Mor og adoptivdatter: Det er uetisk at franarre fattige forældre deres børn

Mother and Adopted Daughter: It is unethical to deceive poor parents of their children

The current system of transnational adoption means that we deal with children and remove them from their original families and country of birth. It must be regarded as an assault, write the adoption researcher and her adopted daughter in this debate

We write this chronicle together: the adopted and the adoptive, mother and daughter.

We were adopted together in Burkina Faso in 1995 at the request of Babette's biological grandmother and national authorities. Merete became part of the Burkinian extended family. We have since lived in Burkina Faso for periods, and it was great to be stopped in the street by random passers-by who, addressed to Merete, said, "Thank you for taking her back - there is no one else doing that."

In the original legal significance of adoption, this is only accomplished when both parties have adopted each other - this is a mutual process. This is not the case in the dominant, transnational adoption system.

Through a disgraceful adoption process, we make the children our own. The child's origins are deleted in the legal identity papers and subsequently appear as the biological parents of the Danish parents. This is in sharp contrast to the child's rights and to the social structure of the countries we adopt. It is extremely offensive to the adopted and their families. It goes beyond well-being, sense of justice and human dignity. Many of these families never see their children again, which for them is incomprehensible and traumatic.

We are children

Merete's research shows that in Denmark, over a period of 70 years, we have paid over DKK 1.6 billion. DKK (converted to today's value) to get 35-42,000 children here. There is a market for wealthy childless - therefore we are children.

The dissemination is carried out by Danish International Adoption, an independent, self-governing institution accredited by the Ministry of Social Affairs, with ongoing million subsidies from the pool of funds. Beneficiaries can also apply for state subsidies. The taxpayer pays DKK 54,740 per 2019 per person. "Home-born child" - as it is so beautifully called. In 2017, we took 79 children here for about 15 million. Total. The most expensive child comes from South Korea (DKK 286,700) and the cheapest from Thailand (DKK 158,300) - furthermore, there are paid for parent courses and travel.

How many families could we have helped a dignified life with their children with these amounts - instead of taking their children away from them?

This is a flow of children from countries whose structure is based on collectivity - contrary to ours, which is based on an individualistic social order. This causes fundamental differences in what one can call children's flexibility internally in the extended family. In the countries that are adopted from, children are usually not stuck in an adoption so that it causes a change in their identity. If a family has 'too many' children and another nobody, then the children move within the extended family and they sweat and return regularly to the biological parents and siblings.

Most adopters have biological families in their country of origin, but it is not a requirement that the adoptive parents also be adopted / approved by the original family. And even infants, orphans and street children should have the right to keep their homeland. Having the opportunity to take responsibility for his native country is a cornerstone of a person's dignity and development.

No one is accountable

The transnational adoption debate is in a wrestling time. Adopted poses existential and rights-based issues. Research highlights the negative consequences of adoption, and journalists have, among other things, documentary films Mercy Mercy - The Adoption Award and Amy's Will Reported on Scandalous Adoption Relationships: Abductions of Adopted, where the new parents and the system were unable to power the children. Children who miss their families unbearably, and children who have been repeatedly accused of "attachment difficulties" - what else could one expect?

The documentaries 'main characters, Masho and Amy, have both received their adoption canceled in their home country, but in this country it is not possible without the adopters' acceptance. It's absurd.

In the current adoption system, no one is responsible for the pain, mental illness and violation it has caused. When does the Ombudsman and the politicians enter into character? There is apparently no guilty - everything has happened "in the best sense", as was the case with the Greenlandic children.

In 1951, 22 well-functioning Greenlandic children were forcibly removed to Denmark. In "the best sense" it was the intention that the children should return to help civilize the home country. After a year and a half, the children had completely forgotten their original language. Forced removal took place in collaboration with the Red Cross and Save the Child - the latter has since given an excuse to the children. None of these children ever came to characterize their country's development - on the other hand, other Greenlanders who came to school and received education in Greenland. The lake's research shows that Greenlandic children who were adopted by families in Greenland do not have the high contact with psychiatry as those who were adopted in Denmark.

The original Greenlandic social structure is reminiscent of the collective structures in countries we currently have adoption agreements with - agreements that we have received for payment through our own outreach delegations.

Where is the empathy?

When a problem concerns emotions, we have difficulty raising the debate to a universal level. It's hard to get hold of the ethical, cultural values ??- it's easier to ask the adopted person: Are you happy and happy with your life? If the answer is yes, you conclude that everything is in the most beautiful order.

This is how the debate about the right thing is to banish children from their original parents, relatives and country of birth. The touch anxiety feels - it's our own, the adopted family of our friends and friends - and we are decent people.

