SOU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 679: Spm. om ministeren vil oversende kommissoriet for den svenske undersøgelse om ulovlige forhold i adoptioner og undersøgelserne fra hhv. Holland og Norge om samme emne, til social- og ældreministeren

Social- og Ældreudvalget 2020-21
SOU Alm.del
Offentligt

Unofficial translation

Report

Committee on the

Investigation of

Intercountry Adoption

SOU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 679: Spm. om ministeren vil oversende kommissoriet for den svenske undersøgelse om ulovlige forhold i adoptioner og undersøgelserne fra hhv. Holland og Norge om samme emne, til social- og ældreministeren

Unofficial translation

February 2021

Unofficial translation

Unofficial translation

Table of Contents

Consideration

Introduction

1.1

Reason

1.2

Objective and research questions

1.3

Research approach

1.4

Research scope

1.5

Reading guide

Background of intercountry adoption

2.1

Origin and development of intercountry adoption

2.2

Legal framework for intercountry adoption

2.3

Adoption process and parties involved

2.4

Insights from science and practice

2.5

Intercountry adoption in figures

Welfare and search behaviour of adopted adults

3.1

Introduction

3.2

Research design

3.3

Results

Bangladesh

4.1

Key figures and context

4.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Bangladesh

4.3

Case studies

4.4

Aftermath: adoptions from Bangladesh, 1982-present

4.5

Main findings from Bangladesh

Brazil

5.1

Key figures and context

5.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Brazil

5.3

Case studies

5.4

Aftermath: adoptions from Brazil, 1998-present

5.5

Main findings from Brazil

Colombia

6.1

Key figures and context

6.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Colombia

6.3

Case studies

6.4

Aftermath: adoptions from Colombia, 1998-present

6.5

Main findings from Colombia

Unofficial translation

Indonesia

7.1

Key figures and context

7.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Indonesia

7.3

Case studies

7.4

Aftermath: adoptions from Indonesia, 1984-present

7.5

Main findings from Indonesia

Sri Lanka

8.1

Key figures and context

8.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Sri Lanka

8.3

Case studies

8.4

Aftermath: adoptions from Sri Lanka, 1998-present

8.5

Main findings from Sri Lanka

The period after 1998

9.1

Introduction

9.2

Developments after 1998

9.3

Changes in the adoption system

9.4

Abuse after 1998

9.5

Main findings

Signs of abuse in other States

10.1

Research material

10.2

Characterisation and system

10.3

Main findings

Analysis

11.1

The causes of abuse

11.2

The prevailing views on intercountry adoption

11.3

Intercountry adoption as a system

11.4

The consequences for those involved

Conclusions

Recommendations

102

103

105

108

111

118

119

120

123

124

125

128

131

137

139

143

145

149

Summary

List of abbreviations

Glossary

List of sources

The appendices accompanying this research have been published in a separate report.

Unofficial translation

Consideration

The statement “Even if you only save one” by the writer Jan de Hartog in a television interview in

1967 marks the beginning of large-scale intercountry adoption in the Netherlands. Many people

care about the fate of the children in developing countries ravaged by wars and natural disasters.

Some feel it is a moral obligation to adopt a foreign child. There is a positive feeling about

intercountry adoptions. In total, more than 40,000 children from about eighty different countries

will come to the Netherlands.

But there is also a downside. The first reports of adoption abuse appeared in the media in the late

1960s, such as document forging, the abuse of the birth mothers' poverty and the relinquishment

of children for payment or under duress. However poignant the signs may be, they do not lead to

a critical reflection in the public and political debate, let alone a rethink of the system of

intercountry adoption.

The fact that there is now attention for abuses from the past is mainly because the adult adoptees

have started to speak out for themselves. They are increasingly looking for their background.

Sometimes because they had children themselves, sometimes also from the realisation that time

is pressing because their birth parents are elderly. Adoptees discover in their search that data are

sometimes incorrect, or the adoption has even been illegal. As a result, they are unable to find

the answers to the existential questions about their origin and identity. Some hold the Dutch

government responsible for this. When answering a question from an adoptee, the Ministry of

Justice and Security discovered that Dutch government officials may have been involved in

abuses. This is why the Minister for Legal Protection wanted to set up an independent Committee

on 18 April 2019. In this report, the Committee reports on its research into the system of

intercountry adoption.

The general picture emerged from this research is that throughout the period of intercountry

adoption, and in all countries, serious structural abuses occurred and that the government and

intermediaries were aware of this from the 1960s onwards. In light of the Committee's assignment,

the passivity of the Dutch government and the focus of Dutch politics on the interests of adoptive

parents are striking. The government failed to intervene where there was reason to do so.

Social image

The Committee has established that social perception has been crucial in establishing,

maintaining and legitimising intercountry adoption. The dominant idea was that both the child in

an emergency situation and the prospective adoptive parents benefited from an adoption,

adoption was seen as “doing good”. Because of the deep roots of this image, abuses such as age

falsification were accepted or even considered normal. Also, anyone who helped promote

adoption was seen as a benefactor, and politicians fought for (rapid) intercountry adoption.

Research has uncovered repeated patterns of passivity and whitewashing. The view that any

adoption, even an illicit one, is better than no adoption at all was indisputable.

Unofficial translation

The best interests of the child

The Committee finds it striking that the term “in the best interest of the child” is always

- and often

emphatically - used as an argument in all discussions about intercountry adoption. This interest

is often fulfilled in a practical way, based on necessities such as health, education and economic

development opportunities. However, the fundamental right of

autonomy

did not play a role in

assessing the best interests of the child.

Young children are considered incapable of thinking and acting autonomously. They cannot

therefore give autonomous consent for their own adoption. However, this is no justification for

seeing children as commodities. On the contrary, precisely because children do not yet have this

ability, the greatest possible care must be exercised in adoption procedures. Precisely because

young children are not yet autonomous and cannot under any circumstances be expected to

agree with decisions taken about them, all attention must be devoted to those who do.

The Committee has established that this has not been done sufficiently in practice. In many cases,

decisions about release for adoption have not been made in a responsible manner. Too often,

they were made under duress or under the influence of inadequate information. The interests of

the child have thus been neglected. A large proportion of the adoptees struggle with not knowing

their own origin and identity. This can hinder their further development as autonomous individuals.

Impact on the parties involved

The research shows that most of the adoptees are fortunately doing well. The adoption, they say,

has offered them many opportunities. On the other hand, they have also lost a lot through

adoption, such as growing up with their own family, their own culture and in many cases knowing

their origins. Several adoptees who the Committee spoke to describe their lives as split.

Connecting the reality in their native country with the reality here is a daily task for many, and

sometimes impossible because the information about origin is lacking. The Committee sees the

fact that they are doing well provided the circumstances as a sign of their resilience. Unfortunately,

there are also adoptees who are not doing well. The research carried out by the Committee shows

that the above average of adoptees have psychological and other complaints and sometimes

have to resort to assistance for this.

The Committee recognises that there were adoptive parents who adopted a child out of good

intentions, in good faith and according to the rules. There were also adoptive parents who were

mainly driven by their own desire to have children and made every effort to fulfil this desire,

pushing the boundaries and sometimes going beyond them. Some adoptive parents feel guilty

because the adoption now appears to be surrounded by abuse, or because the transition from a

different culture has led to major problems in their adopted child. They also feel like victims.

The group that was most difficult for the Committee to investigate are the birth mothers and with

them, the birth families. In many cases, they are also victims and experience the loss of their

child. They were sometimes pressured to give up their child, the concept of “adoption” as used in

the Western world was unknown to them, and in the worst case, their child was stolen.

Unofficial translation

The issue is still topical

The abuses described and their consequences are not a thing of the past, they are still topical.

The number of adoptions has fallen sharply, and many efforts have been made to prevent abuses.

This does not alter the fact that the financial incentives in the system have not been removed and

the demand for children still exists. This involves a waterbed effect: adoption channels are shifting

to countries where there is no control over the supply, currently mainly African countries.

The Committee recommends that the lessons from the research into adoption abuses should also

be taken to heart in new forms of family formation, such as with the help of surrogacy. Questions

about autonomy and knowing one’s origin are also present here.

The Committee appeals to the Minister and politicians to put the interests of children abroad who

need protection first in decision-making. Precisely and above all because they are unable to agree

to decisions taken about them.

A final note

The zeitgeist and the prevailing notion of “doing good” explain why adoption abuses could arise

and continue. However, they in no way legitimise the actions of the government and the

intermediaries. Recognition by the government and the intermediary that they have failed to

combat adoption abuses appears to be as desirable as it is necessary for almost all involved.

After all, this creates room to initiate a new discussion, namely about the question of how best to

help victims of adoption abuses. The Committee advocates to provide care and aftercare and to

facilitate access to domestic and foreign adoption files and the search for the birth family.

Where adoptive parents could count on a benevolent and facilitating government, adoptees

experience closeness and reticence from the same government when they draw attention to the

consequences of their adoption. The established abuses cannot be reversed, but the Committee

expects the government to make every effort to mitigate the consequences of the abuses as much

as possible.

Unofficial translation

Unofficial translation

1.1

Introduction

Reason

In August 2017, the Ministry of Justice and Security received an information request based on the

Government Information (Public Access) Act (“Wob request”) from an adoptee who wanted

to find

out more about his illegal adoption from Brazil. In answering the question

, the Ministry found

archival documents that contained indications that one or more persons associated with the Dutch

government were involved in illegal adoptions from Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s.

The adoptee's question is not an isolated one. In the period 2017-2018, the Ministry of Justice

and Security received fourteen Wob requests relating to adoption abuses. There are also regular

reports in the media about abuses that have taken place in the past. Many adoptees who search

for their origin discover that genealogical data in their file is missing, is incorrect or falsified, so

that the birth parents cannot be traced. In some cases, the birth mother appears not to have

relinquished their child voluntarily. In addition, adoptees have many questions about the

involvement of intermediaries and the government in adoption abuses. Some adoptees hold the

Dutch State liable for their unlawful adoption.

The fact that the Dutch government may have been aware of and involved in the abuses was a

reason for the Minister for Legal Protection to set up an independent Committee on 18 April 2019.

The Committee must investigate the possible abuses that took place in the past through

intercountry adoptions, and examine the role of the Dutch government in this regard.

In addition to Brazil, the research assignment also focuses on four other countries: Bangladesh,

Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The Ministry of Justice and Security also received signs from

adoptees about possible adoption abuses in these countries.

This report contains the results of the research.

Initially, a limited number of the requested documents was released. In September 2018, with a first decision on the

submitted objection, it was decided to transfer the requested documents.

This issue is also an issue in other countries. For example, in January 2020, the Swiss government published a research

report in which Sri Lankan adoption abuses were discussed.

See: S. Bitter, A. Bangerter and N. Ramsauer, “Adoptionen

von Kindern aus Sri Lanka in der Schweiz 1973-1997.

Zur Praxis der Privaten Vermittlungsstellen und der Behörden”

(January 2020). The Swiss government acknowledged the abuses in December 2020 and admitted its negligence. The

Swiss government has expressed regret to adoptees and their families. See

press release: “Adoptions from Sri Lanka: the Federal Council regrets the negligence of the authorities”, 14

-12-2020,

https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/en/home/aktuell/mm.msg-id-81577.html.

Unofficial translation

1.2

Objective and research questions

The Committee's assignment, as laid down in the order establishing the Committee

of the

Minister for Legal Protection, is as follows:

The Committee's assignment is to investigate:

•

the role and responsibility of the Dutch government with regard to the intercountry adoption

of children during at least the period 1967-1998;

•

the existence of possible abuses with regard to the intercountry adoption of children during

at least the period 1967-1998, whereby at least the countries Bangladesh, Brazil,

Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are investigated;

•

the Dutch government's awareness of the aforementioned possible abuses;

•

the involvement of the Dutch government in the aforementioned possible abuses;

•

the awareness of Dutch intermediaries or other bodies/individuals of the aforementioned

possible abuses;

•

the involvement of Dutch intermediaries or other bodies/individuals in the aforementioned

possible abuses;

•

the extent to which possible involvement of the Dutch government and Dutch

intermediaries or other bodies/individuals was incidental or structural in nature;

•

the way in which the Dutch government has responded to signs of the aforementioned

possible abuses; and

•

whether the manner of response was adequate/sufficient, in the light of the role and

responsibility of the Dutch government with regard to the intercountry adoption of children

during at least the period 1967-1998.

The Committee is headed by Mr. Tjibbe Joustra, LL.D., and further consists of the members Mrs.

Prof. Dr. Beatrice de Graaf and Mr. Bert-Jan Houtzagers.

Research objective

The aim of the research is to map the knowledge and involvement of the Dutch government and

intermediaries in possible abuses in intercountry adoption.

The Committee has formulated three main questions based on the Minister's question:

1. To what extent was there abuse in intercountry adoptions to the Netherlands?

2. To what extent were the Dutch government and intermediaries aware of possible abuses

and were they involved, and how have they responded to signs of abuses?

3. What lessons can be learned from the past and in what way can the Dutch government

and intermediaries support adoptees who experience problems because of the way in

which their adoption took place?

See Appendix B to the order establishing the Committee.

Unofficial translation

1.3

Approach of the research

To answer the research questions, the Committee collected information by conducting interviews,

conducting document and literature research and conducting a questionnaire survey.

Researchers from the Committee have visited Sri Lanka and Colombia to conduct on-site

research.

Interviews

The Committee and researchers from the Committee together held more than 160 interviews with

more than 190 persons and officials involved in intercountry adoption.

Almost all persons the

Committee wished to speak to accept the invitation. The reports of the interviews were submitted

to the interviewees for verification. Inaccuracies in the report or additions were incorporated in the

report, after which it was sent again for signature. In this report, no names are mentioned of the

persons involved in order to protect the privacy of the interviewees. When referring to specific

persons, only their position is mentioned. An exception are public functions and persons whose

cases have already been discussed frequently in the media and are therefore publicly known. In

a few cases, the Committee contacted the interviewees to ask for permission to list their names

in the report.

Document examination

In addition to conducting interviews, the Committee has analysed thousands of documents. The

Committee used the following sources

•

archives of involved Dutch government organisations;

•

archives of intermediaries;

•

Sri Lanka National Archive;

•

documents and reports submitted by adoptees and other involved parties;

•

newspaper archives;

•

Parliamentary questions, Parliamentary Papers, Proceedings and election programmes;

•

Secondary literature, (research) reports and other publications.

The Committee received good cooperation in the document examination and was given

unconditional access to all files it wished to investigate.

Questionnaire survey

The Committee spoke to many adoptees during the research. In addition to questions about

abuses, adoptees were asked about their welfare, how they experienced their adoption, to what

extent they are looking for their origins and what problems they encountered in doing so. In order

to obtain as complete a picture as possible of intercountry adoptees in the Netherlands, the

Committee asked the Statistics Netherlands (CBS) to investigate to what extent the image that

emerged from the interviews is also relevant to other adoptees. The aim of the research was to

collect data from a minimum of 3,000 adoptees. A total of 3,454 adoptees completed the

questionnaire.

See Appendix A “Research justification” for further explanation of this

choice.

An overview of the interviews conducted is included in Appendix A to the Research justification.

A complete overview of the sources and archives used is included in the Sources List.

Unofficial translation

1.4

Scope of the research

Central role of Dutch government and intermediaries

As described in the research assignment, the research focuses on the policy and actions of the

Dutch government with regard to intercountry adoption. This includes the Ministries of Justice and

Foreign Affairs and bodies

such as the Child Care and Protection Board, the (Aliens’) Police, the

Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), the Public Prosecution Service, the judiciary

and municipalities. The intermediaries also fall within the scope of this research.

Emphasis on the adoption system

In order to define the roles and responsibilities of the government and intermediaries in the

adoption process, the Committee focuses on the

system

of intercountry adoption: the

mechanisms and visible actions of the government and intermediaries in intercountry adoption.

The task of the minister and the choice of the system approach mean that the Committee does

not investigate individual case histories and does not make any statements in personal matters.

The Committee does make use of anonymous individual case histories to illustrate how the

system works in practice. The Committee realises that many adoptees are looking for answers in

their specific situation, but can only contribute to the solution of their individual questions by

means of generic recommendations.

Core years 1967-1998

The research focuses on the years 1967–1998 as referred to in the order establishing the

Committee, but will be preceded with a description of the prior history, followed by a description

of the period from 1998 to the present day. The prior history cannot be overlooked, because the

basis for the intercountry adoption practice was laid with the Dutch Adoption Act of 1956. In 1998,

the Netherlands ratified the Hague Adoption Convention with the aim of better regulating

intercountry adoption practice. Abuses were regularly reported after 1998, which is reason for the

Committee to devote attention to the development of intercountry adoption after 1998.

Countries

The Committee primarily examines the role of the Dutch government and intermediaries in

adoptions from Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The Committee has also

spoken with adoptees from countries other than the five mentioned and has also received a lot of

information about adoptions from other countries. The choice was ultimately made not to actively

search for archive material and files from other countries, as was the case for the five countries

mentioned. However, all the material that emerged during the file review of the five countries as

well as all the material provided by interested parties, regardless of which country this material

related to, was assessed. De facto, this research was therefore not limited to the period 1967-

1998 nor to five countries.

The concept of abuses

In the order establishing the Committee, the term abuses is frequently used without a further

definition. In the explanatory notes to the order establishing the Committee, only brief mention is

made of “illegal adoption of children”, but in the Committee's opinion this definition is too limited.

The Committee has devoted a great deal of attention to what it understands under abuses,

because the

Unofficial translation

concept is used in many contexts and meanings and is partly determined by the time frame. The

Committee understands abuses as:

acts or omissions in violation of applicable national and international laws and regulations,

as well as acts or omissions that are not formally in violation of applicable national and

international laws and regulations, but are ethically irresponsible.

Explanation:

From the point of view of the adoption process, it is obvious to regard acts or omissions in violation

of agreed laws and regulations of that time as abuse. This may concern violations of international

law, the law of the State of origin or Dutch law. Deliberately making it impossible or making it more

difficult to trace the origin and identity of adoptees is contrary to the provisions of the 1989

International Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

It is more complicated when acts or omissions, although not explicitly prohibited by applicable

national or international laws and regulations of the time, are ethically irresponsible. This is the

case, for example, in adoptions where the relinquishment of children was effected under false

pretences or moral pressure; the abuse of poverty or other social and cultural circumstances of

the birth mothers such as war, disasters and social taboos. Inadequate archiving, inaccuracies in

recording data and a lack of transparency in documentation are also among these. In chapter 10,

the Committee provides an overview of eight types of abuse it found in the countries studied,

based on the empirical research material.

No statements about guilt and liability

In the report, the Committee does not express any judgment on legal culpability and legal liability.

The Research justification (Appendix A) provides a more detailed description of the scope and

approach of the research.

1.5

Reading guide

This report consists of thirteen chapters. Chapter 2 describes the adoption process, the legal

framework and the development of intercountry adoption in the Netherlands. It also summarises

the most important insights from the scientific literature on intercountry adoption. This is intended

as background information for the remaining chapters. Chapter 3 deals with the results of the

questionnaire survey that was conducted among adoptees. Chapters 4 to 8 discuss in detail the

adoptions from Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, respectively. Chapter 9

describes the development of intercountry adoption in the period after the signing of the Hague

Adoption Convention in 1998 and chapter 10 deals with the question of whether the abuses

identified are also visible in other countries. Chapter 11 contains the analysis. The conclusions

are drawn in chapter 12, followed by the recommendations in chapter 13.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Unofficial translation

Unofficial translation

Background of intercountry

adoption

The system of intercountry adoption is complex. In order to properly understand the actions of the

government and intermediaries, this chapter explains the relevant elements of the system.

Over the years, intercountry adoption has changed a lot. The motives for adopting children, the

profile of the children, the States and the adoption patterns changed over time. This chapter

therefore begins with a brief consideration of the way in which intercountry adoption practice has

developed in the Netherlands since 1945. This is followed by a further explanation of the relevant

legislation and regulations, the adoption process and the parties involved and insights from

science and practice.

2.1

Origin and development of intercountry adoption

Adoptions after World War II

Initially, adoption mainly took place within the family sphere and concerned Dutch children. Just

after the Second World War, many (mostly Jewish) war foster children came to the Netherlands.

In those years, adoption was not yet regulated by law in the Netherlands. The legal bond between

the foster child and the birth parents was not irrevocably broken in foster care. As a result, a foster

child could still be returned to the birth parents after years of care by foster parents.

Foster parent organisations, such as the Dutch Foster Care Association

(Nederlandse Vereniging

voor Pleeggezinnen, NVP)

and the Dutch Single Mother Association for the Federal Territory

(Federatie van Instellingen voor de Ongehuwde Moeder, Fiom),

founded in 1950, were putting

pressure on the Dutch government to better regulate this. This partly led to the introduction of the

Dutch Foster Child Act

(Pleegkindwet)

in 1951 and the first Dutch Adoption Act in 1956.

The core

of the Dutch Adoption Act is that the adopted child becomes a legal child of the adoptive parents

and the legal ties between the child and the original parents are broken. The Dutch Adoption Act

of 1956 was tailored to the situation of children who were already in a foster family.

In the second half of the 1950s, the first foreign adopted children came to the Netherlands. This

mainly concerned children from Greece, Austria and Germany. Some Dutch prospective adoptive

parents would rather adopt a foreign child than a Dutch child during this period. They wanted to

reduce the chance that the birth mother would claim the child later on. The phenomenon of

adoption was still taboo in this period.

A. Werdmuller, “De geschiedenis van afstand ter adoptie in Nederland” Jeugdbeleid 11:1 (2017), p. 65-70.

B. Slot, “Adoptie en Welvaart. Een Analyse van Vraag en Aanbod van Adoptiekinderen”,

Justitiële verkenningen:

Adoptie onder Vuur,

34:7 (2008) p. 11-24, p. 19.

Unofficial translation

The 1960s and 1970s

Views on sexuality, single motherhood and marriage were changing radically in the Netherlands

and elsewhere in the Western world. In 1969, the Dutch Intercountry Adoption Foundation

(Stichting Interlandelijke Adoptie, SIA)

was established as the first official Dutch adoption agency

that deals with intercountry adoptions. The establishment was in line with the trend of increasing

openness about adoption.

The development of contraceptives, such as the contraceptive pill, decreased the number of

unwanted pregnancies, which in turn led to a sharp decrease in the number of Dutch adopted

children. From the 1960s, thinking about family as an institution also changed. Single motherhood,

divorces and unmarried cohabitation were increasingly accepted. This was made possible in part

by the introduction of the Dutch Social Assistance Act

(Bijstandswet)

in 1963, which provides

single young mothers with social security and makes it possible for them to independently care

for their children. All these developments contributed to the emergence and wider acceptance of

intercountry adoption around 1970.

Intercountry adoption was on the rise from the early 1970s. Dutch couples were also adopting

non-European children. With the advent of television, wars such as in Vietnam and Bangladesh,

natural disasters and emergencies in developing countries were visible in everyone's living room.

Many people care about the fate of the children in these countries.

The generation of adoptive parents of the 1970s was mainly characterised by idealism.

Many

prospective adoptive parents had children of their own, but felt it is their moral obligation to adopt

a foreign child. Helping a child in need was central to them, and to a lesser extent, to fulfil their

own desire to have children.

Adoptive parents and agencies still lacked knowledge of the social-

psychological consequences of intercountry adoption. Various interest groups were putting

pressure on the Dutch government to facilitate adoptions and speed up procedures. The result

was a tenfold increase in the number of intercountry adoptions, from approximately 160 children

in the year 1971 to almost 1,600 in 1980.

The 1980s to date

From the 1980s, the annual number of intercountry adoptions gradually decreased. Firstly, this

had to do with the economic crisis in the first half of the 1980s, which caused unemployment to

rise and general prosperity in the Netherlands to decline. Secondly, more and more critical voices

about adoption were appearing in the media. For example, newspapers and television reports

frequently reported on abuses in States of origin and the role of intermediaries in this. Thirdly,

more scientific publications were published on identity, behaviour and adjustment problems in

adoptees. Together, these developments led to a decrease in the number of intercountry

adoptions in the 1980s. In the 1990s, there was a growth in intercountry adoptions again due to

the growing optimism after the end of the Cold War and the better economic conditions. After the

turn of the century, there has been a sharp decrease in the number of intercountry adoptees.

International adoptions often

R. Hoksbergen,

Kinderen die niet konden blijven. Zestig jaar adoptie in beeld

(2011), p. 37-42.

According to Hoksbergen, “people were over the moon about adoption” in the 1970s.

E. Loibl,

The Transnational Illegal Adoption Market: A Criminological Study of the German and Dutch

Intercountry Adoption Systems

(The Hague, 2019), p. 276.

Hoksbergen,

Kinderen die niet konden blijven,

p. 43-44.

Unofficial translation

involved children with a so-called

special need,

older children or several children from one family.

Of the 145 children who came to the Netherlands in 2019, 95% had a special need, while in 2009,

that percentage was 54%.

2.2

Legal framework for intercountry adoption

The legal framework of intercountry adoption, in the form of legislation and regulations and the

associated procedures, has been established over the course of several decades. This is done in

response to social developments or the introduction of international treaties. This section

examines the Dutch legal framework. In chapters 4 to 8, the specific adoption legislation in the

States of origin concerned is discussed (see also overview table, Appendix D).

Dutch Adoption Act 1956

Adoption was first regulated in the Netherlands in the Dutch Adoption Act of 1956, and was

introduced as a measure of child protection. The Dutch Adoption Act was tailored to children who

are already in a foster family and therefore focuses entirely on domestic adoption. In the early

years, there was no question of intercountry adoption. In the case of adoption, unlike foster care,

there was no uncertainty for both the child and the foster parents that the birth parents can claim

the child. The adoption was therefore irrevocable and thus provides "family security".

Adoption must be in the best interests of the child under the Dutch Adoption Act of 1956 and be

concluded by a court decision. As a result of the adoption, the child and the adoptive parents had

a family relationship with each other, and the legal ties between the child and the birth parents

were thereby broken. The Dutch Adoption Act of 1956 sat a number of conditions: the adoptive

parents must be of different sex, they must have already taken care of the child as a guardian for

a certain period and they must not have more than two children in their family. The children

themselves must not yet be of compulsory school age. Further provisions were also made with

regard to the procedure to be followed.

The Dutch Adoption Act of 1956 also added two penal provisions to the Dutch Criminal Code. The

placement of a child younger than six months as a foster child without the prior written consent of

the Dutch Child Care and Protection Board

(Raad voor kinderbescherming)

(Article 442a) and the

promotion of the placement of children for profit (Article 151a) are punishable.

The Dutch Adoption Act made no explicit distinction between domestic and intercountry adoption,

partly because intercountry adoption was virtually non-existent in 1956. The question whether an

adoption undertaken abroad was also legally valid in the Netherlands is in those years considered

part of the field of private international law and left to the judgment of the judge.

In the years that followed, for compelling humanitarian reasons, guidelines were drawn up for the

placement of foreign foster children. This happened for example to

Appendix C contains a detailed description of the legal framework for intercountry adoption.

Unofficial translation

children born in war situations and who were not accepted in their birth country due to their mixed

origin. The age and number criteria for these children were being eased. This way, two types of

directives were drawn up: the general

guidelines for the placement of foreign foster children

1967 and the special guidelines of 1968. The special guidelines only applied to certain categories

of children; initially, it concerned children from South Korea and South Vietnam and from 1973,

children from Bangladesh and Indonesia as well.

Changes from 1974

The strong increase in intercountry adoption created the need for clear and more specific rules.

Placement in the Netherlands is the first step for the placement of foreign children. The

requirements of immigration law, especially with regard to the granting of the residence permit,

are important in this respect.

The Aliens Act

(Vreemdelingenwet)

of 1965 stipulates as a main rule that a foreign national who

wants to stay in the Netherlands for a longer period must be in possession of a Dutch long-stay

visa

(mvv).

A long-stay visa is a national visa that is applied for at the Dutch diplomatic or consular

representation in the birth country of the child and is issued by the Dutch Minister of Foreign

Affairs. Adoptive parents are then responsible for applying for a residence permit with the head

of the local police. This must be submitted within eight days of the child's arrival in the

Netherlands. The Dutch Minister of Justice decides on the application.

