Ethical dilemmas in parliamentary debate on adoption
On 9 June, a debate on adoption was held in the House of Representatives with outgoing Minister of Legal Protection Dekker. During this debate, the report of the Joustra Committee, the temporary ban on intercountry adoption and the minister's exploration into an alternative public law system and stronger international supervision were discussed.
Room divided over adoption stop
The House appreciates that the Joustra report has been published and believes that Minister Dekker's apologies on behalf of the Dutch government are appropriate, because the conclusions are painful and confrontational. Opinions are divided about the temporary shutdown.
Intercountry adoption subject to conditions
Lisa van Ginneken (D'66) believes that intercountry adoption under the right guarantees can be a solution to help a child and wants to reopen the procedure for consent in principle. Ulysse Ellian (VVD) states that intercountry adoption could come from a select group of countries. Barbara Kathmann (PvdA) wants to lift the adoption freeze and offer customization. She calls for a reconsideration of the financial support for searches of adoptees. Roelof Bisschop (SGP) asks for an exception for the adoption of brothers or sisters of a child that has already been adopted. Can these parents still get a permission in principle?
Research into alternative system or stop
Hilde Palland (CDA) mentions that further research is first needed to answer the question of whether an alternative system is possible. Mirjam Bikker (CU) also believes that a careful search for a new system is now important, as is a fair perspective for aspiring adoptive parents. She shows compassion, also towards the birth parents.
Sylvana Simons (Bij1) cites that the Council for the Application of Criminal Justice and Youth Protection already advised in 2016 to stop adoption. She asks why the 400 adoptions in an advanced stage are still going ahead. As far as Bij1 is concerned, the conclusion is clear: stop intercountry adoption. She advocates assisting adoptees in their search, including financially.
Michiel van Nispen (SP) is also in favor of this financing, in the form of a fixed amount. He also points out that the report of the Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection already showed that intercountry adoption is not the best solution for a child. Risks of abuse are too great in any conceivable system. He is not optimistic about a possible responsible resumption and believes that a final decision should not be delayed long.
Ethical Dilemmas
In the answer, Minister Dekker indicates that the government was aware of abuses from the 1960s, but did not act. The Hague Adoption Convention has indeed reduced abuses, but has not removed them. In considering the temporary stop, he found it too moving to stop the 400 procedures that are at an advanced stage. Every case gets an extra check.
There are many ethical dilemmas. For example, adoption from the US conflicts with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the principle of subsidiarity. Minister Dekker wants to investigate fundamental matters and will present a country analysis in the autumn. He will make a distinction between countries that do or do not participate in the Hague Adoption Convention. There are several routes to ensure that it gets better for children elsewhere in the world, he will also take that point. The country analysis may show that the light can go green for certain countries. According to the minister, if there is broad support in this Chamber that there are good reasons and guarantees to continue it with certain countries.
The minister says he has never said: we must stop or continue. This must be done carefully and after substantive considerations. Should intercountry adoption continue, the minister prefers the line of a public law system.
National Expertise Center Adoption
The minister wants to improve the legal position of adoptees, among other things by setting up a national expertise centre. In the coming period, he will discuss with the interest groups how the expertise center can offer them structural support. Perhaps agreements can be made with the countries of origin about support in the search. The House takes a positive view of a national expertise center for support for adoptees, and wants to discuss this in detail another time. The minister's diligence and the openness with which he has shared a number of dilemmas is appreciated.
No individual claim settlement
The minister indicated that he had difficulty with individual compensation schemes for adoptees, because this concerns a large and diverse group. Not all abuses are always the fault of the government. Last week, a liability claim submitted by lawyer Dewi Deijle to the Ministry of Justice and Security was rejected. Deijle, himself adopted from Indonesia, held the Dutch State legally liable for abuses in adoptions from abroad. She argues for a compensation fund to financially support adoptees who are looking for or have gone in search of their biological family. The minister will come back to this in the autumn.
Do you want to watch the House of Representatives debate on adoption? You can do that viamissed debate.
Exploration of the public law system
In response to the Joustra report, Minister Dekker had an exploration carried out into an alternative public law system for intercountry adoption and into stronger international supervision.
The conclusion is that the risk of abuses cannot be completely removed with an alternative public law system and enhanced international supervision. The chance of abuses can be reduced on the Dutch side of the system. This can be done by removing possible financial motives in mediation. The greatest uncertainty remains with regard to the procedures in the countries of origin and the limits to the possibilities for (supervising) these. However, improvements are and seem possible on an international level as well. This can be done by opting for a limited and strict selection of countries, with which there is more intensive cooperation than at present. On 4 June, he sent the outcome and his response to the House.
Report Committee Joustra Commissie
In February 2021, the Joustra Committee published its report on the role and responsibility of the Dutch government in the intercountry adoption of children in at least the period 1967-1998. The committee established that serious abuses occurred in all countries surveyed during intercountry adoption and that these abuses formed an almost permanent and structural problem. The current adoption system also has vulnerabilities, which means that abuses cannot be ruled out. Outgoing Minister Dekker subsequently imposed a temporary stop on intercountry adoption. A system review is left to the next cabinet.
How is it going now?
Minister Dekker will further elaborate on a number of questions raised by the survey. In the autumn, he will present an 'in-depth exploration' about a new adoption system and a sketch for the expertise center, so that a start can be made in the first half of 2022.
It is then clear which countries can still be cooperated with. The minister will further elaborate on the ethical dilemmas surrounding intercountry adoption. In the meantime, the minister will continue to talk to adoption agencies to discuss the practical consequences of the suspension. A situation with brothers and sisters of children who have already been adopted in the Netherlands might be a reason to make an exception to the adoption stop. The minister will make a statement on this before the summer.
About Fiom and Adoption Facilities
Fiom guides adoptees in the search for their biological parent(s) and offers aftercare to adult adoptees, distance parents and adoptive parents. Until the suspension, we provided information to prospective adoptive parents. We understand that this news can raise questions and feelings among adoptees, adoptive parents, aspiring adoptive parents and others involved.
.