Judge in adoption case: barred

Today the court ruled in the case of Dilani Butink, born in Sri Lanka and adopted in the Netherlands. Butink found out during a trip to Sri Lanka in 2015 that her birth papers are incorrect. Butink sued because she believes the state and adoption agency that brokered her adoption made serious mistakes. Today the judge ruled that she has been late. The case is barred after twenty years. According to Defense for Children, this is a disappointing statement with major consequences for other adoptees and also for children who are still internationally adopted.

Limitation period

According to the judge, the limitation period started when, among other things, Butink's papers in Sri Lanka were forged. That means that within twenty years after that, she should have held the state and the adoption agency liable. According to Defense for Children, this is unreasonable. A baby or young child cannot claim to have been unlawfully adopted and often cannot go to court themselves. In addition, in cases of potentially faulty intercountry adoptions that are reported to the Children's Rights Helpdesk of Defense for Children, we see that adoptees are now twenty, thirty or forty years old if they find out that the adoption file is incorrect, or if they have their biological parents found and it turns out that they never wanted to give them up. According to Defense for Children, the statute of limitations should not start from the moment of improper adoption, but from the moment an adoptee finds out that there have been irregularities.

Immediately go to court

The judge also indicated that Butink could have held the state and the adoption organization liable earlier, now that she found out in 2015 that her papers were incorrect. Reports of irregularities had also appeared in the media before. In practice, Defense for Children sees that an adoptee does not immediately go to court. First, an attempt is made to obtain information from the country of origin, from the adoption organization in the Netherlands and from the Ministry of Justice, the central adoption authority. Here, adoptees often get no action after many referrals. It takes some time. It often also takes some time for an adoptee to investigate the full extent of the wrongful adoption. In addition, it is often emotionally difficult for adoptees, because their identity seems to be incorrect and the adoption story is faltering. Time is also needed for the full meaning of the wrongful adoption to become known. It is therefore very understandable that Butink only later gathered sufficient information and courage to go to court for these reasons. It is not reasonable to say that she should have done this earlier.

Can't control

Due to the statute of limitations, the judge has not come to the substantive assessment of the case. The judge did indicate that the court cannot determine whether Butink's adoption papers are inadequate. Nor can it be determined whether she is a victim of illegal adoption practices. Defense for Children is concerned about the effect of this ruling. Whether the adoption is valid cannot be fully checked and guaranteed in the Netherlands. If an adoptee finds out after twenty, thirty or forty years that the adoption might not have been valid, the matter is time-barred. The relevant authorities and adoption organizations can then no longer be held responsible for this and there is no help with restoring identity. The only party that did not participate in the establishment of the adoption, but who has to bear all the consequences, is the adopted child.

According to Defense for Children, the fact that those involved cannot be held responsible for wrongdoing, in many cases due to prescription, entails the risk that any wrongdoing can no longer be proven through our legal system in the future. Defense for Children hopes that this ruling will make it clear to the Ministry and the House of Representatives what consequences wrongful adoption has for a child who only discovers adoptive abuses in adulthood but who can no longer hold anyone responsible for them.

Stop intercountry adoption

This ruling makes it clear again that it cannot be checked or guaranteed that intercountry adoptions are properly effected. This is an important reason for Defense for Children to argue in favor of ending intercountry adoption.

For more information, see: Court of The Hague 20 September 2020

Judge in adoption case: barred

9 Sep 2020

Dossier: Adoption

Today the court ruled in the case of Dilani Butink, born in Sri Lanka and adopted in the Netherlands. Butink found out during a trip to Sri Lanka in 2015 that her birth papers are incorrect. Butink sued because she believes the state and adoption agency that brokered her adoption made serious mistakes. Today the judge ruled that she has been late. The case is barred after twenty years. According to Defense for Children, this is a disappointing statement with major consequences for other adoptees and also for children who are still internationally adopted.

Limitation period

According to the judge, the limitation period started when, among other things, Butink's papers in Sri Lanka were forged. That means that within twenty years after that, she should have held the state and the adoption agency liable. According to Defense for Children, this is unreasonable. A baby or young child cannot claim to have been unlawfully adopted and often cannot go to court themselves. In addition, in cases of potentially faulty intercountry adoptions that are reported to the Children's Rights Helpdesk of Defense for Children, we see that adoptees are now twenty, thirty or forty years old if they find out that the adoption file is incorrect, or if they have their biological parents found and it turns out that they never wanted to give them up. According to Defense for Children, the statute of limitations should not start from the moment of improper adoption, but from the moment an adoptee finds out that there have been irregularities.

Immediately go to court

The judge also indicated that Butink could have held the state and the adoption organization liable earlier, now that she found out in 2015 that her papers were incorrect. Reports of irregularities had also appeared in the media before. In practice, Defense for Children sees that an adoptee does not immediately go to court. First, an attempt is made to obtain information from the country of origin, from the adoption organization in the Netherlands and from the Ministry of Justice, the central adoption authority. Here, adoptees often get no action after many referrals. It takes some time. It often also takes some time for an adoptee to investigate the full extent of the wrongful adoption. In addition, it is often emotionally difficult for adoptees, because their identity seems to be incorrect and the adoption story is faltering. Time is also needed for the full meaning of the wrongful adoption to become known. It is therefore very understandable that Butink only later gathered sufficient information and courage to go to court for these reasons. It is not reasonable to say that she should have done this earlier.

Can't control

Due to the statute of limitations, the judge has not come to the substantive assessment of the case. The judge did indicate that the court cannot determine whether Butink's adoption papers are inadequate. Nor can it be determined whether she is a victim of illegal adoption practices. Defense for Children is concerned about the effect of this ruling. Whether the adoption is valid cannot be fully checked and guaranteed in the Netherlands. If an adoptee finds out after twenty, thirty or forty years that the adoption might not have been valid, the matter is time-barred. The relevant authorities and adoption organizations can then no longer be held responsible for this and there is no help with restoring identity. The only party that did not participate in the establishment of the adoption, but who has to bear all the consequences, is the adopted child.

According to Defense for Children, the fact that those involved cannot be held responsible for wrongdoing, in many cases due to prescription, entails the risk that any wrongdoing can no longer be proven through our legal system in the future. Defense for Children hopes that this ruling will make it clear to the Ministry and the House of Representatives what consequences wrongful adoption has for a child who only discovers adoptive abuses in adulthood but who can no longer hold anyone responsible for them.

Stop intercountry adoption

This ruling makes it clear again that it cannot be checked or guaranteed that intercountry adoptions are properly effected. This is an important reason for Defense for Children to argue in favor of ending intercountry adoption.