“Meager evidence for abuses adoption”

Abuses regarding adoption still occur today, the Joustra Committee recently noted. The substantiation of that claim is brief, responds the AdoptieVereniging Gereformeerde Gezindte (AVGG).

"Almost unchanged" is the "fraud-sensitive system" of adoption from abroad, even after the stricter regulations in 1998. That is what the investigation committee states in a letter that Minister Dekker sent to the House of Representatives last week. The list of sources that the researchers included as evidence for their claim has raised eyebrows among adoption organizations.

According to the AVGG, that list shows once again that there is "insufficient basis for the firm decision" to suspend adoption from abroad for the time being, says chairman Martin van Dam. As an example, he cites the “signs of abuse” from South Africa, where his own adopted children come from. The evidence that Joustra provides for this is a series of parliamentary questions that were asked because children from that country were not allowed to be adopted by non-Christian or gay couples. “Improper management,” say the researchers. Van Dam, however, refers to it as a 'normative framework' that has since become obsolete.

Fraud-prone

With the claim that the adoption system is "fraud sensitive", the committee is giving an "incorrect representation" in Van Dam's eyes. He calls the suggestion that adoption creates a market of supply and demand is unjustified. “Abroad people look for a solution for the child, not so much for the parents. For example, one first finds out whether there is a place in the immediate family circle or living environment where the child can go.”

According to the chairman, the costs are usually directly traceable to, for example, social workers who are involved in the procedure. "Not a cent goes to children's homes to get more supply of children."

Minister Sander Dekker for Legal Protection. image ANP, Bart Maat

Youth Services

Van Dam acknowledges that abuses cannot be ruled out 100 percent. “Unfortunately, things also go wrong in the Dutch youth care system, but that does not mean we will abolish the entire youth care system. For example, adoption procedures must certainly be careful, but that's different from cutting the bang-boom with it.”

The committee should never have given the advice on temporary suspension, he believes. “Then he should have done better file research. Now there is no good evidence for the period after 1998.”

It is unclear when married couples who are in uncertainty will be told whether their adoption procedure can continue. A new cabinet has to make a decision about this. “But that cabinet is not yet there,” Van Dam expects.

.