Don't dismiss adoption abuses - NRC

Joustra report Let adoptees be satisfied with their rescue from poverty, it sounds. It's not that simple, warns Anouk Eigenraam.

The report that Minister Dekker for Legal Protection is adopting all conclusions and advice from the Joustra Committee and that intercountry adoption is temporarily suspended with immediate effect, has caused a small earthquake in the adoption country, among adoptees as well as at mediation agencies, adoptive parents and researchers.

Anouk Eigenraam is an FD correspondent in China and wrote the book Welcome to Adoptionland (2017).

Many adoptees' interest groups were skeptical about yet another committee investigating intercountry adoption. Time and again, such a committee concluded that there was abuse, some already in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s identified signs of child trafficking, kidnapping, forgery, corruption. The Pavlovian reaction from politicians, advisers, permit holders and researchers was that international adoption was always in the best interest of the child and that many adoptions went well. It is therefore not surprising that Tom Schulpen, emeritus professor of paediatrics and former medical advisor to adoption organizations, also responds in his opinion piece in NRC (11/2).

No structural research

According to Schulpen, it is forgotten that most adoptions were bona fide and that abuses were not structural. Even if so, is that a reason not to tackle malpractice? More importantly, this has never been studied structurally, not even internationally. The Netherlands has never kept a register of adopted children. Statistics Netherlands has only examined in a survey how satisfied adoptees are with their lives. There are only estimates about whether or not adoptions are illegal.

Schulpen argues that most adopted children are happy with their lives and wonders whether they should be unhappy with their existence now. A ridiculous question. As if unhappy adoptees are forcing other adopted children to be unhappy by drawing attention to their cause. In addition, you can live a very fulfilling life, but that does not mean that you cannot be terribly sad about the fact that, for example, you were never a foundling, but that someone sold you. That you were born on a baby farm. That your mother was told you were stillborn, or that she's been looking for you all her life. That your adoptive parents have been lied to. And so on.

Schulpen is quite daring with his statement that adoptees should "accept that much data is not available and that roots may never be found" and that they should be happy that they "have been freed from great poverty". It is a denial of the substantial number of adoptees who have never been adopted out of poverty at all, but for example because of a cultural taboo such as unmarried motherhood.

The report outlines the situation in countries from which adoptees came, with wars, famine, cultural taboos, disenfranchisement, etc. The fact that there may have been reasons for adopting children is no justification for abuses and certainly not to let them run their course. let. Moreover, poverty has often led to unhealthy financial incentives. Adoption became a demand-driven market, not a supply-driven one. Schulpen says: "With today's knowledge it is easy to judge." Not true, it is not current knowledge. It had been known for decades that there were systematic abuses.

Sad

I find it shocking that a former professor argues that there were waiting lists from thousands of parents, so it is "not strange" that "people sought out ways" and turned to corrupt officials. And to my great surprise he writes that he himself, as a pediatric and tropical doctor, observed that the vaccination data for Chinese adopted children were often incorrect, and reported on this in The Lancet. Bravo. Did he also consider warning the ministry and adoptive parents?

Schulpen demands an apology from the Commission to the mediators and abused adoptive parents. Pathetic and nonsensical. After all, the committee hardly targets adoptive parents. The majority of them knew little about malicious practices. With his plea he comes across as someone who tries very hard to whitewash his own role as a former advisor to adoption organizations. It's sad that someone of his stature isn't able to rise above himself and see the big picture.

Correction (2/18): In an earlier version of this piece, the opinion piece by Tom Schulpen was carelessly quoted. He did not write that adoptees should "accept that much data may never be found." And he did not write that it was "logical" for people to resort to "corruption." Those passages have been adapted above.