“I am now officially non-existent”

The impact of the discovery of illegal adoptions on the lives of adoptees in the Netherlands

MSc Victimology and Criminal Justice Bente van Ruremonde ANR: 624744

First supervisor: prof. Conny Rijken

Second supervisor: mr. Rachel Dijkstra Word count: 16.484 Acknowledgements

I want to express my appreciation to all participants in this research for frankly sharing their moving and extraordinary life stories: Lauren, Sanne, Amanda, Fernando, Nova-Lilly and Shirona,1 you all have my most sincere gratitude. I would also like to thank my peer feedback group for their assistance and support throughout this research period. Finally, I would like to thank my supervisor, professor Conny Rijken, for her support in the past half year, for believing in this project and for her guidance and close involvement in this research.

1 To ensure their anonymity and security, some names in this document have been changed, except where explicit consent for using real names has been given.

2 Table of contents

Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 4 §1.1 General introduction ...... 4 §1.2 The history of intercountry adoption in the Netherlands ...... 7 §1.3 Identity formation and belonging in the context of adoption ...... 9

Chapter 2. Theoretical framework ...... 12 §2.1 The legal basis of ICA ...... 12 §2.1.1 The best interest of the child? ...... 12 §2.1.2 The principle of subsidiarity ...... 13 §2.1.3 The informed consent of birth parents ...... 14 §2.1.4 The prohibition of unjustified financial gain ...... 16 §2.2 The right to identity ...... 17 §2.2.1 Child Laundering ...... 18 §2.2.2 Identity formation, belonging and narrative ...... 19

Chapter 3. Methodology ...... 21 §3.1 Methodology ...... 21 §3.2 Ethical considerations ...... 22

Chapter 4. Analysis ...... 23 §4.1 “It was all just an illusion” ...... 23 §4.2 “Everything stayed the same and yet things completely changed” ...... 26 §4.2.1 “It was a matter of supply and demand” ...... 26 §4.2.2 Birth mothers ...... 27 §4.2.3 Adoptive parents and the adoptive identity ...... 29 §4.3 The prospective impact of illegal adoption ...... 30 §4.3.1 Narrative identity and belonging ...... 30 §4.3.2 Starting a family ...... 33 §4.4 “In illegal adoption, everybody loses” ...... 34 §4.4.1 Experiences of victimhood ...... 34 §4.4.2 Agency ...... 35

Chapter 5. Conclusion ...... 37 §5.1 Main findings ...... 37 §5.2 Limitations and weaknesses ...... 39

Bibliography ...... 40

Jurisprudence and legislation ...... 43

Appendices ...... 44 Appendix A: statement of integrity ...... 44 Appendix B: Code tree ...... 45 Appendix C: Ethical clearance ...... 46

3 Chapter 1. Introduction

§1.1 General introduction Ever since the 1980s, the topic of intercountry adoption (ICA) has been represented negatively in the Dutch national news. The first international criminal investigation on illegal intercountry adoption practices was conducted by the Dutch national police in 1981. The investigation concerned adoptions of Brazilian babies to the USA and several European countries and focused on state misappropriation (‘verduistering van staat’ (Dutch Criminal Code, Art. 236(1)). This investigation, better known as the Brazil Baby Affair, showed that the human right to identity was violated in many cases: ‘negotiators’ knowingly falsified birth registrations, thereby creating new, false identities and erasing babies’ original identities2 (Baglietto 2016, 86; Nuytinck 2019, 1). One of the Dutch victims of the Brazil Baby Affair took his case to court in 2017 on the grounds that important information about his adoption had been withheld from him for years. The court initially rejected his claims, but in 2018 he received monetary compensation for non-material damages.3 Brazil was not the only country that was called into question. In 1983, the current affairs program Tros Aktua showed that there were also serious concerns regarding adoptions from Sri Lanka. More recently, in 2017 and 2018, the Dutch investigative journalistic television program Zembla aired three in-depth broadcasts on fraud in intercountry adoptions. Around the same period, news articles on illegal adoption procedures in the Netherlands increasingly came to public attention. Headlines such as “Adopted children taken from their parents without permission” and “Adoption files full of errors and counterfeits” started to appear in national newspapers and illegal adoption became a topic of discussion in mainstream media. Zembla built a special file on adoption fraud, which contains articles and broadcasts on (victims of) adoption fraud from May 2017 up to December 2019. Eventually, these investigations led to the formation of an external governmental research committee. On 1 May 2019, the committee was appointed to investigate the role and responsibility of the Dutch government in the international adoption of children from Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka in the period 1967-1998.4 This specific timeframe was selected because in 1967, the first European Convention on the Adoption of Children5 was enacted and in 1998, the Hague Adoption Convention came into force, as a

2 See also the Noordoven case. Last accessed February 3, 2020 3 GHDHA 14 November 2018, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:3107 4 Kamerstukken II 2018/19, 31265, 66 5 Available at https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001 68006ff60 Last accessed February 3, 2020

4 result of which the Central Authority was established.6 The commission will publish its report by 1 October 2020 at the latest. Even though it has taken until now for an official governmental committee to be appointed, the Dutch government already got involved in investigations concerning intercountry adoptions a few years prior. In 2016, the Dutch Criminal Justice and Youth Protection Council7 called for a stop to intercountry adoptions after finding that money plays a major role in the international adoption system and that the demand for children actually creates the supply. The recommendations of the Council were not followed: the government acknowledged that the system of intercountry adoption should be improved, but did not support a complete termination of ICA. Many of the adoptees that were adopted internationally have now become adults and are in search of their origins, biological parents or extended family. Their searches sometimes lead to findings of illegal practices concerning their adoption processes (Baglietto 2016, 10). Are we actually aware of the damage illegal adoption practices can do? Where much literature concerning the topic of illegal adoption focuses on questions of illegality, (organizational) guilt and governmental involvement, this research focuses on the impact of illegal adoption on the lives of adoptees through the lens of narrative identity. Both the social and scientific relevance of this study thus lay within the field of narrative victimology, as it focuses on how “the impact of victimization itself can be understood in terms of [...] the influence [it] has on the life stories of victims” (Pemberton et al. 2019, 4). By adopting an interdisciplinary approach, it addresses the position of adoptees within the web that forms their story of victimization. The main question this research aims to answer is:

What impact does the discovery of illegal adoption processes have on the lives of adoptees in the Netherlands?

The research question will be answered based on four sub-questions: “What made these adoptions illegal?”, “How does illegal adoption affect adoptees retrospectively?”, “How does illegal adoption affect adoptees prospectively?” and “How do adoptees experience their victimhood?”. Before answering these questions, a critical comment should be made on the overlap between the topic of ‘adoption’ and the topic of ‘illegal adoption’, since the impact of being adopted is inherent to the impact of discovering that the adoption was carried out

6 Central Authority for International Children's Affairs (Ca), which is part of the Ministry of Justice and Security. The Ca implemented three treaties that were established through the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Last accessed February 3, 2020. 7 Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming (RSJ)

5 illegally. These topics will thus always be intertwined, only it is the interpretation of the first fact that changes through the second. Participants have mentioned several matters that concern the topic of adoption in general rather than the topic of illegal adoption specifically. However, since they thereby do provide a better understanding of their perceptions and experiences as individuals who were adopted illegally, it is nevertheless included in this thesis. In academic literature on the subject of illegal adoption, the terms illegal and illicit are often used interchangeably. Consequently, what the term ‘illegal adoption’ is intended to cover is often vague and imprecise (Baglietto 2016, 27). According to the Longman Dictionary of Law,8 the term illegal is generally used for acts that are “in violation of a law or rule which has the force of law”. The term illicit is defined as “not allowed by laws or rules, or strongly disapproved of by society [emphasis added]”.9 Illicit events could thus also encompass events that only go against societal norms of principles, but not against laws. To leave room for the practices described by participants in this research to be seen as practices that merely ‘go against societal norms’ undermines their severity and might even provide grounds for secondary victimization. Therefore, only the term ‘illegal’ will be used throughout this thesis and the term ‘illegal adoption’ will follow the all-encompassing definition as adopted by the Implementation and Operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention Guide (2016), namely: “an adoption resulting from abuses, such as abduction, the sale of, traffic in, and other illegal or illicit activities against children” (2018, 16). A better understanding of what illegal adoption practices actually encompass can be provided by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (2016). In this report, the most common methods used in illegal adoptions are described. These include “the abduction of babies (e.g. through kidnappings or by falsely informing parents that their baby was stillborn or died shortly after birth), the improper inducement of consent (e.g. through misrepresentation, bribery or coercion) and improper financial gain (e.g. through payment for the child or the payment of bribes to intermediaries involved in the adoption process)” (UNHRC 2016, 7). Fundamental to these practices are the violation of adoption laws and the falsification of adoption records (such as birth certificates and identification documents of biological parents). Shortcomings in child protection measures are exploited by criminal networks, sometimes with the involvement of government officials, to turn adoption into a “lucrative business” (UNHRC 2016, 8). Against this backdrop, parallels can be drawn between practices of illegal adoption and human trafficking. Such an exploration does, however, not fall within the scope of this thesis.

8 Curzon, L. B. & Richards, P. (2007). The Longman Dictionary of Law. Pearson Education 9 Ibid.

6 In the remainder of this chapter, a summary of the history of ICA in the Netherlands will be provided based on four main adoption periods as defined by professor of adoption René Hoksbergen (2000). Subsequently, the subjects of identity formation, belonging and narrative identity in the context of both adoption and illegal adoption will be introduced. In the second chapter of this thesis, the theoretical framework of this research will be provided. In this chapter, the legal texts that form the legal basis of ICA will be examined and the concepts of identity, belonging and narrative will be discussed in the context of illegal adoptions. The third chapter concerns the methodology and ethical considerations of this research. In the fourth chapter of this thesis, the main empirical research findings will be presented and analysed with reference to the theoretical framework provided in the second chapter. In the fifth and last chapter, the conclusion of this research will be formulated and the main limitations and weaknesses of this research will be addressed.

§1.2 The history of intercountry adoption in the Netherlands The Netherlands introduced its first national adoption law on November 1, 1956. Initially, the law was intended as a measure of child protection and to regulate domestic adoptions, but shortly after the introduction of the law the adoption of foreign children started to increase (Hoksbergen 2000, 5; Schrama 2015, 236). The purpose of adoption gradually shifted from protecting children to “providing children to childless adults” (Schrama 2015, 236-237). For example, in 1993, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an article in which adoption is suggested to be “a blessing for childless married couples” and that “adopting a helpless child is an amazing alternative for their childless existence”.10 In a historical-statistical consideration of adoption in the Netherlands from 1956 up to 2000, Hoksbergen (2000) distinguishes four main periods in Dutch adoption history. Hoksbergen labelled the first period in Dutch adoption history (1956-1970) the period of ‘the traditionally-closed generation of adoptive parents’ (Hoksbergen 2000, 6). There was a compulsory marriage period of five years before couples would be able to legally adopt a child. Additionally, adoption was still a subject of taboo during that period. If a woman was pregnant (unwantedly) and unable to get married, general practitioners often presented adoption as their only choice, since unmarried mothers were seen as morally inferior (Kok et al. 2017, 16; Askeland 2006, 35). Even though the requirements for adoption were strict, the Netherlands was one of the main receiving countries during this period, together with Denmark, Belgium and the USA (Young 2012, 68).

10 "Een toekomst voor kansloos kind door A. van Wezep". Trouw. Meppel, 08-12-1993, p. 13. Last accessed on Delpher April 24, 2020,

7 The second phase in Dutch adoption history, lasting from 1971-1980, Hoksbergen labelled the period of ‘the open-idealistic generation of adoptive parents’. During that period, people began to speak more openly about issues such as sexuality, abortion and adoption than in the preceding period. Additionally, the emerging mass media showed images of “the great misery” that children in “Third World Countries” were in (Hoksbergen 2000, 7). The number of adoptions from Asia and South America, in particular from India, Indonesia, Korea, Sri Lanka, Colombia and Peru, increased enormously during this period in the Netherlands (Hoksbergen 2000, 9). In 1971, Stichting Wereldkinderen was established by a “special-interest group” of adoptive parents who were particularly involved with “children in need” (Hoksbergen 2000, 8). The organization mediated intercountry adoptions and brought about changes in adoption legislation and regulations, such as the broadening of provisions on the age of adoptive children upon arrival. During that same period, about a dozen private intercountry adoption mediation organizations emerged. In 1975, the key private organizations were merged into the International Adoption Office,11 which was greatly subsidized in its first few years and remained the largest intermediary organization until it merged with Stichting Wereldkinderen in 1987 (Hoksbergen 2000, 7-8). During this second period, a total of 8,922 children were adopted from abroad, of which 159 were adopted in 1971 compared to 1,593 in 1980. Hoksbergen labelled the third period of Dutch adoption history the period of ‘the economically-realistic generation of adoptive parents’, lasting from 1981-1992 (2000, 10). During this period, there was a strong decrease in the number of adoption requests. One of the explanations Hoksbergen provides is that critical sounds on practices of illegal adoptions started to emerge in the press and that adoptive parents increasingly complained about the procedures of adoption organizations (2000, 10). According to Young (2012), another reason for the decreasing number of children adopted is that “sending countries take greater control over regulating the process and developing local solutions for their children” (Young 2012, 77). For instance, Indonesia officially closed its borders and contacts for international adoption on January 1, 1984 due to the lack of insights in financial flows and the presumed unreliability of adoption organizations (Wereldkinderen 2019, 15). This adoption stop was initially compensated by a large influx of children from Sri Lanka and Brazil, but from 1992 the number of children from these countries also declined (Hoksbergen 2000, 10). The number of children adopted from foreign countries to the Netherlands during this period is in line with these claims: in 1981, 1,161 children were adopted from foreign countries compared to 618 in 1992. Thus, as awareness increased, adoptions from abroad decreased. ICA was, however, not completely halted. Even today, news articles from those decades are used to prove there was clear

11 Bureau Interlandelijke Adoptie (BIA)

8 knowledge of practices of illegal adoption, but that this knowledge was not sufficiently acted upon. The fourth and last period, lasting from 1993-present, Hoksbergen labelled the period of ‘the prepared-optimistic/demanding generation’ (2000, 13). From 1996 onwards, the number of requests to adopt a foreign child increased again for the first time since 1980. Hoksbergen provides several possible explanations for this increase: adoptive parents would be better prepared with the help of the Preparation of International Adoption Foundation12 and the requirement that only married couples were allowed to adopt was dropped in 1998 (Hoksbergen 2000, 13). Single parent adoption became possible and in 2001 adoption by same-sex couples was allowed (Hindle & Shulman 2008, 2; Schrama 2015, 237). During this period, a total of 6,206 children were adopted from abroad, of which 574 were adopted in 1993 compared to 1,192 in 2000. Hoksbergen concludes his article by suggesting that the interest in intercountry adoption will decline in the future, partly as a result of the continuing development of reproductive technologies. According to statistical overviews of intercountry adoption over the past two decades published by the Ministry of Justice and Security, the number of children adopted to the Netherlands has indeed declined over the past two decades: a total of 145 children were adopted in 2019 compared to the above-mentioned 1,192 in 2000.13 The second and third period are especially of importance for this research. Images shown by mass media created a higher demand for adoptive children and any shortage had to be compensated for. Alongside the increasing awareness of illegal adoption processes, more attention was paid to the “importance of knowing one’s origins and heritage” throughout these phases (Hindle & Shulman 2008, 2). Adoptions should be carried out with great concern of judicial standards to ensure the right to respect for the family and family life (Schrama 2015, 238). Many of these judicial standards play an important role in identity formation for adoptees, as will be discussed in the following paragraph.

§1.3 Identity formation and belonging in the context of adoption One of the judicial standards Schrama (2015) refers to is the transparency with which adoptions are carried out. This plays an important role in understanding and respecting the right to identity (Hindle & Shulman 2008, 2). The way adoptees construct their meaning about their adoption, also referred to as their “adoptive identity”, is naturally incorporated in the broader process of identity formation (Grotevant et al. 2000, 381; Tan et al. in Wrobel et al.

12 Stichting Bureau Voorbereiding Interlandelijke Adoptie 13 Ministry of Justice and Security. (2020). “Adoptie: Trends en analyse. Statistisch overzicht interlandelijke adoptie over de jaren 2015 tot en met 2019”. Last accessed June 10, 2020.

9 2020). It is important to acknowledge that all adoptees have their personal “adoptive identities” and that “potential disruptions in identity developments” are not exclusively true for individuals who were adopted illegally (Wrobel et al. in Grotevant et al. 2017, 2). What should also be acknowledged within the field of both legal and illegal adoption is that the urge to know about one’s origins is not shared by all adoptees. Some do not feel the need or desire to know about their origins or birth parents, while others may struggle with these “unknowns” when trying to develop a sense of identity (Baglietto 2016, 48-49; Colaner & Soliz. 2017, 21). To be able to make sense of the process of identity development, Crenshaw’s (1989) theory of ‘intersectionality’ is essential. In summary, Crenshaw’s theory entails that people have a multitude of aspects that together make an identity. Collins (2015) expanded the initial definition of Crenshaw’s theory by adding the insight that aspects such as “class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but as reciprocally constructing phenomena that in turn shape complex social inequalities” (Collins in Paik 2017, 5). These aspects are ‘fluid’, meaning they constantly influence and are influenced by each other. Identity can be seen as a process that is never finished, which reveals “the arbitrariness with which identity is ‘quilted’ together” (Yngvesson & Mahoney 2000, 102-103). This arbitrariness plays an exceptionally large role when it comes to identity formation for individuals who were adopted illegally. They all have “a name and multi- generational heritage”, but in processes of illegal adoption, people are often “stripped of [that] original identity” (Baglietto 2016, 182-183). As mentioned previously, a child’s background might have been amended, for instance by removing genealogical traces or falsifying information in the adoption files, to make the child adoptable “in a pseudo-legal manner” (Baglietto 2016, 79; Smolin 2006, 115). Such amendments to what Homans (2006) calls one’s “birth culture” cause great gaps in an individual’s adoption story. Within this context, Hatton (2019) argues that obtaining genealogical information, for example through DNA testing, can help people to “recover a sense of identity” and can help them associate with a collective identity (2019, 8). As such, DNA research can be a gateway to one's ancestors, one’s heredity and thus to parts of one’s own identity (Roof 2007, 7). For individuals who were adopted illegally, DNA research might be the only way to retrieve any genealogical information. Since knowing one’s origins is a basic human right, which will be discussed in-depth in the following chapter, it is advocated that DNA research should be facilitated by the Dutch government.14 The lack of such information namely also makes the construction of a personal life story especially complicated (McAdams & McLean 2013, 233). Such life stories, also referred to as ‘narrative identities’, are “stories about

14 ‘Faciliteer DNA-onderzoek in adoptielanden’ Volkskrant, Trouw. 06-04-2016. Last accessed May 18, 2020.

10 our personal life [...] formed in a certain historical and cultural context, which is how we develop and maintain a sense of ‘self’” (Pemberton et al. 2019, 6). Such stories allow narrators to “anchor themselves in terms of time”, thereby creating cohesion and stability (Green 2013, 398). When important information about one’s historical and cultural context is lacking or when parts of it do not make sense, then constructing a consistent narrative identity or creating and maintain a sense of ‘self’ is challenging. Often more so than individuals who were adopted legally, individuals who were adopted illegally depend on the motivations, desires and anticipations of actors that may be involved in their search for information about their origins and identity (Baglietto 2016, 79). As this is one of the consequences of the decisions that were made during their adoption processes, these adoptions can be described as victimizing events that happened as “a consequence of human choice, not an element of a causal and automatic sequence” (Pemberton et al. 2019, 4). For the individuals that participated in this research, the pieces of information that are missing as a result of choices made by others reveal the frailty of international laws and legislations on which intercountry adoption heavily depends. In the following chapter, the theoretical framework of this research will be provided. Firstly, the four pillars that constitute the legal basis of intercountry adoption will be analysed. Secondly, the right to identity will be examined. This examination will be used to address the significance of identity formation, belonging and narrative in the context of illegal adoption.

11 Chapter 2. Theoretical framework

§2.1 The legal basis of ICA The two legal texts that are fundamental to ICA are the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) and The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (HCIA, 1993). In short, these conventions were established to help eradicate and prevent abuses in international adoption processes. In the Dutch context, both conventions are backed up by the 1988 “Adoption Act for the Placement of Children of Foreign Nationality”15 (Schrama 2015, 235-236). The objectives of the HCIA are to institutionalize ICA, to eradicate child trafficking and abuse, to speed up intercountry adoption processes and to expedite the process of finalizing children’s citizenship in a new country (Askeland 2006, 145; Brakman 2019, 207). The objectives of the UNCRC related to intercountry adoptions are to create safeguards to ensure that processes of ICA are carried out in the child’s best interests, to comply with children’s fundamental rights as acknowledged under international law, to enhance and coordinate the co-operation between Contracting States and to ensure that intercountry adoptions are carried out in correspondence with the articles laid out in the Convention (Askeland 2006, 146). At the core of both conventions are four pillars: the best interests of the child, the principle of subsidiarity, the informed consent of birth parents and the prohibition of unjustified financial gain (Baglietto 2016, 14). In the first section of this chapter, these four pillars will be examined in legal terms in the context of illegal adoption. Subsequently, the right to identity, the process of identity formation, belonging and narrative will be examined in the context of illegal adoption.

