reconvene with the results on ], ], though hoped an earlier date may be set. Hearing this, the couple, along with over 70 supporters, attempted to take the child from the hospital &ndash; the pair were arrested for assault and criminal trespass. On ], ], escorted by nurses, police and a court official, the baby was taken to ] to undergo the tests. On ], ], results of the tests confirmed their claim. On 2 February 2005, the courts ordered ] tests of both the baby and the couple in an attempt to resolve the case.<ref name="china"/> 'Gene Tech', the only available facility in ], conducted the testing. The judge stated that the court would reconvene with the results on 20 April 2005, though hoped an earlier date may be set. Hearing this, the couple, along with over 70 supporters, attempted to take the child from the hospital&nbsp;– the pair were arrested for assault and criminal trespass.<ref>, ], 3 February 2005</ref><ref>{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}, '']'', 2 February 2005</ref> On 9 February 2005, escorted by nurses, police and a court official, the baby was taken to ] to undergo the tests.<ref>, ], 9 February 2005</ref> On 14 February 2005, the results of the tests confirmed the couple's claim, and the family were permitted to take the child home on 16 February.<ref>, ], 16 February 2005</ref> It was later reported that only one couple had claimed the baby at the hospital, and that the press circus surrounding the baby was blamed for delaying his return to his family.<ref name="lanka"/>


The family was flown to ] to appear on ]'s '']'' show in March 2005.<ref>, ], 2 March 2005</ref> They returned to Sri Lanka, but found themselves denied local disaster relief, as many thought they had received assistance in the US.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004415/http://lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=450378004&no_view=1 |date=27 September 2007 }}, Lanka Business Online, 25 December 2005</ref> The family had not been paid for their American television appearance.<ref>{{Dead link|date=October 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, Northwestern Journal of International Affairs, Fall 2006</ref> They later moved to ], capital of Sri Lanka's ], to escape the label of being called the "tsunami family".<ref>, '']'', 21 October 2005</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=20 years after the Indian Ocean tsunami, a boy found in the mud embraces being known as 'Baby 81' |url=https://apnews.com/article/tsunami-sri-lanka-baby-81-jeyarasa-abilash-fe6edec6968f1b90382c1288bb5f86a3 |website=AP News |language=en |date=24 December 2024}}</ref>


==See also==
*]


==References== ==References==
{{reflist}}
* at ], ] ]
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2017}}
* at ], ] ]
* at China Daily, ] ]
* at abcnews, ] ]

==External links==
* at ] ] ]

]]
⚫ ]
⚫ ]


] {{DEFAULTSORT:Baby 81 Incident}}
⚫ ]
]
]
⚫ ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 03:28, 28 December 2024

"Baby 81" redirects here. For the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club album, see Baby 81 (album).

The Baby 81 incident was a widely reported parental identity dispute about a baby who survived the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and became an emblem of the effect of the disaster on the families involved. Many of the details in initial reports of the events were subsequently disputed.

Overview

The baby, around 2 months old, was reportedly found on the beach of the town of Kalmunai on the day of the disaster, 26 December 2004, in the midst of debris caused by the tsunami. Kalmunai is located in Ampara district on the east coast of Sri Lanka, approximately 180 miles east of Colombo. No relatives were found in the vicinity, so he was taken to Kalmunai hospital. He was said to be the 81st victim taken to that hospital after the tsunami hit Sri Lanka, and so named Baby 81.

After remaining unclaimed for several days, nine couples were reported to have said that the child was theirs, although this was later disputed. After initial attempts to take custody of the baby were blocked by the hospital, the Jeyarajah family took legal action to prove the baby's identity, claiming that he was their four-month-old son, Abhilasha. They described how the boy had slipped from his mother's arms when the waves hit, and how the documents of his birth, along with all their other possessions, were washed away in the disaster.

On 2 February 2005, the courts ordered DNA tests of both the baby and the couple in an attempt to resolve the case. 'Gene Tech', the only available facility in Sri Lanka, conducted the testing. The judge stated that the court would reconvene with the results on 20 April 2005, though hoped an earlier date may be set. Hearing this, the couple, along with over 70 supporters, attempted to take the child from the hospital – the pair were arrested for assault and criminal trespass. On 9 February 2005, escorted by nurses, police and a court official, the baby was taken to Colombo to undergo the tests. On 14 February 2005, the results of the tests confirmed the couple's claim, and the family were permitted to take the child home on 16 February. It was later reported that only one couple had claimed the baby at the hospital, and that the press circus surrounding the baby was blamed for delaying his return to his family.

The family was flown to New York City to appear on American Broadcasting Company's Good Morning America show in March 2005. They returned to Sri Lanka, but found themselves denied local disaster relief, as many thought they had received assistance in the US. The family had not been paid for their American television appearance. They later moved to Batticaloa, capital of Sri Lanka's Eastern Province, to escape the label of being called the "tsunami family".

References

  1. ^ "DNA test for tsunami survivor 'Baby 81'" at China Daily, 3 February 2005
  2. ^ Baby 81: a story with nine or more lies Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Lanka Business Online, 19 February 2005
  3. "The Big Story That Never Was" Archived 20 February 2006 at the Wayback Machine at Desicritics 19 February 2006
  4. ^ "The truth about Sri Lanka's Baby 81" at Reuters AlertNet 6 June 2007
  5. ^ "Mothers fight over baby 81", The Sunday Times, 16 January 2005
  6. "Nine 'mothers' claim tsunami baby", BBC News, 9 February 2005
  7. "Joy as 'Baby 81' identified", CNN.com 19 February 2005
  8. "Tsunami baby under police guard", BBC News, 3 February 2005
  9. "Weeping couple arrested as they try to claim Baby 81", The Times, 2 February 2005
  10. "DNA test on disputed tsunami baby", BBC News, 9 February 2005
  11. Tsunami 'Baby 81' goes back home, BBC News, 16 February 2005
  12. "Baby 81 appears on US talk show", BBC News, 2 March 2005
  13. Foreign exposure backfires on Sri Lanka's 'baby 81' Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Lanka Business Online, 25 December 2005
  14. "Covering the Waves", Northwestern Journal of International Affairs, Fall 2006
  15. "Celebration day for tsunami baby's family", The Times, 21 October 2005
  16. "20 years after the Indian Ocean tsunami, a boy found in the mud embraces being known as 'Baby 81'". AP News. 24 December 2024.

Categories: