Committee on the Investigation of Intercountry Adoption
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Unofficial translation Unofficial translation Report Committee on the Investigation of Intercountry Adoption Unofficial translation February 2021 Unofficial translation Unofficial translation Table of Contents Consideration 3 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Reason 7 1.2 Objective and research questions 8 1.3 Research approach 9 1.4 Research scope 10 1.5 Reading guide 11 2 Background of intercountry adoption 13 2.1 Origin and development of intercountry adoption 13 2.2 Legal framework for intercountry adoption 15 2.3 Adoption process and parties involved 18 2.4 Insights from science and practice 21 2.5 Intercountry adoption in figures 23 3 Welfare and search behaviour of adopted adults 27 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Research design 27 3.3 Results 29 4 Bangladesh 39 4.1 Key figures and context 39 4.2 Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Bangladesh 40 4.3 Case studies 41 4.4 Aftermath: adoptions from Bangladesh, 1982-present 48 4.5 Main findings from Bangladesh 50 5 Brazil 51 5.1 Key figures and context 51 5.2 Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Brazil 52 5.3 Case studies 54 5.4 Aftermath: adoptions from Brazil, 1998-present 61 5.5 Main findings from Brazil 65 6 Colombia 67 6.1 Key figures and context 67 6.2 Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Colombia 68 6.3 Case studies 70 6.4 Aftermath: adoptions from Colombia, 1998-present 76 6.5 Main findings from Colombia 77 Unofficial translation 7 Indonesia 79 7.1 Key figures and context 79 7.2 Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Indonesia 80 7.3 Case studies 82 7.4 Aftermath: adoptions from Indonesia, 1984-present 88 7.5 Main findings from Indonesia 89 8 Sri Lanka 91 8.1 Key figures and context 91 8.2 Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Sri Lanka 91 8.3 Case studies 93 8.4 Aftermath: adoptions from Sri Lanka, 1998-present 102 8.5 Main findings from Sri Lanka 103 9 The period after 1998 105 9.1 Introduction 105 9.2 Developments after 1998 105 9.3 Changes in the adoption system 108 9.4 Abuse after 1998 111 9.5 Main findings 118 10 Signs of abuse in other States 119 10.1 Research material 119 10.2 Characterisation and system 119 10.3 Main findings 120 11 Analysis 123 11.1 The causes of abuse 123 11.2 The prevailing views on intercountry adoption 124 11.3 Intercountry adoption as a system 125 11.4 The consequences for those involved 128 12 Conclusions 131 13 Recommendations 137 Summary 139 List of abbreviations 143 Glossary 145 List of sources 149 The appendices accompanying this research have been published in a separate report. Unofficial translation Consideration The statement “Even if you only save one” by the writer Jan de Hartog in a television interview in 1967 marks the beginning of large-scale intercountry adoption in the Netherlands. Many people care about the fate of the children in developing countries ravaged by wars and natural disasters. Some feel it is a moral obligation to adopt a foreign child. There is a positive feeling about intercountry adoptions. In total, more than 40,000 children from about eighty different countries will come to the Netherlands. But there is also a downside. The first reports of adoption abuse appeared in the media in the late 1960s, such as document forging, the abuse of the birth mothers' poverty and the relinquishment of children for payment or under duress. However poignant the signs may be, they do not lead to a critical reflection in the public and political debate, let alone a rethink of the system of intercountry adoption. The fact that there is now attention for abuses from the past is mainly because the adult adoptees have started to speak out for themselves. They are increasingly looking for their background. Sometimes because they had children themselves, sometimes also from the realisation that time is pressing because their birth parents are elderly. Adoptees discover in their search that data are sometimes incorrect, or the adoption has even been illegal. As a result, they are unable to find the answers to the existential questions about their origin and identity. Some hold the Dutch government responsible for this. When answering a question from an adoptee, the Ministry of Justice and Security discovered that Dutch government officials may have been involved in abuses. This is why the Minister for Legal Protection wanted to set up an independent Committee on 18 April 2019. In this report, the Committee reports on its research into the system of intercountry adoption. The general picture emerged from this research is that throughout the period of intercountry adoption, and in all countries, serious structural abuses occurred and that the government and intermediaries were aware of this from the 1960s onwards. In light of the Committee's assignment, the passivity of the Dutch government and the focus of Dutch politics on the interests of adoptive parents are striking. The government failed to intervene where there was reason to do so. Social image The Committee has established that social perception has been crucial in establishing, maintaining and legitimising intercountry adoption. The dominant idea was that both the child in an emergency situation and the prospective adoptive parents benefited from an adoption, adoption was seen as “doing good”. Because of the deep roots of this image, abuses such as age falsification were accepted or even considered normal. Also, anyone who helped promote adoption was seen as a benefactor, and politicians fought for (rapid) intercountry adoption. Research has uncovered repeated patterns of passivity and whitewashing. The view that any adoption, even an illicit one, is better than no adoption at all was indisputable. 3 Unofficial translation The best interests of the child The Committee finds it striking that the term “in the best interest of the child” is always - and often emphatically - used as an argument in all discussions about intercountry adoption. This interest is often fulfilled in a practical way, based on necessities such as health, education and economic development opportunities. However, the fundamental right of autonomy did not play a role in assessing the best interests of the child. Young children are considered incapable of thinking and acting autonomously. They cannot therefore give autonomous consent for their own adoption. However, this is no justification for seeing children as commodities. On the contrary, precisely because children do not yet have this ability, the greatest possible care must be exercised in adoption procedures. Precisely because young children are not yet autonomous and cannot under any circumstances be expected to agree with decisions taken about them, all attention must be devoted to those who do. The Committee has established that this has not been done sufficiently in practice. In many cases, decisions about release for adoption have not been made in a responsible manner. Too often, they were made under duress or under the influence of inadequate information. The interests of the child have thus been neglected. A large proportion of the adoptees struggle with not knowing their own origin and identity. This can hinder their further development as autonomous individuals. Impact on the parties involved The research shows that most of the adoptees are fortunately doing well. The adoption, they say, has offered them many opportunities. On the other hand, they have also lost a lot through adoption, such as growing up with their own family, their own culture and in many cases knowing their origins. Several adoptees who the Committee spoke to describe their lives as split. Connecting the reality in their native country with the reality here is a daily task for many, and sometimes impossible because the information about origin is lacking. The Committee sees the fact that they are doing well provided the circumstances as a sign of their resilience. Unfortunately, there are also adoptees who are not doing well. The research carried out by the Committee shows that the above average of adoptees have psychological and other complaints and sometimes have to resort to assistance for this. The Committee recognises that there were adoptive parents who adopted a child out of good intentions, in good faith and according to the rules. There were also adoptive parents who were mainly driven by their own desire to have children and made every effort to fulfil this desire, pushing the boundaries and sometimes going beyond them. Some adoptive parents feel guilty because the adoption now appears to be surrounded by abuse, or because the transition from a different culture has led to major problems in their adopted child. They also feel like victims. The group that was most difficult for the Committee to investigate are the birth mothers and with them, the birth families. In many cases, they are also victims and experience the loss of their child. They were sometimes pressured to give up their child, the concept of “adoption” as used in the Western world was unknown to them, and in the worst case, their child was stolen. Unofficial translation The issue is still topical The abuses described and their consequences are not a thing of the past, they are still topical. The number of adoptions has fallen sharply, and many efforts have been made to prevent abuses. This does not alter the fact that the financial incentives in the system have not been removed and the demand for children still exists. This involves a waterbed effect: adoption channels are shifting to countries where there is no control over the supply, currently mainly African countries. The Committee recommends that the lessons from the research into adoption abuses should also be taken to heart in new forms of family formation, such as with the help of surrogacy.