§2.1.1 The best interest of the child? The first pillar that forms part of the legal foundation of ICA is that of the best interest of the child. Over time, there has been little consensus on the definition of the term ‘best interest of the child’ in the context of (intercountry) adoption. Article 3(1) of the UNCRC states that “in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”. Article 4(b) of the HCIA states that “An adoption within the scope of the Convention shall take place only if the competent authorities of the State of origin have determined [...] that an intercountry adoption is in the child's best interests”. As Kelly (1997) argues in her article, there has been little agreement on the specific criteria that should be considered in determining children’s’ best interests and discussions on this topic are often

15 Wet opneming buitenlandse kinderen ter adoptie (Wobka)

12 “vague, circular, and laden with psychological concepts and clichés that themselves lack definition and consensus” (1997, 378). The Implementation and Operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention Guide to Good practice (2008) does provide an explanation as for why the term ‘best interests of the child’ is left undefined in the Convention. It states that “the requirements necessary to meet the best interests of the child may vary in each individual case, and the factors to be considered should not, in principle, be limited” (2008, 15). Even though this could be seen as a fair explanation that advocates for a holistic approach to complex issues, Cantwell (2016) argues that the theoretical ‘vagueness’ of this undefined principle still causes multiple difficulties for ICA. For example, actors in the socio-cultural context of a country of origin may have a very different idea of what is in a child’s best interests than the actors in receiving countries and not all countries adopt the same attitudes when there are concerns about the legality of an adoption and thus whether the best interests of the child are a primary consideration (2016, 22). As opposed to the HCIA, the CRC does provide some theoretical, legal clarification on the term ‘best interests of the child’. The CRC Committee (2013) underlines that the concept of the child’s best interests is threefold. Firstly, it is a substantive right, thus “the right of the child to have his or her best interests assessed and taken as a primary consideration when different interests are being considered in order to reach a decision on the issue at stake, and the guarantee that this right will be implemented whenever a decision is to be made concerning a child, a group of identified or unidentified children or children in general”. Secondly, it is a fundamental, interpretative legal principle. This means that “if a legal provision is open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation which most effectively serves the child’s best interests should be chosen”. Lastly, it is a rule of procedure, meaning that “whenever a decision is to be made that will affect a specific child, an identified group of children or children in general, the decision-making process must include an evaluation of the possible impact [...] of the decision on the child or children concerned” (2013, 4). Even though the HCIA and the UNCRC, together with domestic laws, have definitely guided the legitimization of ICA, it seems that ‘the best interest of the child’ is ultimately left to fate due to international political and cultural differences, especially considering the power of “wealthy receiving countries” over the “poorer sending countries” in the context of intercountry adoption (Askeland 2006, xvi).

§2.1.2 The principle of subsidiarity The second pillar that forms one of the pillars of ICA is the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is a complicated and contradictory one in the field of intercountry adoption, especially with regards to the concept of ‘the best interest of the child’. As the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention Outline (2013) states:

13

‘Subsidiarity’ in the Convention means that Contracting States recognise that a child should be raised by his or her birth family or extended family whenever possible. If that is not possible or practicable, other forms of permanent care in the State of origin should be considered. Only after due consideration has been given to national solutions should intercountry adoption be considered, and then only if it is in the child’s best interests. As a general rule, institutional care should be considered as a last resort for a child in need of a family. (2013, 2)

ICA should thus only be considered where appropriate domestic options are unavailable, but at the same time still seems to be preferable over institutional care. The principle of subsidiarity, as explained under Article 21(b) of the UNCRC, entails that States Parties shall “recognize that intercountry adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child’s care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin”. Article 20(3) specifies such care as “foster placement, Kafalah16 of Islamic law, adoption or, if necessary, placement in suitable institutions for the care of children” (Art. 20(3) UNCRC). Both Conventions thus recognize that domestic options are always prioritized over intercountry adoption. However, in academic literature, this notion is often up for debate and is not universally supported by research that focuses on what would be in the best interest of the child (Brakman 2019, 219). For instance, Bartholet (2013) suggests that it does not matter whether adoption is domestic or international, as long as it is permanent. She thus argues that, in light of the child's best interests, adoption would always be preferable over ‘any suitable’ domestic option such as temporary foster care (2013, 2). This is exactly what makes the subsidiarity principle contradictory in itself: placing a child in domestic care might not serve the best interest of the child, while that is one of the premises of the principle. Scholars therefore advocate for “the necessity for formal revision of the subsidiarity principle” to ensure that children’s fundamental rights are respected and that the adoption is in their best interest (Brakman 2019, 226).

§2.1.3 The informed consent of birth parents The third principle that plays an important role in the foundation of ICA is the informed consent of birth parents. Article 21(a) of the UNCRC states that “States Parties [...] shall: ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status concerning parents,

16 “[T]he system whereby a child is provided for, and often lives with, a family that is not their biological one and [which] creates an obligation of maintenance for the guardian, without severing biological family bonds or creating permanent parental ties” (Mouftah 2020, 12).

14 relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling as may be necessary”. Article 4(c) of the HCIA states that “[a]n adoption within the scope of the Convention shall take place only if the competent authorities of the state of origin have ensured that the persons, institutions and authorities whose consent is necessary for adoption, have been counselled as may be necessary and duly informed of the effects of their consent, in particular whether or not an adoption will result in the termination of the legal relationship between the child and his or her family of origin” (Art. 4(c)(1)), “such persons, institutions and authorities have given their consent freely, in the required legal form, and expressed or evidenced in writing” (Art. 4(c)(2)), “the consents have not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind and have not been withdrawn” (Art. 4(c)(3)) and “the consent of the mother, where required, has been given only after the birth of the child” (Art. 4(c)(4)). Additionally, the UNHRC Report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (2016) argues that especially single birth mothers are vulnerable and often targeted for illegal adoptions (2016, 8). In this research, five out of six research participants mentioned the subject of ‘birth mothers’, but did not touch upon the subject of ‘birth fathers’, which is why the former subject outweighs the latter in this thesis. Despite the extensiveness of the legal provisions as illustrated above, one of the major concerns regarding informed consent in the context of illegal adoptions is that it is very difficult to determine whether consent is given freely. Consent is often given under circumstances of force or fraud or is induced by “payment or compensation of any kind” and is frequently sought before the birth of a child instead of after (Selman 2014, 7; Baglietto 2016, 185). This issue is of great importance, since high levels of maternal prenatal stress, which might be experienced through the process of an unconsented adoption, have been identified as a very serious disadvantage to the neurodevelopmental trajectories and long-term health and well-being of a child (Weinstein & Shea 2017, 23; Fox et al. 2018, 1056; Walsh et al. 2019, 23996). In other words, such maternal stress can severely affect the biological or physical development of the child that might be given up for adoption and can affect brain parts that are sensitive to stress. Even though this subject is compelling and of importance in the context of unconsented adoptions, further analysis of the cognitive neuropsychological impact of illegal adoption is beyond the scope of this thesis. Another problem concerning the principle of informed consent involves the way in which Article 4(c)(2) of the HCIA is formulated. It is the component of “expressed or evidenced in writing” that implies that the notion of ‘informed consent’ is based on Western concepts. In Western countries, informed consent is mainly based on the individual’s autonomy and rights, often “documented by the signature of the participant”, while in many non-Western countries, the decision of giving informed consent is usually made by the community rather than the

15 individual, and high rates of illiteracy often restrict the value of written documents and signatures (Krogstad et al. 2010, 743; Rotabi & Gibbons 2012, 114). Still, a critical comment should be made on this notion, since it suggests that it would actually be morally acceptable to leave the decision on whether or not a child should be put up for adoption to the community, which leans towards excessive cultural relativism.17 Apart from that, it is beyond doubt that, in case of illiteracy, it is highly unethical “to ask a participant to ‘sign’ a document that he/she cannot read” (Krogstad et al. 2010, 744). In one of her articles, Farid (2012) examines the economics behind intercountry adoption and states that officials (such as notaries and attorneys) were known to manipulate illiterate birth mothers into signing a blank legal document by means of their thumbprint. The document was subsequently filled in “to read as consent to adoption of the baby” (Farid 2012, 87). Farid also refers to a United Nations Report on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography in Guatemala (2000), which revealed that women other than the babies’ biological mothers (so-called ‘acting mothers’) were paid to ‘become’ their mother to give them up for adoption: “The woman signs the notary’s documents giving up ‘her’ child and the baby is placed in a foster environment, preparatory to adoption proceedings” (UN 2000, 8). In 2007 it became known that an Indian boy, adopted by Dutch parents, was robbed from his biological parents and resold by a corrupt orphanage to be put up for foreign adoption. An Indian woman other than the biological mother performed as an ‘acting mother’ and put the child up for adoption (Vlaardingerbroek 2008, 55). If the affirmation of informed consent thus, to a great extent, consists of the evaluation of a document ‘signed’ by an alleged birth parent, then this principle may actually be providing room for negligence and misconducts in intercountry adoption procedures (Smolin 2006, 200).

§2.1.4 The prohibition of unjustified financial gain The fourth and last legal pillar of the ICA prohibits unjustified financial gain. The UNCRC states that “State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that, in intercountry adoption, the placement does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it” (Art. 21(d)). The HCIA states that “Central Authorities shall take, directly or through public authorities, all appropriate measures to prevent improper financial or other gain in connection with an adoption and to deter all practices contrary to the objects of the Convention” (Art. 8) and that “[n]o one shall derive improper financial or other gain from an activity related to an intercountry adoption” (Art. 32(1)), that “[o]nly costs and expenses, including reasonable professional fees of persons involved in the adoption, may be charged or paid” (Art. 32(2) and that “[t]he directors, administrators and employees of bodies involved in an adoption shall not receive remuneration which is unreasonably high in relation to services rendered” (Art. 32(3)). The

17 “The idea that behaviour should be evaluated not by outside standards but in the context of the culture in which it occurs” (Kottak 2014, 40).

16 Hague Conference on Private International Law document on the Financial Aspects of Intercountry Adoption (2015) defines improper financial gain as “an amount of money [...] that is not justifiable because it is not in accordance with accepted standards or ethical practices, including national and international legislation, and/or is not reasonable because of the excessive amount requested in relation to the service rendered. In addition, an improper action is one that is dishonest or morally wrong. In the area of intercountry adoption, it results on the one hand in unfair individual enrichment and on the other hand in improper influence on decisions regarding a child’s adoption” (2015, 3). Even though the legal definitions of these provisions are very extensive, as we also saw in the previous sections, there are still a few ifs, ands and buts about it. Within the ICA system, there are many layers in which the aspect of financial gain may play a part. For example, this could involve a facilitator selling a child to an adoption agency or parents selling their child to a facilitator or adoption agency themselves (Alexander 2014, 739). In sending countries, families in impoverished areas are often targeted by “deceptive adoption agencies” and lured into giving away their child(ren) under the false pretences of money and eventually financial security (Farid 2012, 87-88). As a result of the way in which “international adoption agencies work not to find homes for needy children, but to find children for western homes” (Graff 2008, 60) children could become ‘market products’ (Young 2012, 74). One of the biggest concerns of this commercialization of the intercountry adoption system is that the “supply” of children keeps rising as long as there is a “demand” to meet (Radin in Yngvesson 2010, 80; Farid 2012, 85).

