International adoption: the government has looked away from abuses for years

Major abuses in the system of intercountry adoption were recognized on 8 February, which also recognized all adoptees who have raised the alarm with the government and other stakeholders in recent years. The Joustra Committee concludes that the government's supervision of adoption procedures is insufficient and that no action has been taken in the event of abuses that came to light. Minister Dekker for Legal Protection concludes that the Dutch government has failed by looking away for years and offers adoptees an apology on behalf of the cabinet. Minister Dekker has decided to immediately suspend intercountry adoption procedures. Defense for Children Netherlands sees this as a wise decision. For years, Defense for Children Netherlands has taken the view that intercountry adoption must be extremely restrained, based on Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Not being able to check or guarantee that intercountry adoptions to the Netherlands are properly effected is an important reason to argue now for an end to intercountry adoptions.

Independent committee

At the end of 2018, Minister Dekker asked an independent committee to investigate past intercountry adoption from abroad . The reason for this was a case of illegal adoption from Brazil and involvement of government officials. In addition to Brazil, the research assignment also focuses on Bangladesh, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The Ministry of Justice and Security also received signals from adoptees about possible adoption abuses in these countries. In its investigation, the Joustra Committee came across various types of abuses that occurred structurally. This concerns matters such as forgery of documents, child trafficking, fraud and corruption. But it is also about unethical acts such as allowing parents to renounce children under false pretenses or under moral pressure, deliberately creating uncertainty or ambiguity about someone's origins, and taking advantage of poverty. In certain cases, the Dutch government was aware of abuses, but did not intervene effectively. With this the abuses were perpetuated,

Apologies Minister

Minister Dekker apologizes: “It is painful to conclude that the government has not done what could be expected of it. Because although many adoptions were experienced as positive, the government should have taken a more active role by intervening in cases where there was abuse. The positive sentiment surrounding adoption in the last century - with the guiding idea that we did good with adoption - offers an explanation, but no justification. Apologies are in order for this attitude of the government, ”said Dekker. "I am grateful to the committee for the mirror in which the government did not want to look for so long."

Suspension of adoption and discontinuation

An important conclusion of the Joustra Committee is that the system of intercountry adoption contains inherent vulnerabilities. This is reason for Minister Dekker to immediately suspend intercountry adoption procedures to protect children and their biological parents against abuses. Dekker shares the committee's doubts as to whether it is possible to design an adoption system in which abuses no longer occur. Additional measures and supervision cannot fully mitigate risks. Because of the report, the minister realizes that limiting and excluding risks is almost impossible. According to him, it is up to the next cabinet to take a position on the future of intercountry adoption.

Not being able to check or guarantee that intercountry adoptions to the Netherlands are properly established should, according to Defense for Children Netherlands, be a reason for the government to stop intercountry adoptions completely. It also follows from Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that intercountry adoption is only permissible as a last resort if there is no other suitable way to care for the child in the country of origin. This was confirmed by the Council for Criminal Application and Youth Protection in its report 'Reflection on Intercountry Adoption' in 2016. Other forms of child protection are more in line with the rights and best interests of the child. After careful consideration of the pros and cons, theRSJ advised to abolish intercountry adoption

Prescription

Last year, the State invoked prescription in a case of intercountry adoption from Sri Lanka, in which the woman found out that her adoption papers were incorrect. The judge also concluded that the woman was late . Minister Dekker promised on 8 February that the State will no longer invoke prescription for claims related to intercountry adoption. With this he strengthens the legal position of adoptees who start legal proceedings against the State.

Taking a critical look at surrogacy

The Joustra Committee also advises that the government should look closely at the risks of abuse in commercial surrogacy, now that parallels exist between the system of intercountry adoption and the more recent system of commercial surrogacy. Here too, “legislation and supervision are insufficiently regulated, there are financial excesses and social and political pressure creates a system in which the interests of the child are secondary.” According to the committee, the government must learn lessons from the past. endorses this and has previously expressed concerns about commercial surrogacy .

.