With the introduction of part G-7 of the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines

(Vreemdelingencirculaire)

on 1 March 1974, a uniform policy applies to the placement of foreign

children. The role of the government in this is twofold: on the one hand, assessing the suitability

of the prospective adoptive parents, and on the other hand, allowing and arranging the stay of the

children in the Netherlands. When assessing requests for the placement of a foster child, the

placement must be in the best interests of the child. Furthermore, the general criterion is that

there is no acceptable future for the child in their circumstances in their State of origin. Only

married couples who have a prior declaration of approval in principle

(beginseltoestemming)

from

the Dutch Minister of Justice are eligible for the placement of a foreign foster child with a view to

adoption. The declaration of approval in principle is a general statement that in principle there is

no objection to the placement of an as yet unknown foreign foster child by the prospective

adoptive parents.

In the case of intercountry adoption, the question of which legal system is leading must be

answered. For example, if the adoption has already been pronounced in the State of origin. This

can be either the Dutch and the foreign system (the cumulative system) or one of them (the

distributive system). Over time, the distributive system has become common.

Introduction of Wobp and Wobka

On 15 July 1989, the Placement of Foreign Foster Children Act

(Wet opneming buitenlandse

pleegkinderen, Wobp)

came into effect, which in 1998 was renamed the Placement of Foreign

Children for Adoption Act

(Wet opneming buitenlandse kinderen ter adoptie, Wobka).

The

principal objectives are:

To legally regulate the requirement of a prior declaration of approval in principle.

Placement of a foreign child without a prior declaration of approval in principle is no longer

permitted. A period of validity is attached to the declaration of approval in principle and is

valid for one child;

Unofficial translation

To regulate adoption intermediaries by means of a licensing system. It is prohibited to

mediate in adoptions without a license from the Ministry of Justice. Only legal entities can

qualify for a license. Various conditions are attached to the license holders, including a

prohibition on making a profit and adequate equipment for a careful and effective execution

of the activities. It also stipulates that license holders may not pay unreasonable fees to

third parties in order to prevent the involvement of financially motivated persons. The

license granted can be withdrawn if the license holder does not meet or does not comply

with the requirements.

To provide supervision and control. Until 1998, supervision of compliance with the law

rested with officials of the Ministry of Justice. In 1998 this responsibility was transferred to

the Youth Assistance Inspectorate

(Jeugdhulpverlening).

To set out a careful relinquishment procedure. Article 8 of the Wobka stipulates as a

condition for the placement of an adopted child in the Netherlands, that the prospective

adoptive parents must demonstrate by means of documents that the relinquishment of the

child has been properly regulated by the parent(s) of the child; and the authorities in the

State of origin agree to the placement of the child.

The new procedures are not very different from the practice followed from 1974, except that

prospective adoptive parents must attend mandatory information meetings prior to the home study

and a lawyer must submit the application for the declaration of approval in principle. Private

adoption

mediation, also known as “DIY adoption”, was allowed until 1995. From 1995,

prospective adoptive parents who have their own contact abroad must engage a license holder

to assess this contact. This is known as a so-called partial adoption mediation.

In addition to national laws and regulations, intercountry adoption practice is also strongly

influenced by international treaties. Of particular importance are the International Convention on

the Rights of the Child 1989 (UNCRC) and the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-

operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption 1993

(Verdrag inzake de bescherming van kinderen

en de samenwerking op het gebied van interlandelijke adoptie),

also referred to as the Hague

Adoption Convention (1993 HC).

International Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

The UNCRC, drawn up by the United Nations, was adopted on 20 November 1989 and entered

into force in the Netherlands on 8 March 1995. The UNCRC consists of 54 articles with

agreements on the rights of children and persons under the age of eighteen. Article 21 in the

convention is specifically devoted to adoption. An important provision in Article 21 is that the state

must ensure that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in adoption. The

UNCRC emphasises that State Parties must respect the right of the child to preserve their identity,

including nationality, name and family relationships.

Intercountry adoption is only permissible if no other suitable domestic alternatives are available,

and is therefore a measure of last resort. This so-called subsidiarity principle is the subject of

wider debate. The question here is what should be understood by suitable domestic alternatives:

From 2005 Inspectorate for Youth Care

(Inspectie Jeugdzorg, IJZ)

and since 2018, the Inspectorate for Healthcare and

Youth

(Inspectie Gezondheidszorg en Jeugd, IGJ).

Unofficial translation

This exclusively about local alternatives such as placement in the family or extended family, foster

families and the like, or are all kinds of institutional care options such as orphanages also

understood by suitable domestic alternatives? There are no clear indications about this in legal or

treaty texts.

The 1993 Hague Convention (1993 HC)

The 1993 HC was established in May 1993. The Netherlands signed the 1993 HC in 1993, but

the Convention did not enter into force in the Netherlands until 1998. From that moment on, Dutch

prospective adoptive parents who want to adopt a child from a State Party need to observe both

the rules of the 1993 HC and the Wobka.

The 1993 HC intends to implement the relevant provisions of the UNCRC for intercountry

adoption. The objectives of the 1993 HC are formulated in Article 1. The Convention aims to

ensure that intercountry adoption only takes place if it serves the best interests of the child and

respects their fundamental rights. Furthermore, the 1993 HC aims to promote cooperation

between the State Parties to prevent abuses and to ensure the recognition of adoptions made in

accordance with the Convention. In this respect, the 1993 HC stipulates that when the competent

authorities of the state where the adoption took place have declared in writing that the adoption

took place in accordance with the Convention, it will be legally recognised in the other State

Parties. Article 30 of the 1993 HC instructs the State Parties to ensure that the information in their

possession about the origin of the child is kept and to facilitate access to this information by the

child. The 1993 HC specifically mentions information about the identity of the parents and

information about the medical history of the child and their family.

For the implementation and enforcement of the Convention’s provisions, the

1993 HC provides

for the establishment of a Central Authority.

The Central Authority is charged with the fulfilment

of the obligations imposed by the Convention. There is a clear division of responsibility between

the state of origin and the state of reception. The Central Authorities of the State Parties are

expected to cooperate with each other, to inform each other and to take appropriate measures to

prevent practices contrary to the Convention. The basic principle is that State Parties can trust

that each State will perform its duties and responsibilities properly. As a state of reception, the

Netherlands must therefore be able to rely on the outcome of the assessment carried out by the

state of origin. A State Party only has the option of not agreeing to the adoption as a last resort.

2.3

Adoption process and parties involved

This section describes the adoption process with the respective Dutch parties involved. There are

six steps in total: preparation, permission, adoption mediation, placement, recognition and

aftercare. For each process step, a distinction is made between the situation before the

implementation of the 1993 HC in 1998 and the situation afterwards.

In the Netherlands, it is called Central Authority for International Children's Affairs

(Centrale autoriteit Internationale

Kinderaangelegenheden, Ca).

more articles followed

about abuses in Bangladeshi adoptions. Children are said to have been orphaned on paper and

biological siblings were "regularly separated and placed with different families."

After 2017,

several Bangladeshi adoptees shared their personal stories in which similar abuses

Terre des Hommes Netherlands, "Terre des Hommes Nederland en Adopties uit Bangladesh in de Jaren ’70."

(unpublished report, 2020).

Based on interviews by the Committee.

Wereldkinderen,

Adopties uit Bangladesh,

pp. 12-14. In their own words, "most of the declarations of relinquishment

had neither a signature nor a thumbprint."

Based on interviews by the Committee.

"Weerzien met dochter na 31 jaar bidden",

Noordhollands Dagblad,

27-03-2010.

“Adoptiekinderen Bangladesh zonder medeweten van ouders naar NL gebracht”,

Nieuwsuur,

03-06-2017.

Sigrid Deters, "Bengaalse kinderen zoeken hun ouders",

Trouw,

06062017;

Hans Knijff, “Wereld op de kop voor

adoptiekinderen uit Bangladesh”,

Dagblad van het Noorden,

08-07-2017;

“Broers en zussen

na adoptie in

Nederland gescheiden”,

Trouw,

14-10-2017.

Unofficial translation

arose.

One Bangladeshi adoptee sued the Dutch state in November 2019. In an article, the

adoptee said, "I think they [the government] are to blame for this whole thing, if our government

knowingly pushed through all those files knowing it was wrong."

4.2

Main findings from Bangladesh

Bangladesh was ravaged by political, economic and sociocultural malaise in the 1970s. The civil

war resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of displaced people and tens of

thousands of rapes. The economy collapsed completely and starved the vast majority of the

population. All of this was exacerbated by politically inadequate behaviour and corruption. This

historical context influenced how adoptions from Bangladesh would unfold in subsequent years.

As of at least September 1978, alleged abuses have been reported in the media and elsewhere.

Those signs were ignored and not followed up by action from the Dutch government. The Dutch

government did make inquiries with the local authorities, but it did not conduct an investigation

itself. There was little control over the adoptions from Bangladesh. After, among other things, the

allegations of abuses as expressed by various parties, the Dutch government has not opened an

investigation. It did, however, check with the Dutch organisations BIA and TdH. The latter two

organisations had conducted internal investigations, but concluded at the time that no adoption

abuses took place.

The involved parties spoken to by the Committee indicate that the activities of aid organisations

in Bangladesh were interwoven as a result of the chaos that ravaged the country in the 1970s.

Tasks were unclear, and those involved, including Khan, operated with double roles. Personal

interests and mutual contradictions clouded the adoption practice. The government took no

action.

“Adoptie of kinderhandel?”,

Limburgs Dagblad,

11-11-2017;

“You know everything, we know nothing.

Wij hebben

alleen maar leugens!”,

Dagblad van het Noorden,

15-12-2017;

“Muiderbergse klaagt Staat aan voor adoptie”,

Gooi- en Eemlander,

12-11-2019;

“Voor de poen is mijn leven stukgemaakt”,

Trouw,

08-12-2018;

“Rowena (43) werd

als baby afgepakt van haar moeder -

nu vliegt ze terug naar Bangladesh voor een ontmoeting”,

PZC.nl,

08-02-2020.

“Opnieuw klaagt geadopteerde Nederlandse Staat aan”,

Nieuwsuur,

10-11-2019.

Unofficial translation

5.1

Brazil

Key figures and context

Officially, the first two Brazilian adopted children came to the Netherlands in 1973. The years

before, some adoptions from Brazil already occurred, but this was not registered by the Dutch

Ministry of Justice. From 1973, on average, dozens of children came every year. In total there are

currently about 1,400 Brazilian adoptees in the Netherlands.

1972

1985

1973

1986

1974

1987

1975

1988

1976

1989

1977

1990

1978

1991

111

1979

1992

1980

1993

1981

1994

1982

1995

1983

1996

1984

1997

total

1,101

Table 4: Number of officially placed adopted children from Brazil, 1972-1997.

Wereldkinderen was the largest Dutch intermediary. For example, between 1985 and 1991, the

organisation operated in an average of thirty Brazilian adoptions per year. In total, Wereldkinderen

mediated in more than 300 Brazilian adoptions, more than 21% of the total.

Other prominent

Dutch intermediaries were Flash (100+) and BANND (50+). As in many other States of origin,

many DIY individuals were also active in Brazil who mediated on a private basis.

Brazil is the largest country on the South American continent, both geographically and in terms of

population (with over 120 million inhabitants in the 1970s, and more than 210 million today). The

population composition is diverse, with descendants of immigrants from Europe, Africa and native

inhabitants. The influence of the Catholic faith on the country was and is considerable. Abortion

is disapproved by both the church and the Brazilian government.

From the 1970s, when the intercountry adoption practice got underway, poverty, the young age

of mothers and the status of illegitimate children also played an important role in the

relinquishment of children in addition to faith. In Brazil, illegitimate children could not legally be

adopted by the birth father if he did not marry the mother. It has been shown that many children

usually did not end up in orphanages because they were orphans, but as a result of their parents'

living conditions.

Data from 1971 to 2014 from Fiom, https://fiom.nl/kenniscollectie/zoekenfamilie/cijfers/cijfers

adoptiekinderen-land-

herkomst.

2015 to 2019 from the Ministry of Justice, “Adoptie. Trends en analyse” (April 2020).

Hoksbergen, “Vijftig jaar adoptie in Nederland”,

p. 9 (table 2C) and p. 11 (table 3C). Data after 2002 comes from

JenV.

According to Wereldkinderen’s own data.

D. Carvalho da Silva, “The Legal Procedures for Adopting Children in Brazil by Citizens and Foreign Nationals”, p.

122, in: E. Jaffe (red.)

Intercountry Adoption. Laws and Perspectives of “Sending” Countries (Dordrecht: Nijhoff,

1995).

Unofficial translation

This led to young mothers or poor families feeling forced - or were forced - to give up a child.

Recent studies show that many Brazilian birth mothers did not understand that adoption was final

and irreversible.

5.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Brazil

The phenomenon of adoption was first mentioned in Brazilian law in 1916, with an addition in

1928. This legislation stipulated that adoptees had no inheritance rights, which made them legally

not equal to biological children. This changed with a law change in 1965, which also provided for

the bond between the birth parents and the child to be broken when the child was adopted. From

the very beginning, adoption policy was decentralised within the individual, autonomous states of

the country.

Until 1979, Brazilian law only regulated

domestic

adoption; intercountry adoption took place in the

private sphere, outside the law and public authorities. In 1979, the possibility of intercountry

adoption was first included in the legislation. The new Brazilian Children's Act of 1979 established

guidelines and restrictions for this. The law also made a distinction between “simple” and “full”

adoptions (in Portuguese respectively

adoção simples

and

adoção plena).

In simple adoptions,

only a local notarial deed and registration in a personal register were required to adopt a child.

No court intervention was necessary. Full adoption did require a court order and more

documentation, see below. Foreigners were only allowed to adopt officially declared foundlings

according to the 1979 law.

Older legislation was not repealed in 1979, causing many Brazilian lawyers to continue to see

private, simple adoptions as a legitimate option for foreigners. Lawyers received an average of $

10,000 per child for intervening in these intercountry adoptions.

This changed with the Rio de

Janeiro Decree of 1982, which

See C. Fonseca, “Orphanages, Foundlings, and Foster Mothers: The System of Child Circulation in a Brazilian

Squatter Settlement”,

Anthropological Quarterly, 59.1 (1986), 15-27; Fonseca,

“Inequality near and far: Adoption as

seen from the Brazilian favelas”, Law & Society Review 36.2 (2002), 397-432; Fonseca, “An unexpected reversal.

Charting the course of international adoption in Brazil”, Adoption & Fostering 26.3 (2002), 28

-39; A. Cardarello,

“Legal Child Trafficking” Adoption and Poverty in Brazil’, Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology,

(2009) 14.1, 140-161;

Cardarello, “The Right to have a Family: “Legal Trafficking of Children”, Anthropology &

Medicine,

19.2 (2012), 225-240.

The biological mothers did not realise that the (legal) ties with their child were being cut. See:

R. Högbacka,

Working Paper No. 598 Intercountry Adoption, States of origin, and Biological Families

(The Hague

2014), 5; C. Fonseca “Patterns of Shared Parenthood among the Brazilian Poor”, Social Text 74, 21.1(2003) 111–

127, 123; A. Cardarello, “The Movement of the Mothers of the Courthouse Square: “Legal Child Trafficking,’ Adoption

and Poverty in Brazil.”

Journal of Latin American,

1 (2009): 140-161, 144-45; A. Cardoso Siqueira, D. Dalla Porta,

M. Peripolli Antoniazzi and S. Pastoriza Faraj, “Ensuring the Rights of Birthmothers to Place Their Children for

Adoption.” In Dell’Aglio and Koller (red.),

Vulnerable Children and Youth in Brazil

(Cham, 2017) pp. 169-188, 171-74;

C. Annuate, “Psychological problems of late adoption as observed in Brazil through a cultural-historical approach”

Psychology in Russia,

6.4 (2013) 176-184, 176-177.

J. C. Moreira Alves,

“A Panorama of Brazilian Civil Law From its Origins to the Present”, 108-120.

The law was entitled:

Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente

(no. 8.069), 13 July 1990. C. Fonseca, "The Politics

of Adoption: Child Rights in the Brazilian Setting."

Law & Policy

24, no. 3 (2002): 199227,

207; Fonseca, “An

unexpected reversal: the “demise” of international adoption in Brazil”,

Dados

3 (2007), p. 12. pp. 9-10; p. 32.

For the role of lawyers in the Brazilian intercountry adoption practice, see D. Abreu, “Baby-Bearing

Storks: An

Analysis of Brazilian Intermediaries in the Adoption Process”. In

International Adoption: Global Inequalities and the

Circulation of Children,

red. Diana Marre and Laura Briggs (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2009), p.

148150. See also A. Cardarello, “The Movement of the Mothers of the Courthouse Square”, p. 142. The Committee

also received a cost breakdown for a 1988 Brazilian adopted child from Flash. The intermediary charged 2,750

guilders for own costs, while the total costs amounted to 12,524 guilders. The difference was not specified.

Unofficial translation

prohibited adoption procedures for foreigners. The Decree required parents to obtain written

consent from responsible authorities before adopting a Brazilian child.

In 1990, Brazil joined the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and

translated it into national law. Unlike in 1979, the old legislation was repealed in 1990. As a result,

private, simple adoptions were prohibited and adoptions could only be carried out through the

courts, whereby a declaration of relinquishment of the birth mother was required. Foreign

prospective adoptive parents had to be physically present at the court decision. With the

implementation of the UNCRC, there was also a ban on private intermediaries.

In 1999, Brazil ratified the 1993 HC and established a Central Authority there called the

Autoridade Central Administrativa Federal

(ACAF). Brazil retained the option of decentralising

adoption policy to individual provinces before the central government's ACAF could give a final

judgment. After the introduction of the 1993 HC , private children's homes were closed, and only

government-funded homes were allowed.

The Brazilian adoption procedure

Unlike the adoption procedure in the other States of origin, the Brazilian procedure cannot be

explained step-by-step. This was also emphasised around 1989-1990 by Wereldkinderen, the

largest Dutch intermediary in Brazil: “The changing requirements, rules and procedures of the

Brazilian authorities make it very difficult to provide precise information about the state of affairs

regarding adoption in Brazil.” Wereldkinderen informed the prospective adoptive parents that they

had to have their required documentation (such as the declaration of approval in principle) in order

in the Netherlands, and that they had to follow the ever-changing instructions of local contact

persons in Brazil.

Until at least the late 1980s, Brazilian intercountry adoptions proceeded without formal procedure.

It usually concerned the aforementioned simple adoptions. For a long time, having a notarial deed

signed by, for example, a doctor or lawyer, was sufficient to arrange the adoption on the Brazilian

side. Background research or a matching procedure was not performed. Recording the names of

birth parents was not mandatory if they were already known. This form of adoption was most

common until at least 1990. After that, the adoptions had to proceed according to the stricter,

more comprehensive procedures of the full adoption.

The Brazilian procedures to be followed were characterised by their decentralised character,

resulting from the federal state structure of the country. Until at least 1990, adoption practice was

regional and not regulated by central government. Brazil has 26 autonomous states, in which

every major city has its own juvenile court. These courts had far-reaching autonomous powers.

As a result, the adoption policy could differ per state or

Fonseca, “An Unexpected Reversal”, p. 32.

Ibid.

“International Adoption”, Ministry

of Justice and Public Security, Federal Government. The Brazilian parliament

recognised the 1993 HC

in 1995, see: Fonseca, “An Unexpected Reversal”, p. 33.

Wereldkinderen

brochure, “Adoption of a child from Brazil”, MinJus Archive, “OBP” 7, folder 10.

Unofficial translation

per city. It was a hallmark of federal states that diversity in legal systems could facilitate the

displacement of certain practices, including adoption procedures.

Many states also had an autonomous branch of the Brazilian Child Care and Protection, called

Fundação Estadual para o Bem Estar do Menor

(FEBEM). The aforementioned law of 1990

proposed to establish state committees that would introduce more uniform standards in order to

streamline the changing state policy. The establishment of these committees, the so-called

Comissão Estadual Judiciária de Adoção

(CEJA), started slowly in the 1990s.

5.3

Case studies

Since the early 1970s, Dutch and international media have been reporting suspicions of abuse in

adoptions from Brazil. Some of the headlines include: “Baby smuggling discovered in Brazil”

(1973), “More than half of Brazilian adopted children illegal” (1984) and “Brazil: trafficking in frozen

children?” (1990).

100

Particularly from the late 1980s onwards, Brazilian politics and society

increasingly signalled abuses themselves.

Several interviewees by the Committee called the Brazilian adoption practice exceptional.

According to these parties, there was an extreme form of systematic mismanagement.

101

These

insights were also confirmed by the Committee's (archival) investigation. To illustrate the

systematic nature of the adoption abuses, she reconstructed three cases, which are set out in

detail below.

5.3.1

Couple from Emmen, 1971-1972

The first case of a documented adoption abuse involved a Dutch couple from Emmen. The couple

adopted a child in 1971, at the beginning of Brazil's intercountry adoption practice. In June 1971,

the couple corresponded with friends living in Brazil about plans to adopt a child. The child would

be registered with the registry office in Brazil as the “own” child of the Dutch couple, after which it

would appear on the birth certificate as if they were the birth parents. The letters showed that this

was done with the knowledge and direct involvement of a Brazilian official of Dutch descent and

a Dutch diplomatic representative.

102

Carvalho da Silva, “The Legal Procedures for Adopting Children in Brazil”, pp. 128-29.

The Brazilian Federal Police

estimated in 1994 that for every legally adopted child, two would be illegally adopted from the country. This “traffic” is

a direct result of the different laws and regulations in the individual states. See Carvalho da Silva, p. 129.

99 Fonseca,

“An Unexpected Reversal”, pp. 33-34.

100 Respectively in

De Telegraaf,

12 April 1973, NRC Handelsblad, 6 February 1984 and

Het Vrije Volk,

September 1990. The Committee has listed and commented on nearly 200 newspaper reports on Brazilian

adoption practice. The first article was from April 1967, the last from June 2019. In total, several Brazilian abuses

have been identified. In the vast majority of the reports, the tone was negative.

101 Interviews by the Committee.

102 Personal letters in possession of the Ministry of Justice, 8 June 1971 and 21 June 1971; Letter from consul, 08-07-

1971, MinJus Archive, access 5000.017, inv. no. 3984

Unofficial translation

The couple left for Brazil in December 1971 to pick up the child.

103

The adoption took place in the

Brazilian state of Paraná, in the region around the towns of Curitiba, Carambeí and Castro. These

were places where many Dutch emigrants lived.

104

After a report, the Dutch authorities got wind of the case. In September 1972, the Dutch Public

Prosecution Service in Arnhem opened an investigation into the possible illegal adoption. The

Dutch Public Prosecution Service investigated what the actual course of events had been, and

what role the Dutch consul and Brazilian-Dutch civil servant played in this.

105

In the official report

drawn up as a result of the illegal adoption, the couple stated that they had acted in good faith.

They had relied on the expertise of the Dutch consul in Curitiba and the civil servant in Carambeí,

neither of whom had objected to the course of events.

106

In October 1972, the Public Prosecution Service informed the Ministry of Justice about the case.

It was emphasised that the best interests of the child should come first. In the following weeks,

the relevant government agencies (Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the

diplomatic missions) corresponded frequently about this, in particular about the literally quoted

“strange attitude” of the Dutch consul. The parties increasingly suspected

that this was a criminal

practice, specifically

concealment of status.

107

That meant: deliberately making a person's descent

or actual descent unclear or ambiguous. The government authorities wondered whether the

couple's actions were punishable in both Brazil and the Netherlands.

A month later, in November, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the embassy in the capital Brasilia

concluded that the couple could only be prosecuted if their actions were punishable in

both

countries.

108

In July 1973, the Ministry of Justice and the Public Prosecution Service decided that

there was no reason to prosecute the couple or the consul, because they had acted in good faith

and the procedure followed was legal in their opinion under Brazilian law. This was not the case

in the Netherlands.

109

As mentioned earlier, the couple's case was the first documented case of an adoption abuse from

Brazil. However, there was no attention for it in the Dutch media, politics or society, as was the

case with other adoption abuses.

110

103 Report and letter from the Immigration Services of the Emmen Municipal Police to the Commissioner of the

Emmen police, 06-09-1972, MinJus Archive, access 5000.017, inv. no. 3984.

104 Carambeí was founded in 1911 by Dutch emigrants. Until the 1930s, it was a closed agricultural colony over which the

Brazilian central government had little control. This changed in the years that followed. The nearby villages of

Castro(landa) and Holambra were also founded by the Dutch.

105 Translation of birth certificate and personal letter in possession of the Ministry of Justice, 21-06-1971, MinJus

Archive, access 5000.017, inv. no. 3984.

106 Official report of Emmen Municipal Police, 19-09-1972, MinJus Archive, access 5000.017, inv. no. 3984.

107 Letter from Chief Public Prosecutor in Assen to Head of the Private Law Department MinJus, 10101972; Minute

Legal Affairs Office of Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the embassy in Brasilia and the MinJus, MinJus Archive, access

5000.017, inv. no. 3984.

108 Legal Affairs Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the ambassador in Brasilia, 20-11-1972, MinJus Archive, access

5000.017, inv. no. 3984.

109 Official report by Emmen Municipal Police, 19 September 1972, Wob request regarding information about illegal

adoption from Brazil; see further correspondence between the Ministry of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service

and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in: MinJus Archive, access 5000.017, inv. no. 3984.

110 In April 1973, newspapers wrote about illegal adoptions from Brazil to Sweden in particular.

See “Babysmokkel

ontdekt in Brazilië”,

De Telegraaf,

12-04-1973;

“Schandaal in Brazilië om “export” van baby’s”, 13-04-1973; “America

Latina”,

Amigoe,

17-04-1973.

Unofficial translation

The Netherlands did not inform the Brazilian authorities of the incident. The Dutch ambassador

on location considered this unnecessary.

111

Upon subsequent alerts (see below), the press and relevant officials referred to the case as an

example and precedent. Five years after the end of the case, from 1978, rumours regularly

surfaced about illegal adoptions to the Netherlands from Brazil, in particular about fraud at the

registry office.

112

Both the Dutch Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs and the diplomatic posts

in Brazil indicated that they could do little about this.

113

5.3.2

National Police investigation into illegal

adoptions, autumn 1981-March 1984

In December 1981, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service launched a large-scale, nationwide

investigation into illegal adoptions from South America, especially Brazil. The Amsterdam

National Police carried it out. The investigation was prompted by information received about Dutch

organisations that would supply Brazilian children to Dutch and West German couples. The

intermediary Flash was associated with this.

114

The case came to light when a couple from

Wormer registered the birth of their child after a stay in Brazil, when it was known that the woman

could not have children. The purpose of the police investigation was, according to the Dutch Public

Prosecution Service, to “dismantle the organisation” and to stop any illegal affairs.

115

According to

the then research leader, it was

not

the intention to remove the children in question from the

adoptive parents. This was explicitly reported to the Justice Department - and insured to the

adoptive parents themselves.

116

At the start of the investigation, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service suspected that the Brazilian

adoptions involved multiple offenses:

“Concealment of status (art. 236 Criminal

Code), Making a false statement in an authentic

instrument (art. 227 Criminal Code), trafficking in minors (art. 250 Criminal Code) to

promote the illegal placement of a child younger than six months as a foster child for profit

(art. 151 a Criminal Code) and illegally taking in a child under six months as a foster child

(art. 442 a Criminal Code)”

117

111 Main Department of Private Law to Attorney General of the Public Prosecution Service Leeuwarden, 11 July 1973,

MinJus Archive, 5000.017, inv. no. 3984.

112

“Jarenlang in dure verwachting”,

NRC Handelsblad,

01-07-1978.

113 Letter from the embassy in Brasilia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 April 1978, from: Wob-verzoek illegale

adoptie uit Brazilië, 20-11-2017 no. 1; Ministry of Foreign Affairs Legal Affairs Office to the ambassador in Brasilia,

02-06-1978, MinJus Archive, 5000.017, inv. 3984.

114 On 10 November 1981,

De Telegraaf

wrote that the West German authorities had asked the Netherlands to

investigate a "Dutch mediation agency" that helped West German adoptive parents have a Brazilian adopted child.

See “Westduitse justitie vraagt onderzoek: Nederlands bureau slaat munt uit handel in baby’s”,

De Telegraaf,

November 1981. See also: letter of the Public Prosecutor to the Attorney General Public Prosecutor Amsterdam, 5

April 1982, MinJus, Public Prosecution Service Archive, access number: 2.09.132, inv. no. 356.

115

Letter from the Public Prosecutor of Amsterdam to the Attorney General Court of Amsterdam, “Braziliaanse

adoptiekinderen”, 07-12-1981; “Weergave van de belangrijkste besproken onderwerpen in de vergadering van

Procureursgeneraal”,

9 December

1981, MinJus, Public Prosecution Service Archive, access no. 2.09.132, inv. no.

349 and 350.

116 Interview by the Committee.

117 Minutes of the meeting of attorneys general, 9 December 1981, MinJus, Public Prosecution Service

Archive, access 2.09.132, inv. no. 350.

Unofficial translation

In total, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service suspected it would concern “a hundred cases” of

Brazilian children who entered the Netherlands illegally. The Dutch Public Prosecution Service

found it striking that many of the babies reported in the Netherlands were born in the municipality

of Castro (Paraná district) and that many birth certificates were signed there by a civil servant with

a Dutch-sounding name. Finally, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service stated that there were

indications that “someone from the Dutch embassy in Brazil” was involved in the event.

118

The Ministry of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service and the responsible State Secretary

indicated that they were "alarmed about the massiveness of the phenomenon." For the time being,

the judiciary did not want to move the children out of custody “in view of the many emotions that

this would be expected to evoke”. In order to counteract the progress of the illegal practice, the

civil registry, Schiphol and the Dutch diplomatic missions were asked to be extra vigilant about

this.

119

The Board of Procurators General, the highest decision-making body of the Dutch Public

Prosecution Service, held regular meetings between December 1981 and March 1984 to discuss

the investigation.

120

International importance was also emphasised. For example, the Dutch Public

Prosecution Service emphasised the good cooperation with the West German authorities, where

similar illegal adoptions occurred. Interpol was asked to conduct an investigation in other

European countries, “so that structural action can be taken against the illegal adoption practices

from third world countries through a European police investigation”.

121

The Committee has not

found any investigative material showing that this has been followed up.

In anticipation of the results of the police investigation, the responsible State Secretary of Justice

emphasised that the Dutch government "did not intend to limit the (legal) adoption of foreign

children”. The State Secretary communicated this in December 1982, one year after the

investigation had started.

122

Police investigation results, autumn 1983

In September 1983, two years after the start, the National Police completed the investigation. An

observation from the investigation report stated that the interrogations of the couples showed that

in most cases, large amounts of money in the form of “donations” played an important role.

Hospitals, children's homes, and registry office officers received substantial sums from the

prospective adoptive parents. Usually, they could not provide a receipt for this. According to the

investigation leader, all parents who adopted a child via this illegal route had the same motivation,

namely frustration about the adoption waiting lists and slow procedures that were found to be too

long.

123

118 Nothing more was mentioned about this in the final report of the police investigation. Letter from the Public

Prosecutor to the Attorney General of the Amsterdam Public Prosecutor's Office, 7 December 1981, MinJus, Public

Prosecution Service Archive, access 2.09.132, inv. no. 349.

119 Minutes of the meeting of Attorney General, 9 December 1981, MinJus, Public Prosecution Service Archive,

access 2.09.132, inv. no. 350.

120 For example, on 5 April 1982, it was reported that 31 couples had admitted to having committed concealment of

status in order to circumvent the (in their eyes) slow adoption procedures. According to the Ministry of Justice, the

adoptive parents' mistrust of the authorities was "particularly deeply rooted". Public Prosecutor to the Attorney

General Public Prosecutor Amsterdam, 5 April 1982, MinJus, Public Prosecution Service Archive, access 2.09.132,

inv. 356.

121 Letter from the Public Prosecutor to the Attorney General of the Public Prosecution Service Amsterdam, 5 April

1982, MinJus, Public Prosecution Service Archive, access 2.09.132, inv. no. 356.

122

“Onderzoek naar onwettige adopties”,

Nederlands Dagblad,

8 December 1982.

123 Interview by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

The investigation report concluded that with regard to 43 children (42 Brazilian, 1 Colombian), the

parents admitted concealment of status. The report left open whether the couples would be

prosecuted. The report did not mention the involvement of Dutch government officials, although

there were concrete indications for this. The investigation concluded that there was no large-scale

criminal complicity by the parents. The then investigator stated to the Committee that those words

had been carefully weighed and chosen. There was indeed a suspicion that there was a question

of criminal complicity on a large scale, but this could not be proven.

124

In the following months, various parties involved, including the Ministry of Justice, Foreign Affairs,

diplomatic missions, the Child Care and Protection Board and the Public Prosecution Service

corresponded with each other about the next steps to be taken.

125

In February-March 1984, the Public Prosecution Service issued the final judgment on the case. It

was decided to proceed with a “general dismissal” in which all 43 cases were dropped

unconditionally: in other words, there was no prosecution.

126

Finally, the Public Prosecution

Service stated that the police investigation had shown:

“how powerless the judicial authorities are (…). The problem is not so much in the

procedures, but in the fact that the number of applications for adoption far exceeds the

number of children available for that purpose. This automatically results in long waiting

times for issues such as declaration of approval in principle. It is pointless to provide

couples with this promptly, long before a candidate foster child is found. By then, the

declaration of approval in principle has lost its meaning.”

127

This view was shared by other responsible government officials within the Ministry of Justice.

128

Aftermath and measures, spring 1984

The police investigation was front page news in the Dutch media. Newspapers reported

extensively on its progress and results between 1981 and 1984.

129

It also affected politics. For

example, a Member of Parliament questioned the cabinet about, in his words, "illegal growth of

the Dutch population as a result of forgery."

130

124 Interview by the Committee.

125 See in particular the following letters and notes: Directorate of Child Care and Protection to the Secretaries of the

RvdK, subject: “illegale adoptiekinderen”, 17-10-1983;

letter to all attorneys general, 16 January 1984; memo

secretary PGs to the Child Care and Protection Department, 17 January 1984; Agenda Meeting PGs, 15 February

1984; note to PGs, 10 February 1984, all documents in MinJus, Public Prosecution Service Archive, access no.

2.09.132, inv. no. 396.

126 Minutes of Attorney General Meeting, 7-3-1984, MinJus, Public Prosecution Service Archive, access 2.09.132, inv. no. 396.

127 Minutes of Attorney General Meeting, 15-2-1984, MinJus, Public Prosecution Service Archive, access 2.09.132, inv. No. 396.

128 Note from the Directorate of Child Care and Protection

to the Minister and State Secretary of Justice, “Illegale

adoptie. Besluitvorming inzake afdoening n.a.v. politioneel onderzoek”, 19-03-1984.

129

“Politie op spoor van enorme handel in baby’s”,

De Telegraaf,

23-01-1982,

“Babyhandel Schokkender”,

Algemeen

Dagblad,

13-02-1982

and “Illegale adoptie uit Zuid-Amerika.

Justitie ontdekt baby-smokkel”,

Het Parool,

25-01-

1982; “Ministens vijftig adopties baby’s Brazilië illegaal”,

Het Parool,

06-02-1984

and “Uitkomst politieonderzoek.

Braziliaanse kinderen illegaal

geadopteerd”,

De Volkskrant,

06-02-1984.

130 Parliamentary question Janmaat (Centrumpartij) to the Minister of Justice, answered by the State Secretary, 09 -11-

1982/06-12-1982.

Unofficial translation

After publication of the police investigation report, the head of the Child Care and Protection

Department proposed to the Minister and State Secretary of Justice to take measures. It was

proposed to implement new legislation, in order to be able to implement stricter preventive policies

to combat illegal adoptions.

131

The then leader of the police investigation told the Committee that

off-the-record

talks were held

with the adoptive parents involved. They stated that a contact person was a spider in the web of

the illegal adoptions. She was a familiar face within the local Dutch migrant community around

Curitiba and Carambeí. Because of her fame, she was probably able to facilitate the illegal

adoptions. The contact person was born in the Netherlands, but had Brazilian and Swiss

nationality. She acted formally as a witness, translator and interpreter on adoption cases in the

region.

Ultimately, the contact person at Schiphol was arrested on suspicion of giving false testimonials.

She was questioned, but the case was not brought to court. The Committee has not found any

documents in the archives that can provide a definite answer about the exact role of the contact

person.

132

In a conversation with the Committee, the person concerned stated that she was only

involved in adoptions as an interpreter. In that capacity, her name is on some adoption papers.

The then investigator leader further stated to the Committee that he found it shocking that the

investigation came across at least a hundred fraudulently adopted children. He stated, "The

research team estimated that in the 1980s and 1981 about 6% of adoptions were illegal."

133

It is

not clear whether this estimate applied to adoptions from Brazil or to

all

intercountry adoptions.

At the time, the investigation team was unable to find out how the couples involved managed to

find the illegal adoption channels. The investigator leader suspected that one person played an

important role. However, he has never been able to prove this. This person from the village of

Tuitjenhorn is said to have been involved in approximately 50 illegal adoptions. A criminal case

was later started against him, which was eventually dropped.

134

Further details about this case

are unknown. The Committee has not found any investigative material that can provide a complete

definitive answer about the further criminal proceedings surrounding this person.

The police investigation into illegal adoptions from South America was conducted during a period

(1981-84) when there were also signs of large-scale abuse in other countries. This was true for

Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Why South America was under the magnifying glass of the

Dutch authorities, but not the other countries, remains unclear.

131 Note from the Head of the Directorate of Child Care and Protection to the Minister and State Secretary of Justice,

concerning: “Illegale adoptie. Besluitvorming inzake afdoening n.a.v. politioneel onderzoek”, 19 March 1984,

MinJus Archive.

132

Interview by the Committee. See also broadcast “Achter het nieuws”, 22 February 1982 and

National Police final

report, p. 7.

133 In consultation with specialists in the field of the Personal Records Database [Basisregistratie Personen] (BRP)

and the Municipal Personal Records Database [Gemeentelijke Basisadministratie] (GBA) investigated the

possibilities of gaining an impression of the number of children who came to the Netherlands illegally in the manner

described in the investigation report. This proved impossible, partly because the Municipal Personal Records

Database was only integrated in 1995. Until then, there was a paper card system per municipality with large

differences in the method of recording and the quality of the data.

134 Interview by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

After completion of the police investigation and the judgment of the Dutch Public Prosecution

Service in March 1984, no structural measures were taken by the government to prevent or

combat illegal adoptions in the future. In 1981, however, a number of supervisory authorities such

as Schiphol, the embassy and the registry office were addressed to better control the papers of

incoming adopted children. How to do this was left open.

135

The National Police investigation had no further consequences for adoptive parents who illegally

adopted a child. Some of the interrogated parents adopted another child after the investigation

was completed.

5.3.3

Suspicions of child and organ trafficking, 1985-1994

From the later 1980s, and especially in 1991-92, there were widespread rumours in international

and Dutch media about large-scale child trafficking from Brazil. Children would be kidnapped to

be put up for adoption, or become involved in prostitution or organ trade.

136

Earlier, in February 1985, Dutch media reported on three Dutch employees of the adoption

intermediary BANND. They had been arrested in the port city of Santos by the Brazilian authorities

on suspicion of child trafficking. However, according to the media, this turned out to be a

misunderstanding. The three were released a day after their arrest. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign

Affairs asked the consulate in Santos to investigate the state of affairs. The Committee was unable

to determine whether this investigation was carried out.

137

The BANND employees themselves

concluded that their arrest could be seen as positive: "It proves how eager people are in Brazil to

combat child trafficking."

138

During 1988-94, Dutch and international media repeatedly wrote about Brazilian adoption-related

abuses. In the autumn of 1991, a Brazilian parliamentary committee investigated media

allegations of illegal adoptions linked to organ trafficking.

139

Later, in September 1992, parliamentary questions were asked about the possible Dutch

involvement in Brazilian criminal

organisations that abducted “tens of thousands” of children.

According to media reports, the Netherlands is said to be a point of support for the child theft

syndicates. The children would be kidnapped to become available

135 Attorney General Meeting, agenda

item 11: “Rapport over illegale adoptie”, 15 February 1984, MinJus, Public

Prosecution Service Archive, access no. 2.09.132, inv. no. 396.

136

“Kind Koopwaar”,

Algemeen Dagblad,

10 September 1992. And also see various documents in the

MinJus Archive file, 2.09., inv. no. 2663 (2831).

137

“Babyhandel opgerold in Brazilië”,

Het Vrĳe Volk,

13-02-1985

and “Nederlandse consul stelt onderzoek in. Drie

Nederlanders in Brazilië dag vastgehouden voor handel in baby’s”,

De Volkskrant,

14-02-1985;

“Nederlanders niet in

babyhandel”,

Het Vrije Volk,

14-02-1985.

138

“Adoptievereniging ten onrechte verdacht van kinderhandel in Brazilië” and “Onderzoek bewijst hoe gevoelig

adoptie ligt",

Leeuwarder Courant,

19-02-1985.

139

“Lively trade in children in Brazil.

Ontvoeringen

voor adoptie zaaien angst onder bevolking”,

Trouw,

23-09- 1988

and “Twijfels over alarm kinder- en orgaanhandel in Italië”,

Nieuwsblad van het Noorden,

23-09-1994

and “Kind

koopwaar; Politie wil actie tegen Braziliaanse misdadigers”,

Algemeen Dagblad,

10-09-1992;

“Brazilië onderzoekt

handel in kinderen”,

Het Parool,

28-03-1991.

Unofficial translation

for adoption, or even organ transplants. The Minister of Justice replied that he had no indications

that the Dutch were involved in any way. The Minister did emphasise that improved monitoring of

adoption practice was “desirable”.

140

The Committee did not find any evidence of an improved

control in the research material consulted.

At the end of 1994, the court of the Brazilian state of Pernambuco imposed a stop on all

intercountry adoptions (for an indefinite period). The immediate cause for this was new suspicions

of adoptions resulting in organ trade. The responsible judge stated that he had no conclusive

evidence, but found the suspicions substantial enough to trigger an adoption ban. The judge

would only lift the stop if it were shown that all intercountry adoptees within his jurisdiction were

healthy.

141

Following the adoption stop, the Dutch Ministry of Justice launched a short-term investigation into

the status of Dutch adopted children from Pernambuco. The Ministry of Justice concluded that

the children were in "good health" and grew up with their adoptive parents. The good news was

also reported to the Brazilian authorities. This was partly done with the aim of allowing the

adoptions to proceed, which happened in the following years.

142

5.4

Aftermath: adoptions from Brazil, 1998-present

Unlike in the countries of Bangladesh, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, the adoption practice from Brazil

largely continued after 1998. In the period of 1998-2008, almost 350 children came to the

Netherlands. After 2001, the annual numbers declined to four adoptees in 2008. After that year,

no more Brazilian children were adopted in the Netherlands.

143

There are four explanations for the decrease in the total number of adoptions from Brazil to abroad

since the 1990s. The decrease was not only a result of the improvement of local living conditions

and reduction of poverty, but also of the increase in domestic adoptions. A third explanation can

be found in new, stricter legislation and government regulation in Brazil that restricted intercountry

adoption practice. Finally, there was the changing public opinion in Brazil, especially following

signs of abuse and scandals in the media.

144

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

total

332

Table 5: Number of officially placed adopted children from Brazil, 1998-2008.

145

140

Parliamentary question of Dijkstal to Minister of Justice, “over de

Nederlandse betrokkenheid bij

Braziliaanse misdaadorganisaties, die kinderen ontvoeren”, 11-09-1992/08-10-1992.

141

Fonseca, “Transnational Connections and Dissenting Views”, p. 157; Fonseca, “An Unexpected Reversal”, p. 35.

142 Letters from Justice to Consulate General Brazil in The Hague, 10 November 1994 and 24 February 1995,

MinJus Archive, “Bewerkte C-Dossiers”, access no. 5000.016, inv. no. 60.

143

Ministry of Justice, “Adoptie. Trends en Analyse. Statistisch overzicht interlandelijke adoptie”, (March 2012).

144 Fonseca,

“An Unexpected Reversal”, pp. 28-30.

145 Data originating from Hoksbergen, “Vijftig jaar adoptie in Nederland”, p. 9 (table 2C) and p. 11 (table 3C). Data

from 2002 onwards come from JenV statistics reports.

Unofficial translation

Like adoptees from other States of origin, many Brazilian adoptees are looking for their origins.

Organisations such as ISS International and Fiom have been organising searches in Brazil since

2013, with moderate success. An interviewed Fiom researcher stated that the procedures take

too long, sometimes keeping adoptees on a leash for up to two years. One explanation lies in the

inadequate documentation and unknown (personal) data of birth parents, since the recording

thereof was not legally required in Brazil until at least 1990.

146

After 1998, abuses also occurred in the adoption practice between Brazil and the Netherlands.

For example, a documented case from 2001 is known, in which a Dutch woman adopted a

Brazilian child under false pretences. The Brazilian court assumed that it had carried out a

domestic adoption because the child and the woman would remain in Brazil. The woman did not

intend to do that, and she took the child to the Netherlands. The Dutch court also disagreed with

the adoption, but allowed the woman to become guardian of the child, because it was in their best

interest. The child had been in the Netherlands for so long that it would be irresponsible to return

them.

147

Implementation of the Brazilian Adoption Law in 1990 was difficult until at least 2008. Reasons

for this were the autonomy of individual states and the decentralisation of foster care in Brazil.

148

Globally, Brazil was one of the largest States of origin after 1998. For example, in the period of

2003-2011, more than 4,100 children were adopted by foreigners. Domestic adoption has been

the preferred choice since 2008.

149

Since 2006, all kinds of abuses have come to light in Brazil, ranging from fraud and corruption to

the removal of children from their parents by local authorities for no apparent reason.

150

The

Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs also had indications that some of the Brazilian adopted

children were registered by their adoptive parents as their own children. The cases of the 1970s

and 1980s thus demonstrably continued in the decades that followed.

151

5.4.1

Patrick Noordoven

The case of the Brazilian adopted Patrick Noordoven has caused quite a stir. Noordoven was one

of the first adoptees to come out to the media about his illegal adoption.

152

In 2011, he submitted

a Wob request to the Ministry of Justice and Foreign Affairs to find out the actual state of affairs

at the time. The case was one of the reasons for the Minister for Legal Protection to appoint the

Committee in 2018-19

Interview by the Committee.

Loibl,

The Transnational Illegal Adoption Market,

p. 298.

Fonseca, “An Unexpected Reversal”, p. 32.

K. Cheney, ‘”Giving Children a Better Life?” Reconsidering Social Reproduction Humanitarianism and Development

in Intercountry Adoption’

European Journal of Development Research

(2014) 26, pp. 247-263, table 3, p. 254.

150

Cardarello, “The right to have a family: legal trafficking of children”, p. 237.

151 Letter from the Department of Consular Legal Affairs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to the Department of Legal and

International Affairs (the Ministry of Justice), 10-09-2007, MinFA Archive, access no. 3200.183, 19481.25, inv. no.

7402.

152

“Wensouders omzeilden wachtlijsten”,

De Volkskrant,

08-12-2018,

“Mondje dicht bij illegale adoptie”,

Brabants

Dagblad,

08-12-2018

and “Nederlandse justitie stopte illegale adoptie in doofpot”,

De Stentor,

04-01-2019.

146

147

148

149

Unofficial translation

and to conduct research into intercountry adoption practice. The case generated a lot of media

attention and became a symbol for the broader problems surrounding intercountry adoptions in

the past.

Patrick Noordoven was adopted from Brazil in the early 1980s. As a new-born, he stayed for a

short time in the children’s home

La Jumbinho,

in Sao Paulo. The children's home was run by a

woman of Dutch origin. His adoptive parents chose to illegally adopt Noordoven from the

children’s home, to avoid the waiting lists.

They indicated that they had done this out of fear of

being left out because of their relatively advanced age (towards the age of forty). The Noordoven

couple registered Patrick in Brazil as their own child. His date of birth was adjusted on the spot,

because otherwise the timeline of arrival and birth would not match. Whether the adoptive parents

had to sign a confidentiality agreement at the time to ratify the adoption remains unclear. An

involved contact confirmed this, while Noordoven's adoptive father denied it.

153

Noordoven's adoption did not go through an official intermediary, but through an acquaintance of

the family, who was a civil servant at the Dutch government.

154

This civil servant was a former

colleague of Noordoven's adoptive grandfather and was also familiar with the aforementioned

director of the children's home where Noordoven stayed.

155

The exact position of the civil servant

was unclear for a long time. An official reported that he worked at the Ministry of Social Affairs

(Emigration Department) and was seconded to the Dutch diplomatic representation in Brazil in

the early 1980s. It was later clarified that he was deputy emigration attaché at the Dutch

consulate-general in Sao Paulo in 1980.

156

In 1982, the Noordoven couple was interrogated for the National Police investigation into illegal

adoptions. The police concluded that the adoption had not taken place according to the rules, but

saw no reason to take further steps. After the investigation, the couple was advised to register

their adopted child in the birth register in The Hague. They did. They did not follow the advice to

have the adoption officially pronounced by a Dutch judge.

157

In early 1985, the couple learned that

they were not being prosecuted. The couple later decided to adopt a second child from Brazil, this

time following official procedures.

153 Interviews by the Committee.

154 The civil servant was friends with Patrick Noordoven's (adoptive) grandfather. The grandfather and the civil servant

were former colleagues, see: letter from law firm Prakken d'Oliviera to Minister for Legal Protection, 09 -09-2019 and

letter from the official concerned to adoptive grandfather Noordoven, 20-02-1980.

155 Letter from adoptive mother Noordoven, 30 January 2001. Cited in Judgment of the District Court of The Hague 05 -07-

2017.

156

Letter from Ministry of Justice to Prakken d'Oliveira, “Wob-verzoek

met betrekking tot illegale adoptie uit Brazilië

en de Brazil Baby Affair, 20112017”;

Letter Prakken d'Oliviera to Minister for Legal Protection,

“Aansprakelijkstelling | P. Noordoven/ staat”, 09-09-2019.

157 Interview by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

In April 2011, Patrick Noordoven asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for help (consular

assistance) in the search for his origins. Even before he received an answer from the Ministry, he

found his birth family. In May, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied that they could not do anything

for him because they did not have information about his adoption. However, interim internal mail

exchanges within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs showed that they did have information: they were

familiar with the position of the civil servant involved at the time.

158

Via the consulate-general in Sao Paulo, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs also heard in May

2011 that Noordoven had found his birth family, but officials from this Ministry did not indicate this

in their messages to him. It was emphasised that the consulate-general and the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs were not yet formally informed of this news. The consulate general advised the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs to refer Noordoven to the relevant authorities. In the words of the

Deputy Consul General in Sao Paulo:

“Again: FORMALLY the CG does not know that he has already found his family, so it is

important that DCM does not reveal anything about this in the answer to him. So just refer

to the relevant authorities, and indicate that neither The Hague nor CG can do more for

him than that.”

159

In 2013, Noordoven found out through a newspaper article from 1983 that a Dutch diplomatic

mission in Brazil was aware of the illegal adoptions. He then again contacted the mission, and

later with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and Social Affairs, but said he was

sent “from pillar to post”.

160

In 2016, Noordoven filed a lawsuit against his adoptive parents for withholding information. He

was found to be in the right. Noordoven had previously filed a lawsuit in 2011 against the then

director and treasurer of the children's home

La Jumbinho

where he came from. He is claiming

damages of EUR 1.7 million.

161

This lawsuit continues to this day, despite the death of the two

children's home employees.

Noordoven submitted several Wob requests in recent years because he had become convinced

of the involvement of Dutch government officials in the illegal adoptions from Brazil. In 2019, he

held the Dutch government liable for abuses in intercountry adoption practice, and for the

involvement of Dutch officials. This case is also ongoing. Noordoven claimed that one of the

officials was involved in multiple illegal adoptions. His adoptive family denied this. The official

concerned can no longer explain his role because he has died.

158 E-mail from Patrick Noordoven

to the Department of Consular Affairs and Migration Policy, “Verzoek tot consulaire bijstand”,

21-04-2011; E-mail from DCM/RL to Patrick Noordoven, 23-05-2011; Email from Consulate General Sao Paulo to

DCM/RL, 28-04-2011, MinFA Archive, BZ-2018.491362 access 3200.175, inv. no. 43483.

159 E-mail from Consulate General in Sao Paulo to DCM/RL, 05/12/2011, MinFA Archive, BZ-2018.491362, 3200.175,i

inv. no. 43483.

160 Interview by the Committee.

161 Interview by the Committee. After the death of the treasurer, Noordoven tried to obtain access to his estate through

the Brazilian court, in order to gain insight into his finances for the benefit of the claim to the heirs.

Unofficial translation

5.4.2

Individual case

In addition to the previous case, the Committee has another documented case from 1980-81 in

which a couple brought a Brazilian child to the Netherlands under the apparent reason that it was

their biological child. This case was also part of the overarching National Police investigation. This

adoptee, like the child of the couple from Emmen from the case from 1971-1972, came from the

region around Castro.

162

In this adoption, it was suspected that the aforementioned man from

Tuitjenhorn and the Brazilian-Dutch contact person would have played a role. The parents of the

adoptee rectified the case in 1985, five years after he came to the Netherlands. Then they

submitted a formal request for adoption.

163

5.5

Main findings from Brazil

The intercountry adoption practice between Brazil and the Netherlands was characterised by

large-scale, systematic abuses. There is concrete and documented evidence of document

forgery, concealment of status, fraud and corruption. Child theft and trafficking also occurred.

164

Since the early 1970s, DIY individuals have illegally placed Brazilian adopted children in the

Netherlands. Dozens of adoptees were registered as biological children at the registry office in

the Netherlands. Incorrect birth certificates were drawn up, which encouraged fraud and

corruption in Brazil. Effectively, this meant concealment of status according to Dutch law. In

addition, there were many indications of child theft and trafficking.

From at least the spring of 1971, the Dutch government was increasingly aware of the above

abuses. In December 1981, a large-scale National Police investigation was opened against the

illegal placement of foreign adopted children. The investigation eventually revealed that dozens

of Dutch couples had registered Brazilian children at the registry office as their own. The

investigation showed that 42 couples had illegally adopted their child(ren). The results of the

police investigation did not lead to concrete measures. The couples concerned have not been

prosecuted, the cases were dropped. Some of them later adopted a second (or third) child.

162 As in the case from 1970-71, the name of the Brazilian civil servant with the Dutch name appeared in the documents

of this adoptee. This is evident from, among other things, birth certificates from March 1980 received by the

Committee.

163 Letter from the Attorney General to the Almelo District Prosecutor's Office, 18 February 1985.

164 National

Police Report, “Landelijk onderzoek betreffende illegale adoptiepraktijken”, September 1983, MinJus,

Public Prosecution Service Archive, access no. 2.09.132, inv. no. 396.

Unofficial translation

Two government officials have been shown to be involved in two individual illegal adoptions. It

concerned a Dutch consul in Brazil and an official. No indications were found that indicate self-

enrichment. Whether Dutch government officials and intermediaries were systematically involved

in abuses in Brazilian adoption practice cannot be determined on the basis of the research

material studied. The Committee has conducted targeted research to determine whether or not

the involvement of officials in abuses is systematic. No systematic involvement with Brazil can be

established from this research effort.

Unofficial translation

6.1

Colombia

Key figures and context

Since 1973, more than 5,400 children have been adopted by the Dutch from Colombia. This is a

fraction of the total number of intercountry adoptees from Colombia: between 1984 and 1994, an

average of 2,700 children from Colombia were adopted abroad per year, with a peak in 1993 of

more than 3,800 children.