§2.2 The right to identity Additional to the four legal principles discussed in the previous paragraphs, both articles 7 and 8 of the UNCRC are of great importance in international law regarding the recognition of the right to know one’s birth identity. Article 7 of the UNCRC states that “[t]he child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents” (1989, Art. 7(1)) and that “States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless” (1989, Art. 7(2)). Article 8 of the UNCRC states that States Parties should “undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference” (1989, Art. 8(1)) and that “[w]here a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity” (1989, Art. 8(2)). As the Handbook on European Law Relation to the Rights of the

17 Child (2015) says, every person has the right to obtain information that is needed to discover the truth behind important aspects of identity, such as information about one’s birth, childhood, development and history (2015, 65-66), and that “under international law, the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption provides for the possibility for an adopted child to access information about the identity of his or her parents ‘under appropriate guidance’, but leaves it to each State Party to allow for it, or not” (2015, 69). As the earlier mentioned Brazil Baby Affair, illegally adopted children could be ‘laundered’ to allow their ‘adoption procedure’18 to continue, as a result of which their birth names are, in many cases up to the present day, unclear or unknown. Important to acknowledge is that the right to identity is subjected to the interpretation of states to cover a broader or narrower definition of the right to identity, depending on national law (Heimerle 2003, 89-91). If every State has developed its own ideas of what elements are fundamental of one’s identity, then how can we get a hold of the concept of identity in legal terms? The only document that provides some guidance for the right to identity is the UNICEF Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2007), in which it is expressed that an unlawful interference concerning the preservation of a child’s identity (as stated in Article 8 of the UNCRC) could include the “failure to give adopted, fostered or institutionally placed children the opportunity to enjoy their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious heritage” (2007, 115). Then, one might wonder how it is that DNA research, through which information about one’s heritage might be made available, is still not facilitated by the Dutch government in cases of illegal adoptions. This can be explained by the absence of an absolute19 right to identity in both the UNCRC and the HCIA: both documents were namely “drafted to respect the varied laws of Contracting States, which do not all support an absolute right to identifying information” (Heimerle 2003, 93). This discrepancy thus often places people in the middle of “diverse and often contradictory identity claims” (Stephens 1995, vii), which is one of the ways in which individuals who were adopted illegally could fall between the cracks.

§2.2.1 Child Laundering As briefly touched upon in the previous paragraph, children can be ‘laundered’ to be made eligible for ICA. The term ‘child laundering’ refers to the way in which the ICA system removes children from birth parents illegally, and then uses official processes and legal structures to “launder them as legally adopted children” (Smolin 2006, 115). In cases where birth parents are involved, the process of child laundering often includes false promises or payments that might lead families “into participating in their own victimization”: documents often seem to

18 Quotation marks are used here, since there are cases in which there has never been an official adoption procedure. 19 Not limited by laws or a constitution.

18 indicate the child is obtained legitimately, so that authorities largely overlook the underlying crimes (Baglietto 2016, 195-196). Practices of child laundering are not restricted to adoptions that were forced or bribed: in some instances of missing or lost babies, it seems that little attempt is made to trace a family and to restore what is lost. An orphanage could have financial motivations to “re-label” a missing or lost child into an ‘orphan’ to make it suitable for adoption (Smolin 2006, 122). Through this process, children are purposely ‘stripped’ of their identity. By doing so, the separation of parent and child is, in a lot of cases, made permanent. As Alexander (2014) argues, this permanent separation could be seen as the “exploitation of both parent and child” (2014, 736). The situation of the child is abused to alter their history and “make a financially lucrative international adoption” (Smolin 2006, 122). This is exactly what makes practices of ‘child laundering’ irreconcilable with the right to identity: it often renders obtaining information that is needed to discover the truth behind important aspects of identity impossible, which makes the formation of a narrative identity extremely difficult, as will be discussed in the next paragraph.

§2.2.2 Identity formation, belonging and narrative As proposed in the introduction of this thesis, a great deal of the process of identity formation revolves around one’s life story: one’s narrative identity. Questions of ‘Who am I’ and ‘How did I come to be me’ might be answered by looking at narratives of the self (Watson et al. 2015, 91). These narratives tell the “journey” we took in becoming the person we are; they create order and coherence, through which we try to make sense of what happened to us and try to “understand who we are” (Watson et al. 2015, 91; McLean 2015, 3-4). As discussed in the previous paragraphs, aspects of the past may be unknown to people who were adopted illegally, which complicates the formulation of a life story (Grotevant et al. 2017). The illegal adoption marks the point at which the child is abruptly separated from its past, while simultaneously making this past “forbidden territory”, which causes a rupture in the child’s narrative identity (Hartman & Laird in Brodzinsky & Schechter 1990, 236). As Yngvesson & Mahoney (2000) also argue, when displacements render the creation of a cohesive, seamless narrative of origin impossible, issues concerning identity and difference start to emerge. The displacements they focus on are “those experienced by adoptees who are transferred as infants or young children from one family (and in some cases from one nation) to another” (2000, 7). As mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, illegal adoptions reflect “the arbitrariness of choice” in a bizarre way, which might make us wonder about “what could have been” (Yngvesson & Mahoney 2000, 81-82). One’s narrative identity connects the past, present and future and provides an interpretation of one’s life “through explicit statements on the narrator’s identity and self-concept” as well as through the collection of unique personal experiences (Negele & Habermas in Levesque 2007, 1). Additionally,

19 narrative identities can be individual or collective and can be used to describe the past, to define the present and to predict future trajectories (Yuval-Davis 2006, 202; Pemberton et al. 2019, 5). But what if information about the past or a collective identity is unknown? As will be demonstrated in the analysis of this study, narrative identities of those who were adopted illegally might tell about how their unjustified displacement caused experiences of loss, grief or even of nonexistence, which could include not only the loss of their birth parents, but also “a loss of part of themselves” (Hoopes in Brodzinsky & Schechter 1990, 150). Two important concepts that are inextricably linked to the concept of narrative identity are the concepts of genealogy and ‘belonging’ (Kaye in Brodzinsky & Schechter 1990, 142). In his article, Hatton (2019) clearly depicts how these concepts are intertwined. Genealogy refers to the way in which an individual is connected to his or her family or ancestors and thereby refers to one’s collective identity. Genealogical information might then help an individual depict a community with which one can identify, with which one shares traits and to which one ‘belongs’. One definition of a ‘sense of belonging’ that is often used in contemporary academic literature is that formulated by Hagerty et al. (1996):

[T]he experience of personal involvement in a system or environment so that persons feel themselves to be an integral part of that system or environment. A ‘sense of belonging’ [is] proposed to have two defining attributes: the experience of being valued, needed, or important with respect to other people, groups, or environments, and the experience of fitting in or being congruent with other people, groups, or environments through shared or complementary characteristics. (1996, 236)

The idea of belonging and thereby placing yourself within a collective identity can be a core aspect of one’s narrative identity (Hatton 2019, 8). As Croucher (2018) argues in her book, the concept of belonging is “as old as history, but the contexts in which belonging is negotiated change” (2018, 47). The multitude of aspects that together establish an identity and a sense of belonging continually overlap and intersect, both on an individual and collective level (Croucher 2018, 192). On both levels, defining and understanding who you are also means defining and understanding who you are not. In this same way, determining where you ‘belong’ relies on the creation of an ‘Us’ and a ‘Them’ and constructing a ‘Self’ relies upon the creation of an ‘Other’. Constructing an identity and a sense of belonging thus inherently means constructing certain boundaries (Croucher 2018, 46). For the individuals in this study, formulating a narrative identity is all about defining, rejecting, and transcending such boundaries, since key pieces of information about both their personal and collective identity are missing and might eventually be irretrievable.

20 Chapter 3. Methodology

§3.1 Methodology Since the aim of this research is not to generate statistically representative findings, but to uncover deep, transferable knowledge, a qualitative research approach in the form of in-depth narrative interviewing was adopted. Qualitative methods, especially in the field of narrative victimology, are best for gaining in-depth insights into specific concepts or phenomena and are interpretative in nature. Additionally, the theoretical framework of this research is based on an interdisciplinary literature study, integrating concepts from the fields of law, victimology, sociology, psychology and anthropology. By conducting semi- and unstructured in-depth interviews, a detailed description of the individual’s interpretation of and feelings towards events can be provided. One of the main advantages of such interviews is that it allows for great “flexibility in terms of the flow of the interview, thereby leaving room for generating conclusions that were not initially meant to be derived regarding the research subject” (Langos 2014, 38). An interview lasted between one and a half to two hours on average and, with explicit consent of the participant, the interview was recorded. Within a period of 24 hours after the interview, the interview was transcribed and the audio recording was deleted. All interviews were transcribed, after which thematic and content analysis was conducted. For the analysis, the computer program Nvivo was used. Thematic analysis refers to coding20 all data, thereby identifying and reviewing themes and patterns that emerge directly from the interview transcriptions. Subsequently, content analysis was conducted to examine the meaning of words, phrases and sentences, thereby gaining understanding of participants’ perceptions and motivations. To reduce the risk of data misinterpretation and researcher bias, the analysis of each interview was validated by asking each participant for their feedback. This way, there was a constant alternation between data collection and data analysis, which helped secure the objectivity and reliability of this research. A total of six people participated in this study. These participants were all recruited through Facebook and LinkedIn. Several direct messages were sent to possible participants who had already shared their stories in public media (such as the Zembla documentary and the national news). Additionally, a general message was posted on both platforms. Unfortunately, due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews had to be conducted by phone. Two participants preferred a video call, which is why, on their own initiative, one interview was conducted through Skype and one through FaceTime. Building solid rapport with the informant, something initially strived for, was possible to a considerably lesser extent.

20 The development of categories that emerge from the collected data (DeWalt and DeWalt, 2011).

21 §3.2 Ethical considerations As every research concerning sensitive and personal matters, this study was subject to certain ethical issues. Firstly, it is important to state that this research received ethical clearance from the Tilburg Law School Ethics Review Board.21 Secondly, all participants received an information letter about this research and gave their consent regarding their participation in the research through a form that was discussed and signed prior to the interview. This way, any questions participants might have had could be answered. After an interview was conducted, participants were sent a debriefing letter. All forms were intended to reassure participants of their voluntary participation in the research and to inform then about the option to withdraw freely from it at any point. Thirdly, participants were not harmed or abused, neither physically nor psychologically, during this research. Creating and maintaining an atmosphere of comfort before, during and after the phone interviews was attempted to the extent possible. Lastly, participants were fully informed regarding the objectives of the study, while they were reassured that their answers would explicitly be treated as confidential and used only for the purposes of this particular research. Several names in this study are therefore fictitious; any identifiable information that is still included in this thesis has been extensively and thoroughly discussed with the participant in question.

21 See appendix C: Ethical clearance

22 Chapter 4. Analysis

In this chapter, the empirical data gathered through the in-depth interviews will be analysed. The data will be supported and extended by the theories mentioned in the second chapter of this thesis, since “there is [sic] no data without a framework to make sense of those data” (Lester in Osanloo & Grant 2016, 21). In the first part of this analysis, the interviewees’ personal adoption cases will briefly be discussed. Subsequently, the retrospective impact of the discovery of their illegal adoptions will be scrutinized. In the third paragraph of this chapter, the prospective impact of illegal adoptions will be discussed. Lastly, the participants’ experiences of victimhood will be examined.