Ethics is about basic rules of good human behavior, and it is especially important to practice towards people who are extremely poor and do not have the same rights as us. To the poor, we should show understanding, empathy and care.

The most wise, caring people we are in the family with are people who have often had to go to bed hungry - but how far does the Danes' love for the people?

The transnational adoption system acts as a personality-disrupted person who makes every possible leap to avoid the only solution that leads to healing. The only solution is definitely to put an end to the dysfunctional system that the transnational adoption market is.

Recognition and acceptance

Where can the people - who have been abducted, taken away from known, safe frames, and lied to in a young, fragile age - find a harmonious life that enriches themselves and for society when happened?

Every individual must seek deep in himself to find harmony, happiness and meaning - even in an unfair world. Happiness can also be found for the adopters - despite the fact that on the one hand they are no longer an authentic part of the country of origin, nor are they fully "approved" as Danes. They have a world of difference.

The adopted are a wealth for Danish society. But the circumstances in which they have come to the country are not a win-win situation, because it has been done in the wrong way and must be regarded as an abuse of the child and its origin.

There will be a day when Denmark says apologies to the children who have been removed from prison, transnationally adopted.

Danish:

Det nuværende system for transnational adoption betyder, at vi handler med børn og fjerner dem fra deres oprindelige familier og fødeland. Det må betragtes som et overgreb, skriver adoptionsforsker og hendes adoptivdatter i dette debatindlæg

Vi skriver denne kronik sammen: den adopterede og adoptanten, mor og datter.

Vi blev adopteret sammen i Burkina Faso i 1995 på foranledning af Babettes biologiske bedstemor og de nationale myndigheder. Merete blev en del af den burkinske storfamilie. Vi har sidenhen boet i Burkina Faso i perioder, og det var dejligt at blive standset på gaden af tilfældige forbipasserende, som henvendt til Merete sagde: »Tak, fordi du har taget hende med tilbage – det er der ingen andre, der gør.«

I den oprindelige juridiske betydning af adoption er denne kun fuldbyrdet, når begge parter har adopteret hinanden – der er tale om en gensidig proces. Sådan foregår det ikke i det dominerende, transnationale adoptionssystem.

Gennem en skændig adoptionsproces gør vi børnene til vores eje. Barnets oprindelse slettes i de juridiske identitetspapirer for herefter at fremstå som de danske forældres biologiske barn. Dette står i skarp kontrast til barnets rettigheder og til samfundsstrukturen i de lande, vi adopterer fra. Det er særdeles krænkende for de bortadopterede og deres familier. Det går ud over trivsel, retfærdighedsfølelse og menneskelig værdighed. Mange af disse familier ser aldrig deres børn igen, hvilket for dem er uforståeligt og traumatisk.

Vi handler børn

Meretes forskning viser, at vi i Danmark gennem en 70-årig periode har betalt over 1,6 mia. kr. (omregnet til nutidens værdi) for at få 35-42.000 børn hertil. Der er et marked for velhavende barnløse – derfor handler vi børn.

Formidlingen gennemføres af Danish International Adoption, en uafhængig selvejende institution akkrediteret af Socialministeriet, med løbende milliontilskud fra satspuljen. Adoptanter kan desuden ansøge om statstilskud. Skatteborgerne betaler i 2019 54.740 kr. pr. »hjemtaget barn« – som det så smukt kaldes. I 2017 tog vi 79 børn hertil for omkring 15 mio. i alt. Det dyreste barn kommer fra Sydkorea (286.700 kr.) og det billigste fra Thailand (158.300 kr.) – desuden betales der for forældrekurser og rejser.

Hvor mange familier kunne vi have hjulpet til en værdig tilværelse sammen med deres børn med disse beløb – i stedet for at tage deres børn fra dem?

Der er tale om et flow af børn fra lande, hvis struktur er baseret på kollektivitet – modsat vores, som er baseret på en individualistisk samfundsorden. Dette medfører fundamentale forskelle på det, man kan kalde børns fleksibilitet internt i storfamilien. I de lande, der adopteres fra, bliver børn oftest ikke fastlåst i en adoption, så den medfører en ændring af deres identitet. Hvis en familie har ’for mange’ børn og en anden ingen, så bevæger børnene sig inden for storfamilien, og de genser og vender regelmæssigt tilbage til de biologiske forældre og søskende.

De fleste adopterede har biologiske familier i deres oprindelsesland, men det er ikke et krav, at adoptivforældrene også adopteres/godkendes af den oprindelige familie. Og selv hittebørn, børnehjemsbørn og gadebørn burde have ret til at beholde deres fædreland. Det at have mulighed for at kunne tage medansvar for sit fædreland er en hjørnesten i en persons værdighed og udvikling.

