Residential and institutional care is not a question of extent or degree, but rather a question of absolute abolition on account of what it historically represents and continues to perpetuate

Recently the world celebrated Black History month and it was an opportunity to take stock of the progress that Black and other ethnic minority groups have made since emancipation from slavery and colonialism.

It was also a time to reflect and learn from the atrocities of the past and reinforce mankind’s covenant never to allow history to repeat itself. The discovery of mass unmarked graves on sites of former Canadian Indian residential schools in Canada prompted me to add to the discourse of ending residential and institutional child care from a historical perspective. I will argue firstly that children from countries with a history of racial segregation and an established system of residential and institutional child care form the highest percentage of children in such institutions. Secondly, that despite provisions in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the United Nations Guidelines for Alternative Care of Children, residential and institutional care poses serious developmental risks and violations to the rights of children such that under no circumstances should it ever be an option – a family environment is the only appropriate setting for a child.

The effects of colonialism, slavery and apartheid still reverberate within those marginalised communities and are reflected in child care data. The theory of historical trauma provides a nexus to explain this phenomenon. In a nutshell, the theory propounds that societies subjected to long-term mass trauma are more likely to display higher prevalence of disease and experience social inequity even several generations after the original trauma occurred. In Canada, the discovery of graves since the 1990s (and the recent discovery of 715 last year) around sites of former Canadian Indian Residential schools culminated in the Truth and Reconciliation Committee calling it ‘cultural genocide’. It is estimated that between 3,200 to 30,000 children died as a result of neglect, illness or abuse in those institutions. It has also been reported that survivors suffer from deep-seated dissonance and dissimilation from their family and communities that has resulted in high prevalence rates of intergenerational suicide, alcoholism, domestic violence and the disintegration of families and communities. A report by the Ontario Human Rights Commission established that children from native indigenous and black communities are disproportionately represented in the child care system. It also further established as a matter of fact that such representation is on account of the nation’s colonial past. In 2018, African American children in the United States of America were 13.71% of the child population, yet 22.75% of them are in some form of child care. The same statistics also show that African American and Native American children were disproportionately identified as victims by protection services and waiting to be adopted. South Africa has experienced a bourgeoning surge of children entering residential child care institutions. For example, it is estimated that 1.8 million children are in need of adoption and are placed in institutions. Estimates vary as to the actual number of children in the child care system but the number ranges between 3.7 – 5.8 million with the majority being from the black population. It is clear from the data that across the board there is a correlation between the experiences of historically disenfranchised groups of people and the disproportionate representation of children of these groups in residential care in comparison to their counterpart, thus amounting to discrimination.

Allowing the continuation of residential and institutional child care by any degree under international or domestic law is a condonation of historical trauma and a perpetuation of intergenerational racial discrimination as it creates a vicious cycle. Article 9 of the CRC and the UN Guidelines on Alternative Care of Children agree that children must be kept within a family environment. However, they also allow for the removal of children from a family environment in circumstances where leaving the child there would not be in the best interests of the child and offers special protections under Article 20 CRC. The caveat here is that this must be done for the shortest period possible. The danger is that what amounts to the shortest period of time differs depending on the circumstances and may last for a matter of days, months and even years. Ultimately, the result is that a child placed in such institutions will still suffer from the adverse effects of the system. The dangers of residential and institutional care have been linked to detrimental effects on child development resulting in antisocial behaviour and risky behaviour. When measured up against the CRC general principles, residential care is discriminatory, it is not in the best interests of the child, it is devoid of child participation and detrimental to a child’s life and development.

More than a year after the Joustra Committee painted a devastating picture of intercountry adoption, Minister Franc Weerwind presented plans for improvement last week. Former top official Tjibbe Joustra is not yet convinced. 'The interpretation will be decisive.'

