DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION STUDY Abstract The main purpose of the report consists of proposing an up-dated comparative vision in the field of intercountry adoptions at European level, in particular following an interdisciplinary perspective able to give adequate consideration both to social and legal aspects involved. In particular, the research envisages two different levels of analysis: a documentary analysis based mainly on a statistical profile of the phenomenon within EU countries followed by a review of the fundamental international and European instruments that actually regulate the international adoption system and a survey that will be realized specifically at national level. The study led to some concrete proposal for the interventions of EU level and national policy-makers as well as representatives of civil society directed to harmonize the different national rules and experiences and to create a European adoption system. PE 419.603 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Justice, Freedom and Security. AUTHORS The report has been coordinated by Istituto degli Innocenti, Florence Scientific Committee: Femmie Juffer, Isabelle Lammerant, Enrico Moretti, Piercarlo Pazè, Raffaella Pregliasco, Peter Selman, Elena Urso Texts by: Erika Bernacchi, Federico Brogi, Isabelle Lammerant, Femmie Juffer, Enrico Moretti, Raffaella Pregliasco, Peter Selman, Elena Urso, Angelo Vernillo National Reports by: Julia Andrasi, Pia Brandsnes, Kenneth Grech, Paulo Guerra, Peter Guran, Gill Haworth, Alfonso Marina Hernado, Andres Julle, Heinz Kindler, Kaarina Koskela, Aleksandra Kowalczyk, Jacques Kuentziger, Ninetta Lambrini-Zoi, Alina Mahera, Andreja Crnac Meglic, Laure Néliaz, Stéphanie Pino, Sandra Roe, Maria Rossidou, Elisabet Sandberg, Helmut Sax, Odeta Tarvydiene, Velina Todorova, Angelo Vernillo, Anneke Vinke Project management: Erika Bernacchi, Toni Compagno, Francesca Fattori, Angelo Vernillo Editorial staff: Anna Buia, Alessandra Gerbo, Caterina Leoni, Paola Senesi RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Dr. Joanna APAP Policy Department Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: FR ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in March 2009. Brussels, © European Parliament, 2009. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The main purpose of the present Report consists of proposing a comparative analysis of the different intercountry adoptions national systems, with the aims to create an updated knowledge base upon which any policy formulation may be better evaluated, taking into account the impact that such policies may have in the various EU member states, according to the research evidences on one side and the national child protection welfare systems on the other side. Statistical aspects For what concerns the different aspects aimed at sketching a statistical profile of the phenomenon within Europe, the enquiry made it possible to underline that EU receiving States accounted for over 40 per cent of total intercountry adoptions worldwide in 2004; in the same year the 9 EU States of origin provided 3.3 per cent of the children sent for international adoption (falling to 2 per cent in 2006). All of the States of origin, apart from Estonia, now send children primarily to other EU countries. In contrast, most EU receiving States take children mainly from non-European countries and only Cyprus, Malta and Italy took more than 10 per cent from other EU States. Moreover, the analysis put in evidence some general trends of the phenomenon, which determined the initial rise (1998-2004) and the subsequent fall (2004-2007) in the total number of intercountry adoptions. In particular, it could be underlined that the number of intercountry adoptions worldwide grew substantially from the mid-fifties, reaching a peak of over 45,000 in 2004. In the next three years the numbers fell to 37,000, similar to the level in 2001. 3 EU states – France, Spain and Italy – have been among the top 5 receiving states for the last 15 years. In general terms, it could be underlined that EU states – especially Spain and Ireland – experienced an above average increase in the number of children received between 1998 and 2004 but most EU states have subsequently experienced an above average decline from 2004 to 2007. By 2007 less than 20 per cent of children sent to 22 receiving States through intercountry adoption were from European countries and only 2.4 per cent from the EU. Regarding the statistical profile of international adoption in EU, while the evidence submitted has been helpful in providing an overall picture of this phenomenon, it is important that the European Parliament take steps to encourage all states to keep accurate records of children sent or received with more detail than is found in most returns. An immediate step could be to support current efforts by the Hague Convention to develop a standardized pattern of returns from all contracting states. Psycho-social and policy aspects In the report, legislative choices taken both at supra-national and national level have been viewed in parallel together with practices followed in the domestic experiences to verify if and to which extent the declarations of principles, the enactments, interpretations and applications of legal rules are adequately reflected in concrete measures adapted to the actual needs in individual situations. In particular, referring to the services enacted, the issues analyzed in this report are represented by the role of adoption in the national child welfare policy, the interdisciplinary approach to this instrument, the preparation services, the modalities of support during the waiting time, the matching, the main traits of post-adoption services, the impact and problems related to special-needs adoptions, and finally a review and an analysis of the forums for adoptive/birth parents and adopted persons. Some specific debated issues must be particularly highlighted. The first sensitive subject to focus on is the time of reflection for the birth mother to re- consider her decision to make her child available for adoption. In some countries a minimum iii period of some months is required before the child can be legally available for adoption. From a psychological perspective a minimum period of some months is indeed recommended, because a woman cannot fully realize and estimate all the consequences of her decision before she has actually given birth to a child. On the other hand, for the child’s best interest, a final decision should not be postponed too long, because (repeated) separations are hindering children’s attachment development, in particular later in their first year of life. To take both the birth mother’s and child’s perspective into account, a minimum period of at least three or four months does seem acceptable. Of course, psychological counselling of the birth mother before and after birth should be included in good practice standards or protocols. In several countries there is a debate about the position of children in residential care and/or foster care. Often, these children cannot be adopted because their birth parents do not give their consent for adoption, while at the same time, these parents are not in the position to take care of the children themselves. In many cases, children’s rights to family care or permanency are thus violated. It is of paramount importance that every effort should be made to stimulate family reunification, and that birth parents are indeed supported to rear their children in an adequate way. Besides that, foster care should be made available for non-adoptable children in residential care, whereas the position of foster children should be strengthened so that (more) permanency is guaranteed. Based on what is known from attachment research, family-type care and stable parent-child relationships should be preferred to residential care and repeated transitions or placements. Even if – according to the European reports – the subsidiarity principle of the Hague Convention is generally adhered to, its concrete enactment at a national level must be specifically supported. It is of course positive that it is generally recognized that adoptive or foster placement in the children’s own country of origin is preferred to intercountry adoption. However, although some measures are mentioned (e.g., children can be adopted only after a minimum period of time during which the option of domestic placement is investigated), a set of guiding rules or detailed guidelines on the enactment of the principle of subsidiarity at a national and supranational level is lacking. A good-practice parameter, taking into account both the subsidiarity principle and the child’s perspective (needing a permanent and stable family placement, preferably as soon