§4.1 “It was all just an illusion” In this paragraph, a brief overview of the adoption cases dealt with in this research will be provided. At the start of every interview, participants were asked about the processes that form the basis of their adoption stories and the way in which these, in one way or another, involved illegal practices. At the time of her adoption, Amanda’s adoptive parents were already too old to legally adopt her. The age difference between her and the oldest adoptive parent would exceed the maximum of 40 years as defined in Art. 5(6) of the Wobka. Therefore, Amanda’s 3-year-old sister was ‘offered’ to the couple and because it was undesirable to separate the sisters, the couple was allowed to adopt both of the children. They were adopted simultaneously and grew up together. However, more than thirty years later, only Amanda’s sister appeared to be the biological child of the family registered in both of the girls’ adoption files. Somewhere in the adoption process, the baby that they initially adopted had been swapped and Amanda was put in her place. Amanda explained that this created many loose ends in her adoption story that might never be tied up: “How could this have happened and where did [the baby] go? My [biological] mother did not put me up for adoption. My mother’s name isn't even in my files. [...] They should have called me Murphy,22 I think that would have been better”. Other than her birth country, Amanda has no information about her birth culture (McAdams & McLean 2013) whatsoever and any historical or cultural context through which she could create a sense of ‘self’ (Pemberton et al. 2019) is completely absent. A similar case is that of Fernando. He explained that all of his personal data, as documented in his adoption files, are false: “I have always known that my papers were just not right. My medical record literally states that I’m a girl, while I’m definitely sure I’m a guy. So, I just knew my papers weren’t in order”. Fernando’s documents strongly suggest that he was

22 Referring to Murphy’s law, generally taken as meaning ‘If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong’.

23 ‘laundered’ (Smollin 2006) and ‘re-labelled’ to be made eligible for ICA. During one of his searches for his biological family, he met a woman that was presumed to be his biological mother. Unfortunately, she had only been appointed by the person that “helped” Fernando with his search at the time. This is an example of how the inescapable dependency on others (Baglietto 2016) made Fernando’s search for his origins even more difficult. After finding that his documents had been fiddled with to an extent that would render it impossible for him to retrieve any genealogical information and to find any members of his biological family, he decided to end his search. Contrary to Fernando, Lauren only started asking herself more and more questions about her adoption files after she increasingly saw the topic of illegal adoption on the national news. Out of both fear and curiosity, she decided to reach out to a foundation23 for help: “I got a message and [they] told me that I had the same adoption file as someone else adopted from Indonesia. In our files, we both had the same mother. [...] The two witnesses in my adoption file were known to be engaged in illegal adoption. [...] I was completely shocked”. The woman Lauren eventually found, with help of the foundation, was not her biological mother: she confessed she was actually an intermediary for the witnesses in Lauren’s adoption file. Eventually, Lauren discovered that she had been given away by an acting mother (Vlaardingerbroek 2008), which made the odds to ever find any further genealogical information slim to none. Nova-Lilly started her search the same way as Lauren had. She saw the 2017 Zembla documentary and started to gather every single document she could find that had anything to do with her adoption process. After a visit to her birth country, everything eventually fell into place:

“I found out that I [was not adopted] from a children's home and that there had been no bombings in Sri Lanka. It was all just an illusion, a preconceived plan. [My adoptive parents] went to Sri Lanka, went to a certain hotel and had to wait for me there”. (Nova- Lilly, 15-05-2020)

As mentioned by Hoksbergen (2000), mass media increasingly reported the “misery” children in “Third World Countries” were in. This quote is an example of the influence this might have had on parents’ motivations to adopt a child. Because Nova-Lilly’s birthplace was included in her adoption documents (even though misspelled), she has been able to eventually meet her biological mother. Her mother told her that she got pregnant during her studies and that she had to drop out to raise her child. However, because she was not married at the time, her

23 My Roots, Ibu Indonesia (literally translated: ‘Mother Indonesia’).

24 family did not want her to keep the baby. As soon as she was born, Nova-Lilly was taken away, but her biological mother neither attended any adoption trial nor did she sign any of the adoption files. Just as Lauren, Nova-Lilly was given away by an ‘acting mother’ against the will of her biological mother. This is an example of how, both as a result of a community-based decision (Krogstad et al. 2010 and Rotabi & Gibbons 2012) and the shortcomings of and failed control over the legal system, Nova-Lilly’s web of victimization was spun. Another participant that has been able to meet her biological mother is Shirona. Her mother told her that her father had abandoned her, which left her with no other choice than to put Shirona up for adoption. Because her father had left her mother, Shirona felt abandoned by him, which is why she never searched for him. However, over time, the adoption story told by her biological family continually changed: “One time, they told me that they didn’t even know who my father was [...], another time, they told me that he had been asking about me and another time, they told me that he was dead. [...] Now, I can’t tell what’s true and what’s fake anymore”. Her adoption files also contain several inconsistencies and because of these ‘unknowns’, Shirona does not know who her father is up to the present day and, for reasons unknown to her, her mother refuses to tell her. Shirona explained that she will eventually return to Sri Lanka one day to have everyone that presumably belongs to her family take a DNA test. She hopes this will help her uncover the ‘unknowns’ and recover her sense of identity (Roof 2007, Hatton 2019). In several of these adoption stories, coercion is a returning subject matter. Sanne explained how her biological mother was coerced by an adoption agency to give Sanne up for adoption. Even though Sanne’s adoption files seem to be correct, her mother told her she did not willingly give her informed consent, which is exactly one of the major concerns of the principle as argued by Selman (2014) and Baglietto (2016). She gave her consent under circumstances of force and it was sought even before Sanne was born. This illustrates how adoption files that seem to be right, just like those of Sanne, make it even harder to prove that an adoption was illegal. Now, Sanne knows there actually was “a whole [...] child trafficking network [behind it] and they made a lot of money out of it”. The latter illustrates how important the enclosure of ‘the prohibition of unjustified financial gain’ is in both the UNCRC and HCIA. These events are also in line with what Baglietto (2016) identified as the involvement of birth parents and their participation in their own victimization: because the consent of Sanne’s mother seems to indicate that consent was obtained legitimately, the underlying crime of coercion was overlooked. All of these adoption cases stress the importance of the rules and regulations as laid out in the UNCRC (1989) and the HCIA (1993). Even though such illegal adoption practices might never be eradicated completely, the eminence of these Conventions is indisputable.

25 §4.2 “Everything stayed the same and yet things completely changed” In the following paragraph, the retrospective impact illegal adoption has on the lives of participants will be examined. When we look at the retrospective impact of an event, we try to see the event in a way that relates to thinking about the past. How do these individuals look back on their lives and how do they (re)construct their narrative identities after discovering they were adopted illegally?

§4.2.1 “It was a matter of supply and demand” Five out of six participants explained that the discovery of being adopted illegally has had an enormous impact on how they look back on their lives and in particular at their adoption processes. One of aspects that stood out most was that participants described feelings of having become a ‘good’ that was manufactured, ordered and sold. Lauren explained that the discovery of her illegal adoption made her feel as if she were “produced on a conveyor belt” and that she had been part of an “illegal adoption chain” in which little attention was paid to would be in her best interest. Similarly, Nova-Lilly describes her adoption as a process in which her adoptive parents “ordered a kind of surprise package” that they needed to pay for: “I think the starting price for adopting me [...] was about ƒ25,000 at the time”. She explained how she looks at her adoption as a process within a network that propagated the idea that “if you want a child, then anything can and will be done to provide that child”. Both Amanda and Lauren expressed that they feel as if they were just “used” as a means to fill in the “unwanted gap” childless parents had. Amanda explained: “Bluntly said, it was a matter of supply and demand. [...] The process promoted making children adoptable, which ultimately became a trade when money got involved”. She explained that one of the things that shocked her the most was the way in which her and her sister’s adoption had been arranged at the time:

I literally have my order form! My order form in which my adoptive parents could make clear what they wanted. I looked at it and thought, ‘Well, I even put more time and effort into picking my dog’. (Amanda, 07-04-2020)

These cases illustrate how adoption had turned into a market, a commercialized business of finding children for homes instead of finding homes for children (Graff 2008; Radin 20110; Farid 2012; Young 2012) and that, within ICA networks, there were many actors profited from these adoptions (Alexander 2014). Shirona was confronted with the above-mentioned commercialization during a conversation with her biological mother. She explained: “The last time I was there, she just… She told me: ‘Well, I sold you’. Just like that. [...] That made things so complicated. [...] The only thing she kept asking me was: ‘Do you have any money for me?’”. Shirona explains that

26 this not only made her own development of a sense of identity more complicated, since this story did not line up with the stories she had been told earlier, but that it also made her feel as if she did not even know who her biological mother was anymore (Hoopes 1990). Only for Fernando, matters were slightly different. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, he always knew that his papers had been fiddled with. However, when all facts were actually confirmed in a hospital in his birth country, he still felt extremely disappointed. There would be no way now to find out who his parents were: he was up against a dead end. Even though this confirmation severely affected him, it did not necessarily affect him retrospectively. He explained this might have to do with the way he grew up: “I think I have just been really lucky to have come in a very nice environment. [...] That is why I now feel good about the adoption”.

§4.2.2 Birth mothers Another matter that stood out during the interviews was that five out of six participants experienced feelings of sadness and loneliness when they thought about their biological mothers and how they must have felt when they had to give up their child. The topic of ‘biological mothers’ turned out to be of specific importance, as they are allegedly often seen as the ‘forgotten group’ within the context of illegal adoption. Nova-Lilly explained that birth mothers are “just as much victims” of illegal adoption and that they should also be acknowledged as such. For Amanda, this is one of the topics that has been the most difficult for her. She can only imagine how her own mother “must have felt [me] grow inside her” and how she went through what Amanda went through when she had her own daughter: “There was absolutely no reason for me to think: ‘I don’t want to keep her’. [...] How would that have been for [my mother]?”. As a result of their illegal adoption, all participants feel as if their right to a birth identity was taken from them. For Amanda, Lauren and Fernando, their birth stories were cut off at the point of their adoption and remains unknown (Hartman & Laird 1990; UNCRC Art. 7(1)). Fortunately, Sanne, Nova-Lilly and Shirona are among the few that have been able to ask their biological mothers the questions they had about their birth and adoption story. Initially, Sanne was overcome with joy when she discovered she did in fact have a trace that led to her origins and she eventually has been able to find her biological mother. However, this all changed when she found out about the trafficking network that was behind the whole process of her adoption: “That’s the moment your feelings become really complex. [...] You can compare it to grieving, [...] a loss of control”. She explained how she always thought meeting her biological mother would fill the “void that was created inside” by the missing pieces of her identity. Unfortunately, her mother could not contribute to filling this void: it was an “internal struggle” that she had to sort out herself. This struggle eventually led her to write her

27 own book24, through which she brings the agonizing stories of Sri Lankan birth mothers, who also became the victims of illegal adoption practices, to the fore. For Nova-Lilly, the experience of meeting her biological mother did help her repair the damage she felt that had been done to her. It made her realize she no longer had to “pretend to be the person” other people thought she should be: “I now know that I have a mother that says: ‘I will support you in whatever you do [...], because you are my child’. For me, that has been such an important part of healing”. She therefore also stresses the importance of acknowledging the pain birth mothers in Sri Lanka experience and their role in the adoption story:

When you dig deeper, you hear these horror stories. [...] Imagine the fear those women have been exposed to. They didn’t have any other choice. When I look at my [biological] mother when she tells her story, I see that she goes back to that point. It’s the fear of ‘I can't do anything, I can't fight for my child, I have to [give her up]’ that she felt. (Nova- Lilly, 15-05-2020)

This quote illustrates how, even though the theory behind maternal stress (Weinstein & Shea 2017; Fox et al. 2018; Walsh et al. 2019) could not be given sufficient attention within this research, the topics of ‘stress’ and ‘trauma’ do play a role in illegal adoption stories. Both Sanne and Nova-Lilly explained how the process of their illegal adoption might have resulted in stress and trauma, both for their birth mothers and themselves. Sanne explained: “I think that when a baby experiences [that] fear [...], that you are taken away from your mother, then that just creates panic. If it happens in such an early period, that is traumatic and it will have consequences for the rest of your life”. As already mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, this is where the topic of ‘adoption’ and the topic of ‘illegal adoption’ overlap. However, it is the specific stress that might have been evoked by the process of unconsented and thus illegal adoption that is discussed here. As Nova-Lilly also explained: “Babies can’t talk. They do, however, sense that something is wrong and that’s where the first trauma [...] is created”. Since participants’ perspectives on and ideas of the separation with their birth mothers do provide a better insight in their experiences of the retrospective impact of illegal adoption, it is nonetheless worthy to incorporate in this analysis. As opposed to the experiences of other participants, Shirona eventually describes having met her biological mother as “a complete disaster”. She explained: “I just feel really sad about the fact that she never asked me any personal questions. Not once did she do that. [...] I guess I just expected it to be different”. All questions she has about her biological father will most likely remain unanswered, since the only one who might be able to provide these answers

24 Van Rossen, S. & Aumbaum, M. (2020). Het verdriet van Sri Lanka. Aumbaum BrandMakers.

28 - her biological mother - is not willing to. Shirona added: “I understand that my mother might not want to talk about something terrible that might have happened to her. But I just hope that she will someday tell me something like: ‘your father doesn’t know about your existence’ or just anything at all. [...] In any case, that’s better than hearing a different story every single time”.

§4.2.3 Adoptive parents and the adoptive identity Another topic that was frequently mentioned during the interviews was how the discovery of their illegal adoption had changed participants’ views on the role their adoptive parents had played within their adoption processes. The fact that key information about their birth and history had been, voluntarily or not, withheld from them, eventually forced them to reconstruct their adoptive identities. Lauren started asking questions about whether her adoptive parents knew anything about the illegal practices that were involved in her adoption process. She had printed a stack of newspaper articles from the period in which she was adopted that addressed the issue of illegal adoption. Unfortunately, she never received the answers to her questions:

They had been keeping things from me. They never gave me the complete file. They kept all the adoption files to themselves and said that there was nothing left for me to see. That was really hard. [...] My adoptive parents are very naive. [...] They said they had never heard of it back then. [...] Their lives seem to revolve around the idea of ‘our feelings go before other people’s feelings’. (Lauren, 26-03-2020)

Similarly, Nova-Lilly had only been able to obtain her adoption papers from her adoptive parents with the help of a lawyer and only then she found out that they had never actually told her the truth. This mainly evoked feelings of anger and powerlessness: “You find out that your adoptive parents are actually in charge until the day they die. If they do not actually give their approval, they can simply say: ‘We don’t want you to see these documents’. And then you’re just a ‘nobody’”. In an attempt to make sense of who she was, she realized that she had actually “never known who she was for all her life” as a result of the constant lies she had been told. Just as Lauren and Nova-Lilly, Sanne confronted her adoptive parents with what happened in her adoption case: “My parents unfortunately did not react as I had hoped, so to say. [...] It’s difficult. I don't have a good relationship with them either, it's superficial”. However, even though they felt disappointed about how many facts had been kept secret for years, all participants emphasize that adoptive parents should also be acknowledged as a party within the system of intercountry adoption, with their own story and their own roles. Sanne explained: “they also have their own pain. [...] Especially as an adoptive parent, being confronted with

29 these facts can be very painful”. All participants therefore underscore how their adoptive parents have done their utmost best to raise them the best way possible. Nova-Lilly explained:

I’ve been mad about everything that had been done to me for a very long time, [...] but at some point, you realize that everyone has a story. [...] You grow up in a family [...] that lets you grow into an adult [...] based on their own norms and values and [...] in the best way possible. My adoptive [parents] [...] sincerely did the same. They thought this was the way to go. [...] This was all they knew. I might disagree, but can I judge them? No, I can’t. (Nova-Lilly 15-05-2020)

In that line of reasoning, Shirona explained that her relationship with her adoptive parents is okay now, but that they definitely hit a patch of bad road when the documentary of Zembla was aired: “It was really intense. I felt very misunderstood and I think they felt very attacked, while that was not my intention. [...] When I now hear my [adoptive] father say, ‘When we walked in, babies were lying on the floor', then I wonder how they could have been so naive. But then also those were different times and I cannot judge them now”. Because only Fernando has always known he was adopted illegally, his idea of the role of his adoptive parents is somewhat different: “Yes, maybe mistakes were made at the time, but everyone makes mistakes. If they wouldn’t have made those mistakes, I wouldn't have been here”. As illustrated in the preceding paragraphs, for most adoptees the discovery of their illegal adoption brought about significant changes in their feelings and attitudes towards their past. For many, the discovery meant a complete reconstruction of their narrative, while simultaneously not being able to access the information that could eventually help reconstruct this narrative. Especially by acknowledging the roles other parties played in their adoption process, participants try to make sense of what happened and by putting all pieces of information together, they try to reformulate their narrative identity as far as possible.

§4.3 The prospective impact of illegal adoption In this paragraph, the prospective impact the discovery of illegal adoption has on the lives of participants will be examined. When we look at the prospective impact of an event, we look at how the event relates to what happens in the present and what will happen in the future. What did these individuals feel when they discovered they were adopted illegally and (how) does it affect their view on their future?

§4.3.1 Narrative identity and belonging As discussed in the previous paragraphs, one’s birth identity and adoptive identity are of importance within the context of identity formation. Four participants explained they

30 experienced a certain ‘loss’ of their identity when they found out they were adopted illegally, which illustrates the fluidity of the process of identity formation (Yngvesson & Mahoney 2000). Amanda explained that, in her experience, she became “a non-existent person” from the moment she found out she was adopted illegally. It was as if her narrative identity suddenly ceased to exist, which created issues with understanding who she actually was (Watson et al. 2015; McLean 2015). Any trace that could eventually lead to information about any aspect of her identity or genealogy had suddenly been erased. When she was asked ‘what this feels like’, Amanda used the following metaphor:

Do you know that feeling…? When you’re traveling [...] and you enter the shabbiest hotel in the middle of nowhere and it’s the only place you can sleep. You doubtfully hand over your passport to a very shadowy receptionist and you’re extremely nervous about whether they will or will not give you back your passport. It is that feeling, times a thousand. Because in the end, you don’t get it back. (Amanda, 07-04-2020)

In her view, people seem to attach a great deal of importance to the correct documentation of one’s identification forms “except, it seems, when it comes to children from very poor countries who we can give a better life here”. Lauren also expressed that it was as if she had “lost her identity”, which left her with an “emptiness, a feeling of not belonging anywhere”. She explained that she is curious to, for example, find out whether she looks like one of her relatives, but what she longs for the most is the mere feeling of “actually having a family [emphasis added]”. Similarly, Nova-Lilly explained that she felt as if her “whole persona, who you are and what you are [...] was simply taken away by someone. [...] I became an orphan”. This way, Nova- Lilly felt as if she lost both her sense of self and of her biological parents (Hoopes 1990). When she was asked if her illegal adoption altered her idea of the concept of ‘identity’ and ‘belonging’, she struggled to find words: “It’s just a feeling that I’ve always carried with me. Feelings of ‘I shouldn’t be here’. I always felt like ‘I don’t belong here’”. These stories all illustrate how access to genealogical information plays a role in constructing and experiencing feelings of belonging and formulating a narrative identity (Hagerty et al. 1996; Hatton 2019). They also reveal the gravity of the right to respect for family and family life (Schrama 2015). For example, Amanda states:

I have a family completely shrouded in dense fog. I don’t know who may or may not be alive, who may or may not exist. They don't know about my existence, I do know about theirs, but I don't know who they are. (Amanda, 07-04-2020)

31 This illustrates the way in which she tries to place her personal narrative within a certain collective narrative (Yuval-Davis 2006) of which she is supposed to be a part: a narrative in which she exists, a certain collective identity to which she belongs. However, she explained that, because this collective narrative is now completely unknown to her, questions about ‘where she belongs’ remain unanswered. In this same way, Shirona explained that the fact that there are so many things she does not know about herself as a result of her illegal adoption has made her feel restless:

My story just has no ending. It will always keep you busy and that’s just a part of your life. Even though I know that this will never change, it is still difficult sometimes. I keep finding myself asking questions like ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Do I resemble someone?’”. Before discovering she was adopted illegally, she always opened up easily to others about her adoption: “Saying that ‘my mother gave me up for a better life’ was always perceived to be a very nice story. I was actually proud to tell it. [...] But now, when people now ask me about my adoption, I feel like it is none of their business. [...] It has become too personal. (Shirona, 21-05-2020)

When Sanne was asked the same question, she explained how the discovery of her illegal adoption has gradually altered her interpretation of the concept of ‘identity’. Through intensive therapy, she has been able to reformulate her “identity story”, her narrative identity: “I feel as if identity is something you teach yourself. [...] You’re really just your natural state of being, just as everyone else is”. In her view, identity is something that is determined by and based on who you want to be. She explained that she views identity as an experience and that adopting such an idea about the concept gives her guidance. For Sanne, a cohesive narrative identity (Yngvesson & Mahoney 2000) is something that can only be created by herself, with or without access to information about the past. Even though in illegal adoption stories there often is no such thing as “one truth”, Sanne explained that for her, this feels as the truth, which has helped her regain “strength, power and agency”. For Fernando, the concept of ‘identity’ encompasses “everything he went through in his life”. For instance, a few of his traits he ascribes to his birth country, such as the way he looks and the way he walks, while others he ascribes to his upbringing in the Netherlands: “When I was [in his birth country], I recognized some of my character traits in others, which was quite funny. [...] I got a sense of: ‘these are my people’”. Even though this could be described as a feeling of what Hagerty (1996) defined as ‘fitting in’ with other people, one of the aspects that contribute to a ‘sense of belonging’, Fernando explained that he does not feel “at home” in his birth country. Interestingly, he rather experienced a sense of ‘belonging’ (Croucher 2018) in the Netherlands after he returned from his last trip to his birth country:

32 “Before I left, [me and my adoptive parents] were quite distant. But when I returned, I realized that these people are my parents and that the Netherlands is my country. I feel comfortable with this family”. Nonetheless, up until his last failed attempt to search for his biological family, Fernando had always kept wishing and hoping that he would one day meet his birth parents and would see “what kind of people they are”. As he explained: “My hope was crushed. [...] I was left with life questions such as ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Where do I come from?’”. Knowing that it would be impossible to ever get an answer to these questions was really hard to accept and for a period of about two months or so, he felt very dejected. He explained that, even though he managed to get through this gloomy period, some situations are still very confrontational: “Very simple questions such as ‘Does this run in your family?’ [...] are questions I will never be able to answer”.