165

1972

1985

210

1973

1986

151

1974

1987

191

1975

1988

165

1976

124

1989

172

1977

186

1990

208

1978

151

1991

169

1979

197

1992

181

1980

214

1993

146

1981

129

1994

125

1982

146

1995

163

1983

251

1996

150

1984

159

1997

152

total

3,847

Table 6: Number of officially placed adopted children from Colombia, 1972-1997.

166

The Dutch intermediary BIA/Wereldkinderen and Hogar Foundation facilitated the adoptions from

Colombia to the Netherlands. BIA/Wereldkinderen has been active in Colombia since 1973. It is

estimated that BIA/Wereldkinderen mediated in approximately 4,900 adoptions of children from

Colombia between 1973 and 2016. It collaborated with homes of the

Instituto Colombiano de

Bienestar y Familiar

(ICBF) and with the

Instituciones Autorizadas para desarrollar el Programa

de Adopción

(IAPAs), see below.

The Hogar Foundation was founded in 1978 and focused specifically on South America. Hogar

facilitated an estimated 1,300 adoptions from Colombia. Hogar worked with volunteers, all

adoptive parents, and had no office space. The organisation claimed to be able to work much

cheaper than BIA/Wereldkinderen. In addition to BIA/Wereldkinderen and Hogar, adoptions also

took place on a DIY basis.

The adoption practice in Colombia was not separate from the socio-economic and cultural-

religious context. In more conservative Catholic families, pregnancy of an unmarried woman was

surrounded by taboos and stigmas. This also applied to children from an extramarital relationship.

To prevent their pregnancy from becoming known, these women often went to homes to give

birth. This sometimes happened under pressure from parents or family. The baby was then

admitted to the home and then sent to a foster family or to a children's home. Many of these

mothers came from weaker socio-economic backgrounds and were often illiterate. According to

one interviewee, because of the prevailing “machismo” and patriarchy in Colombian society, men

hardly took responsibility for the children they fathered.

167

165 1973-2010 figures taken from Hoksbergen,

Kinderen die niet konden blijven,

Table 3C, p. 142; Table 4C., p. 248;

Table 5C, p. 372, and Table 6C, p. 519; S. Hoelgaard “Cultural determinants of adoption policy: A Colombian case

study”,

International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family

12, (1998), pp. 202-241. Until 2004, the average number of

adoptions was 170 per year. After 2004, the number of adoptions declined rapidly due to changing views on

intercountry adoption.

166

Hoksbergen, “Vijftig jaar adoptie in Nederland”, p. 9 (Table 2C), p. 11 (Table 3C) and p. 14 (Table 4C).

167 Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

Decades of armed conflict also affected adoption practice. Children became orphans and people

were forced to flee their homes. Female guerrillas sometimes became unwittingly pregnant, while

they were unable or unwilling to take care of a child. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was little

enthusiasm among the Colombian population for domestic adoption. Differences in class and skin

colour between prospective adoptive parents and adopted children played a role in the lack of

enthusiasm.

168

In these circumstances, room was created for large-scale intercountry adoption.

6.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Colombia

The phenomenon of adoption was first mentioned in an 1887 Colombian law. The limited adoption

provisions in Law 140 of 1960 concerned private-law arrangements between the two families

involved and the child, without any reference to intercountry adoption. In 1968, the

Instituto

Colombiano de Bienestar y Familiar

(ICBF), comparable to the Dutch Child Care and Protection

Board, was founded.

169

From 1975, adoption thus became a public affair under the direct authority

of the Colombian state.

Before 1975

Before 1975, adopting a child from Colombia was easy for foreign adoptive parents. The adoption

could be handled administratively by the parties involved through a notary, with or without the

help of an intermediary lawyer. This also enabled DIY adoptions from the Netherlands, with no

government control from either Colombia or the Netherlands. If parents wanted to relinquish their

child, this could be arranged by a notary, after which the child could be registered under a new

name at the registry office. Adoptions were not centrally documented, because in those years,

they were still subject to private law and there was no central government intervention. Relevant

documentation was stored in notary offices all over Colombia. From 1975, children were only

allowed to be placed for adoption through the ICBF, whereby the necessary documentation was

prescribed.

170

Legally and practically, there was a difference in Colombia between “simple adoptions” and “full

adoptions”. Full adoption severed all ties with the birth parents.

In the simple adoptions, the child

retained one of the two surnames of the birth parents in some cases, and had fewer inheritance

rights compared to the adoptive parents.

171

This difference persisted until 1989, when simple

adoption was abolished and only full adoption was still possible.

For foundlings with missing data, the age was estimated by the Office of legal medicine based on

the physical characteristics of the child. They chose an estimated date of birth as “1 January” or

“1 July” of a given

year.

172

The responsible ICBF employee

168 Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

169

Colombian Civil Code 1887,

Law 140. The ICBF was established after Law 75 (1968), Law 5 (1975) and Decree No. 2388

(1979).

170 Interviews in Colombia by the Committee. See also: BIA report, MinJus Archive, access 2.09.52, inv. no. 247; L.

McKinney, “International Adoption and the Hague Convention: Does Implementation of the Convention Protect the

Best Interests of Children”, 6

Whittier Journal of Child & Family Advocacy,

2007, p. 398.

171 Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

172 Some adoptees consider the fictitious data (which was common in practice) as evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, this

was common practice at the ICBF to solve the problem of absent birth records.

Unofficial translation

(defensora

de familia)

gave the child a name if it was unknown. The date of birth and name were

then added to the new birth certificate. If the child was old enough to say their own name, that

name was kept.

173

From 1975

From 1975, a legal distinction was made between the administrative and the legal process of

adoption. From that moment on, a court decision was required before an adoption could take

place. The administrative process through the ICBF involved the so-called declaration of

relinquishment if the parents were unknown or if the parental rights were forfeited, or the

declaration of consent of the birth parents if they were known. Due to the increased administrative

and legal requirements, the adoption files at the ICBF had to consist at least of: name and a copy

of the identity document of the birth parent(s); registration at the registry office; the decision of the

judge; and the declaration of consent or relinquishment. Adoptees who were able to view their

files reported that, despite these rules, one or more of these required documents were often

missing.

174

From 1985

From 1985, the ICBF determined that adoptive parents had to travel to Colombia themselves.

Escorts from intermediaries such as the BIA or Colombian homes were no longer allowed.

175

With

Decree 2737 of 1989, the focus in adoption legislation shifted from the rights of the original family

to the rights of the child.

176

The administrative process prior to possible adoption became stricter.

The Decree obliged the ICBF to look for solutions to protect the child and to thoroughly investigate

the home situation and the immediate family. Return to the birth family was preferred. Only if it

was better for the protection of the child could the child be adopted. The legal regulations

regarding the archiving of adoption files also became stricter.

Colombia signed the 1993 HC and ratified it in national law in 1998. In 2006, Law 1098 came into

effect, which further tightened domestic and intercountry adoption requirements. For example,

from 2006, it is no longer possible for adoptive parents to make a donation to the home where the

child comes from.

177

Review and supervision of adoption

The ICBF determines whether a child is eligible for adoption. An adoption Committee with a broad

professional background evaluates the progress per child and assesses whether they can be

placed with the birth family, a foster family, or are eligible for adoption. These Committees operate

not only within the homes of the ICBF, but also at the so-called IAPAs, where a representative of

the ICBF holds a seat in the

rce: Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

173

S. Branco, “The Colombian Adoption House: A Case Study”,

Adoption Quarterly

(2020), pp. 1-23.

174

“CRANtje” December 1985, 4th year, No. 2.

Via:

http://phg-cran.nl/attachments/File/CRANtjes/Jr4_1985-nr2. pdf.

175 Decree 2737 of 1989 (27 November). See:

https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/Decreto_2737_de_1989_Colombia.pdf;

and

interviews by the Committee in Colombia.

176 By means of Law 265, the Colombian state ratified the 1993 Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption in 1996. LAW

265 OF

1996 (25 January). See: http://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?ruta=Leyes/1657160; Law 1098 (2006):

LAW 1098 OF 2006 (8 November). See:

http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ley_1098_2006.

html;

Art. 74. LAW 1098 OF 2006 (8 November). See:

http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/

ley_1098_2006.html.

Unofficial translation

Committee. IAPAs are authorised adoption homes. Prior to the establishment of the ICBF, only

private homes and churches were active in the field of adoption in Colombia and there was no

government supervision of these private institutions.

178

The last step in the procedure was the journey of the adopted child to the Netherlands. To this

end, the Dutch embassy issues a temporary emergency travel document or

laissez-passer

for the

adopted child. In addition, a Dutch long-stay visa

(mvv)

was issued in most cases. In order to

have these documents issued, certain documents had to be present: a declaration of approval in

principle from the Ministry of Justice, a Colombian birth certificate and documents from the ICBF.

The embassy confined itself to ascertaining that these documents were there, but did not check

or review the content of them.

Under the Apostille Convention, the formal signatures and stamps of the parties to this

Convention, including Colombia, are recognised as legal. Before the Apostille Convention, there

was the so-called legalisation chain, in which a final signature from an authorised official at the

Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was sufficient to legalise all signatures and stamps placed

before. In practice, therefore, no further checks took place. The Dutch honorary consulates in

Colombia could also issue travel documents, but this was only allowed after approval from the

embassy on the basis of the same control process.

In addition to issuing travel documents and Dutch long-stay visas

(mvv’s)

through the embassy

and consulates in Colombia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also set out the rules for adoptions

for adoptive parents and intermediaries.

179

The Dutch government was generally well aware of

the changing laws and regulations in Colombia through consistent reporting from the embassy to

the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and intermediaries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also

forwarded decisions by the Ministry of Justice, for example about the permitted number of

adoptions per couple or a deviation from the age criterion, to the embassies. The Ministry of

Justice regularly granted such requests to adopt an additional (related) adoptive child or to deviate

from the usual age limits.

180

6.3

Case studies

Several cases related to adoptions from Colombia are discussed below. A number of cases deal

with problematic aspects in Colombia itself, while other cases deal with the knowledge and

involvement of the Dutch government and adoption intermediaries. The cases are arranged

chronologically.

177 Source: interviews by the Committee in Colombia. The ICBF functioned in the Colombian government as a child

protection institute and also had the function of regulating adoptions. The ICBF managed (and still manages)

children's homes itself, but also supervises the IAPAs. This supervision runs through a system of two-year permits

with inspections and checks before a permit is renewed. Currently, 85 percent of adoptions go through the ICBF, and

15 percent through the IAPAs. Some of these IAPAs already existed before the ICBF was established. The IAPAs

were: CRAN, FANA, Chiquitines, Casita de Nicolás, Casa de la Madre y el Niño and Fundación Los Pisingos; see

Interviews in Colombia by the Committee; CRANtje, June 1983, 2nd year, No. 1.

178 Adoption files, 1975-1979 in MinFA Archive, access 3200.343, inv. no. 3816.

179 FA Archive, access 3200.343, inv. no. 565.

Unofficial translation

6.3.1

DIY adoptions, theft and kidnapping of babies

Because of the long waiting lists at the intermediary BIA, DIY adoptions became very common in

the early 1970s, where abuses could easily arise. A couple from Utrecht mediated for several

couples in adoptions in Colombia without the home study being completed in the Netherlands, a

declaration of approval in principle being issued or having the family composition taken into

account.

181

In 1978,

De Telegraaf

reported that DIY individuals regularly did business with shady lawyers

involved in child trafficking. An example of this was a lawyer called the “black father of adoption”.

182

The lawyer was known to visit hospitals looking for children. DIY individuals often failed to apply

for a Dutch long-stay visa

(mvv)

for their adopted child and regularly experienced problems upon

arrival at Schiphol.

183

The theft of babies immediately after birth has occurred repeatedly. New-born children were taken

from the mother in hospital and sold to intermediaries for intercountry adoption. The mother was

told that the baby had died or was so mutilated that they would not show them to her. In other

cases, pregnant women were approached to sell the baby after delivery. Child hunters also went

to illegal abortion clinics in Bogotá and tried to persuade women to have their children born and

donate them against payment.

184

To cite one example, the BIA contact person in Colombia warned

against the children’s home

Casa de la Madre y

el Niňo

in Bogotá

where “children are given up

for adoption in a completely arbitrary and irregular way”.

185

181 BIA Report, NA, MinJus, access 2.09.52, inv. no. 247. Colombian adoptions to Curaçao were reported in 1973.

Adoptions from Colombia would be quick and easy via the Antilles, but stricter guidelines from 1975 no longer made

such "emergency adoptions" possible. Nevertheless, several children had been adopted via this route. The then ICBF

director filed complaints against the alleged illegal activities of the involved Dutch couple and their lawyer. What has

been done with these complaints has not emerged from the research material. “Spoed-adopties

vanuit Colombia naar

Nederland uitgesloten”,

Amigoe,

18-04-1979.

182 R. Kagie, article in

Vrij Nederland,

03-06-1978.

183

“Nederlands echtpaar steekt handen uit naar zwervertjes van Bogota”,

Telegraaf,

23-09-1978; Newspaper article by

Kagie,

Vrij Nederland

from 1978; Letter from the Dutch embassy in Bogotá to the Department of Child Care and

Protection [Justice] with cc to the Visa Service and Foreign Affairs, 28-09-1984, NA, MinJus, IND Policy Archive,

access 2.09.5027, inv. no. 1810.

184 Source: interviews by the Committee, both in Colombia and in the Netherlands.

185 Overview (Appendix 1) of BIA, undated (probably mid-1970s), NA, MinJus, Inv. 2.09.52, inv. no. 247.

Unofficial translation

Between 1981 and 1986, the Dutch and international press regularly wrote about widespread

child trafficking and “baby hunters” in South America, and specifically in Colombia.

186

The Dutch

press also paid a lot of attention to adoption abuse from Colombia. According to several

respondents, there were networks of shady lawyers who arranged the required papers. Doctors

and police officers were also involved in these networks. For example, an adoptee said that her

birth mother had a babysitter report her missing child to the police, who had given her the choice

of either signing the relinquishment declaration or going to prison.

187

Various birth parents have accused the ICBF of offering their children for adoption without their

consent or that the ICBF did not want to speak to them when they were looking for their missing

child (as in the Armero disaster, see after this). According to some respondents, the ICBF has,

over time, become a very bureaucratic organisation from which the humanity has disappeared.

Birth mothers and adoptees who have dealt with the ICBF are often very critical of the institute.

188

With reports of abuses or problems, the Dutch Ministry of Justice repeatedly stated that it could

do nothing because these cases took place in another country and were subject to foreign law.

The intermediaries repeatedly called for a stricter policy, but this received little or no follow-up,

which increased the criticism from these intermediaries, especially from Hogar. In the 1970s and

1980s, there were a number of reports in the press saying that adoption organisations were urging

the Ministry of Justice for stricter rules, but without any success.

189

6.3.2

Former Minister Veldkamp

In 1981, a fuss arose about the involvement of former Minister of Social Affairs Gerard Veldkamp

in the illegal adoption of a child from Colombia for a business friend in whose company he was a

supervisory director. The child stayed at the leprosy centre

Agua de Dios,

to which Veldkamp

twice transferred $ 25,000. The BIA contact person had pointed out to Veldkamp and his business

friend the conditions that applied to adoption, but they seem to have ignored his advice. The

director of BIA had informed the Dutch Ministry of Justice of the state of affairs. The embassy in

Bogotá also informed the Ministry and pointed out to the prospective adoptive parent that he had

acted incorrectly. The embassy did not cooperate with the adoption. The child eventually flew to

France with a Colombian passport without a Dutch long-stay visa

(mvv)

and entered the

Netherlands via Belgium, where the child was allowed to enter for tourism purposes with a

Colombian passport.

190

186

Interview in Colombia by the Committee; see also “Ring in Colombia Kidnaps Children for Sale Abroad”,

New York

Times,

16/08/1981;

Der Spiegel

(1982); “Baby’s worden in Zuid-Amerika verhandeld of ze koopwaar zijn”,

Volkskrant,

30/12/1986.

187 Source: interviews by the Committee, both in Colombia and in the Netherlands.

188 Source: Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

189

“Gewetenloze kinderhandel”,

De Telegraaf,

12 November 1979.

190

“Justitie blijft buiten zaak illegale adoptie”,

Volkskrant,

23-06-1981;

“Veldkamp voogd voor vriend:

Justitie

onderzoekt illegale adoptie”,

Volkskrant,

19-06-1981; Answers to parliamentary questions, 1981, MinJus Archive,

inv. no. 4458.

Unofficial translation

This affair led to various parliamentary questions. In the answer from the Ministry of Justice, it

was stated that in the Veldkamp case, no action had been taken in accordance with the existing

guidelines with regard to adoption and that the procedure showed little respect for the rules. In

the further answer, the Dutch Minister of Justice stated that the parties involved had acted contrary

to existing guidelines, but that there were no criminal offenses. The Ministry of Justice indicated

that there were no grounds for a criminal investigation. The Child Care and Protection Board also

indicated that it was not in the best interest of the child to take the child away from the adoptive

parents.

191

6.3.3

Armero

The city of Armero was buried under a massive mudslide on 13 November 1985 caused by the

eruption of the Nevado del Ruiz volcano. This disaster caused more than 23,000 fatalities. There

are strong indications that more than 400 children separated from their parents by the disaster

were subsequently offered for intercountry adoption to different countries.

192

These children were taken to reception centres across the country and offered for adoption

through legal and potentially illegal channels, both in Colombia and abroad. This was partly

possible because the records of the registry office were lost in the disaster. With three witnesses

at the registry office, people could register themselves, but also any child as their own child. This

opened up the possibility of creating fictional identities and offering children who survived the

disaster for adoption. Birth mothers reported that on video footage of the disaster, which had been

widely in the news, they had seen how their child had been rescued by emergency workers, but

that the child had since disappeared. After the disaster, more and more such statements were

made.

193

In 2006, the

Armando Armero

Foundation was established to keep the memory of the disaster

alive. Since 2012, the Foundation has focused on reuniting lost children with their parents. The

Foundation has so far created profiles of nearly 500 children who are looking for their original

family and of 300 parents or relatives who are looking for a child. A local forensic laboratory

performs DNA tests free of charge.

So far, Armando Armero has been able to establish that more than 60 of the approximately 500

missing children have been offered for intercountry adoption - while their parents were still alive.

The Foundation believes it has indications of wrongdoing within the authorities, because pages

and photos have been removed from the relevant ICBF documentation drawn up after the

disaster. Two mothers who lost their children after the disaster but who, according to video footage

or testimonials from rescue workers, had survived the disaster, said they had lost all faith in the

involved Colombian government organisations due to the lack of cooperation in their search.

194

191

Answers to parliamentary questions 1981, MinJus Archive, inv. no. 4458; “Justitie blijf buiten zaak illegale adoptie”,

Volkskrant,

23 June 1981.

192 Based on

www.armandoarmero.org,

and an interview by the Committee in Colombia, 9 January 2020.

193 Source: Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

194 Source: Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

6.3.4

Irregularities at Dutch intermediaries

In the mid-1980s, a discussion arose between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Justice and Hogar

about Dutch long-stay visas

(mvv’s)

for adopted children. Despite a contrary advice, Hogar did

not apply for a Dutch long-stay visa

(mvv)

for adoptions, as Colombia did not formally have a visa

requirement. This sometimes caused problems for the adoptive parents at Schiphol.

195

inspection report of the Ministry of Justice of December 1994 shows that Hogar's Dutch contact

person in Colombia had set up a network in the preceding years in which her personal, financial

interests were leading. According to the inspection, this person therefore had to be replaced.

Hogar confirmed this state of affairs in their annual report. Moreover, the cooperation with the

Dutch embassy in Bogotá turned out to be problematic due to the actions of this contact person,

which gave Hogar a bad name.

196

In conversations and documents, various adoptees also accused other contact persons of Dutch

intermediaries of involvement in abuses or personal financial gain.

197

Names of other Dutch

nationals and Colombian intermediaries living in Colombia were also mentioned. Except in the

above cases, this has never led to reports, formal complaints or investigations. No indications of

this were found in the archives either.

6.3.5

Concealment of status in Colombia

Concealment of status means deliberately making a person's descent or actual origin unclear or

ambiguous. This can be done, for example, by - incorrectly - stating that birth parents are

unknown. In Colombia, a new birth certificate can be drawn up at the time of adoption, whereby

the child is given the names of the adoptive parents and sometimes a Dutch first name. If the

original papers are not properly preserved, this new certificate will not provide sufficient leads to

find the birth family.

198

Concealment of status and the production of incorrect documents has often involved bribery and

corruption. These were common phenomena in Colombia, which is described by several Dutch

and Colombian informants as an endemic corrupt country. In this way, declarations of

relinquishment and birth certificates with false names, places of birth and fictitious parents could

be fabricated for a fee.

This was particularly simple before 1975, because there was little regulation and no supervision

by the government. The birth parents themselves often also provided a false name and address

in order to hide the stigmatising unmarried or illegitimate pregnancy. According to the ICBF, this

happened out of fear of criminal or social sanctions. After all, only the notary had to believe what

the birth mothers said. It is almost impossible to find the real name of the mother, according to

the ICBF.

199

Within the current Colombian

195 Memorandum from Embassy in Bogotá to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 20 June 1988. NA, MinJus, IND Policy

Archive, access 2.09.5027, inv. no. 1814; Letter from the Ministry of Justice to Hogar Foundation, 27 June

1984, MinJus, IND Policy Archive, access 2.09.5027. inv. no. 1810.

196 Inspection report, 7-12-1994, and Hogar Annual Report, 1994, in MinJus Archive, OBP 12, Hogar Foundation, inv. no. 20.

197 Interviews in Colombia and the Netherlands by the Committee.

198 Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

199 Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

proceedings, foundlings are given a fictitious name and date of birth that is specified by the

defensora de familia

of the ICBF. Although this is not forgery, it does make it impossible to use

the name to trace the birth parents.

6.3.6

Inadequate archiving at ICBF

In the 1970s and 1980s, there was limited and incomplete archiving of adoption files and

underlying documents. Archives from these years have also been destroyed on the basis of

limitation rules or have been lost due to natural disasters and conflict. Searches by some adoptees

regularly show that their ICBF files were missing the declaration of relinquishment and that

personal data had been falsified.

200

A second complication for adoptees' searches may be that the ICBF has more extensive files over

the 1980s and later, but only provides part of the documentation to the adoptive parents. It has

been established by law that the ICBF should assist adoptees who are looking for their roots.

However, this search process can take years because the capacity at the ICBF is limited, and the

documents sometimes have to be obtained from the regional archives or from a notary elsewhere

in the country.

A third complication concerns the inadequate digitisation and archiving. This makes searching the

immense ICBF archives difficult and time-consuming. Adoptees are dissatisfied with ICBF's

actions, which are described as unhelpful. The birth family has no legal right to information once

the adoption has taken place, even if it took place under suspicious circumstances. This is difficult

to process for a number of birth mothers.

201

Taking into account the entire period, the parties involved make a distinction between a “weak”

and “hard” period in Colombian legislation and regulations. The first term refers to the lack of

adoption legislation and regulations that have long characterised Colombian adoption practice.

During the hard period, which gradually set in from the 1980s, stricter requirements were imposed

on adoption procedures and archiving. In particular, a large part of the adoption files from the

1970s and 1980s turned out to be incomplete or (partly) destroyed, sometimes by the ICBF itself,

partly as a result of limitation rules. According to interviewees, such as scientific legal experts,

later adoption files were often more complete. Particularly from 1989, and all the way after 2006,

it became - at least on paper - more difficult to forge documents.

202

200 Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

201 Interviews in Colombia by the Committee.

202

Interviews by the Committee in Colombia. See also recent scientific work: S. Branco, “The Colombian Adoption

House: A Case Study”,

Adoption Quarterly (2020),

pp. 1-23. Branco illustrates the process of four adult Colombian

adoptees in which they find their adoption documents turned out to be incorrect. In addition, Branco describes their

attempts to find out correct information about their origins. Finally, the adoptees present advocacy recommendations

to support Colombian adoptees in provenance searches.

Unofficial translation

6.4

Aftermath: adoptions from Colombia, 1998-present

After the introduction of the 1993 HC in the Netherlands in 1998, the intercountry adoption

practice between Colombia and the Netherlands continued. This is evident from the table below

with adoption figures.

1998

178

2009

1999

196

2010

2000

226

2011

2001

208

2012

2002

197

2013

2003

171

2014

2004

104

2015

2005

2016

2006

2017

2007

2018

2008

2019

total

1,642

Table 7: Number of officially placed adopted children from Colombia, 1998-present.

Between 1998 and 2018, more than 1,600 Colombian children were adopted by the Dutch. From

2002, the number of adopted children fell from just under two hundred in 2002 and 2003 to a few

dozen per year in the years 2005-2011. A handful of children have come to the Netherlands every

year since 2012, and none in 2019-2020.

As in the period before 1998, abuses in adoptions from Colombia were also reported after 1998.

From 2009 onwards, articles were published telling about the perspective of Colombian

adoptees.

203

Below are some examples of this that are illustrative of the signs of abuse.

Reports from 2005 reported on the arrest of a Dutch couple who wanted to commit concealment

of status by leaving Colombia with a Colombian child registered as their biological child.

204

October 2005, the Inspectorate for Youth Care

(Inspectie Jeugdzorg)

also established that the

Dutch licensed intermediary Hogar was inadequate on certain points: for example, the

intermediary did not work with professional employees and the matching procedure was not in

order. The report of the Inspectorate for Youth Care showed a lack of professionalism. Hogar’s

intermediary work stopped in 2010.

205

In March 2012, there was a fuss in various Dutch media about a boy from Dokkum who turned

out to have been given away by the ICBF (the Child Care and Protection and the Central Authority

of Colombia) to the adoptive parents without the approval of his parents. The case received a lot

of attention in Colombia through the TV programme

Séptimo Día,

after which three hundred

Colombian parents reported that they had lost their child in the same way. It led to an investigation

by the Colombian judicial authorities into the ICBF. In response to this report, the Dutch

government responded with the observation that intercountry adoption is based on trust and that

only a relatively small number of adoptions are known to be illegal each year: eight to nine out of

more than 705 cases in 2010.

206

203

“Ik ben geen boos adoptiekind”,

Eindhovens Dagblad,

10-10-2009;

“Adoptie blijkt kinderroof; Colombiaantje naar

Dokkum zonder akkoord van zijn ouders”,

De Telegraaf,

19-04-2012;

“Fiona vindt zus na 37 jaar terug”,

Dagblad van

het Noorden,

13-03-2014;

“Inès weet niet meer of zij die baby wel is”,

De Volkskrant,

08-08-2018.

204

“Nederlands stel in cel wegens smokkelen baby; arrestatie colombia”,

Trouw,

22-10-2005;

“Kopers

kind opgepakt in

Colombia -

Nederlands echtpaar probeerde baby land uit te smokkelen”,

Algemeen Dagblad,

22-10-2005.

205

Inspectorate for Youth Care, “Onderzoek naar de werkwijze bij matching door de Stichting Hogar bij

interlandelijke adoptie”, October 2005, MinJus Archive, “OBP 12, Stichting Hogar”, inv. no. 20.

206

“Adoptie blijkt kinderroof”,

De Telegraaf,

19-04-2012;

“Emotionele ramp in Colombia”,

De Telegraaf,

20-04-2012;

“Herkomst onduidelijk”,

Spits,

20-04-2012.

Unofficial translation

The Committee received reports of other abuses. For example, a Dutch organisation that offers

help with origin searches found a mother who had given up her son in 1999 at the children's home

Los Pisingos

in Bogotá. The mother did not believe her son was looking for her at first, as she

inquired about him at

Los Pisingos

in 2010, and was then told that he was never adopted because

he died shortly after birth. This had such a negative effect on the mother that she is no longer

open to contact with her son.

207

Los Pisingos

has been the subject of adverse headlines in 2013 due to established financial

malpractice and improper management. The ICBF withdrew the license. The children’s home had

to close for six months and the adoption programme was shut down. Pre-existing suspicions of

private payments in intercountry adoptions were confirmed and an amount of $ 2.3 million had

gone to bank accounts in Panama and the Cayman Islands, among others. The Colombian

Attorney General found that several of the foundation's offices had operated without any

oversight. It turned out that there were all kinds of unpaid bills and fictitious expenses had been

entered. The director had transferred monthly amounts to a private account in London for seven

years.

