---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Against Child Trafficking

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 12:38

Subject: Re: planning overleg werkgroep beleid invloed

To: George Schuddebeurs

It almost looks like a story from a movie, but it really happened to Rob: shortly after his birth in South Korea he was kidnapped by his aunt and given up for adoption. He told FunX how this could have happened.

ADOPTION STORY

For a long time, Rob and his adoptive parents had no idea of ??the bizarre adoption story that had taken place in South Korea. It wasn't until Rob went looking for his biological parents that the truth came out. "It's a difficult story," says Rob. He explains that his family has always been a little bit against his parents' marriage.

When his mother was pregnant, Rob's father left for the Emirates to work there. The moment the labor started - two months early - he couldn't just come back to South Korea. "He then said to his eldest sister: 'Listen, you are my eldest sister, you must look after my wife, because she is going to give birth." After Rob was born, he had to go straight to the incubator. His mother was in a coma at the time. "My aunt may have bribed the whole thing and ensured that I ended up in an orphanage and that I was sent away to the Netherlands as soon as possible when I was strong."

DECEASED DAUGHTER

In Sweden, there are about 60,000 people who are adopted from other countries. This makes us the country in the world that has arranged the most adoptions in terms of population. The risk of suicide for foreign adoptees is greatly increased compared with the normal population, which has been demonstrated in several Swedish studies [1-3], where the relative risk increase is stated to be between 2.33 and 3.6. The risk is also significantly higher for eating disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety, inpatient care for alcohol and drug abuse and suicide attempts in foreign adoptees than in the normal population [4, 5].

When I started in psychiatry as an assistant doctor, I noticed that there was a clear over-representation of the patient group of adults adopted. Common to many was that they had a complex problem with several different and sometimes contradictory diagnoses, and that they were tossed between several levels of care and units. At the same time, there was no reception to refer patients to and no competence center to consult about further treatment. Neither during my education nor earlier in my professional life had I learned that adoptees abroad are an extra vulnerable and complex group of patients. Despite the unequivocal scientific evidence regarding mental illness in patients, there is a lack of specialist care and competence in adult psychiatry.

In 2017, I contacted a number of bodies: the Ministry of Social Affairs, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the Swedish Agency for Family Law and Parental Support, the Stockholm Region and the Swedish Agency for Medical and Social Evaluation (SBU). The intention was to sound the alarm about the acute and very serious situation in psychiatry for the patient group, with widespread and great suffering, lack of specialist care and largely non-existent competence in appropriate care and treatment. Responses and actions were completely absent.

Unfortunately, the situation is unchanged. In the absence of sufficient competence and "holistic thinking", patients adopted abroad are still moved around between different clinics without receiving adequate help based on the underlying trauma and shortcomings in early care.

The Swedish Agency for Family Law and Parental Support has procured special conversational support for adoptees [6], which is mainly offered via digital solutions. The conversational support is described as "a complement to the regular health care" and does not aim to medically investigate and treat illnesses and injuries. The agency's support is far from sufficient to provide adoptees with the care they need and are entitled to.

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.

https://www.topics.nl/opinie-of-moeten-we-maar-helemaal-stoppen-met-adoptie-a17221107vk/b0475b3cb93b8b4f86e8775799b9470f435e0dfa439f81787a0cefac3e22d8a8/?context=zoek/?query=Adoptie&referrerUserId=fada8eeaca184a46babdb0855ef66e3a

After an adoption stop of a year, adoptions from abroad will soon be resumed, under stricter conditions. But wouldn't it have been wiser to stop intercountry adoptions altogether?

Last week, Minister Franc Weerwind for Legal Protection presented a proposal on how to proceed with the intercountry adoption system, which had previously been fiercely criticized by the Joustra Committee, after which the then Minister Dekker promptly suspended all adoptions.

The 'polder solution' that is now before us is that adoption will continue, but that four intermediary agencies will be reduced to one foundation, which the government can monitor more closely. Weerwind itself wonders how the required substantial investment relates to the decreasing number of adoptions, sometimes under a hundred children each year. The question is: wouldn't it be wiser to stop altogether?

Inez Teurlings, on behalf of the Interlandelijk Adoptees Foundation (SIG) and self-adopted:

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.