§4.3.2 Starting a family Closely related to the topic of family life, as addressed in the previous paragraph, is the topic of having children of your own. Four participants expressed that their illegal adoption has played a role in the way they now raise their own children. Sanne explained that the birth of her son helped her process her illegal adoption: “My little boy, he’s my only DNA here, so to speak. [...] I only really learned what unconditional love is after he was born. [...] My child is simply my mirror. My teacher”. In a way, she created her ‘sense of belonging’ herself: the birth of her son evoked feelings of being valued, needed and important and of being able to identify with someone through shared characteristics (Kaye 1990; Hagerty 1996; Hatton 2019). Similarly, Lauren explained: “I don’t know where I… Where I am from, my blood. [...] I am proud to show my children a bit of their heritage, I want to pass it on to them. I just think that it’s very important and that it’s something beautiful”. Just like Sanne, it is as if she is now creating a sense of belonging ‘from scratch’. Shirona also explained: “You sort of know what you acquired from your adoptive parents [...] but it’s only when you become a mother yourself when you [...] realize that there are many things you must have inherited from your biological parents”. Even though she has struggled with that idea, it has also provided insights in how her narrative identity was and still is shaped. For Amanda, having a daughter herself made her realize that her adoption has not only had an enormous impact on her own life, but also on that of her daughter:

“It’s not just about the fact that I don’t know who my parents are or that I don’t know whether or not I have brothers or sisters. My own daughter does not know whether she has any uncles or aunts either. [...] My daughter has got [some of her character traits] from me. But nobody knows where I got it from. [...] There are things that should

33 normally unfold naturally, like knowing who your grandpa and grandma are. [...] My daughter will never have that or develop that sense”. (Amanda, 07-04-2020)

This quote illustrates how a lack of genealogical information might affect not only the adoptee’s narrative identity, but also that of their offspring. In the previous paragraphs, the prospective impact of the discovery of illegal adoption processes was examined. These paragraphs have illustrated how processes of illegal adoption could inhibit an individual’s ‘sense of belonging’ and ‘sense of self’ and shows how people might be forced to build their future on an unknown history. Even though there often is no way in which these individuals can recover their history, some expressed that having children of their own has created a new starting point in life, which has enabled them to experience such feelings of ‘belonging’ and which eventually contributed to the recreation of their narrative identity.

§4.4 “In illegal adoption, everybody loses” In the following paragraphs, participants’ experiences of victimhood will be discussed. Victimhood encompasses how one experiences the state of being a victim of, in these cases, human choice; of something that should not have happened, but nevertheless did (Pemberton 2019). What role does the concept of victimhood play in these illegal adoption cases?

§4.4.1 Experiences of victimhood Amanda explained that her illegal adoption feels as something that ‘just happened’ and nothing more: “You can’t change the past. I am a part of it all, it happened, it’s a course that was taken for me”. She is aware of the arbitrariness with which certain decisions were taken and therefore also clearly states that she cannot and does not want to point her finger at anyone:

An adoption case should just be viewed as an event with a certain number of stakeholders. It has nothing to do with whether someone is to blame for it. [...] Just acknowledge all parties [that] [...] took part in it. Illuminate all sides, only then you can paint a good picture and can you do people justice from a humanitarian point of view, without a label. (Amanda, 07-04-2020).

Just as Amanda, Sanne explained she views her illegal adoption as something that just ‘happened’ to her, but that she has nevertheless felt a victim. The fact that somebody else decided that it would be better for her to grow up somewhere else, away from her roots and origins, sometimes still upsets her. She described the underlying thought of ‘offering someone a better home’ as “incredibly arrogant”: “What better home exactly? When you go to Sri Lanka, we have completely different values of what a ‘home’ is supposed to be”. As for this example,

34 it might again be difficult to separate the story of adoption from the story of illegal adoption. When an adoption that involves birth parents would be carried out legally, the main decision would lie in the hands of these parents or one’s birth mother or father. In that sense, the actual decision to give a child up for adoption will and can only be made by ‘someone else’. However, in Sanne’s case, the decision to put her up for adoption was made by someone else against the will and thus without the consent of her mother, which is what makes this process fundamentally different and which is exactly what she finds most upsetting. One of the most painful things for Lauren is that she feels as if the Dutch government still does not acknowledge what happened: “It is actually very clear that illegal child trafficking happened at the time. [...] But it’s very difficult to prove”. For her, it is not about any compensation, but about acknowledgement and recognition. The fact that she does not feel acknowledged is what contributes to her victimization most, which could eventually be seen as an event of secondary victimization. Alternatively, as will be discussed more in-depth in the following paragraph, Nova-Lilly explained how she thinks everyone within the illegal adoption chain can be seen as a victim:

In illegal adoption, everybody loses. An adoptive parent is a victim, a child is a victim and a birth mother is a victim. In that sense, [...] we all are victims of a consumer society. Victims of supply and demand” (Nova-Lilly, 15-05-2020)

Because of the extent the victimization has, she explained that “there is nothing to be compensated for, there is nothing that will take away the pain” and that the only thing that can be done is make sure that processes of intercountry adoptions will be improved for the sake of all future parties.

§4.4.2 Agency What all participants stress is the importance of the recognition of their agency. As Sanne stated, appropriating the “role of the victim” has been a necessity for her. She explained that “appropriating that victim role” helped her to process what had happened to her and that it is important for people to acknowledge that everyone has the agency to do so:

People need to acknowledge that [adoptees] are in control of how they feel and that they can no longer point to the past to legitimize present behaviour. We take responsibility for how we feel now and how we behave now and how we can deal with situations now. Because we do have that control. [...] If you start working on yourself, when you dare to see who you are and gain self-knowledge, knowledge about who you really are. [...] That’s where you’ll find freedom. (Sanne, 02-04-2020)

35 Several participants mentioned that they try to do everything they can to create awareness about illegal adoptions. For Amanda, this has become “an urge to survive”: she now is the chairman of the foundation Sri Lanka DNA. Through DNA testing, the foundation tries to bring adopted children into contact with their mothers in Sri Lanka and vice versa. As she explained: “We don’t need pity or a pat on the back or a compliment or whatever. Just acknowledge these situations as they are”. In that same way, Lauren explained that she started to focus on ways she could help herself and others. She tries to help others as best as she can and set up a large DNA project to find as many biological mothers as possible for adoptees who are in the same situation. This project, called Ibu Indonesia, searches for mothers in Indonesia who have given their child up for adoption. Since this process already is extremely time-sensitive, Lauren expresses her great concerns about how the combination of having to deal with false documents and the current COVID-19 pandemic takes this time pressure to the extreme: “That generation in Indonesia won’t get very old. Chances are that the older generations all die now. [...] There’s an enormous pressure if you want to know who your biological parents are. That’s very difficult”. However, even though she knows it's a million-to-one shot that she will find her family, “giving up just isn’t an option. For as long as I live, I will keep hoping that, one day, I will find them”. In these last paragraphs, the concept of victimhood in these cases of illegal adoption was examined. It showed how the experiences of victimhood vary extremely: from the experience of secondary victimization due to the absence of acknowledgment to a near absence of victimhood. However, what this paragraph has particularly shown is these individuals’ incredible flexibility and resilience. By using their own knowledge and experiences, they make every effort to help others and to raise awareness, hoping that what happened to them will never, ever, happen to anyone else again.

36 Chapter 5. Conclusion

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of the discovery of illegal adoption processes on the lives of adoptees in the Netherlands. In order to gain a better understanding of the impact of victimization itself, a narrative approach was adopted. The main research question to be answered is: “What impact does the discovery of illegal adoption processes have on the lives of adoptees in the Netherlands?”. In order to be able to answer this question, the following four sub-questions were formulated: “What made these adoptions illegal?”, “How does illegal adoption affect adoptees retrospectively?”, “How does illegal adoption affect adoptees prospectively?” and “How do adoptees experience their victimhood?”. In this chapter, the main findings of this research will be presented and the main limitations and weaknesses of this research will be addressed.

§5.1 Main findings What becomes clear from examining these adoption cases is the way in which they stress the importance of the rules and regulations as laid out in the UNCRC and the HCIA. Even though practices of illegal adoptions might never be eradicated completely, the guidance provided by these conventions for the better control over and legitimization of ICA is beyond doubt. However, by examining the four core pillars of both conventions, this research has identified several legal loopholes that provide insights in how individuals who were adopted illegally might still slip between the cracks. Firstly, due to international legal disagreements on the definition of the term ‘best interest of the child’, the principle is often faded into the background in adoption cases. Secondly, the academic debate on the principle of subsidiarity illustrates that there is still no clear consensus on what adoption measure – domestic or international – would be in a child’s best interest. Thirdly, in cases of illegal adoption, it is often difficult to determine whether birth parents have freely given their consent. As a result of the way in which the evaluation of this principle is shaped, negligence and fraud lie in wait and could eventually go unnoticed. Fourthly, great political and financial differences between sending countries and destination countries have led to the commercialization of the intercountry adoption system. This made ICA a financially lucrative business through which both children and their birth parents could be exploited. Lastly, due to the absence of an absolute right to identity in both the UNCRC and HCIA, individuals might be restrained from obtaining identifying genealogical information and thereby be denied the opportunity to enjoy their ethnical, cultural, linguistic or religious heritage, even when there has clearly been an unlawful interference concerning the preservation of a their identity.

37 When looking at the retrospective impact of illegal adoption, participants explained how the discovery of being adopted illegally has had an enormous impact on how they look back on their lives and in particular at their adoption processes. For four participants, the discovery of their illegal adoption has evoked feelings of being ‘fabricated’ as products and being used as a means to solve the problem of unwanted childlessness. What also stood out is the topic of ‘biological mothers’, an often-forgotten party within the context of illegal adoptions. Even though participants’ experiences naturally vary, birth mothers unequivocally play an important role in the context of illegal adoptions: they may be able to provide better insights in the impact of separating a mother and a child and, as is true for many participants of this research, they might be the only existing piece of secure genealogical information. This subject also provides grounds for further research into the less prominent topic of ‘biological fathers’. The absence of genealogical information ultimately deprived participants of their right to a birth identity: for three participants, their birth stories are still unknown. As a result of missing key pieces of their genealogical puzzle, participants experienced ‘gaps’ in their narrative identity, of which some might never be filled. Additionally, participants expressed that discovering they had been adopted illegally negatively affected the relationship with their adoptive parents. The fact that key information about their birth and history had been, voluntarily or not, withheld from them, evoked feelings of powerlessness and being misunderstood. Nonetheless, all participants underscore that their adoptive parents have to be acknowledged as individual parties within the system of intercountry adoption that have their own stories, their own pain and that tried their utmost to raise their adoptive children the best way possible. What particularly stood out looking at the prospective impact of illegal adoption is the way in which it caused an alteration in participants’ ideas of the concept of identity. Even though participants found it difficult to put a finger on what the concept of identity exactly means, they all experienced a loss of their ‘sense of self’ and a certain ‘loss’ of their identity when they found out they were adopted illegally, which led to the forced reconstruction of their life narrative. One of the biggest issues this caused in later life was finding one’s place within a broader, collective narrative, which encompassed feelings of loneliness and ‘not belonging anywhere’. For four participants, who have become mothers themselves, their children helped them reconstruct a certain sense of belonging. By being able to pass on their own DNA, they created their own genealogy from scratch: there now is a person with whom they share their identity. At the same time, this new starting point can be very confrontational, since it often inherently means passing on unknown parts of your DNA and heritage that might never become known. Lastly, the variety of participants’ experiences of victimhood stands out. Three participants explained that they do not necessarily feel a victim, since these events ‘just happened’ to them. One participants expressed that not being acknowledged and recognized

38 as a victim is what is most painful to her. Participants did universally emphasize that acknowledgement and recognition should not be restrained to ‘adoptees as victims’ of illegal adoption: every party within the system of intercountry adoption should be acknowledged with their own stories and own experiences. This research has shown that illegal adoption processes affect adoptees in various ways. The fluidity of the concepts of identity and belonging allows individuals to de- and reconstruct their narrative identities and by using their agency, knowledge and experiences, they want to improve the current ICA system for the sake of all future parties. By focusing on how the impact of victimization can be understood in terms of narrative identity and by addressing the position of these individuals within the web that forms their story of victimization, this study has achieved its objectives. By adopting an interdisciplinary approach, new insights into the importance of narrative victimology were provided. This research has shown how the de- and reconstruction of a narrative might not only depend on a present event of victimization, but also on gained knowledge about an event of victimization that took place decades ago. By focusing not only on the prospective impact, but also on the retrospective impact of illegal adoption, this research has attempted to provide as complete a picture as possible.