208

6.5

Main findings from Colombia

Intercountry adoption from Colombia started in the 1970s. The country faced political violence

and interstate conflict, poverty, unemployment and inequality. From a legal point of view, little was

arranged, intercountry adoption took place for a long time in the private law sphere without

government supervision. Individual intermediaries, such as lawyers and doctors, as well as

criminal networks, were able to take advantage of this situation. This encouraged adoption

abuses. These abuses mainly occurred among the so-called DIY individuals, whose activities took

place largely outside the official channels, but there is also evidence of the involvement of official

Colombian authorities and homes. The ubiquitous corruption in Colombia contributed to this.

Intercountry adoption abuses between Colombia and the Netherlands ranged from document

falsification, incorrect payments, bribery, corruption and fraud to child trafficking for profit, theft

and kidnapping of children and having children relinquished under duress.

The Dutch government was aware of the abuses in Colombia, but has not used its own powers

as supervisor and license issuer to take action against it. Moreover, the Dutch government did

not see it as its task to check the content of the documents stamped by the Colombian

government.

207 Interviews by the Committee.

208 Interviews by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

Unofficial translation

7.1

Indonesia

Key figures and context

In 1973, the first official Indonesian adoptee came to the Netherlands.

209

In the following ten years,

nearly 3,100 adoptees followed. The years of 1979-1981 were a peak, with an average of more

than 500 Indonesian children a year coming to the Netherlands. The organisation

BIA/Wereldkinderen operated more than 1,700 adoptions, more than half of the total. In 1981,

BIA stopped operating because of self-reported unreliable channels and lack of understanding of

adoption costs. Unlike in other States of origin, a wide variety of Dutch intermediaries was active

in Indonesia: among others, the foundations Flash (150+ children), SOC (150+), Mulia (150),

Melatti (about 130), Immanuel (100), Heerebout. (50), Teman Anak (40+) and SBA (40). Dozens

of DIY individuals were also active in Indonesia. One example of this was a certain Indonesian

“uncle” who was single-handedly

involved in nearly 100 adoptions.

210

The Indonesian government introduced a temporary adoption stop for the Netherlands in 1981,

which explained the decline in numbers in 1982. Delay in the process explains why that the

numbers did not go to zero. On 1 January 1984, a formal, permanent adoption ban took effect.

211

The adoptions that had been initiated before that were still going ahead.

1973

1974

1975

1976

110

1977

154

1978

249

1979

515

1980

669

1981

535

1982

279

1983

438

1984

Total

3,072

Table 8: Number of officially placed adopted children from Indonesia, 1973-1984.

212

Indonesia is a country made up of hundreds of islands. It has many different ethnicities, religions,

languages and cultures. The intercountry adoption practice between Indonesia and the

Netherlands cannot be seen in isolation from previous political, socio-economic and cultural ties.

One reason for the Dutch to adopt an Indonesian child was the historical and cultural familiarity

with the country. In the 1970s and 1980s, geopolitical aspects and diplomatic struggles between

the two countries played a role in adoption practice.

213

209 It is likely that a small number of Indonesian children were adopted in the Netherlands before 1973. The Dutch Child

Care and Protection Board in Roermond reported in December 1967 that documents of some Indonesian adoptees

were

not “identical”. See Letter to the Department of Private Law Justice, 28-12-1967,

MinJus Archive, access no.

2.09.105, inv. no. 5210. Applications for adoption were also submitted in 1956, see documents in: National Archive

(NA), FA Archive, Dutch Directorate in Bandung, access no. 2.05.61.03, inv. no. 361.

210

Letter to the Department of Immigration Affairs, “Toelating statenloos adoptiekind”, 07-10-1979,

NA, IND Policy

Archive, access 2.09.5027, inv. no. 2712.

211

Wereldkinderen, “Adopties uit Indonesië. Project Historie & Roots” (2019), pp. 10-11.

After 1984, it was possible in

exceptional cases for non-Indonesians to adopt a child. A requirement is that the prospective adoptive parents must

have resided in Indonesia for at least two years, Ibid., p. 16.

212 Data on 1972-1983

from Hoksbergen, “Vijftig jaar adoptie in Nederland”, p. 8 (Table 2A) and pp. 10-11

(Table 3A). Data on 1984 from Wereldkinderen, “Adopties uit Indonesië” (2019), p. 5.

213

“Afgifte reispapieren voorlopig halt toegeroepen: Indonesië wil adoptie gaan beperken”,

Trouw,

04-08-1981;

Wereldkinderen, “Adopties uit Indonesië”, p. 10.

Unofficial translation

7.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Indonesia

The Indonesian adoption legislation from the 1950s onwards partly arose from the Dutch East

Indies legislation from the colonial period. Like the Dutch Adoption Act in 1956, the Indonesian

Act focused on domestic adoption and not intercountry adoption.

214

An influence on the general

Indonesian law was that inheritance law could run through different lines (father, mother or both),

which was determined by different religious and local customs.

215

A unique aspect of Indonesian

legislation up to at least 1979 concerned the

Adat

principle. These were local Indonesian customs

and habits that became intertwined with formal laws and regulations.

216

In 1979, Indonesia implemented a new Child Protection Law (no. 4). The law focused on the

welfare of Indonesian children in general, and did not provide any formal guidelines for

(intercountry) adoption procedures. The Supplementary Circular (no. 2) of the Indonesian

Supreme Court of 7 April 1979 determined that the adoption of an Indonesian child can only be

carried out after the intervention and approval of a court.

217

On 1 January 1984, Indonesia formally halted the general intercountry adoption practice. This

happened as a result of unsuccessful attempts to regulate the course of events in the years before

(especially 1981-82), and out of public dissatisfaction with suspicions of wrongdoing, corruption,

child trafficking and other abuses. In addition, the influence of Islamic movements in Indonesian

politics grew, which by definition disapproved of intercountry adoption.

The Indonesian adoption procedure

The Indonesian adoption procedure was influenced by the frequent lack of central registration

shortly after birth. Registration of a child usually took place when it was legally required, usually

when the child started attending education. Local laws and regulations were considered to be of

greater importance than obligations imposed from above by central government. That is the

reason that central registration was rare. Today, a quarter of all children are still not registered

upon birth. It was also not always customary in Indonesia to have a surname or last name. On

official documents, this was sometimes resolved by entering the same name for first and last

name, or leaving it blank.

218

The formal legal adoption procedure from Indonesia to the Netherlands in the period 1973-84 had

the following steps (the required documents are

in italics):

214 Dutch law stated that the child to be adopted was given legal child status, completely severing legal ties with the

biological parents. Indonesian legislation was less stringent; the adopted child retained the Indonesian nationality

and name. Indonesian law was formally less far-reaching. See: adoptie-indonesie.nl.

215 Even before Indonesian independence, adoption laws and mechanisms existed in the country. However, this was not

formally arranged and mainly

concerned domestic adoptions. See A. Cahyono, “Cross-Border

Child Adoption:

Protection and Challenges in Indonesia.” In: Harkrisnowo, Juwana and Oppusunggu (ed.),

Law and Justice in a

Globalized World

(London, 2017), pp. 241-248.

216

Wereldkinderen, “Adopties uit Indonesië”, p. 12.

217

Cahyono, “Cross-Border Child Adoption”, p. 243.

218

Wereldkinderen, “Adopties uit Indonesië”, pp. 11-14.

Unofficial translation

Parents relinquish their child

If Indonesian parents were unable or unwilling to take care of their child, they could submit

a request to an Indonesian civil-law notary to relinquish with their child. After that, the

guardianship was legally transferred to a home or foundation. In addition, a declaration of

relinquishment was drawn up, confirmed by witnesses (usually personnel of the notary or

a contact person of the relevant authority). The

declaration of relinquishment

contained

personal details of the birth parents and was signed by the village chief.

219

The home draws up a file of the child

In the Indonesian home it was examined whether a child could be put up for adoption. It

was desirable for such a child to have a birth certificate (Sulat

Kelahiran),

but this was not

always the case. In the home, a small file was drawn up about the child, in order to achieve

a matching with a potential adoptive family. Intermediaries and homes contacted each

other about this to coordinate the possibilities for adoption.

Intermediaries matched the child and adoptive parents

Dutch prospective adoptive parents who had received a

declaration of approval in principle

through the Ministry of Justice could contact Dutch adoption intermediaries, such as

BIA/Wereldkinderen or private intermediaries. They had contacts with Indonesian

children's homes and were familiar with the local procedure.

The Indonesian embassy arranged the necessary documents

After the positive matching between a child and prospective adoptive parents, the

Indonesian embassy in The Hague was contacted. It sent the documents required in the

Netherlands to the Indonesian authorities.

The home transfers the child to the adoptive parents

From 1978 onwards, prospective adoptive parents in particular travelled to Indonesia

themselves. This was usually done under the guidance and organisation of intermediaries.

There, the Indonesian authority handed the child over to the parents and a

notary's

statement

was handed over. The Dutch parents paid the authority for the transfer.

An Indonesian judge authorises the adoption

In 1978, in Indonesia, a decision was required through a hearing at the central court, the

Dewan Nasional.

At least the relevant Indonesian foundation was present. The birth

parents were never present; the adoptive parents sometimes. From 1981, it was legally

clarified that at least one prospective adoptive parent had to be present. After the hearing,

the custody transfer was formally settled.

The child could then travel to the Netherlands

After a positive court decision, the Indonesian Migration Service arranged an Indonesian

outbound travel document.

Finally, all the above documents were submitted to the Dutch

embassy in the capital Jakarta. After that, a Dutch long-stay visa

(mvv)

was issued and

the child was allowed to travel to the Netherlands. Before 1978, this was usually done with

escorts, after 1978, it was done by the adoptive parents themselves. However, there was

also at least one documented case in which a child entered the Netherlands on the basis

of an entry visa issued at Schiphol.

220

Whether this occurred incidentally or structurally is

unknown.

219 The signature by the village chief was legally recognised, which indicated the importance of the aforementioned

informal legal principle of

Adat.

220 E-mail from adoptee, Attachment: Letter dated 17 April 1979. From this enclosed letter it appeared that the Kasih

Bunda home requested the Immigration Services at Schiphol to grant an entry visa, instead of the Dutch embassy

in Jakarta. This was done by relying on crowds during the holiday season.

Unofficial translation

Adoption is ratified in the Netherlands

Upon arrival in the Netherlands, the child was immediately medically examined. In the

days that followed, a

residence permit

was applied for at Immigration Services.

Guardianship was arranged through the Subdistrict Court. One year later, the child

could be formally adopted under Dutch law, which gave the child a legal child status

and Dutch nationality.

7.3

Case studies

The Committee's investigation shows that large-scale abuses occurred in the adoption practice

between Indonesia and the Netherlands. There are concrete indications of child trafficking,

kidnapping and theft. Signs of document falsification, concealment of status, fraud and corruption

by intermediaries and malicious homes also emerged repeatedly. The Dutch government was

aware of the signs of abuse from at least November 1977. In any case, the suspicions had been

raised by the Indonesian authorities themselves since 1979. There have also been many

publications about abuses in international, Indonesian and Dutch media. As an example, six

cases, documented in detail, are discussed below that follow each other over time. Together, they

are exemplary for the detection and occurrence of abuses in the Indonesian-Dutch adoption

practice. The cases also show the role of the Dutch government and intermediaries.

7.3.1

Dual role of intermediary, December 1976-October 1978

In December 1976, the director of the BIA paid a working visit to Indonesia. The Dutch Association

of Foster Families

(Nederlandse Vereniging van Pleeggezinnen, NVP),

one of the predecessors

of BIA, had a local contact person there who assisted with adoptions proceedings. At the same

time, she worked at the Dutch embassy in Jakarta. However, BIA suspected that her actions were

not pure. After several conversations with her, BIA wished to stop working together in early 1977.

It was suspected that she was operating in a dubious way and that she did not disclose the

adoption costs charged by her. BIA suggested to the Dutch Child Care and Protection Board that

there was a direct reason to restrict her intermediary activities.

221

In April 1978, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs discussed the role of the contact person with the

embassy in Jakarta. Both questioned her dual role of both embassy assistant and adoption

intermediary. The embassy then opened an investigation that led to the conclusion that there

were no substantiated indications for her to be fired. The necessary adoption documents had

been checked and were found to be correct.

222

In October 1978, BIA warned the Dutch Child Care

and Protection that the contact person was working for other intermediaries. She has also been

repeatedly associated with child trafficking.

223

221 Letter from the Director of BIA to the Dutch Child Care and Protection Board, 28-11-1977, NA, Policy Archive IND,

2.09.5027, inv. no. 1810.

222 Memorandum from the Department of Immigration Affairs, Ministry of Justice to Head of the Residence

Arrangements Department, 04-04- 1978, NA, IND Policy Archive, access no. 2.09.5027, inv. no. 1810.

223

https://www.adoptie-indonesie.nl/adoptie-organisaties-indonesie/;

Letter from the Flash board to the Ministry of

Justice, 21-06-1979, MinJus Archive, access 5000.017, inv. no. 5302.

Unofficial translation

The Committee was unable to determine how this case proceeded and whether measures were

taken against her actions on the basis of the research material.

7.3.2

Abuse suspicions in the media, August 1979

At the beginning of August 1979, there was much talk in the Dutch media about adoption abuses

in Indonesia. During that period, the Indonesian police arrested suspects of child trafficking,

including a registrar and a midwife. The cooperating suspects would have approached poor

families to give up their child for money. The children would then have been resold to homes,

where they were put up for intercountry adoption. This allegedly involved document forgery, fraud,

corruption and child trafficking. The Dutch media reported that at least thirty children had ended

up in the Netherlands via this route.

De Telegraaf

subsequently reported that the Ministry of

Justice would not attempt to trace the children in question, because the Ministry assumed that

Dutch adoptive parents had not deliberately worked illegally to have a child adopted. Moreover,

the children present today would already be used to their new homeland.

224

From September 1978, the Dutch intermediary

Overzeese Contacten Foundation

(SOC)

encountered problems with the Indonesian authorities for unclear reasons. The authorities made

it difficult to provide the outbound travel documents to the adopted children mediated through

SOC.

225

Around August 1979, J.S. Nasution (head of the Indonesian Social Welfare Council)

advised the Indonesian government to end cooperation with SOC. SOC was disbanded in 1980,

after which those involved founded a new organisation, the

Kind en Toekomst Foundation.

It is

not clear from the research material whether SOC was involved in abuses or the victim of a

general measure from Indonesia. However, the case does show that the Indonesian government

attempted to limit the multitude of Dutch intermediaries and to limit the associated possible

abuses.

226

224 See the following newspaper articles:

“adoptieschandaal in Indonesië”; “Babyhandel opgerold: „Weesjes” duur ver-

kocht”,

De Volkskrant,

08-08-1979;

“Handel in kinderen op Java”,

De Waarheid,

09-08-1979;

“Geruchten over

adoptieschandalen in BanglaDesh en Indonesië”,

Nederlands Dagblad,

09-08-1979;

“Bende koopt baby’s op voor

adoptie”,

Nieuwsblad van het Noorden,

08-08-1979;

“Illegale baby’s uit Indonesië mogen blijven”,

De Telegraaf,

09-

08-1979.

225 Letter from the Overzeese Contacten Foundation to the Ministry of Justice, Department of Immigration Affairs, 27-

09-1978, NA, IND Policy Archive, 1956-1985, access 2.09.5027, inv. no. 2712.

226 Interview report Head of the Child Care and Protection Department with BIA director, 28-8-1979, MinJus, access,

5000.017, inv. no. 5302.

Unofficial translation

7.3.3

Actions of Flash on the island of Biak in West Irian, 1979

From the end of August 1979, media attention arose about alleged child trafficking from Indonesia,

in particular about an adoption scandal on the island of Biak. The intermediary Flash was

suspected of having played a leading role in this scandal, in which preparations were made to

illegally adopt more than three hundred children to the Netherlands. The children would be put up

for adoption because they were orphans, which turned out not to be true. Among other things, a

Dutch development worker on the spot warned the Dutch Public Prosecution Service about the

plans of Flash.

227

The Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice, as well as the Embassy in Jakarta, spoke and

corresponded extensively on the Biak case during August-September 1979. There were extensive

discussions between the Directorate of Child Care and Protection and Flash in response to the

signs on Biak.

228

Judicial Authorities then opened a brief investigation. Internal correspondence

eventually showed that Judicial Authorities had doubts about the punishability of Flash's actions.

Initially, it was noted that:

“Someone who intentionally “recruits” a child abroad for the purpose of adoption, all this

covered by a false adoption session that is organised with the help of bribes and/or with

documents obtained through corruption, and brings or has brought them to the

Netherlands is guilty of the crime of Art. 279 of the Dutch Criminal Code."

229

However, an involved official

concluded: “Perhaps FLASH does not work as it should, but I do not

think the article in

Trouw

is well-founded, given the available data. There is no evidence of any

criminal offense.”

230

Parliamentary questions were also asked about Flash's actions in Biak. The responsible State

Secretary of Justice was asked to share the investigation results with the Lower House. The State

Secretary later replied that she saw no reason for an extensive investigation, because, according

to Judicial Authorities, it had not been shown that Flash had disregarded the adoption

guidelines.

231

She finally stated in the media that Flash “had not brought children from West Irian

to the Netherlands in an inadmissible manner for adoption”. With that, the case was closed. In the

following years, until the adoption stop in 1984, Flash continued to operate in Indonesian

adoptions.

232

227

“Verwarring over Vakantiereisje” “Kinderen Nieuw-Guinea dupe adoptieschandaal”,

Trouw,

24-08-1979;

“Onderzoek

naar adoptie van Papoea-kinderen”,

Trouw,

24-09-1979;

“Kinderbescherming onderzoek praktijken van

adoptiebureau”,

Nederlands Dagblad,

25-08-1979; Letter development worker from Reformed Churches to the Public

Prosecution Service, 25-08-1979, MinJus, access: 5000.017, inv. no. 5302.

228 Conversation report of Head of the Child Care and Protection Department with chairman of Flash, 30 August 1979,

MinJus Archive, access 5000.017, inv. no. 5302.

229 Internal Justice memorandum for parliamentary question Nijpels about Flash, 20-09-1979, MinJus, access no. 5000.017, inv.

no. 5302.

230 Ibid.

231

Parliamentary question from Nijpels (VVD), to State Secretary of Justice, concerns: “Research into the

activities in the

field of adoption mediation by the Flash Foundation”, 30-08-1979

/ 02-10-1979.

232

“Staatssecretaris Haars na onderzoek: Adoptiekinderen Irian toelaatbaar”,

Trouw,

03-10-1979.

Unofficial translation

7.3.4

Baby farm of Indonesian midwife, December 1980

In December 1980, a large-scale fraud came to light: an Indonesian midwife was arrested after

eighteen babies were found in her attic. The babies were intended to be put up for adoption to

Western couples, mainly Dutch. The midwife would receive a thousand guilders per child for this;

and the birth parents would receive two hundred guilders. The midwife worked for an unknown

Dutch intermediary. The Indonesian authorities closed the so-called

baby farm.

233

It is unknown

what happened to the children.

Suspicions of the existence of such

baby farms

were quite common.

234

These concerns were also

frequently voiced in the Dutch media, with explicit attention to the role of midwives in shady

networks.

235

The Dutch authorities corresponded frequently about the case. Both Foreign Affairs

and the embassy stressed that Indonesia should take stricter measures against such excesses.

The Netherlands itself took no further action, as the research material shows.

236

233 Baby farms were places where women gave birth (whether or not against their will, and/or for a fee), after

which the child was given up for adoption.

234

Wereldkinderen, “Adopties uit Indonesië”, p. 15; D. Deijle

Postpakketjes van overzee: Gelegaliseerde kinderhandel in

adoptie van kinderen uit Indonesië

(Brónsgreun: Steyl, 2020), p. 69 See also: Wereldkinderen Tijdschrift, 1979

volume, number 3, “Kinderhandel in Indonesië”. It says: “Many of you will be startled by the reports in the press, radio

and TV about the child trafficking in Indonesia for adoption in the Netherlands. According to the messages, a few

people from Central Java were arrested for buying babies from mostly poor, unmarried mothers, which then provided

them with forged papers, after which they were offered for adoption in the Netherlands through intermediaries with

"some" profit. Despite many rumours, the correct Dutch channel is still not exactly known. By the way, the case is not

very recent, as this issue has been going on for several months. Whatever way the system may exactly work, this

clearly shows that not all channels are reliable and the BIA and the associations must proceed with the utmost care in

establishing their contacts.”

235

“Weer arrestaties Kinderhandel Indonesië”,

Het Vrĳe Volk,

20-11-1979;

“Gevonden op vliering van

vroedvrouw

Baby’s in Jakarta, voor adoptie-ouders in Nederland bestemd”,

Leeuwarder Courant,

30-12-1980;

“adoptieschandaal

in Indonesië: Babyhandel opgerold, „Weesjes” duur verkocht”,

De Volkskrant,

08-08-1979;

“Weer arrestaties

Kinderhandel Indonesië”,

Het Vrije Volk,

20-11-1978;

“Baby’s ontvoerd in Indonesië voor adoptie”,

Nieuwsblad van

het Noorden,

09-06-1981;

“Indonesische baby’s vooral in Nederland verkocht”, De Waarheid, 30-

12-1981;

“Gevonden op vliering van vroedvrouw Baby’s in Jakarta, voor adoptie-ouders in Nederland bestemd” (Leeuwarder

Courant,

30-12-1980).

236

Report from Persspiegel, “opvangcentrum van babies

in Jakarta-oost ontdekt. Politie onderzoekt een syndicaat

voor de verkoop van Babies naar het buitenland.”

29/12/1980; Code message from Embassy Jakarta to FA

“Kinderhandel” 30/12/1980, NA, FA Archive, access no. 2.05.330, inv. no. 6427.

Unofficial translation

7.3.5

Kurniawati, June 1981-July 1982

After the kidnapping of a girl named Kurniawati in the autumn of 1980, she ended up with incorrect

papers with a Dutch couple in Friesland. Her birth father filed a lawsuit against the adoption in

Indonesia.

237

The case is discussed below, because the case was an important reason for the

Indonesian authorities to introduce an adoption stop (a temporary stop in July 1981; a permanent

one from 1984). The case received a lot of attention in both Indonesian and Dutch media and led

to intensive public discussions and parliamentary questions.

238

Partly because of this case, social

criticism of adoptions from Indonesia to the Netherlands grew in both countries.

After being kidnapped from her hometown, Kurniawati was sold through intermediaries, after

which she ended up in the children's home Kasih Bunda. From there, she was adopted by a Dutch

couple. That couple later indicated that they were not aware of the fact that Kurniawati still had

birth parents and promised to bring her back to them.

239

Both the Dutch and Indonesian media reported extensively on the case.

240

The case resulted in a

long-drawn-out lawsuit in which Kurniawati's birth parents contested the adoption. The lawsuit

ultimately turned out to be unsuccessful. The demand was declared inadmissible, after which the

Indonesian government called in a diplomatic means to put the Netherlands under pressure: the

Indonesian migration service temporarily stopped issuing travel visas for children to be adopted

to the Netherlands. In practice, this effectively meant a temporary adoption stop.

241

Several Dutch parties subsequently became involved in the case. The Ministry of Justice, Foreign

Affairs and the Embassy in Jakarta corresponded extensively on the case in the autumn of 1981.

They argued that general relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia were at stake. The

situation around Kurniawati thus became strongly politicised.

242

The Dutch embassy and Foreign Affairs feared that the Kurniawati case would seriously damage

diplomatic relations with Indonesia. They therefore emphasised that the case should be separated

from the broader adoption practice. Research material shows that the Dutch government at first

held back, but that political pressure from Indonesia forced it to cooperate in finding a solution.

243

From the end of July 1981, the Dutch embassy in Jakarta was aware of the matter, but did nothing.

This is evident from correspondence about the Kurniawati case between the embassy and

237

Report from Persspiegel, “Reeds 100 Indonesische geadopteerde kinderen in Nederland?”, 17-07-1981,

NA,

FA Archive, access no. 2.05.330, inv. no. 6427. See also Wereldkinderen, “Adopties uit Indonesië”, p. 16.

238 Parliamentary questions from Haas-Berger (PvdA) to State Secretary of Justice, also to the Minister of Foreign

Affairs,

concerns: “The transfer of Indonesian prospective adopted children to the Netherlands”, 15

-10-1981 / 04-12-

1981.

239 Letter of adopted couple to the birth parents, 4-06-1981, NA, FA Archive, access 2.05.330, inv. no. 6427.

240

“Pleegkind uit Indonesië zou zijn ontvoerd”,

NRC Handelsblad,

23-07-1981

en “Kind uit Fries gezin wellicht opgeëist:

Adoptie uit Indonesië soms illegaal”,

Volkskrant,

24-07-1981.

241

“Voorlopig geen uitreisvisa adoptiekinderen in Djakarta”,

Leeuwarder courant,

25-07-1981. Received Telex message

on behalf of the Jakarta Embassy to the Ministry of BuZa, “visa voor geadopteerde kinderen”, 23-07-1981,

NA, FA

Archive, access no. 2.05.330, inv. no. 6427. See also Internal Note of the Ministry of Justice, 09-11-1981, MinJus

Archive, inv. 5387.

242

“Parlementslid Indonesië vraagt regering om bemiddeling terugkeer Kurniawati naar ouders”,

Leeuwarder Courant,

14-07-1982.

243

Memo FA, concerns: “Adoptie Indonesische kinderen”, 11-12-1981,

NA, FA Archive, access no. 2.05.330, inv. no. 6427.

Unofficial translation

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

244

According to these parties, it was intended that the girl would

return to her birth parents at the end of July 1981, but for reasons that are unclear, this did not

happen. In November, officials from Ministry of Foreign Affairs corresponded internally about the

possibility of giving Kurniawati's adoptive parents a new adopted child should Kurniawati return

to Indonesia.

245

Ultimately, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concluded: “However, it turned out

afterwards that when

the child was given up, it was a matter of incorrect actions, of which neither the judge nor the

foster parents were aware.”

246

Kurniawati was never returned to her original parents. The

Indonesian government did make several calls for this, and even declared the adoption in its own

country legally invalid, but to no avail.

247

7.3.6

Children’s home Kasih Bunda

The media revelations surrounding Kurniawati created a knock-on effect, revealing more potential

kidnapping cases of Indonesian children and illegal adoptions. Indonesian public opinion

increasingly turned against intercountry adoption, and in particular against the Indonesian

foundations involved.

248

Kurniawati had been brought to the children’s home

Kasih Bunda

after her kidnapping. In 1980,

a few months earlier, the director of the home had been sentenced to six months in prison for

document forgery and complicity in child theft.

249

For many years, she was a key figure in the

adoption practice between Indonesia

and the Netherlands. She was already involved in the “first”

child adopted to the Netherlands in 1973. After the abuses of 1980-81, Kasih Bunda was

blacklisted by the Indonesian authorities. This did not prevent the home from restarting under the

name Yayasan Bina S(e) jahtera.

250

244

Telex message on behalf of the Jakarta Embassy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Adoptie ontvoerd meisje”, 22

July 1981; Telex message from the Embassy of Jakarta to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “visa voor geadopteerde

kinderen”, 23-07-1981; Code message on behalf of FA to the Dutch embassy in Jakarta, “Adoption of Indonesian

children” 17-09-1981;

Concept memorandum from [DAZ/JZ] to Minister of Foreign Affairs, 19-11-1981, all documents

in: NA, MinFA Archive, access no. 2.05.330, inv. no. 6427.

245

Urgent Memorandum FA, “Indonesië; adoptiekwestie”, 11-10-1981,

NA, FA Archive, access no. 2.05.330, inv. no. 6427.

246 Memorandum concept to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 19-11-1981, NA, MinFA Archive, access no. 2.05.330, inv. no.

6427.

247

M. Schrover, “Parenting, citizenship and belonging in Dutch adoption debates 1900-1995”,

Identities, 11

(2020),

pp. 119.