Ingen stilles til ansvar

Den transnationale adoptionsdebat er inde i en brydningstid. Adopterede stiller eksistentielle og rettighedsbaserede spørgsmål. Forskning fremhæver adoptionens negative følger, og journalister har i bl.a. dokumentarfilmene Mercy Mercy - Adoptionens pris og Amys vilje berettet om skandaløse adoptionsforhold: tvangsfjernelser af adopterede, hvor de nye forældre og systemet ikke har kunnet magte børnene. Børn, som savner deres familier ubærligt, og børn, som igen og igen er blevet beskyldt for ’tilknytningsvanskeligheder’ – hvad andet kunne man forvente?

Dokumentarfilmenes hovedpersoner, Masho og Amy, har begge fået deres adoption annulleret i deres hjemland, men her i landet er det ikke muligt uden adoptanternes accept. Det er absurd.

I det nuværende adoptionssystem stilles ingen til ansvar for de smerter, sindslidelser og krænkelser, det har forvoldt. Hvornår træder Ombudsmanden og politikerne i karakter? Der er tilsyneladende ingen skyldige – alt er sket ’i den bedste mening’, som det var tilfældet med de grønlandske børn.

I 1951 blev 22 velfungerende grønlandske børn tvangsfjernet til Danmark. I ’den bedste mening’ var det hensigten, at børnene skulle vende tilbage for at være med til at civilisere hjemlandet. Efter halvandet år havde børnene fuldstændig glemt deres oprindelige sprog. Tvangsfjernelsen skete i samarbejde med Røde Kors og Red Barnet – sidstnævnte har siden givet en undskyldning til børnene. Ingen af disse børn kom nogensinde til at præge deres lands udvikling – det gjorde derimod andre grønlændere, som kom i skole og fik uddannelse i Grønland. Meretes forskning viser, at grønlandske børn, der blev adopteret af familier i Grønland, ikke har den høje kontakt til psykiatrien som dem, der blev adopteret i Danmark.

Den oprindelige grønlandske samfundsstruktur minder om de kollektive strukturer i lande, vi i dag har adoptionsaftaler med – aftaler som vi mod betaling har fået gennem vores egne opsøgende delegationer.

Hvor er empatien?

Når et problem omhandler følelser, har vi vanskeligt ved at højne debatten til et universelt niveau. Det er svært at få greb om de etiske, kulturelle værdier – lettere er det at spørge den adopterede: Er du lykkelig og tilfreds med dit liv? Hvis svaret er ja, konkluderer man, at alt er i den skønneste orden.

Sådan bliver debatten om det rigtige i at tvangsfjerne børn fra deres oprindelige forældre, pårørende og fødeland banaliseret. Berøringsangsten er til at føle på – det er jo vores egne, vores familiers og venners adopterede, der er tale om – og vi er ordentlige mennesker.

Etik handler om grundlæggende regler for god medmenneskelig adfærd, og det er især vigtigt at praktisere over for folk, som er ekstremt fattige og ikke har samme rettigheder som os. Over for fattige bør vi udvise forståelse, empati og omsorg.

De mest vise, omsorgsfulde mennesker, vi er i familie med, er mennesker, som ofte har måttet gå sultne i seng – men hvor langt rækker danskernes næstekærlighed?

Det transnationale adoptionssystem fungerer som en personlighedsforstyrret person, der gør alle mulige krumspring for at undgå den eneste løsning, som fører til helbredelse. Den eneste løsning er definitivt at sætte en stopper for det dysfunktionelle system, som markedet for transnational adoption er.

Anerkendelse og accept

Hvor kan de mennesker – som er blevet tvangsfjernet, ført væk fra kendte, trygge rammer og er blevet løjet for i en ung, skrøbelig alder – finde et harmonisk liv, der er berigende for dem selv og for samfundet, når sket er sket?

Ethvert individ må søge dybt i sig selv for at finde harmoni, lykke og meningsfylde – selv i en urimelig verden. Lykken kan også findes for de bortadopterede – på trods af, at de på den ene side ikke længere er en autentisk del af oprindelseslandet og heller ikke er fuldt ud er ’godkendte’ som danskere. De rummer en verden til forskel.

De adopterede er en rigdom for det danske samfund. Men de omstændigheder, de er kommet til landet under, er ikke en win-win-situation, for det er sket under forkerte forudsætninger, og de må betragtes som et overgreb på barnet og på dets oprindelse.

Der kommer en dag, hvor Danmark siger undskyld til de tvangsfjernede, transnationalt bortadopterede børn.

.