'How does the minister want to guarantee that abuses no longer occur with adoption from abroad?' That is what former top civil servant Tjibbe Joustra wonders after studying the new plans of Minister Franc Weerwind (Legal Protection, D66). 'I looked for which elements should lead to improvement. They are quite difficult to find.'

More than a year ago the report of the Joustra Committee was published, which painted a devastating picture of intercountry adoption. Adoption from abroad was suspended immediately. In the meantime, a new plan was being worked on.

Last week, the minister wrote a letter to the House stating that adoption of children from abroad will be possible again. A new intermediary organization to be established, closely linked to the government, must ensure that corruption, child trafficking and fraud are eradicated. Moreover, it is always necessary to first look for suitable reception in the country of origin.

Searching for concrete points for improvement

Orphanages are bad for children. And adoption often makes happier. Don't forget that in the debate on intercountry adoption, write Marinus van IJzerdoorn and Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg, professor of pedagogy in Rotterdam and professor of neurobiological backgrounds of upbringing and development at VU Amsterdam.

Marinus van IJzerdoorn and Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg 18 april 2022, 13:23

The debate about intercountry adoption has flared up again. The government and the House of Representatives will soon discuss what to do with intercountry adoption. Stop or continue? In the meantime, opinions abound, but what are the facts?

First, children who grow up in orphanages (orphanages) experience enormous delays in their physical and neural growth, as well as in their cognitive and psychological development. For example, in our study with Natasha Dobrova-Krol in homes in Ukraine, many children had severe growth retardation and hormonal stress imbalance. We saw that picture confirmed in our recent overview analysis in the Lancet Psychiatry of more than 300 empirical studies in more than 60 countries involving more than 100,000 children. The longer the stay in a home, the greater the arrears.

Incidentally, by no means all children in the 'orphanages' have lost their parents through death, but reliable data are lacking. There is simply too little good research into parents who have abandoned their children because of poverty, cultural or religious taboos, or demographic politics, and how this could have been prevented.

When Maria Lundberg Ström's mother and father learned that the biological parents demanded their daughter back, it was the beginning of one of history's worst adoption scandals. It turned out that Maria had been stolen from her home in Seoul. Her new Swedish parents became desperate.

FJung Yoon Huh's life in Sweden began on 18 February 1968 at Arlanda. It was the day when her expectant adoptive parents, Ulla and Stig, received their adopted child from Korea.

They were a childless couple in their 40s who had longed to start a family, but did not succeed. The 2.5-year-old Korean girl was received with open arms. They called her Mary.

The girl was precocious for her age. In fact, she was four years old. But about that and about Mary's real background, they knew nothing. They thought she was orphaned.

Maria Lundberg Ström, who is now 56 years old, agrees that her story is exceptional. Few adoptees find their biological parents. In her case, on the contrary, it was the biological parents who, after two years of searching, found their lost daughter. Because she was anything but poor and orphaned, she came from a wealthy entrepreneurial family in Seoul.

Last week, the cabinet announced that it would now only wish to allow intercountry adoptions to go through a government organization. Patrick Noordoven would rather see the Netherlands renounce intercountry adoption altogether.

In 1980, with the help of a Dutch diplomat, with the cooperation of the consulate in São Paulo, I was illegally adopted from Brazil. Because my identity has been forged – a common problem for adoptees – it has been virtually impossible to obtain vital information about my ancestry.

As a result, I do not know under what circumstances I was handed over and as a result, after more than twenty years of searching for my identity, I have not yet been able to find my father.

According to the District Court of The Hague, the Dutch state has acted unlawfully towards me by failing to take measures to protect my right to know my origin. The state was required to make every effort to ensure that I, as a victim of criminal conduct, would actually receive parentage and other identifying information, the court ruled.

Gross violations of children's rights

The South Korean Cabinet on Tuesday approved bills to allow single people to adopt children, as the number of one-person households is sharply increasing.

The Justice Ministry revised the Civil Act and the Family Litigation Act, which currently stipulate only married couples can legally adopt, reports Yonhap News Agency.

