CAP: Why UNICEF's Views Are Wrong

January 30, 2018. Why UNICEF's Views Are Wrong. We have been asked to comment on UNICEF's anti-international adoption position. UNICEF takes the view that, according to its charter and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), it would rather a child have the chance to have a safe and healthy childhood with his or her own family and, in any event, remain in his or her country of origin. The first problem with this statement is that UNICEF interprets these words as meaning that in-country institutional care is preferable to international adoption. We do not. UNICEF has promoted "Permanency." Permanency is a concept which translates into permanent, in-country foster care or group homes. We believe that children are best served by permanent, loving families, where ever they may be found. But UNICEF's solution suits many stakeholders because UNICEF backs up its ideology with money--especially money for group homes. As they used to say in Britain, "jobs for the boys." But the children are the losers.

The second problem is that many countries of origin do not view children from minority groups, such as Roma or indigenous people, as part of their national group. This disparity leads to UNICEF, on the one hand condemning international adoption, and on the other, decrying the treatment of Roma or indigenous people. The children are caught in the middle and get nothing.

Finally, on international adoption, UNICEF references its charter, the Declaration of Human Rights and the UNCRC. Two comments. After the UNCRC was passed, most countries signed and ratified the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (the "Hague") which, as a legal matter, supersedes the UNCRC. UNICEF avoids referencing the Hague because the Hague supports international adoption over intercountry institutional care. The CRC (arguably) does not.

A further issue with human rights treaties. The various enumerated children's rights do not include the right to family. This problem arose from the drafting of the first of the post-war human rights conventions, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948), and persists to this day. The Declaration was written in the shadow of the German Lebensborn program which saw more than 250,000 children from Eastern Europe kidnapped and taken to Germany to be raised as Aryan German children. The 1948 Declaration condemned this action by stating that every child is entitled to his/her nationality. But the Declaration did not include a child's right to a family because in the context of the Lebensborn program, kidnapped children had two families--their birth families and the German ones they were given. By omitting the right to a family, the 1948 Declaration created the negative precedent which then gets embraced in the UNCRC. We have been working to plug this hole for years. We are still trying.

.