§5.2 Limitations and weaknesses Firstly, the size of the participant group for this research is relatively small. A bigger group would both enhance the reliability of the research and provide for a more varied representation of experiences. Additionally, when the participant group is this small, it is impossible for the results to be perceived as reflecting the experiences of the wider population. Secondly, using qualitative methodologies inherently means using methods that are less controlled and more interpretive than quantitative data methods. The strength of qualitative research is heavily based on the abilities of the researcher, which might have influenced the results of the study. Thirdly, the semantic issues of this research should be addressed. Since all interviews were conducted in Dutch (the mother tongue of all participants), there is always a risk of information getting lost in translation. This is one of the reasons why the participants’ feedback on the analysis of this study is of great importance. Fourthly, as mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, the topic of illegal adoption recently gained attention in public media, in which some participants have appeared themselves. This means that a certain familiarity with public discourse and contemporary literature is present, which must be borne in mind when looking at the extent to which interviews and theories correspond. Lastly, this research leaves room for a more thorough examination of both the psychological impact of illegal adoption and the subject of birth fathers, which could, due to an inadequate academic background and considering the scope of this thesis, not be given substantive attention.

39 Bibliography

Alexander, J. (2014). Why the United States should define illegal adoption practices as human trafficking. Hous. J. Int’l L., 36, 715 Askeland, L. (Ed.). (2006). Children and youth in adoption, orphanages, and foster care: A historical handbook and guide. Greenwood Publishing Group Baglietto, C. (2016). Responding to illegal adoptions: A professional handbook. ISS (International Social Service) Bartholet, E. (2013). The Hague Convention: Pros, Cons and Potential. Cons and Potential (September 9, 2013) Brakman, S. V. (2019). The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: A Philosophical Analysis. Ethics & International Affairs, 33(2), 207-230 Cantwell (2016) The concept of the best interests of the child: what does it add to children’s human rights. In: The best interests of the child – A dialogue between theory and practice, 18- 26 Colaner, C. W., & Soliz, J. (2017). A communication-based approach to adoptive identity: Theoretical and empirical support. Communication Research, 44(5), 611-637 Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. Annual review of sociology, 41, 1-20 Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139-167 Croucher, S. (2018). Globalization and belonging: The politics of identity in a changing world. Rowman & Littlefield Curzon, L. B. & Richards, P. (2007). The longman dictionary of law. Pearson Education DeWalt, K., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Rowman Altamira Press Farid, M. (2012). International adoption: The economics of the baby industry. Whittier J. Child. & Fam. Advoc., 12, 81 Fox, M., Thayer, Z. M., Ramos, I. F., Meskal, S. J., & Wadhwa, P. D. (2018). Prenatal and Postnatal Mother-to-Child Transmission of Acculturation's Health Effects in Hispanic Americans. Journal of Women's Health, 27(8), 1054-1063 Graff, E.J. (2008). The lie we love. Foreign Policy, (169), 59 Green, A. (2013). Intergenerational family stories: Private, parochial, pathological? Journal of Family History, 38(4), 387-402

40 Grotevant, H. D., Dunbar, N., Kohler, J. K., & Esau, A. M. L. (2000). Adoptive identity: How contexts within and beyond the family shape developmental pathways. Family relations, 49(4), 379-387 Grotevant, H. D., Lo, A. Y., Fiorenzo, L., & Dunbar, N. D. (2017). Adoptive identity and adjustment from adolescence to emerging adulthood: A person-centered approach. Developmental psychology, 53(11), 2195 Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., Coyne, J. C., & Early, M. R. (1996). Sense of belonging and indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of psychiatric nursing, 10(4), 235- 244 Hartman, A., & Laird, J. (1990). Family treatment after adoption: Common themes. In Brodzinsky, D. M. & Schechter, M.D. The psychology of adoption. Oxford University Press, 221-239 Hatton, S. B. (2019). History, Kinship, Identity, and Technology: Toward Answering the Question “What Is (Family) Genealogy?”. Genealogy, 3(1), 2 Heimerle, N. (2003). International law and identity rights for adopted children. Adoption Quarterly, 7(2), 85-96 Hindle, D., & Shulman, G. (Eds.). (2008). The emotional experience of adoption. Taylor & Francis Hoksbergen, R. (2000). Vijftig jaar adoptie in Nederland. Een historisch-statistische beschouwing Homans, M. (2006). Adoption narratives, trauma, and origins. Narrative, 14(1), 4-26 Hoopes, J. L. (1990). Adoption and identity formation. In Brodzinsky, D. M. & Schechter, M.D. The psychology of adoption. Oxford University Press, 144-166 Kaye, K. (1990). Acknowledgement or Rejection of Differences? In Brodzinsky, D. M. & Schechter, M.D. The psychology of adoption. Oxford University Press, 121-143 Kok, J., Van den Boomen, N., Dane, J., Hilevych, Y., Hoedemakers, J., & Walhout, E. (2017). Beklemd in de scharnieren van de tijd. Beleid, praktijk en ervaringen van afstand ter adoptie door niet-gehuwde moeders in Nederland tussen 1956 en 1984 Kottak, C. P. (2014) Cultural Anthropology: appreciating cultural diversity. McGraw-Hill Krogstad, D. J., Diop, S., Diallo, A., Mzayek, F., Keating, J., Koita, O. A., & Touré, Y. T. (2010). Informed consent in international research: the rationale for different approaches. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 83(4), 743-747 Langos, S. (2014). Athens as an international tourism destination: An empirical investigation to the city’s imagery and the role of local DMO’s. MSc in Marketing Management, University of Derby Levesque, R. J. (2007). Advancing responsible adolescent development. Springer

41 McAdams, D. P. & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current directions in psychological science, 22(3), 233-238 McLean, K. C. (2015). The Co-authored Self: Family stories and the construction of personal identity. Oxford University Press, USA Mouftah, N. (2020). The Muslim orphan paradox: Muslim Americans negotiating the Islamic law of adoption. Contemporary Islam, 1-20 Nuytinck, A. J. M. (2019). Illegale adoptie en schadevergoeding Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”. Administrative issues journal: connecting education, practice, and research, 4(2), 7 Paik, L. (2017). Critical perspectives on intersectionality and criminology: Introduction Pemberton, A., Mulder, E., & Aarten, P. G. (2019). Stories of injustice: Towards a narrative victimology. European Journal of criminology, 16(4), 391-412 Roof, J. (2007). The poetics of DNA. U of Minnesota Press Rotabi, K. S., & Gibbons, J. L. (2012). Does the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption adequately protect orphaned and vulnerable children and their families?. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(1), 106-119 Schrama, W. M. (2015). Adoptie. In Schrama, W. M., & Antokolskaia, M. V. (Eds.), Familierecht. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, 235-244 Selman, P. (2014). Intercountry adoption agencies and the HCIA. ISS Working Paper Series/General Series, 599, 1-35 Smolin, D. M. (2006). Child laundering: How the intercountry adoption system legitimizes and incentivizes the practices of buying, trafficking, kidnaping, and stealing children. Wayne L. Rev., 52, 113 Stephens, S. (1995). Children and the Politics of Culture. Princeton University Press Tan, T. X., Liu, Y., & Smith, C. (2020). Post-Adoption Short-And Long-Term Social Adaptation And Competence Of Internationally Adopted Children. In Wrobel et al. The Routledge Handbook of Adoption, Routledge, 381-394 Unicef. (2007). Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Unicef Vlaardingerbroek, P. (2008). Alternatieven voor (interlandelijke) adoptie. In: Justitiële verkenningen. Adoptie onder vuur. Den Haag: WODC. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, 34(7), 54- 67 Walsh, K., McCormack, C. A., Webster, R., Pinto, A., Lee, S., Feng, T., Krakovsky, H. S., O’Grady, S. M., Tycko, B., Champagne, F. A., Werner, E. A., Liu, G., & Monk, C. (2019). Maternal prenatal stress phenotypes associate with fetal neurodevelopment and birth outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(48), 23996-24005

42 Watson, D. L., Latter, S., & Bellew, R. (2015). Adopted children and young people's views on their life storybooks: The role of narrative in the formation of identities. Children and Youth Services Review, 58, 90-98 Weinstein, A. D., & Shea, M. J. (2017). Stress during pregnancy. An Integrative Approach to Treating Babies and Children: A Multidisciplinary Guide, 23 Wereldkinderen. (2019). Adopties uit Indonesië tussen 1973 en 1984, Project Historie & Roots Wrobel, G. M., Helder, E., & Marr, E. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge Handbook of Adoption. Routledge Yngvesson, B., & Mahoney, M. A. (2000). As One Should, Ought and Wants to Be' Belonging and Authenticity in Identity Narratives. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(6), 77-110 Young, A. (2012). Development in intercountry adoption: From humanitarian aid to market- driven policy and beyond. Adoption & Fostering, 36(2), 67-78

Jurisprudence and legislation CRC Committee. (2013). General comment No. 14 on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3(1)). UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/14 of 29 May Gerechtshof Den Haag (2018). 14 November 2018, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:3107 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, 29 May 1993, 33 Hague Conference on Private International Law. (2008). The Implementation and Operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention: Guide to Good Practice: Guide No. 1 Under the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Family Law Hague Conference on Private International Law. (2013). Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention Outline Hague Conference on Private International Law. (2015). The Financial Aspects of Intercountry Adoption Kamerstukken II 2018/19, 31265, 66 United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577 United Nations Human Rights Council. (2016) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, 22 December 2016, A/HRC/34/55

43 Appendix B: Code tree

45