Lawyer Saskia de Groot: Stopping foreign adoptions is the first step towards justice

After years of struggle, there seems to be a definitive end to the adoption of foreign children by Dutch prospective parents. Saskia de Groot of SAP Personal Injury Lawyers represents adopted children who have fallen victim to abuses in the adoption sector. They are cautiously optimistic.

First, the background: why are international adoptions under fire? Since the 1970s, Dutch prospective parents have adopted more than forty thousand children from abroad. In doing so, rules were regularly violated. Children were not always given up voluntarily, birth certificates were forged. In many cases, Dutch officials knew about the fraud, but turned a blind eye or actively cooperated. The result is that children were torn away from their family and country of origin under false pretenses. Because of the forged papers, they have little or no opportunity to search for their biological family. Where they do succeed, it often costs a great deal of time and money.

State held liable

In 2018, SAP held the Dutch state liable on behalf of a group of adoptees. Other offices also initiated proceedings. The state has always denied responsibility for the abuses. Although there is occasional success in court, judges often rule that it is not right to look at procedures from the 1970s and 1980s with today's eyes.

In 2021, the Joustra Commission published a damning report on the widespread abuses in adoption procedures. The Dutch government had been aware of adoption abuses since the late 1960s. In doing so, the government failed to meet its responsibilities and obligations and failed to intervene when there was reason to do so. The harsh conclusions led to a temporary freeze on adoptions.

This was partially reversed in 2022. Minister Weerwind then decided to allow adoptions from South Africa, Portugal, Thailand, Taiwan, the Philippines, Lesotho and Hungary again. A year later, Bulgaria was added to that list.

However, the end seems to be in sight, now that a majority in the House of Representatives has instructed the minister to develop a plan to carefully phase out intercountry adoption.

Child protection measure

Attorney Saskia de Groot, together with her colleagues Mark de Hek and Sharon Soeltan, forms the Adoption Team of SAP Personal Injury Attorneys. She responds to the House motion and the minister's response .

What is your initial reaction to Minister Weerwind's announcement that no new intercountry adoption procedures will be initiated with immediate effect?

“The first sounds from our supporters are positive. This is the first step towards justice. Legally, adoption is a child protection measure, but in practice we see cases where it goes wrong. And when it does, it often goes really wrong, and people experience all kinds of negative consequences for the rest of their lives. In the past, there was also a stop on foreign adoptions, but Minister Weerwind decided to allow adoptions from eight countries anyway. There was a lot of criticism about that: why those eight countries? Was it safe there?

Although Weerwind advised against the motion in the House, it was nevertheless adopted and is now being implemented here. The foundation Intercountry Adoption Mediation Netherlands (IAN), which was already being established, will not be established in any case. So there are certainly positive signals.

At the same time, there is still a lot of uncertainty. Procedures that have already been initiated and where people already have a number (Foreign Child for Adoption Number, ed.) will continue for the time being. But in September there will be a plan that will make it clear whether that is really the case and what it will look like. We also do not know how many people already have such a number.”

Injury

SAP Advocaten specializes in personal injury cases. If we take that very literally in this case, what is the injury that people report to you with?

“For example, we have many people who were under the impression that they were part of a twin. They then discover that they are not related to their adopted brother at all. They then also discover that all kinds of information in the birth certificate is incorrect. Then they go on a journey to find their family, and it turns out that the mother on the renunciation was not their mother at all. She was an 'acting mother', a woman who was paid to pretend to be the mother. These are not isolated incidents; a lot of the ancestral information in the files turns out to be incorrect.

That leads to questions of identity: who am I, where do I come from? But also the question, was I given up voluntarily? That has a huge impact. Because you can't start looking anywhere, because what you thought you knew isn't true, and you don't know if your mother is still waiting somewhere for you to come back. There are also stories about baby farms and child theft. These are intense things that have led to a lot of suffering and psychological complaints among our clients.

They also suffer financial damage because they have to make all kinds of costs that can be linked to the fraudulent part of the adoption. For example, adoptees sometimes want to change their date of birth or name. Until now, they have paid the costs themselves.”

In the same week that the minister announced a freeze on new adoptions, the court of appeal in The Hague ruled that the state did not act unlawfully in an illegal adoption in 1980. Do you expect judges to look at these cases differently in the future? Because this freeze seems to be a definitive recognition that the abuses continue to this day.

“This ruling was very disappointing. We thought the Joustra Commission was very clear. The government already knew about the abuses in the late 1960s. They looked the other way, where they should have intervened. Now there is a stop and that does indeed seem to be recognition that the government cannot guarantee that the adoptions take place safely. But the recent rulings are based on the idea that you have to see the government's actions in the spirit of the times.

The court's ruling is of course very disappointing for the children who have become the victims. The court states 'We do see that there was a passive and expectant government, that does not mean that there was any unlawful conduct in legal terms. Because we should not look with the wisdom of hindsight, but judge the conduct by the standards of the time.

I would like this adoption stop to have consequences for the affairs of adopted children, but I wonder whether that will be the case. Motions have been adopted stating that the government must accommodate adopted children who want to correct mistakes from the past. For example, if they want to change names or correct an incorrect date of birth. The ministry says that it will draw up a separate response for this, but that this will take time. Up to now, the adopted children have not received any assistance. On the contrary, in practice, the government continues to litigate, and the adopted children are still left out in the cold.”