248 Report from

the Persspiegel, “Reeds 100 Indonesische geadopteerde kinderen in Nederland?” (17 July 1981); “Vele

kinderontvoeringen achter adopties” 17-7-1981,

20-07-1981; received Telex message from Jakarta Embassy to

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22-07-1981; message from

Persspiegel, “1.

Een ander ontvoerd kind in Nederland

terechtgekomen (zie PS. dated 27-7-81

sub 1)” 28-07-1981.

All Persspiegel articles in: NA, FA Archive, access no.

2.05.330, inv. no. 6427. In the following Dutch articles, it was assumed that child trafficking took place in Indonesia:

“Baby’s ontvoerd in Indonesië voor adoptie”,

Nieuwsblad van het Noorden,

09-06-1981;

“Onrust in Indonesië over

‘kinderhandel’ neemt toe: weer ontvoering adoptiekind gemeld”,

Trouw,

28-07-1981;

“Gezin Bloemendaal te goeder

trouw: ‘die adoptiebaby werd ontvoerd’”,

Het vrije volk,

28-07-1981;

“Onrust in Indonesië over kinderhandel”,

Waarheid,

29-07-1981;

“Controle nodig op bemiddeling”,

NRC Handelsblad,

31-07-1981. Message from Persspiegel,

“Regering verzocht adoptiepraktijken

te onderzoeken (Zie PS dated 24-7-1981)’,

27-07-1981,

NA, FA Archive, access

no. 2.05.330, inv. no. 6427.

249

Wereldkinderen, “Adopties uit Indonesië” (2019), p. 15.

250 Deijle,

Postpakketjes van overzee,

p. 93 and p. 265.

Unofficial translation

Interviewees recently stated that there was a lot wrong with Kasih Bunda. For example, the

orphanage would have functioned as a distribution centre for intercountry adoption. Children who

ended up with Kasih Bunda had been taken from their parents under false pretences. They were

promised that the children in the wealthy West would receive a good education and return at the

age of 18. However, that never happened.

The Committee received incorrect documents from several Indonesian adoptees.

251

Some of them

came from Kasih Bunda. For example, two adopted sisters have doubts as to whether they are

actually biological sisters. These doubts stem from mismatched data in their adoption files. The

signature of their birth father was not the same on several documents and there are indications

that the signature of their birth mother has been forged. This indicated fraud. The file of another

adoptee was incomplete: the mandatory background reporting in Indonesia, the medical

certificate and the custody transfer were missing.

252

7.4

Aftermath: adoptions from Indonesia, 1984-present

BIA ended adoptions from Indonesia in 1981. The mediation division of Wereldkinderen had

already ended earlier. Both organisations found the Indonesian adoption practice unreliable. This

was especially true for the financial aspects: adoption costs in Indonesia could amount to more

than 5,000 guilders per child, while BIA/Wereldkinderen could only gain insight into half of that

amount. The relentless flow of reports about suspicions of

baby farms,

child theft and the like led

to a negative reputation for Indonesia as a State of origin.

253

This did not stop others, including

Flash and Kind en Toekomst, from continuing operating adoptions until the permanent adoption

stop in 1984.

Looking back at the time when adoption from Indonesia was possible, a critical Wereldkinderen

board member in 1987 wrote sarcastically:

“It was the same with Indonesia

a few years ago. Anyone who wanted to get out quickly

and relatively cheaply left for our ex-colony. The children left the country by the truckload.

Government officials looked the other way as if on command. The money just kept rolling.

Until it was no longer possible because the thought took hold that Indonesia was another

word for child trafficking. Then from one day to the next, the borders closed, even for the

single intermediary who did not have to be ashamed. Since then no child has come out,

although

of course a lot of children would benefit from adoption.”

254

Indonesia has been reluctant in its adoption policy since the adoption stop in 1984. From a formal

and legal point of view, international adoption is not prohibited by law, but it is so complicated for

prospective adoptive parents to adopt a child from abroad that it is in fact impossible.

255

251

252

253

254

255

Interview by the Committee and documents of adoptees sent to the Committee.

Report received by Committee on the adoption of two adoptees.

Wereldkinderen,

“Adopties uit Indonesië”, p. 15.

Wereldkinderen magazine, “Rekel. Brood met beleg”, year 1987, number 4, p. 14.

Indonesia has never signed the 1993 HC. L. Bakarbessy and D. Purnama Anugerah,

“Implementation of the best

interest of the child principles in Intercountry Adoption in Indonesia”,

Yuridika 33: 1 (2018),

pp. 74-92.

Unofficial translation

Media coverage of Indonesian adoption abuses resumed after the turn of the century, particularly

after 2004. This was partly due to the fact that adult adoptees made their personal stories known

in the press.

256

Rumours about child trafficking have also surfaced recently. In October 2018, for

example, four Indonesians were arrested trying to sell babies to Western couples via social

media.

257

Despite the adoption stop, a few adoptions from Indonesia to the Netherlands have occurred

since the 1990s, with sometimes suspicions of abuses. For example, two documented, separate

cases are known in which Indonesian babies came to the Netherlands with an incorrect birth

certificate. The official procedures were circumvented. Both cases took place between 2004 and

2011.

258

7.5

Main findings from Indonesia

All conceivable forms of abuse - from incorrect documents to child trafficking and

baby farms

occurred in adoptions from Indonesia. The Dutch government and the embassy in Jakarta were

aware of this from at least November 1977. Most of the signs of abuse occurred in 1979-81,

according to all media reports, government correspondence (mainly within the Ministries of

Justice and Foreign Affairs and the embassy), parliamentary questions and recent interviews.

The Dutch government has never actively intervened to combat abuses. For example, the

Netherlands did not investigate the role and responsibilities of the suspected Dutch intermediaries

in Indonesia, such as SOC. After the temporary adoption stop in 1981, the Netherlands did not

improve the adoption procedures, despite diplomatic struggles with Indonesia. After political and

diplomatic pressure from Indonesia and media attention, especially regarding the Kurniawati

case, the Dutch government has been actively involved behind the scenes. At the time, this did

not lead to any significant policy changes.

There was little or no supervision and control of the adoption practice with Indonesia from the

Dutch government. Required documents were only checked for completeness, but not

substantively for authenticity. Supervision of the many small and larger intermediaries was

minimal and was lacking among the many DIY individuals.

256 See in particular the newspaper articles:

“Donkere kindjes zijn goedkoper dan lichte”,

De Stentor,

16-12-2003;

“Smokkel kinderen uit Atjeh”,

De Stentor,

04-01-2005;

“Criminelen misbruiken zeebeving”,

Dagblad van het Noorden,

04-01-

2005; “Unicef: 29 procent slachtoffers jeugd –

Tsunami treft kinderen

zwaar”,

De Stentor,

05-01-2005;

“Adoptierel Indonesië topje van de ijsberg”,

Telegraaf,

16-03-2006;

“Ik besef nu dat mijn leven hier in Nederland is”,

Algemeen Dagblad,

02-06-2006;

“Ziekenhuis verkoopt baby om rekening keizerssnede”,

Algemeen Dagblad,

03-02-

2009; “Salomonsoordeel over de kleine Yosi”,

Algemeen Dagblad,

20-02-2009;

“Een kleurling in Staphorster

klederdracht”,

Reformatorisch Dagblad,

06-01-2011;

“De geuren, de mensen, ik kwam thuis”,

Reformatorisch

Dagblad,

13-01-2011;

“Uitgekozen; vermist”,

Leeuwarder Courant,

10-02-2012;

“Spoorloos”,

de Volkskrant,

16-09-

2013; “Baby ontfutseld”,

Telegraaf,

19-04-2014.

257

“Babies for sale: ASEAN’s insidious underground baby market”, 19-10-2018.

258 Chronological overview of the course of the case and documents supplied and e-mail from the Jakarta

embassy, 23-09-2011 in FA Archive, FA-2018.495956, DCM, access: 3200.175, inv. no. 43510.

Unofficial translation

Some intermediaries, including SOC and Flash, were suspected of being involved in adoption

abuses. However, this cannot be established unambiguously on the basis of the research material

studied by the Committee. As far as is known, Dutch government officials themselves were not

involved, although the dual role of an Indonesian employee at the Dutch embassy was

questioned.

Unofficial translation

8.1

Sri Lanka

Key figures and context

In 1973, the first adopted child from Sri Lanka came to the Netherlands. In the years that followed,

dozens, sometimes hundreds, followed each year. In 1982-1992, this influx to the Netherlands

was the highest, in 1986, for example, over five hundred. After 1992, the numbers decreased to

about ten per year. In total, more than 3,400 Sri Lankan children came to the Netherlands.

259

The

largest Dutch adoption intermediaries in Sri Lanka were Kind en Toekomst and Flash. Kind en

Toekomst has mediated in more than a thousand Sri Lankan adoptions, Flash more than 2,400.

Based on archival research, newspaper analysis and interviews at home and abroad, this chapter

sketches a picture of the adoption practice between the Netherlands and Sri Lanka from the 1970s

to the present day.

1972

1985

537

1973

1986

565

1974

1987

275

1975

1988

1976

1989

118

1977

1990

263

1978

1991

228

1979

1992

1980

1993

1981

1994

1982

140

1995

1983

204

1996

1984

460

1997

total

3,292

Table 9: Number of officially placed adopted children from Sri Lanka, 1972-1997.

260

The adoption practice in Sri Lanka was related to a broader political, socio-economic and cultural

context. War, poverty and hunger made it more difficult for (single) parents to care for their

children. Therefore, children were sometimes abandoned or offered for adoption. In addition,

widespread corruption within Sri Lankan society was (and is) a persistent phenomenon.

Single motherhood was taboo and stigmatised in Sri Lanka. Single pregnant women were not

infrequently expelled from their community. This fate awaited not only them, but also their child.

Some women therefore felt compelled to give birth in secret and to give up their child. In addition,

domestic violence or the loss of a spouse, for example through divorce or war, could lead mothers

to give up their child for adoption. Social coercion - or the fear of it - was an ongoing issue.

261

8.2

Laws, regulations and adoption procedure in Sri Lanka

From 1944, there was a law in Sri Lanka on domestic adoptions that determined how adoption

procedures should be conducted. This law was revised in 1960 and 1964.

262

In 1979, the adoption

law was amended again, allowing intercountry adoption to

259

260

261

262

Hoksbergen,

Kinderen die niet konden blijven,

p. 141.

Hoksbergen, “Vijftig jaar adoptie in Nederland”, p. 8 (table 2B), p. 11 (table 3B) and p. 14 (table 4B).

Insights obtained, among other things, from interviews by the Committee in Sri Lanka.

Adoption of Children Ordnance, 1956, revision 1960. Found in FA Archive, inv. no. 000659/6293.

Unofficial translation

a limited extent.

263

Nevertheless, several dozen Sri Lankan adoptees have been coming to the

Netherlands every year since 1973.

Due to the rise of intercountry adoption, in addition to domestic adoption, the law was no longer

applicable to the changed situation from the 1970s onwards. This old legislation also left room for

fraud and corruption by judges, lawyers and civil servants: payment to such persons was not

prohibited until the following years. In addition, there was a lack of adequate supervision of

compliance with the law. The malfunctioning of Sri Lankan authorities and agencies (including the

children's homes) facilitated fraud, bribery and document forgery.

264

In 1992, the Sri Lankan adoption law was tightened.

265

This happened partly as a result of signs

of structural abuse in adoptions abroad (see below). The tightened 1992 law restricted

intercountry adoption with an annual quota; domestic adoption was given priority.

266

The Board

for Child Care and Protection became responsible for the selection of children for prospective

adoptive parents abroad. Only children from registered state homes and private homes were

allowed to be adopted. Unregistered homes were allowed to help mothers give birth, but children

were not allowed to be put up for adoption.

In addition, the 1992 amendment banned the illegal retention of pregnant women or children. The

law also prohibited foreign prospective adoptive parents from paying Sri Lankan contacts for

adoption mediation.

267

In the decades before that, this was not the case, which made bribery

possible. Finally, from 1992, foreign adoptive parents were required to send an annual progress

report up to the tenth year of their Sri Lankan child. This points to the mutual, intercountry

interaction and relationships.

268

The adoption procedure

269

After the necessary adoption documents had been arranged in the Netherlands, they had to be

legalised. In the Netherlands, this legalisation procedure went through a Dutch civil-law notary,

the court, the Ministry of Justice, Foreign Affairs and the Dutch embassy in the Sri Lankan capital

Colombo. The embassy then sent the originals to the Sri Lankan adoption authorities. The

prospective adoptive parents then had to wait until they were paired with a child, which could take

months. After the assignment of a child, the parents had to go to Sri Lanka to continue the

procedure.

263

264

265

266

Adoption of Children Ordnance, Law No. 6 of 1977 (Act No. 38 of 1979), Chapter 76, Part 1, Section 3.6.

Interviews by the Committee in Sri Lanka.

Adoption of Children Ordnance, Adoption of Children (Amendment) Act, no. 15, 1992 (11 March 1992).

Intercountry adoption was only made possible when domestic options proved impossible. Sri Lanka thus

implemented the principle of subsidiarity before it was enshrined in the 1993 Hague Adoption Convention.

267 Adoption Act 1992, section 27A. This shows that the Sri Lankan authorities wanted to combat

baby farms.

268 This is also evident from the signing and implementation of international treaties, such as the UNCRC and the 1993 HC.

269 "Adoption in Sri Lanka" [unpublished edition, 27-2-1989] pp. 17-18, MinJus Archive, OBP11 file, folder 3.

Unofficial translation

Following the amendment of the law in 1979, foreign prospective adoptive parents had to submit

their application for adoption to the Commissioner of Probation and Child Care Services. They

were also required to provide a declaration of consent from the birth parents and a health report

of the child.

270

During the procedure in Sri Lanka, the prospective adoptive parents were assisted by a Dutch

intermediary. The intermediaries had local intermediaries to help them on the spot. Within ten

days of arrival, the prospective adoptive parents received a request from the Sri Lankan Child

Care Services for an interview. This was performed by a social worker. This was to determine the

social and psychological suitability of the prospective adoptive parents. After this interview, a

report was prepared and was submitted to a Sri Lankan court within a month. During the trial, the

birth mother had to reconfirm the previously signed declaration of relinquishment. Then the verdict

followed, after which adoption documents and a passport were issued. After this, the procedure

on the Sri Lankan side was completed.

271

8.3

Case studies

In theory, the Sri Lankan adoption law, regulations and procedures seemed in order from 1979

onwards. However, the practice was more disorderly, as the files showed: abuses took place.

These ranged from

baby farms,

child trafficking and theft, document forgery and concealment of

status to other forms of malpractice. Moreover, monitoring the preconditions was systematically

inadequate. For example, the registration of children in the birth register was not in order for a

long time. Incorrect data such as an incorrect date of birth or place of birth were common. Lack

of transparency and poor filing at government agencies and children's homes was the rule rather

than the exception. Document forgery and destruction was also common.

272

This makes it difficult

for adoptees to search for their origins.

Below, a number of cases and phenomena are discussed that provide insight into both the reality

on the Sri Lankan side and the role of intermediaries. The first case concerns the working method

of the Dutch intermediary Flash. The second case examines the existence of

baby farms

in Sri

Lanka. The other three cases concern the role of intermediaries: a Sri Lankan lawyer, the case of

two Dutch women who mediated in more than fifty adoptions by DIY individuals, and finally the

so-called Sri Lanka-Jordan-Netherlands baby line.

270 Adoption of Children Ordnance, Law No. 6 of 1977 (Act No. 38 of 1979).

271 "Adoption in Sri Lanka" [unpublished edition, 27-2-1989] pp. 17-18, MinJus Archive, OBP11 file, folder 3.

272 In 2001, the Dutch embassy informed the Sri Lankan birth register that:

"it gives the impression that birth

registrations of adopted children were erased after the adoption.”

See: letter from the Dutch embassy in Colombo to

the Registrar General's Department, 28-02-2001; Memo from the Dutch Embassy Colombo to MinFA, DPC/CJ

legalizations, 14-03-2001, FA Archive, inv. no. 00239. The Committee also received documents from an adoptee

explaining Flash's practice.

Unofficial translation

8.3.1

The working method of Flash

Flash was founded in 1979 by a number of dissatisfied (prospective) adoptive parents. They were

irritated by the long waiting lists and complicated procedures with other intermediaries, such as

BIA/Wereldkinderen. According to policy officials at the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs,

Flash did not always follow the applicable rules closely in order to speed up adoption

procedures.

273

In 1985, Flash was portrayed as "non-professional" by other intermediaries. Yet

Flash also enjoyed confidence: one of the secretaries of the Boards for Child Care and Protection

had engaged Flash to mediate with their own adopted child.

274

The new Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines

(vreemdelingencirculaire)

came into effect in the

Netherlands on 1 February 1983. Chapter B-18 regulated the placement and residence of foreign

foster children. In addition, the procedure to be followed changed on 1 July. Intermediaries had

to apply for a Dutch long-stay visa

(mvv)

in advance. In the period before that, this was a travel

visa. Intermediaries were also required to state the name and date of birth of the child to be

adopted.

275

Flash declined to report the travels of prospective adoptive parents to the Ministry of Justice.

Flash also left personal data on adoption forms blank, which encouraged careless administration.

After the amendment of the law, Flash had this pointed out to them several times by various

government agencies. Despite the fact that Flash promised to improve, the organisation did not

keep this promise. Why Flash did that remains unclear. For a long time, the Ministry of Justice

had "no major objections" to this, despite the fact that officials were repeatedly outraged about

the missing personal data on the required documents.

276

One concrete example in which Flash's actions promoted wrongdoing involved the documented

case of a Sri Lankan adoptee. In any case, this concerned incomplete and incorrect

documentation. The child stayed with his single mother, who had been abandoned by the father.

According to the declaration of relinquishment, the mother was "rejected by society and had to

earn a living by begging." That is why the child was adopted by the Dutch in 1984. The Ministry

of Justice concluded, however: "in fact the foster parents do not have a valid declaration of

approval in principle." Moreover, the personal data on adoption papers and residence permit did

not correspond to the child who actually resided in the Netherlands.

273 'Confidential' code message from the Embassy in Colombo to FA, 3 February 1987, MinJus Archive,

DECOS, Code messages concerning Sri Lanka/Adoption, a87/701/1011790.

274

Memorandum “Statistische gegevens buitenlandse pleegkinderen 1984”, 10 January 1985, NA, IND

Policy Archive,

access: 2.09.5027, inv. no. 1815.

275 Letter from the Department of Immigration Affairs to all intermediary institutions, 2 March 1983; Head of Visa Service

at the Dutch representations in Jakarta, New Delhi, Colombo, 4 July 1983; Urgent message from the Embassy in

Colombo to the Visa Service in The Hague, 11 July 1983, all documents in: NA, IND Policy Archive, inv. no. 1813.

276 Urgent notice from Visa Service (FA) to Embassy in Colombo, 15 July 1983; Chairman Flash to Justice, 20 June

1984; Justice to chairman Flash, 28 September 1983, NA, IND Policy Archive, inv. no. 1813. Flash also had an

arrangement with Sri Lankan airline Air Lanka in the 1980s. If the adoptive parents wore a Flash badge, they were

helped faster at the airport and they got better seats. This is evident from a letter in an individual adoption file of an

adoptee, inv. no. 85-900030 in the Flash archive managed by Fiom in Utrecht.

Unofficial translation

Because the correct information was unknown, the adoptive father contacted the Child Care and

Protection Department of the Ministry of Justice. Officials would have told him there that "he

should contact the intermediary Flash and that they knew a "trick" for such cases." An official

reacted indignantly and would take a look at this. This has not been followed up. Such cases were

quite common. The Ministry of Justice noted: “It is a factual and political reality that the children

concerned in these cases are not or hardly removable after they have been illegally brought into

the

Netherlands. (…) the 'fait accompli' idea is paramount.”

277

The attitude and actions of Flash were tolerated by the Dutch government for unclear reasons.

No sanctions followed, giving Flash a systematic exemption over a period of at least two years

(February 1983 - April 1985). Those were years in which hundreds of Sri Lankan adopted children

- initially possibly without personal details - entered the Netherlands via Flash. Officials from the

Ministry of Justice then pointed out that "regulatory action by the government should not be

delayed too long."

278

That eventually happened, regardless of this specific situation, with the

introduction of the Wobp in 1989.

Earlier, in 1981, the largest intermediary, BIA, was concerned in the press about “malicious

intermediaries”. According to BIA, the Ministry of Justice was aware that children were brought to

the Netherlands with incorrect papers. BIA complained that the government did nothing about it

“for fear of negative press”. Such allegations were made more

often against the government and

certain intermediaries in the following years, but were generally ignored.

279

8.3.2

Baby farms and adoption stop

From January 1987, there was a fuss in the Sri Lankan media about alleged illegal trafficking in

adopted children. For example, the Dutch embassy received a call from an employee of the

intermediary Kind en Toekomst. Ten adoptive couples are said to have been detained by the Sri

Lankan police on suspicion of child trafficking. On the spot, a Dutch diplomat came to the

conclusion that the police investigation did not focus on the Dutch couples, but on local contact

persons. The embassy found the fuss surrounding the adoption abuses exaggerated. This would

have been the result of sensational reports in the Sri Lankan media.

280

However, a few days later, in February 1987, that same diplomat wrote a confidential code

message to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He noted several problems surrounding the Sri Lankan

adoption practice, such as opaque legislation, a “proliferation of

277 Memorandum from the Department of Immigration Affairs to the Child Care and Protection Department, 11 -15-

1984, NA, IND Policy Archive, inv. no. 1815.

278 It took three years, until the introduction of the Wobka in 1989, for this to happen. Exemplary for this is:

Memorandum, MinJus, 10 January 1985, NA, IND Policy Archive, inv. no. 1815.

279

“Instellingen willen gedragscode ter voorkoming van adoptieschandalen”,

NRC Handelsblad,

16-05-1981;

“Controle

nodig op bemiddeling”, NRC Handelsblad, 31-07-1981; “Overheid gaat wantoestanden rond de adoptie legaliseren”,

De Telegraaf,

15 April 1983; “Adoptie vaak niet meer centraal in organisaties”,

Trouw,

September 1983; “Illegale

adoptie veelal toevallige ontdekking: kinderhandel floreert nog steeds”,

De Telegraaf,

19 February 1986.

280 Code message from the Embassy in Colombo to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 January 1987; and Code

message from the Embassy in Colombo to Foreign Affairs, 29 January 1987, MinJus Archive, DECOS,

a87/701/1011790.

Unofficial translation

malicious counterpart organisations”, and “suspected negative involvement of influential people”.

He stated that "serious suspicions about child trafficking through intermediaries were justified."

On the other hand, the diplomat emphasised that the Sri Lankans did not doubt the intentions of

Dutch adoptive parents because they themselves became victims of the abuses. The diplomat

concluded his letter with a proposal to Foreign Affairs to investigate the local intermediaries in

urgent adoption cases and to ensure better control. According to officials involved at the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs and the embassy, however, there was a lack of personnel capacity and financial

strength for this.

281

A Sri Lankan Commission of Inquiry published a critical report on abuses in mid-1987. The

Commission concluded that most intercountry adoptions were illegal: of the 1,670 cases in 1986,

only 37 would have gone through official channels. The Sri Lankan government decided to ban

all new intercountry adoption applications as of 3 June 1987. This adoption stop prompted an

immediate comment in the Dutch media, which consisted of both positive and negative views.

282

About a year later, from September 1988, Sri Lanka partially allowed intercountry adoptions again.

There were conditions attached to this. For example, only children from state homes were allowed

to be adopted and the Sri Lankan Child Care Services determined the allocation of a child.

283

March 1992, these provisions were enshrined in stricter laws and regulations.

Views of the Dutch government and intermediaries

In March 1987, the Board for Child Care and Protection sent an urgent letter to the Parliamentary

Standing Committee of Justice. The Board identified serious problems with intercountry

adoptions, in particular as a result of reports from Sri Lanka and had therefore requested an

investigation. The Board ruled that the adoptions were not only a responsibility of the State of

origin, but also of the Dutch government.

284

An official at the Ministry of Justice seemed to disagree

with the Board. In an interview in

Trouw

from July 1987, he sketched a different picture of

intercountry adoption despite the signs of abuse. When asked how procedures could be checked

abroad, he stated: "Yes, whatever happens abroad, we are not there." After all, according to him,

the Netherlands did not have a “control device that travels the world”.

285

281 'Confidential' code message from Embassy in Colombo to MinFA, 3 February 1987, MinJus Archive, DECOS, Code

messages concerning Sri Lanka/Adoption, a87/701/1011790. A similar attitude prevailed at the Ministry of Justice. An

official stated that the suspicions of wrongdoing “must nevertheless be attributed to the local sensational press in

Sri

Lanka. I have never been able to gather any tangible incriminating evidence.” See also Flash, license application, 10

August 1989, Appendix "Points for attention associated with license application (…)", MinJus Archive, OBP 08, folder 1.

282

“Schokkend rapport over babyhandel Sri Lanka”,

Nederlands Dagblad,

10 April 1987; 'Most immediate' code

message from Embassy in Colombo to MinFA, Directorate JZ/DVZ, 4 June 1987, MinJus Archive, DECOS,

“Codeberichten inzake Sri Lanka/Adoptie, a87/701/1011790”. Cf. “Babyhandel op grote schaal in Sri Lanka”,

Limburgsch Dagblad,

29-01-1987

with “Sri Lanka verbiedt adoptie van kinderen door buitenlanders”,

Volkskrant,

05-

06-1987.

283

Flash's “Extra nieuwsbrief”, September 1988, NA, IND Policy Archive, inv. no. 1813.

284 Letter from RVDK Zutphen to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, 31 March 1987, MinJus Archive.

285

“Soms is adoptie een redmiddel”: situatie van aangenomen buitenlandse kinderen niet somber’,

Trouw,

15-07-1987.

Unofficial translation

The position of the Dutch intermediaries with regard to adoptions from Sri Lanka differed.

Wereldkinderen repeatedly emphasised that it did not mediate there "because the legal situation

in this country leaves much to be desired and there is no control whatsoever."

286

Other

intermediaries, such as Flash and Kind en Toekomst, denied this criticism. For example, Kind en

Toekomst denied in June 1987 that commercial child trafficking took place in Sri Lanka and stated

that the stories about

baby farms

and illegal trafficking were made up.

287

Wereldkinderen accused

competitor Flash of “malicious practices” in Sri Lanka, and that it had suspected this for years.

Flash responded that they had nothing to do with

child hunting.

288

In January 1990, the Dutch embassy wrote a memorandum. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was

informed about the phenomenon of

baby farms.

Those were places where women gave birth

(whether or not against their will, and/or for a fee), after which the child was given up for

intercountry adoption. The embassy reported that Sri Lankans saw the existence of baby farms

as “morally reprehensible”, but continued: “However, the temptation is great, given the financial

attractiveness that cleverly responds to the desire of many in the Western world to adopt children.”

The embassy issued a similar warning in September 1990.

289

In March 1991, the Dutch embassy again signalled adoption abuse. The embassy reported that

during the election campaign that month, the Sri Lankan media talked about the active baby

trafficking and the upcoming legislative changes that would limit intercountry adoption. This self-

proclaimed “tough approach” was welcomed by the embassy. Reference was made to an

unnamed Dutch adoption organisation that was directly involved in a

baby farm.

According to the

embassy, the Dutch intermediaries active in Sri Lanka were still “in the midst of a haze of secrecy”.

The embassy also identified falsifications of medical certificates by unregistered, rogue doctors in

March 1991.

290

From the documents, it does not appear that any follow-up was given to these

signs.

8.3.3

Sri Lankan contact person

In August 1991, a Sri Lankan lawyer was suspected of involvement in child trafficking and running

baby farms

by the Dutch and British authorities. She is said to have done this in collaboration with

two former employees of the Sri Lankan Care Services.

291

The lawyer had been active in Sri Lanka

for international adoption organisations, including Flash, since the 1970s. From 1986, she was a

contact person for International Adoption Services (IAS), an organisation based in Nijmegen,

which

286

“Sri Lanka verbiedt adoptie baby’s door buitenlanders”,

Leeuwarder Courant,

05-06-1987.

