Only people with a Danish passport are heard in the debate about international adoption

Adopting children from other countries to Denmark is over. On 16 January, Danish International Adoption (DIA) announced a complete cessation of their mediation of international adoption, including from South Africa. This decision, based on a series of critical errors in the organization's work, marks a turning point in the national adoption discourse. The debate in recent years has been characterized by self-examination of historical errors in the adoption system. Remarkably, this debate has missed an important voice – namely the countries that give up children for adoption.

The massive failure that has been in the area of ​​adoption in the past must be fully acknowledged, and Denmark should comply with the UN's recommendation for impartial investigations into all illegal international adoptions.

At the same time, the previous failures have made the debate unvarying. In recent years, many have taken notice of the post-colonial structures that characterize the area, and critics view the system of transnational adoptions as a continuation of these structures.

Others grapple with the question of whether international adoption deprives the child of its cultural identity.

The inequality that forms the basis of the international adoption system, as well as the question of cultural identity, is important to keep in mind, but it is paramount that we recognize the regional and social contexts that affect the individual country, and to nuance the debate should perspectives from the countries concerned are included.

Look for the children's interest

Benyam Dawit Mezmur is a professor at the University of The Western Cape Town in South Africa and born in Ethiopia. He is a fellow at Harvard Law School's Human Rights program, sits on the UN Children's Committee and has published countless research articles on children's rights and international adoption. Mezmur has a more nuanced picture of international adoption than what is often presented at home.

African countries have for many years been aware of their relationship with former colonial powers, and most countries share the clear goal of keeping children in their country of origin as far as possible. At the same time, they recognize that with millions of orphans, it is not realistic to place all children locally. Here, according to Mezmur, it should be the child's own interest that has the highest priority, rather than solely focusing on keeping the child in his home country.

"Although we as Africans are proud of our culture, it is important that the individual rights of African children do not become entangled in discussions of the larger trends in the history of international adoption, which are considered 'essentially a remnant of colonialism', and about national pride. Having recognized children as rights holders, no ideas of national pride or children as national 'resources' should be used to deny children an appropriate alternative form of care, even if such care can only be found through international adoption," he writes in the journal International Journal on Human Rights.

Furthermore, Mezmur believes that the question of whether to deprive the child of his cultural identity must not be misused: "Interestingly, it is sometimes the concept of cultural identity that opponents of international adoption use to deny children a family environment, even when it is clear that international adoption would be in the children's best interests.'

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also emphasizes, on the one hand, the child's right to his own biological family, but also his right to, as a last resort, be adopted internationally. It must always be the child's interest that takes priority, without exception.

South Africa's homeless children

South Africa's Health Research Council estimates that around 3,500 children survive abandonment each year. Babies are found abandoned in public toilets and in rubbish bins. It is estimated that for every child found alive, two are found dead. There are close to a million children who have lost both parents to AIDS in the country. UNICEF estimates that almost 150,000 have become orphans during the covid-19 pandemic. Despite the need for local families for the country's total of 3.7 million orphans, the number of domestic adoptions is declining .

The consequence is that thousands of children are left with the prospect of permanent institutionalisation. Long-term institutionalization has negative consequences for children. As Mezmur emphasizes : "Although institutionalization should continue to play a temporary role as a transition for children deprived of their family environment, its use as a long-term placement for children requires serious reconsideration."

South Africa follows the principle of subsidiarity in its jurisprudence and each child's case must go through a meticulous legal system. Only when, often for several years, you have explored the possibilities of a local foster family or national adoption, is international adoption considered as an option for a child.

The Netherlands put international adoption on hold in 2021 in order to investigate the area thoroughly and last year reopened to selected countries, including South Africa . The study is based on South Africa's high level of legal certainty, and Professor Mezmur also highlights the country as a pioneering country for other countries in the region.

Postcolonial structures in new clothes

It goes without saying that all countries must live up to the framework of the Hague Convention , which must, among other things, ensure that no children are adopted on dubious grounds. And DIA has not taken up the task. But with the rhetoric being used by the authorities around the case, and the effect it has on the children who are stigmatized as 'trafficked children', I think there is a need to clarify what the case is about.

It is solely about the framework for a specific employment . A woman against the rules was employed by both DIA and the South African NGO IMPILO (DIA's partner) at the same time. The woman especially helped take care of adopters when they were in South Africa to meet the child for the first time.

DIA has circumvented the rules. Those rules must be observed, and DIA cannot disclaim responsibility. Based on the material that is currently available, however, there is not a single concrete adoption case in which there has been talk of trafficking in children between Denmark and South Africa. All former adoptees and their families owe it to emphasize that.

It is only an independent court in South Africa that - based on the child's best interests - can decide that a child must be given up for international adoption. That is not something DIA or any other organization can buy into.

It is sad that, on the basis of a defective Danish system, we are now closing the possibility that vulnerable children in South Africa can have the family that it has not been possible to find for them in their home country.

Every adopted child has experienced the greatest failure a human being can experience, at a time in life when security should be an inalienable right. Globally, everything should be done to minimize the inequality on which the international adoption system is based.

But when we ignore significant experts from South Africa and indirectly challenge the country's legal system, we help to maintain the post-colonial structures we claim to dismantle. A future sustainable adoption system must be based on a dialogue that places donor countries centrally in the decision-making process, and which is based on respect, knowledge, empathy and a sincere recognition of their legal practice and sovereignty.

Simon Linnert and his wife were on the waiting list at DIA to adopt a child from South Africa. Simon Linnert is a musician and AI engineer.