UAI: Parliament is facing a historical error

 
Belgium Parliament is facing a historical error
As everybody should know by now, secrecy, hidden facts and sealed records is against the interests of adoptees and most of the cases against the long term interests of mothers also. But without examining and doing research about the effects of secrecy regarding adoption, the Belgium Parliament is heading towards a situation of going back to earlier times to make an historical error.
Without understanding why, the Belgium Parliament is willing to accept a new bill to put a new regime on delivering babies for the adoption industry in secrecy. As all know, involved in the adoption world, sealed records and secrecy regarding relinquishment does not deal with the fact of the long term consequence of adoptees wanting to find their parents.
Historical research shows even, that in many cases, the woman whom relinquished the children for adoption wants to children to know where and who they are. This fact seems not to be taken into account. Again it seems that the adoption community of adopters see their interests protected but for which price ?
 
We cannot remember that so called birth mothers relinquished their babies to give these children as a secret gift to others nor to these children to be delivered in secrecy.
 
Why the Belgium government still wants to pull off this new bill is for many people, at least for (domestic) adoptees and many (former) birth mothers a question. But with all the adoption scandals where Belgium lately is involved, this question is not longer a strange one but answers again, that the interest of (prospective) adoption parents is more important as the ones where we should listen to. Adoptees and their (birth)parents.
 
As a member of the International Hague Convention regarding adoption, Belgium is not alone neglecting the guidelines of this convention but also pleads with a decision to enforce the new bill, not to respect article 21 b and c of the Child Rights Convention. It is strange that the international community, at least the European Union, is not criticising Belgium Policy regarding adoption. Probably awaiting the implementation so they can do the same.
 
At the end, one has to understand that the demand for children is unequally high and the supply of these wanted children every year less and less. To fulfill the wishes of the electorate, politics have to be involved to please and to protect the interest of the (prospective) adoption parents. Many of them are members of parliament themselves. It is not e very difficult answer to find why secrecy and sealed records should be introduced again. The question still remains, in whose interest this decision will be made.
 
United Adoptees International