287

“sri Lanka verbiedt adoptie van kinderen door buitenlanders”,

De Volkskrant,

05-06-1987;

“Sri Lanka belemmert

adoptie in Nederland”,

De Volkskrant,

06-06-1987.

288

“Hoe een olifant en een muis twee tijgers werden: Sri Lanka, nieuwe markt adoptiebureaus?”,

Het Vrije Volk,

18-04-1987.

289 Memorandum from the Colombo embassy to MinFA, 17 January 1990; Code message from Colombo embassy

to MinFA, 26 September 1990 FA Archive, access DAZ/JZ/-SZ/ARA/00166, inv. no. 136.

290 Memorandum from CZ/Colombo to DAZ/JZ ('Confidential'), 26 March 1991, FA Archive, inv. no. 136; CZ/Colombo

Memorandum to DAZ/JZ, 23 July 1991, FA Archive, inv. no. 137.

291 Inspection visit report by Ministry of Justice at Flash, 12-11-1991, MinJus Archive, OBP 08, folder 1; Memo from

CZ/Colombo to DAZ/JZ about “Adoptie/arrestatie medewerkers ‘baby farm’”, 30 August 1991, FA Archive, inv. no.

136.

Unofficial translation

did Sri Lankan adoption mediation for British prospective adoptive parents. The director of IAS

had been director of Flash in the years prior, but had left that organisation for unclear reasons.

The actions of the Sri Lankan lawyer and IAS had caught the attention of both the

British High

Commissioner and the Dutch authorities.

292

In 1987, the lawyer was also the subject of the Sri

Lankan police investigation (see above).

The British and Dutch authorities suspected that IAS and the lawyer were circumventing adoption

procedures and adopting children through

baby farms.

British prospective adoptive parents who

had engaged IAS paid $ 2,250 to the attorney on the spot to settle the proceedings. The Dutch

Embassy in Sri Lanka reported in August 1991 that after eight months of pregnancy, Sri Lankan

women were taken by “agents” to lawyer-run “homes” in Colombo to give birth and persuaded to

give their new-born

child up for adoption. The embassy report continued: “In the raids on the six

homes, two babies were found (5 and 10 days old) of which the mother was unknown. The

possibility was not ruled out that this is a case of child robbery.”

293

At the beginning of October 1991, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked the Ministry of Justice to

have the Public Prosecution Service investigate criminal offenses related to adoptions from Sri

Lanka, in particular the actions of IAS and “the possible involvement” of Flash.

294

The file does not

show that such an investigation took place. The British government reported on 6 November that

the Sri Lankan lawyer was in England, was issued a visa, and was out on bail. Neither the Sri

Lankan authorities nor the UK objected to this, claiming that "all charges against the person

concerned would have been dropped."

295

Despite all suspicions

of the Sri Lankan lawyer’s involvement in wrongdoing, Flash kept her as a

contact person. She acted as such until at least 1995. A report of an inspection at Flash by the

Ministry of Justice stated: "The cooperation with the foundation's lawyer, Ms.

[…] is still going

well." In total she is said to have been involved in about three hundred intercountry adoptions to

Western countries.

296

292 Internal Flash correspondence in adoption file, 17 July 1980, inv. no. 81-2 00197, Flash archive managed by Fiom in

Utrecht. The chairman of FLASH reported in July 1980 that he thought it better to keep a certain contact person from

now on “only for extreme emergencies. Far too much nagging and I don't like them asking for more money.” The

chairman thought the cooperation with the other was better: she "does not charge extra money for passports, etc."

293

Memorandum from CZ/Colombo to DAZ/JZ about “Adoptie/arrestatie medewerkers ‘baby farm’”, 30 August 1991, FA

Archive, inv. no. 136. The memorandum further stated: "However, it has now been found that the children have not

been properly selected. The aforementioned lawyer has contacts with approx. 20 agents throughout the country.

These have the task of tracing young unmarried pregnant women and to persuade them to give up their children for

adoption after birth. The agent receives an amount of LKR 10,000 [EUR 200 today] for this mediation. Part of this

may or may not be donated to the mother. ''

294 Head of the Department of Youth Protection MinJus to FA, 2 October 1991, FA Archive, inv. no. 136; Letter from

the Department of Youth Protection to the Arnhem District Prosecutor's Office, 2 October 1991, IND Policy

Archive, inv. no. 3180.

295 Letter from CZ/Colombo to DAZ/JZ, 6 November 1991, FA Archive, access: DAZ/JZ/-SZ/ARA/00166, inv. no. 136.

296

Ministry of Justice inspection report of Flash, 26 January 1995, MinJus Archive, OBP 07, Flash; “Adoptions of

Children from Sri Lanka in Switzerland, 1973-1997:

the practices of private adoption agencies and the authorities”,

p. 4.

Unofficial translation

8.3.4

The DIY individual 'Mrs. P.'

In addition to organisations such as Flash and Kind en Toekomst, there were also private

individuals who mediated, such as the DIY individuals Mrs. P. and Mrs. H. These people had

adopted several children themselves in the eighties. Based on their experiences, they helped

dozens of prospective adoptive parents with adoption around 1990. In total, P. and H. mediated

in more than fifty Sri Lankan adoptions. The two private individuals circumvented official

procedures and organisations and were not registered with the Ministry of Justice as official

adoption agents. The 'P. Case' for these reasons, symbolises the increasing problems with DIY

individuals, as discussed elsewhere in this report.

297

After a tip from the director of Wereldkinderen, an article appeared in

Trouw

on 6 February 1991

about the case of Mrs. P. According to the director, the Ministry of Justice was aware of P.'s

activity for at least a year, but let the case run its course for fear of negative publicity and the

prevailing resistance to the long adoption waiting lists.

298

However, this was denied in the media

by the Ministry of Justice. Later, an official wrote in an internal note that this director of the largest

professional adoption agency had an interest in eliminating DIY adoptions.

299

The Ministry of Justice responded with a press release acknowledging the signs about the

suspected

“illegal intermediaries”. The Ministry of Justice also acknowledged that there were

more of these parties active. The Public Prosecution Service then opened a criminal investigation

and kept the relevant government departments informed. The revelations about the case also

sparked investigations into other potentially illegal intermediaries. The responsible State

Secretary for Justice took matters seriously.

300

The criminal investigation into the illegal intermediation of P. and H. was completed around

November 1991. The Public Prosecution Service concluded that the two had not acted illegally or

for profit. They had not violated the law or circumvented proceedings. They had mediated without

a license, however, and that was a violation. But due to the "limited capacity" of the two and the

fact that they themselves had several adopted children, the Public Prosecution Service advised

to dismiss the case.

301

This advice was adopted by the Ministry of Justice at the beginning of 1992.

297 See the official report, including archive file 91-0134,

Public Prosecution Service Den Bosch about “illegal mediation”.

298

“Illegale adoptie”,

Trouw,

06-02-1991;

“Justitie kent illegale adoptie”,

Het Parool,

06-02-1991.

“Justitie Brabant

gaat illegale adoptiepraktijk van vrouw

onderzoeken”,

De Telegraaf,

07-02-1991.

299 To end DIY adoptions, a change in the law was required, which lacked political will. See: Telephone note

of J&R, 7 February 1991, MinJus, IND Policy Archive, inv. no. 3180.

300 Note from the head of the Border Guard Unit to the Department of Immigration Affairs, 12 February 1991, MinJus

Archive, DECOS, A91/8459; Letter from Chief Public Prosecutor to Department of State and Criminal Law, 15 May

1991; Internal telephone memorandum Ministry of Justice, 24 June 1991, 10:45 am, MinJus, IND Policy Archive, inv.

no. 3180.

301 Official report from Chief Public Prosecutor Den Bosch, 8 November 1991, MinJus, IND Policy Archive, inv. no. 3180.

Unofficial translation

A year after the P. case appeared in the media, the newspaper

Trouw

wrote about the case again.

It described how the “illegal intermediary” used copies of home studies to circumvent official

procedures. The Ministry of Justice stated that it was very shocked by all of this: “The

consequence of this case is that we are going to review the DIY policy. In the interest of children,

I hope that politicians want a change in the law, so that people can no longer adopt on their own.”

In 1992, the State Secretary submitted a proposal to the House to limit DIY adoption.

302

In practice,

however, DIY adoption remained possible until at least the introduction of the 1993 Hague

Convention in 1998.

8.3.5

Sri Lanka-Jordan-Netherlands "Baby line"

From November 1990, more than thirty Sri Lankan adopted children came to the Netherlands via

Jordan.

303

At the time, many Sri Lankan women worked in Jordan as guest workers, some of

whom became pregnant unintentionally. A Sri Lankan consulate employee and the honorary

consul offered children for adoption for thousands of dollars. In doing so, they legalised incorrect

papers and ignored the ban on profiteering.

Since June 1991, the Dutch Ministry of Justice has had doubts about the power of the Sri Lankan

consul to ratify adoption papers.

304

Six months later, it was clear to both the Ministries of Justice

and Foreign Affairs that such adoptions from Jordan were suspicious. Apparently, an employee

of the Sri Lankan consulate in the capital Amman asked $ 12,000 (in cash, in a sealed envelope)

from Dutch prospective adoptive parents, after which the adoption procedure was completed in

three to four days. A Dutch couple was suspected of being involved in illegal activities. The

Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice agreed to investigate the “improper practices” and

possible Dutch involvement.

305

Later it turned out that a Dutch couple from Someren was involved in the case. A Sri Lankan

consulate employee actively approached other Dutch prospective adoptive parents. The head of

the Legal Affairs department at the Ministry of Justice thought this was all incidental, but noted at

the end of 1992 that there was “a certain form of organisation”. The head made a connection with

the case of the DIY individuals P. and H., who had mediated in the years before without a license

and suggested that the Jordanian-Sri Lankan situation be investigated again, almost one year

after the previous investigation.

306

One illustrative case concerns a Sri Lankan adoptee who came to the Netherlands via Jordan in

early 1991. The proceedings were illegal, which was followed by extensive correspondence

between the responsible Dutch and Sri Lankan authorities.

302

“Justitie wil strengere controle op adoptie door zelfdoeners”,

Trouw,

02/26/1992; Note from the head of the

Youth Protection Directorate to the State Secretary of Justice, 15 April 1992, MinJus, IND Policy Archive, inv.

no. 3180.

303 As can be seen from: Flash, letter to MinJus Youth Protection Directorate, 6 November 1990, MinJus Archive, OBP 08, folder

1. Data at FA showed that in 1992, for example, fourteen visas had been issued to such children. See:

Confidential memorandum from Damascus embassy to Min FA, 27 January 1993, FA Archive, inv. no. 137.

304 Immigration Affairs Department of MinJus to Legal Affairs Office of MinFA, 17 June 1991, FA Archive, inv. no.

138.

305 Code message from FA to Damascus embassy, 12 January 1992, FA Archive, inv. no. 137.

306 Note Head of the Legal Affairs Department, MinJus to Head of the International Cooperation Department of the

Central Criminal Investigation Information Service (CRI), 7 December 1992, FA Archive, inv. no. 137.

Unofficial translation

Two years later, in April 1993, the adoption was decided. As the Sri Lankan honorary consul in

Jordan was not authorised to sign these official documents, the adoption was invalid under Sri

Lankan law.

The adoption agent involved in this adoption was Flash. The chairman of Flash personally

travelled with the prospective parents to the Jordanian capital of Amman. On arrival, he stated

that he found it strange that the prospective adoptive parents had to pay five thousand dollars,

but agreed to it as an experiment. Neither the chairman nor the prospective adoptive parents

received copies of adoption papers. While they found this surprising, it did not stop them from

going ahead with the adoption.

307

The role of the Dutch government in this case was as follows. The Ministries of Justice and

Foreign Affairs and the embassies urged the Sri Lankan authorities to get clarity and certainty

about the adoption. In addition, the arrival of the adopted child to the Netherlands was covered

by uncertainties. This was also reported at the time. For example, the official Dutch form for

obtaining a residence permit stated: “Formally, there is no question of adoption now”. The form

concluded, "All conditions are NOT [sic] met." Despite this, the placement of the Sri Lankan child

by the adoptive parents was formally confirmed by the Ministry of Justice without further

justification.

308

In the early months of 1993, the chairmen of the major intermediary were asked about their

knowledge of possible illegal Sri Lankan adoptions from Jordan. The chairmen of Kind en

Toekomst and Flash stated that they knew about it since 1990. Both found the adoption options

unreliable, but showed understanding for families who wanted a child in this way. The official

procedures were, in the eyes of many, complicated, slow and expensive.

309

From May 1993, almost two years after the abuses became known, the Dutch government

decided to take concrete measures. From then on, no Dutch long-stay visas

(mvv’s)

or other visas

were issued to Sri Lankan children adopted from Jordan. The "baby line" was cut. It was

emphasised that such adoptions were illegal, as the Sri Lankan consul was not authorised to

grant adoption consents.

310

307 Interview report of the Special Affairs Department (IND) with Flash chairman, 6 April 1993, FA Archive, inv. no. 139.

308 This was evident from an official letter addressed to the adoptive parents, signed by the Head of the Youth

Protection Directorate. See: “Staat van inlichtingen”, proposal to grant or refuse a residence permit for a foreign

foster child, 15 January 1991, FA Archive, inv. no. 138, Mag.Loc.: 46.69.01/4; Access: DAZ/JZ/-SZ/ ARA/00169.

309 Interview report of employees of the Special Affairs Department of the IND with chairman Kind en

Toekomst, 18 March 1993, FA Archive, Inv. no. 139.

310 From this, a decision came from the Sri Lankan government. MinJus Press release, 19 May 1993 (FA Archive, inv.

no. 137); see also: “Kosto stopt babylijn uit Jordanië”,

Telegraaf,

21-05-1993;

“Jordanië pakt consul van Sri Lanka

op voor handel kinderen naar Nederland”,

Trouw,

22-03-1996; Confidential memorandum from CZ/Colombo to

MinFA (cc MinJus), 22 July 1993, FA Archive, inv. no. 137.

Unofficial translation

Initially, the Sri Lankan authorities did nothing against their illegal-acting consul. In April 1994,

after the Dutch government had notified them several times, Sri Lanka instructed all its consulates

around the world that issuing adoption documents was illegal. No specific measures were taken

against the honorary consul in Jordan.

311

This case was followed up in mid-1996, when the Sri Lankan consul was arrested by the

Jordanian police on suspicion of baby smuggling. The Jordanians accused the Dutch government

of cooperating with the illegal adoptions. However, the Netherlands emphasised:

“There was no question of cooperation by the Dutch government in adoptions of Sri Lankan

children from Jordan, after the malicious practices became known. In fact, it was the Dutch

government that, back in 1993, informed the Sri Lankan government of the practices of

the honorary consul.”

312

8.4

1998

2009

Aftermath: adoptions from Sri Lanka, 1998-present

1999

2010

2000

2011

2001

2012

2002

2013

2003

2014

2004

2015

2005

2016

2006

2017

2007

2018

2008

2019

total

108

Table 10: Number of officially placed adopted children from Sri Lanka, 1998-present.

313

Several parties and persons involved seemed to become despondent because of adoption

abuses in Sri Lanka in the further course of the nineties. For example, intermediary Adoption

Centre Netherlands Sri Lanka (ACNS) stated that it received a letter from a retired Sri Lankan

high judge offering adopted children for “US$ 6,500 each”. ACNS stopped raising such

wrongdoing with the Ministry of Justice, because it was not heard there.

314

In the years that

followed, the intermediary did continue to adopt children from Sri Lanka, along with other adoption

intermediaries.

315

In recent years, there has been better supervision and control of adoptions from Sri Lanka. In

1993, the country was one of the first in the world to ratify the Hague Adoption Convention. The

Sri Lankan Child Care Services has been also fulfilling its role more carefully. After the tsunami

in 2004,

311 Head of the Legal Affairs Department of FA to the MinJus Youth Protection Directorate, 6-04-1994, FA Archive,

inv. no. 138.

312 Confidential memo from MinFA to Amman, Colombo and Damascus embassies, 30 May 1996, FA Archive, inv. no.

139.

313

Hoksbergen, “Vijftig jaar adoptie in Nederland”, p. 14 (table 4B).

Data from 2002 onwards come from

J&S statistics reports.

314

See “Illegale adoptie”,

Trouw,

06-02-1991

and “Tehuiskind uit Sri Lanka beter uit in liefdevol gezin in Nederland:

Tijmen Wierstra uit Grijpskerk ‘Godfather’ van 330 adoptiekinderen”,

Dagblad van het Noorden,

19-03-2003.

315 Unlike in previous decades, Kind en Toekomst stated in 2007 that they recognised that adoption abuses were taking

place. For example, the intermediary acknowledged that adoption papers had been forged.

Cf. “De verkeerde

moeder”,

Leeuwarder Courant,

07-04-2007;

“Mijn stamboom bleef vrijwel leeg”,

De Gelderlander,

16-06-2018. Also

based on an interview by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

the Sri Lankan government introduced a

Special Provisions Act.

This law prohibited the

intercountry adoption of alleged 'orphans' who lost their parents as a result of the natural disasters.

It was clear to the government that child trafficking could flourish after natural disasters.

Nevertheless, during this period there were still regular signs of abuse, for example about Sri

Lankan scammers who committed fraud in adoptions and root searches.

316

Attitudes towards adoption in Sri Lankan society have changed in recent years. Domestic

adoption is preferred; only a few children are adopted by foreigners each year. Adoption by non-

Sri Lankans is seen as the very last option. Only children with

special needs

are still eligible.

Since 2017, there has been regular media attention for adoption abuses in Sri Lanka at home and

abroad. In 2017-18, the Dutch research programme Zembla revealed systematic forms of

“adoption fraud” from the

country. After the Zembla broadcasts, the number of reports of past

abuses increased sharply. Media attention continues to this day. For example, in May and

November 2020, Zembla again reported on abuses that were known to the Dutch government.

317

Partly as a result of this, Sri Lankan adoptees have sued the Dutch state.

The Swiss government published an investigation report in early 2020, addressing Sri Lankan

adoption abuses. The insights from the Swiss report correspond with what the Committee found

in the Dutch archives.

318

8.5

Main findings from Sri Lanka

In the late 1970s, when intercountry adoption from Sri Lanka to the Netherlands emerged, the

situation in Sri Lanka encouraged abuses. The country was in a precarious social and economic

situation in which poverty was widespread. In the adoption practice between the Netherlands and

Sri Lanka, almost all conceivable forms of abuse occurred. These ranged from the infamous

baby

farms,

child trafficking, theft of children, forcibly relinquishing a child, forging documents, to

legalising incorrect documents, concealment of status, corruption and bribery and improper

payments. These abuses were in violation of Dutch and Sri Lankan laws and regulations

applicable at the time.

316 For example, a Sri Lankan man who acted as a contact person for Flash in (at least) the period of 1997 -2005. He

replaced the former Flash contact in 2005. In 2004, the Dutch embassy already put him on a

blacklist.

In December

2008, the Dutch embassy heard

that he had been arrested by the Sri Lankan authorities on suspicion of “giving up

children for adoption without the knowledge of their biological parents” and “having women raped and taking the

children after birth and giving them up for adoption”. See: Internal

MinFA e-mail, 09-07-2004; Letter from Flash

Foundation to Commissioner of Probation and Child Care Services, 08-06-2005; E-mail from HMA Colombo consular

employee to MinFA, 01-12-2008, in: FA Archive, inv. no. 00239.

317 See, among others: https://www.bnnvara.nl/zembla/artikelen/ministeries-wisten-van-adoptiemisstanden-en-baby-

farms-in-

sri-lanka.

318 S. Bitter, A.

Bangerter and N. Ramsauer, „Adoptionen von Kindern aus Sri Lanka in der Schweiz 1973-1997.

Zur

Praxis der Privaten Vermittlungsstellen und der Behörden“ (January 2020).

Unofficial translation

From the early 1980s onwards, the Dutch government, specifically the Ministries of Justice and

Foreign Affairs, repeatedly learned in detail about abuses from Sri Lanka. The existence of

baby

farming

and even “outright child theft” was raised by parties involved. In general, no action was

taken against this. Even when Dutch diplomats sounded the alarm on the spot, they were not

followed up. Despite this knowledge and the desire for a stricter approach, the Netherlands

continued to refer solutions to the Sri Lankan authorities. Dutch intermediaries were also aware

of Sri Lankan adoption abuses.

In Sri Lanka, the Dutch government itself was not involved in abuses, but was regularly aware of

it. The government did not act, although there was reason to do so. In this chapter, several cases

have been discussed that show that both individual DIY individuals and larger organisations -

especially Flash - were involved in abuses.

Unofficial translation

9.1

The period after 1998

Introduction

According to the Committee's assignment, the research will focus during at least the period from

1967 up to and including the entry into force of the 1993 Hague Adoption Convention (1993 HC)

in 1998. In the explanatory notes to the order establishing the Committee of 18 April 2019, it was

noted that the Central Authority was established in 1998 and the supervision of intercountry

procedures was tightened. The Netherlands therefore entered a new phase in 1998, with regard

to the supervision and general regulation of the intercountry adoption practice.

As indicated in the scope of the research in chapter 1, the Committee has opted to also devote

attention to the development of intercountry adoption after 1998. An important question in this

regard is whether the ratification of the 1993 HC has actually resulted in better regulation of

intercountry adoption practice, and whether abuses as described in the previous chapter have

been reduced.

This chapter describes the developments in the intercountry adoption practice between States of

origin and the Netherlands after 1998. First, a number of general developments with regard to

intercountry adoption are discussed. It is then described how the adoption system was adapted

to prevent abuses. Subsequently, the question as to what extent abuses occurred after 1998 and

how the Dutch government responded to them is covered. As in the previous chapters, the

development of adoption policy and practice is central here. The focus is on the role of the Dutch

government and intermediaries and the identification of abuses.

9.2

9.2.1

Developments after 1998

Number of adoptions and shift in States of origin

In the period between 1998 and 2005, the number of intercountry adoptions rose sharply. The

reasons for this are that it became possible for single people and couples of the same sex to

adopt and the strong rise of China as a State of origin. After 2005, there has been a decline to

less than two hundred intercountry adoptions to the Netherlands per year. Between 2005 and

2015, the number of adoptions to the Netherlands dropped by 75%.

319

This decrease corresponds

to a worldwide downward trend.

320

319

E. Loibl, “The

Transnational Illegal Adoption Market”,

p. 36; Hoksbergen, “Kinderen

die niet konden blijven”,

p. 543;

Ministry of Justice and Security [J&S] statistics, 2016; “De Toekomst van de keten voor interlandelijke adoptie”

(number of adoptions WK 2002-2015).

320

P. Selman, “The Global Decline of Intercountry Adoption: What Lies Ahead?”

Social Policy,

11:3 (2012), pp. 381-97.

Unofficial translation

least four reasons are given by experts in the field of intercountry adoption for the decreasing

number of adoptions. First,

the changing views on intercountry adoption.

The general opinion

about intercountry adoption - both in the Netherlands and internationally - has changed. The idea

that underprivileged children should be rescued through adoption by

the “rich West” has been

greatly diminished.

Secondly,

the increased attention to the downside of intercountry adoption as a result of abuses.

This is increasingly highlighted by, among others, the adoptees themselves and their birth or

adoptive parents. For example, it is increasingly seen as harmful to remove children from their

original living environment.

A third reason for the decreasing number of adoptions is

the introduction of modern reproduction

techniques.

Reproduction techniques such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm

injection (ICSI)

321

and (commercial) surrogacy have created new possibilities for fulfilling the wish

to become parents.

322

The fourth and final reason is the

effect of the

1993 HC

and the International Convention on the

Rights of the Child

(UNCRC). The position that “people have no right to a child, but that a child

has the right to parents” is taken into greater consideration. This shift is already explicitly

highlighted in the chapters on Brazil, Colombia and Sri Lanka. Since the introduction and

implementation of the 1993 HC and the UNCRC, such former prominent States of origin have

preferred domestic foster care or adoption, which means that the number of children available for

intercountry adoption has been decreasing.

323

In the period after 1998, shifts occurred in the main States of origin for adoption. China and the

United States became important States of origin during this period, and the number of adoptions

from African countries such as South Africa, Ethiopia and Congo increased.

324

Celebrity adoptions

of children by persons such as Madonna and Angelina Jolie received a lot of media attention and

may have contributed to an increased interest in adoption from African countries. Adoptions are

also increasingly limited to State Parties to the 1993 HC: in 2015, for example, 77% percent of

the children adopted by the Dutch came from these countries.

325

9.2.2

Changing views on intercountry adoption

From the turn of the century, Dutch society and politics have increasingly focused on the right of

same-sex couples to adopt. For example, since 1998, parliamentary questions have regularly

been asking about the requirement of some States of origin to submit a non-gay statement by

intermediaries. Members of the Lower House ask whether this is against the law. The United

States has long been the only country from which same-sex couples could adopt. Currently, this

is also possible in South Africa and Portugal.

321 ICSI stands for Intra Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection. ICSI is a form of test tube fertilisation.

322

N. Cantwell, “The Best Interests of the Child in Intercountry Adoption” (2014); Hoksbergen “Vijftig jaar adoptie in

Nederland”, p.

15.

323 Interview by the Committee; RSJ report,

Bezinning op Interlandelijke Adoptie

(2016), p. 27.

324 RSJ,

Bezinning op Interlandelijke Adoptie

(2016), p. 14. After 2005, the number of adoptees from China declined rapidly.

325

P. Selman, “Trends in Intercountry Adoption: Analysis of Data from 20 Receiving Countries”, 1998-2004,

Journal of

Population Research,

23:2 (2006), pp. 190-191; RSJ,

Bezinning op Interlandelijke Adoptie

(2016). p. 71.

Unofficial translation

Incidentally, same-sex couples sometimes circumvent the requirements in the relevant countries

by having a child adopted by one of the parents.

326

As discussed in Appendix G, this was a reason

for Congo not to issue outbound travel documents for intercountry adoptees.

In 2007, the then Minister of Justice appointed the Kalsbeek Committee with the task of advising

on intercountry adoption and lesbian parenting. Kalsbeek advises to also apply the rules of the

Wobka to the registered partner or life companion of the person who wants to adopt. The Minister

also endorses Kalsbeek's view that it explicitly does not consider it the task of the government to

facilitate an increase in the number of children eligible for adoption to the Netherlands.

327

After 1998, the average age of adopted children increased, who fall into the

special needs

category more often; in 2011, this was about six out of ten adoptees.

328

The increase in adopted

children with psychological, medical, and other conditions

329

is due to the inability to provide

adequate care in some countries, making these children eligible for intercountry adoption. Healthy

children are also cared for or adopted more quickly in the country itself. In the Netherlands, the

Board for Child Care and Protection imposes stricter requirements on parents who want to take

in a

special needs

child. There are also more requirements for matching.

330

As described earlier, since the 1960s, the media and politics have been writing and talking about

concrete abuses. After 1998, more and more reports came from adoptees themselves about their

negative experiences in the search for their families. This provided a more critical view on

intercountry adoption in Dutch society.

326

Report “Alles van waarde is weerloos”: Committee on Lesbian Parenting and

Intercountry Adoption (2008), p. 79.

327

Report “Alles van waarde is weerloos”.

See also: Regulations on the institution of the lesbian parenthood

and intercountry adoption Committee, no. 5507329/07/6.

328

Statistics Netherlands (CBS), “Aantal adopties sinds jaren zestig niet meer zo laag”, 20 June 2012, via:

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/ nieuws/2012/25/aantal-adopties-sinds-jaren-zestig-niet-meer-zo-laag.

329

Ministry of Justice and Board for Child Care and Protection, “Categorie indeling special needs”, via:

https://

adoptie.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Categorieindeling-special-needs.pdf

[last consulted on 15-9-2020]. The

six categories are: Category A; A child with a care intensity that cannot yet be estimated with uncertainties now

and in the future; Category B; A child with a medical condition requiring a limited number of operations, therapy

and/or medication or a condition requiring no to very limited adjustment; Category C; A child with a complicated

medical condition that requires regular surgery, therapy, medication and/or monitoring; Category D; A child with

a permanent disorder; Category E; A child with a socially/emotionally stressed background without any expected

medical consequences based on the file; Category F; A child who has no additional demand/need for care at

the time of the proposal.

