'What to others appears to be purely administrative paperwork, for adoptees often represents the only potential, tangible link with the first period of their lives, the people from whom they were born, their origins, an important part of who they are, a part of their identity', writes Ae Ra Van Geel. She calls, among other things, for better monitoring and retention of the administration. At Flemish level, it is expected that a decision will be made in September on the list of countries from which Flanders will adopt in the future.
Work is currently underway in Flanders on a new decree on intercountry adoption, as well as on screenings of all countries of origin from which Flanders is currently moving and adopting children, such as Portugal.
Much has been said and written in recent years about what should be important in the policy on transnational adoption, including by myself. The adoption field, that collection of forces, powers, individuals and often conflicting interests, is extremely complex. This field includes parents and their children; people with an unwanted and unfulfilled desire to have children; people who want to do 'good'; adopters; adoption services; governments in both sending and receiving countries; people who had to give up their child due to socio-economic circumstances, for example.
In response to recent current events in Flanders and the Netherlands, I would like to draw attention to a number of considerations that I believe are important in decision-making and policy-making regarding transnational adoption.
This is how I think of the recurring 'interests of the child'. This empty and meaningless phrase has been used to legitimize, condone and frame distance, forced displacement and adoption for decades. However, it has been known for just as long that the interests of the child are merely an excuse for other, less noble-sounding interests such as economic gain or fulfilling a desire to have children in the global North. This was recently demonstrated once again in an article that De Morgen published, based on written documents from the early 1970s.. The image of children as a commodity to be monetized emerges from this. In this way, money was made from deceased children and money was saved by exchanging children. Prospective adopters were also scammed because they were charged non-existent fees. The Belgian ambassador already mentioned such a lack of competence among the adoption services involved at the time. However, thorough investigation was not found necessary.
Whose interests did this serve?