Under the revisions, single people can adopt if they are 25 or older and meet requirements to sufficiently guarantee the welfare of the children.

The Ministry said it will submit the amendments to the National Assembly on Friday for approval, while it also strengthened qualification reviews of would-be adoptive parents.

The revisions call on the family court to consider parenting time and the post-adoption environment when reviewing applications, in addition to their capability and conditions to raise a child.

Children who have been removed from home should also be able to return to their parents after a longer period of time. The directive that currently often prevents this from happening is being scrapped. Youth protectors can then deal more flexibly with the so-called 'acceptable period for return'.

The change of course of the Netherlands Youth Institute (NJi), which draws up the guidelines together with the professional associations, is important for the approximately 420 children of parents affected by the benefits affair who have been placed out of their homes and still live separately from their parents. A government support team has been available for them since last week. In total, about 46 thousand children live in foster families or institutions in the Netherlands, more than 20 thousand of whom are through the intervention of the juvenile court.

Determine what is possible per family

The new starting point is that it must be determined per family what is possible, without applying a generally applicable strict term any longer. Even before the official new guideline is available, which is expected after the summer, it is already the intention that the acceptable term will be applied less strictly.

The term 'acceptable term' was included in the Civil Code in 2015 to prevent children from being left in uncertainty about where they would grow up for too long after a custodial placement. As a national knowledge centre, the NJi has drawn up two terms based on scientific insights and practical experience: a maximum of six months for very young children up to 5 years old, and a maximum of one year for children aged 5 and older. Although the terms are 'indicative', it also stated firmly: 'If it is not possible to improve the conditions sufficiently within this term, then a permanent custodial placement is necessary.'

EAU CLAIRE — At just 2½ years old, Ary Krejchi already has come a long way.

Ary was born in India, where he spent the first 20 months of his life in an orphanage before being adopted by Serena and Jon Krejchi of Eau Claire.

The boy also was born with biliary atresia, a rare liver disease that left him so malnourished he weighed only 11 pounds, had broken bones all over his frail body and had to be held like a baby when the Krejchis welcomed him into their lives.

One year later, after undergoing a liver transplant in September at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, Ary’s transformation is stunning. His weight has more than doubled, his smile is nearly constant and he struts around the family’s living room — still with a helping hand from mom or dad — like he owns the place.

“His personality has really developed since the transplant. He’s a completely different child,” Serena said. “It feels like we’ve had him forever now.”

https://open.overheid.nl/repository/ronl-97920b9b46c6a81438385ede6c7db42d2c9cb07a/1/pdf/Wob-verzoek%20mbt%20Adopties%20uit%20India%20-%20Wob-besluit_%20inventarislijst%20en%20documenten.pdf

Revised 'acceptable term' in the Out-of-home placement guideline

If children are removed from home, then according to Dutch law it must be decided for each child within an 'acceptable period' where the child will definitely grow up. This term is further elaborated in the Out-of-home placement guideline. In practice, the wording of the directive sometimes leads to unbalanced decision-making. The three owners of the guideline, the professional associations NIP, NVO and BPSW, and the Netherlands Youth Institute (NJi) delete the current passages in the new version of the guideline, in which the acceptable term is specified.

The revision of this guideline has been in progress since the autumn of 2021. In this review, new insights on the various factors that influence 'the acceptable time frame' will be prioritized. In the meantime, it is important for the application of the directive not to strictly observe the time limits specified in the directive. Joint, careful decision-making is essential, which does justice to the specific situation of the child and the family.

Do not use fixed terms

In the guideline (and substantiation, work cards and information for parents) in various places time limits are mentioned within which decisions about out-of-home placement or back placement should take place. These terms are indicative, i.e. intended as an example. They are not universally applicable. We note that youth professionals apply these terms too strictly in practice. We can imagine that the firm wording of the relevant passages in the directive could lead to a misinterpretation.