330 Youth Care Inspectorate

(Inspectie jeugdzorg),

“Aandacht voor matching” (2009). pp. 9-10.

Unofficial translation

9.2.3

Attention to the knowledge of identity and the rise of

interest groups

The conversations conducted by the Committee show an increasing interest in knowing one's

own origins and thus identity. The possibilities of social media and DNA research contribute to

this. Important life events, such as having children or being confronted with a serious (genetic)

disease, can also be reasons why adoptees search for their origin. Age also plays a role: the

desire to know more about family history often becomes stronger as people get older and birth

parents age or pass.

331

In the period after 1998, various interest groups for adoptees were created. These organisations

are often volunteer organisations of adoptees and sometimes focus on one specific States of

origin with root searches and information exchange. The publication of books, articles, blogs and

also documentaries plays an important role in the process of awareness and activism among

adoptees. Many adoptees find support in the organised contacts with other adoptees.

332

In recent years, a number of these organisations have increasingly held the government

responsible for the origin or continuation of abuses caused by intercountry adoption in the past.

Some interest groups have sued the government and are demanding public apologies and

support, financial or otherwise. In May 2019, at the request of the Minister for Legal Protection,

21 organisations submitted the Joint Interest Organisations Plan

(Gezamenlijk Plan

Belangenorganisaties)

for a suitable support offer for adoptees.

333

9.3

9.3.1

Changes in the adoption system

System changes by the 1993 HC and the role of the Central Authority

The 1993 HC stipulates that each State Party must designate a Central Authority charged with

the fulfilment of the obligations imposed by the Convention.

334

The Minister of Justice has been

designated as the Central Authority for the Netherlands. The implementation of the adoption

process is entrusted to the Ministry of Justice and private adoption organisations. The

organisation of the Central Authority within the Ministry has changed regularly since 1998. The

Ministry has not been able to provide a definitive answer about the exact organisational

embedding in recent years.

335

In 2004, a number of tasks from the Central Authority were transferred to the Adoption Services

Foundation

(Stichting Adoptievoorzieningen, SAV).

These transferred tasks include: to submit

applications

331

332

333

334

Interviews by the Committee.

Interviews by the Committee

Interviews by the Committee.

Around 2013, the Central Authority merged with the Central Authority for International Child Abduction and

International Child Protection

(Centrale autoriteit Internationale Kinderontvoering en Internationale

Kinderbescherming),

resulting in the establishment of the Central Authority for International Child Affairs

(Centrale

autoriteit Internationale Kinderaangelegenheden).

335 The Committee has searched the archives of the Ministry of Justice for relevant research material on the institutional

embedding and organisational changes of the Central Authority within the Ministry since 1998. No relevant documents

were found on this theme.

Unofficial translation

to obtain permission to place a foreign child for adoption, to inform prospective adoptive parents,

to conduct correspondence with the prospective adoptive parents, to forward family details to the

Board for Child Care and Protection for the purpose of home study and registration, and

administrative processing of mutations. This transfer of tasks has reduced the organisational

burden on the Central Authority.

336

The Central Authorities of the State Parties are expected to cooperate with each other, to inform

each other and to take appropriate measures to prevent practices contrary to the Convention. For

adoptions from State Parties to the 1993 HC, both the Central Authority in the State of origin and

the Central Authority in the receiving State must agree to the matching between the child to be

adopted and the intended adoptive parents.

337

According to the 1993 HC, the Central Authority of

the state of origin is, responsible for examining whether a child is actually eligible for adoption.

338

An important starting point of the 1993 HC is the principle of trust: State Parties must be able to

trust that each state will perform its duties and responsibilities properly. As a receiving State, the

Netherlands must therefore be able to rely on the outcome of the assessment carried out by the

state of origin. The Netherlands only has the option of not agreeing to the adoption as an ultimate

remedy.

9.3.2

System changes for intermediaries

Partly due to the fall in the number of adoptions, the number of intermediaries active in the

Netherlands has decreased from dozens in the period before 1998 to five in 2020. In 2020, the

adoption foundation A New Way took over the activities of the Kind en Toekomst Foundation, so

the number of intermediaries is currently of four. The foundation A New Way is investigating which

adoption programmes can be taken over and is conducting research in Bulgaria, Slovakia and

Lesotho.

Due to the decrease in the number of adoptions, the income of intermediaries has also decreased.

This entails two potential risks, according to those involved. First, the complexity of the cases is

increasing. Second, some indicate the risk that adoption agencies will increasingly compete with

each other for the ever smaller number of children available. The authorities in States of origin

would turn a blind eye to such competition - some say under social and political pressure from

intermediaries, adoptive parents and other stakeholders.

339

The decline in adoptions is offset by an increase in the requirements that intermediaries must

meet: the “Quality framework for license holders for intercountry adoption”

(Kwaliteitskader

vergunninghouders interlandelijke adoptie)

has been introduced in 2008 and revised in 2013. It

specifies the quality requirements with regard to intercountry adoption and business operations

(including ISO certification). Recently,

336 Letter from the Ministry of Justice to the Board of the Adoption Services Foundation

(Stichting

Adoptievoorzieningen),

“Overdracht van taken van het Bureau Centrale Autoriteit aan uw Stichting”, 19-02-

2004, MinJus Archive, “OBP-01” files.

337 For adoptions from non-State Parties, no formal statement of approval by the Dutch Central Authority is

required, but in practice this does happen since 2008.

338 On the basis of the conditions of Article 4 of the 1993 HC.

339 Interviews by the Committee.

Unofficial translation

intermediaries are obliged to use a pool of paediatricians established by the Central Authority for

the assessment of medical records. Some intermediaries question the usefulness of these

measures.

According to some of the intermediaries interviewed, the Central Authority is afraid of making

mistakes, which, in their view, makes it restrained and quick to seek refuge in new control

measures. “The Central Authority is struggling with its role as chain manager/director. On the one

hand, they have the task of serving the best interests of the child and on the other hand they want

to prevent their official from ending up in a difficult position,” says one of them. Several

intermediaries interviewed emphasise the good contact with the Central Authority, but also point

to the many personnel changes.

340

9.3.3

Changes in financial and tax aspects

From 2009, adoption costs are no longer tax-deductible

as “extraordinary expenses”. In the

decades before, from 1964 to 2008, they were tax-deductible.

341

The deductible costs were, for

example, travel costs of prospective adoptive parents to lawyers and courts in the Netherlands,

and the travel costs of the child from the State of origin to the Netherlands. The tax deduction was

originally introduced to remove the existing inequality between two possibilities of family

formation. There was also a tax deduction for costs during childbirth. The reason for the abolition

was that costs for childbirth were included in the basic health insurance around 2008 and there

was therefore no reason to maintain the tax deduction for adoption.

342

To compensate for the loss of the tax benefit, adoptive parents for children who were adopted

between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2013 could claim a one-off income-independent

allowance of EUR 3,700. The request had to be made within three years of the child's adoption.

In 2011, the House of Representatives approved this scheme, which was discontinued in 2013.

The responsible State Secretary said the reason for the termination was the then economic

situation in the Netherlands “and the associated cutbacks”. According to the State Secretary,

these made it impossible to come up with an alternative compensation.

343

344

340 Interviews by the Committee.

341 See e.g. question of the member of the Lower House Drees to State Secretary of Finance Van Rooijen, 20-02-1975;

“Adoptiekosten en de Fiskus”,

Wereldkinderen magazine,

no.4 (1976), p. 11

342

Letter from Adoptie Ouders Overleg (AOO), “Voorstel tot schrappen belastingaftrek adoptiekosten”, 11-10-2007;

Letter on behalf of the Minister of Justice, “Nieuwe regeling financiële tegemoetkoming adoptiekosten”, 2411

2008; Letter on behalf of the Minister of Justice to the Chairman of the TK, “Regeling financiële tegemoetkoming

adoptiekosten”,

26-04-2010.

343 Parliamentary questions of Van Tongeren to the State Secretary of Security and Justice about the

adoption allowance scheme 15-10-2012/30-10-2012.

344

https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0030483/2015-01-16; https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt2015868.html.

The health insurers Achmea Zilveren Kruis, Interpolis, OHRA, VGZ and Univé have reimbursement for adoption -

related costs in their policies up to and including 2020. This concerns reimbursement of maternity care and/or

reimbursement of medical screening by a paediatrician.

Unofficial translation

9.4

Abuses after 1998

This paragraph covers the question of to what extent abuses occurred after 1998 and how the

Dutch government responded to them. In the countries where adoptions to the Netherlands

occurred after 1998, several types of signs of abuse have been documented per country. In

addition to problems with documents and personal data, it also concerns abuses such as child

theft and child trafficking. The signs did not necessarily relate to abuses within the intercountry

adoption practice with the Netherlands, but also with other receiving States. See also the table

with signs of abuse in chapter 10.

9.4.1

Familiarity with signs

Much of the abuses identified in the past decade relate to African countries. In 2012, for example,

the Dutch media paid extensive attention to the provisional suspension by the Netherlands of

adoptions from Uganda.

345

Intermediaries regularly have their say. In 2012, the Kind en Toekomst

Foundation, for example, stated that it disagreed with the decision of the Ministry of Justice to

stop adopting from Uganda. According to Kind en Toekomst, there was “no evidence of coercion;

the children come from a good Christian home”.

346

Later, another African country got in the news. When the government of Congo decided to stop

all intercountry adoptions after signs of corruption, document forgery and child trafficking, among

other things. In response to the temporary suspension, the then State Secretary of Justice went

to Congo to ensure that adoptions pending by Dutch parents could still go ahead.

347

After these

adoptions had taken place, the Netherlands suspended adoptions from Congo in 2016.

348

The fact that abuses have not disappeared is also apparent from the debates that took place on

this subject in the Senate and the House of Representatives after 1998. The number of

parliamentary questions about intercountry adoption has increased significantly after 1998, and

since 2000, parliamentary questions were asked about this every year. Parliamentary questions

about adoption after 1998 are posed across the board by the House of Representatives. After

1998, especially since 2007, relatively more parliamentary questions were asked about adoption

abuses than in the period before 1998. The questions are mainly about the countries of India,

China and Ethiopia.

345 Loibl,

The Transnational Illegal Adoption Market,

pp. 328-29;

“Stop adoptie uit Oeganda”,

Leeuwarder Courant,

12-

06-

2012; “Voorlopig geen adoptie uit Oeganda”,

Trouw,

04-10-2012.

346

“Adopties uit Oeganda wél zorgvuldig”,

Trouw,

04-10-2012.

347 Interview by the Committee.

348

“Nederland schort adopties uit Congo op”, ANP, 13-09-2016.

Unofficial translation

Since 2012, eight parliamentary questions have been asked about concrete signs of adoption

abuse. Three of these questions were about adoptions from Ethiopia and three questions about

adoptions from Bulgaria.

349

In six parliamentary questions over the past ten years, reference was

made to reports in which the abuses were discussed. The parliamentary questions indicate to

what extent adoption abuses were on the political agenda of political parties in the Netherlands.

In addition, the answer showed how the government dealt with signs of abuse after 1998 (see

below).

350

9.4.2

Acts of government and intermediaries

An important question is whether the actions of the Dutch authorities and intermediaries have

changed compared to the period before 1998. The previous chapters have already briefly

discussed the adoption practice after 1998 in the five countries mentioned in the order

establishing the Committee. It has been established that the reports of abuses continued after

1998. Appendix G of this report examines a number of cases from after 1998 that emerged in the

Committee’s research. Here is an account

of the actions of the Central Authority after 1998.

According to an interviewed employee of the Central Authority, the principle of trust is a leading

factor in intercountry adoption. The Central Authority always inquires about adoption procedures

in State Parties. "But that is only possible to a certain extent: because of the principle of trust, one

must take for granted that things are going as they are at a certain point." According to the

interviewee, many employees of the Central Authority experience this as an obstacle, and the

Ministry is said to be developing a new policy to ensure that more certainty about the backgrounds

of the adoption is created in adoption procedures abroad. According to the interviewee, this could

lead to intercountry adoption to stop, because foreign governments thus receive an advanced

sign that they are not trusted.

Investigations, inspections and policy reviews

The dilemma that Central Authority employees experience in the application of the principle of

trust emerges in the investigation by the Youth Care Inspectorate in 2009 and in a policy review

carried out in 2012 on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. Both studies show that, for a thorough

adoption procedure, the Dutch government is highly dependent on the parties involved in the

State Parties and the careful performance of the supervision task that Dutch intermediaries have

over their foreign partner organisation.

349

Parliamentary questions of Recourt to State Secretary of Security and Justice, concerns: “Adoption in African

countries”, 15-10-2012/30-11-2012; De Wit to State Secretary of Security and Justice, “Adoptions from Ethiopia and

the procedure of the

license holder”, 28-02-2013/11-04-2013;

Recourt to State Secretary of Security and Justice,

“Intercountry adoptions from Ethiopia”, 28-02-2013/11-04-2013;

De Caluwé and Van Oosten, to State Secretary of

Security and Justice and to the Minister of Education,

Culture and Science “Adoptions from Ethiopia”, 01-03-2013/11-

04-2013;

Van Nispen to the Minister of Security and Justice, “Adopting children from Bulgaria”, 20-10-2015/16-11-

2015; Arib to Minister of Security and Justice, “Adoption of children from Bulgaria”, 20-10-2015/16-11-2015;

Segers to

the Minister of Security and Justice, “about adoptions from Bulgaria”, 27-10-2015/16-11-2016;

Arib to Minister of

Security and Justice, "The message of "Free play for child traffickers" regarding illegal adoption from Nepal", 25-11-

2015/22-12-2015.

350 See also Appendix F of this report, which contains an overview and analysis of all relevant Parliamentary documents.

Unofficial translation

Moreover, research by the Youth Care Inspectorate in 2009 shows that in some States of origin,

there is insufficient control of the relinquishment procedure, the “adoptability” of the child, the

subsidiarity principle and suspicions of child trafficking. According to the Inspectorate, this entails

risks for the care and purity of the adoption procedure, which does not serve the best interests of

the child. In this report, the Inspectorate concludes that the Central Authority must play a more

active role in identifying possible adoption abuses and malicious contact persons. The

Inspectorate has established that there is a tension between the confidence of the Dutch

government in a careful adoption procedure in the State Parties on the one hand and the fact that

the responsibility for monitoring this rests with the Dutch intermediaries.

According to the Inspectorate, these license holders are likely to run into difficulties with these

responsibilities because they cannot fulfil them. Firstly, in many States of origin (whether or not

State Parties), they do not have or will not be able to check the reliability of the data. Secondly,

signs from license holders to the Central Authority about potentially unreliable data or partner

organisations are being responded to in line with the intention of the 1993 HC, namely that mutual

trust is the starting point. The Inspectorate implies that the system is not functioning properly. By

outsourcing the practice to private intermediaries, incentives for abuse remain intact.

In its report, the Oosting Committee also states that the possibilities of the Dutch intermediaries

to check the reliability of contacts abroad are limited. The Committee emphasises the importance

of international contacts between government agencies, both at the level of the Central Authorities

and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

351

The 2012 Policy Review shows that information about the child from the State of origin is regularly

incomplete and unreliable. According to the audit, the tension between trust on the one hand and

control on the other means that intermediaries and the Ministry of Justice could not or insufficiently

perform their supervisory task.

352

Supervision of intermediaries and inspection trips

The Central Authority is responsible for supervising the intermediaries; for example, it issues the

adoption permits. According to former Central Authority employees, this is not always a pleasant

position to be in. “We actually had two roles: we worked with

intermediaries, but we also had to

check them. Although the Ministry of Justice aims to visit all intermediaries twice a year, this goal

is rarely achieved. In practice, the Ministry visits these agencies once every few years - but the

Central Authority and the intermediaries often meet outside of these six-monthly visits, for

example at conferences and during the consultations of intermediaries, the chain consultation”.

351 See: Report of an investigation into the supervision of the Meiling Foundation in connection with possible abuse

regarding adoption from India in the period of 1995-2002 (The Hague, September 2007).

352

P. Vlaardingenbroek, “Beleidsdoorlichting interlandelijke adoptie (2012)” p. 23; Parliamentary papers II, 2006/07,

30552, no. 9.

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst305519.html.

Unofficial translation

One former director of an intermediary recalls the inspections by the Ministry of Justice as

thorough. According to him, various subjects were discussed during such a visit, including the

flow of money and the internal occupation. The officials checked the completeness of the

documentation and the ISO certification of this organisation. Adoption files were also randomly

checked to determine whether the procedures were done properly. Today, the financial

statements of intermediaries are also scrutinised by the financial department of the Central

Authority.

To gain a better insight into adoption practices abroad, the Dutch Central Authority paid seventeen

visits to twelve different countries between 2006 and 2019. China was visited five times. Most

missions are aimed at fact-finding, sometimes referred to as relationship management (China) or

the possibility of establishing a bilateral adoption relationship (Vietnam). In three cases, abuses

were the explicitly stated reason (China 2006, Uganda 2012, India 2013), although these have

also been raised in some fact-finding missions.

The inspection mission of the Central Authority to Uganda took place in 2012 after the Dutch

embassy expressed its reservations about the Ugandan adoption system. During the visit, it

appears that the origin and background of the children was not properly investigated by the

Ugandan authorities. In addition, birth parents were not correctly informed about the

consequences of adoption. As a result of these findings, the Netherlands stopped adopting from

Uganda and the Ministry of Justice sent a new delegation in June 2012 to have an investigation

carried out into 22 children who had previously been proposed for adoption to Dutch couples.

Ultimately, eighteen files were approved.

353

There are doubts among former Central Authority officials about the effectiveness of these visits

when it comes to the prevention of adoption abuses. The missions are seen more as courtesy

visits. Some suspect never to have gotten a “fair” picture of the local adoption practice: “We were

kindly shown around by someone from the government; but of course we couldn't work there like

an investigative journalist.”

Although there are regular indications of weaknesses and problems within the adoption practice

of States of origin by embassies, local sources and intermediaries, the internal reports of the

Ministry of Justice in response to the missions do not show any critical attitude. Those reports

show considerable confidence in the authorities of State of origin and an overly understanding

attitude. This attitude is shown, for example, in the report of the working visit to China in 2010:

353 Loibl,

The Transnational Illegal Adoption Market,

pp. 328-329.

Unofficial translation

“However, the Chinese Central Authority (CCAA) is

strongly opposed to the development

of looking for the biological parents. It has warned that this can have repercussions for

biological parents, especially as it will reveal that these parents have broken the law. If

necessary, CCAA will therefore take measures to prevent the search for biological parents.

This is met with understanding on the Dutch side, responding that it will not be encouraged

and that the message will be conveyed.”

354

This commitment by the Netherlands to China is at odds with the Convention on the Rights of the

Child and Article 30 of the 1993 HC, which lays down the right to know one's origin. Literal

quotations such as the above are representative of the tone in the inspection reports and the

proposed courses of action on how to deal with abuses. This is in line with the insights obtained

from interviews conducted by the Committee with the civil servants involved.

355

The Central Authority now strives to organise a working visit abroad three to four times a year.

Interviews conducted by the Committee show that, unlike former Central Authority officials,

current officials generally regard these visits as an effective means of managing adoption

practices abroad. A framework of standards is being developed that will make it possible to test

States of origin for their working methods, for example during working visits. But even then,

according to an interviewed employee, the assessment remains complicated: “We have to be

careful that the system is not completely shut down. States of origin will not always be able to

meet the requirements that we set. Finding a balance in this is very complicated.”

356

9.4.3

Signs in the media 1998-2017

Even after 1998, signs about adoption abuses persist in the Dutch media. In 2007-2008, for

example, many articles were written about possible adoption abuses from the Indian children's

home Malaysian Social Service. In 2010, after the earthquake in Haiti and the temporary adoption

stop there, dozens of media reports appeared about adoption abuses from the country. In the

years after 2016, television reports of research programmes about abuses caused a wave of

articles in the Dutch press. In recent years, more than ten reports and documentaries about

adoption abuses have appeared.

357

Newspaper articles and parliamentary questions about the

reported abuses followed as a result of these broadcasts.

354

355

356

357

Report of a working visit to China from 1 to 4 June 2010 in the context of international adoption, MinJu s.

Interview by the Committee.

Netwerk,

22-05-2007;

Netwerk,

“Nieuwe feiten rondom adoptiebemiddelingsbureau Meiling (2/2)”, 23-05-2007;

Brandpunt,

“Adopties uit Ethiopië”, 09-01-2011;

Brandpunt,

24-02-2013;

“De Hongaarse Adoptie-industrie”, 18-

10-

2015;

Argos,

“Adoptie, markt van corruptie en geluk”, 06-10-2012;

Argos,

“Constructie van een adoptie”, 23-02-

2013;

Argos,

“Het leven van klokkenluider Roelie Post”, 05-05-2018;

Zembla,

“Adoptiebedrog”, 17-05-2017;

Zembla,

“Adoptiebedrog 2”, 20-09-2017;

Zembla,

“Adoptiebedrog 3”, 28-03-2018;

Nieuwsuur,

“Zonder medeweten van ouders

naar Nederland”, 03-06-2017;

Nieuwsuur,

02-06-2019;

“NieuwLicht, Adoptie in Nederland”, 16-09-2019.

Zembla,

“Adoptiebedrog 4”, 27-11-2020.

Unofficial translation

A change in media coverage compared to the period before 1998 is that adoptees after 1998 -

and in particular from 2007 onwards, increasingly have their voices heard in the media. Adoptees

often express themselves positively or negatively about intercountry adoption in the press. The

attention for the personal stories of adoptees has contributed to a renewed focus on adoption

abuses from before 1998. Negative messages often include stories of an adoptee's personal

search. A common aspect in these articles is that data from an adoptee turns out to be incorrect

or that it is impossible to find the birth family. In recent years, the media attention for adoptive

parents' experiences has increasingly been replaced by the own personal experiences of

adoptees.

Since 1998, the Dutch media have frequently referred to the awareness of abuses among the

Dutch government and intermediaries. The actions taken by the government are described in

articles and measures taken were also followed up in the media. In addition, the Dutch media

reported on (temporary) adoption suspensions. These reports addressed the reason for instituting

adoption stops and occasionally allowed adoption intermediaries to speak about the decision and

the situation in a country.

358

From the analysis of Dutch media coverage, an image emerges that shows that the continued

existence of abuses is associated with the system of intercountry adoptions. While positive and

negative reports about adoption still alternate at the turn of the century, negative reports prevailed

in the years that followed.

9.4.4

Government term 2017-present

In the current government term (2017-present), attention to adoption abuses has increased

further. This interest is partly due to the fact that several adoptees have brought lawsuits against

the Dutch state. All signs of abuse and the desire to investigate the actual state of affairs

surrounding intercountry adoption led to the establishment of the Committee in 2019.

Since 2019, intercountry adoption is frequently featured in the media.

359

Mostly, it consists of

personal stories from adoptees about their experiences. Many reports pay attention to abuses

and also to roots searches. Other common themes in recent media reports are lawsuits by

adoptees against the Dutch government and intermediaries, and weaknesses in the current

adoption system. For example, in the autumn of 2020, there was a lot of discussion about the

limitation period for adoption-related matters, partly in response to the court decision in a

procedure of

358

“Adoptie kinderen uit Guatemala stilgelegd”,

Leeuwarder Courant,

24-02-2001;

“Stop adoptie uit Oeganda”,

Leeuwarder Courant,

12-06-2012;

“Adopties uit Oeganda wél zorgvuldig”,

Trouw,

04-10-2012.

359

See for example: “Justitie stopte illegale adoptie in de doofpot”,

Brabants Dagblad,

04-01-2019;

“Geadopteerde

vrouw

(26) sleept overheid voor de rechter”,

Trouw,

12-01-2019;

“Ook legale adopties kunnen illegaal zijn”,

Telegraaf,

15-05-2019;

“20.000 gestolen en verpatste Chileense baby’s zoeken gerechtigheid”,

Parool,

29-05-2020;

“Geadopteerden ontevreden over onderzoek: Commissie lijkt waarheid te verdraaien”, 31-07-2020; “Adoptiezaak

tegen Nederlandse staat blijkt verjaard”,

NRC Handelsblad,

09-09-2020;

“Corona vertraagt adopties: Dat papa en

mama niet komen, is zo schrijnend”,

NOS,

31-10-2020.

Unofficial translation

a Sri Lankan adoptee. Interest groups have started petitions to relax or abolish the limitation

period. These issues also generate political attention, as can be seen from parliamentary

questions.

360

Since the turn of the century, political parties have taken an increasingly critical attitude towards

intercountry adoption. Several parties specifically mention the subject in their programmes for the

parliamentary elections in March 2021.

361

Haiti 2019-2020

One illustrative case for thinking about and acting on intercountry adoption is Haiti. The case

illustrates that the discussion about intercountry adoption is topical in 2020. In June 2019, the

newspaper

Trouw

reported on adoption abuses in the country. Abuses in Haiti have been common

in the previous decades, as outlined elsewhere in this report. The

Trouw

article describes that

children in Haiti are still taken from their parents under false pretences. In addition,

Trouw

states

that only 29 of the 754 orphanages in Haiti are functioning properly.

362

In December 2019, the Dutch Central Authority temporarily suspended adoptions from Haiti. The

reason for this was that the safe travel, especially for adoptive parents in the country, could not

be guaranteed. This in connection with looting, roadblocks and general socio-political instability.

Also, the Central Authority stated, no Haitian government agency, including the Central Authority

in the country, was functioning anymore.

363

However, there were some Haitian children who would be adopted by Dutch nationals. The

procedure had already started for them. After December 2019, the prospective adoptive parents

involved and the Dutch Adoption Foundation

(Nederlandse Adoptie Stichting)

(as a intermediary

responsible for adoptions from Haiti) frequently brought the problem to the attention of the Dutch

government.

364

Very recently, the Dutch Central Authority lifted the temporary suspension of adoptions from Haiti,

because safe travel in the country was considered possible again. Those concerned are sceptical

about this decision, not so much with regard to the security of the country, but in the light of the

proven serious wrongs of child trafficking, deception of birth parents and falsification of documents

and files.

365

The case shows, on the one hand, the pressure from Dutch prospective adoptive

parents and intermediaries on the adoption practice, and on the other hand, the lack of counter

pressure from the Dutch government.

360 See, among others: Parliamentary question from Van Nispen and Van der Staaij to the Minister for Legal

Protection about the limitation period for adoption and the keeping of adoption files, 11-09-2020. The answer

shows that the retention period in the Wobka is currently 30 years, but "in practice license holders adhere to a

retention period of at least 50 years".

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kvtk2020Z18941.html;

Parliamentary question from Van Nispen and Van den Berge to the Minister for Legal Protection about the lack of

help in searches of adoptees about their past (15-10-2020).

361 See (draft) election programmes of D66, GroenLinks, SGP and VVD, among others.

362

“Het blijft misgaan bij adoptie van Haïtiaanse kinderen”,

Trouw,

03-06-2019. See also Appendix G of this report.

363 Interviews by the Committee.

364 Letter of Plan Kiskeya to Central Authority for International Children's Affairs, 13 November 2020.

365 Ibid.

Unofficial translation

9.5

Main findings

This chapter outlines the developments regarding intercountry adoption in the period after 1998,

when the Netherlands ratified the 1993 HC. For example, the development of the number of

adoptions has been explained (first an increase and then a strong decrease). The shifts in States

of origin are also shown. Also, more and more special needs children came to the Netherlands.

Competition between intermediaries increased as a result of the decline in the number of children

to be adopted and the number of prospective adoptive parents.

After the introduction of the 1993 HC in 1998, the Central Authority was established. This chapter

described how this body was increasingly embedded within the Ministry of Justice from an

organisational point of view. In the performance of its tasks, the Central Authority experienced

tensions between the principle of trust and its control and supervision task. This applied not only

to the States of origin, but also to the license holders. As a result, the Central Authority could not

adequately perform its tasks.

The Committee's research shows that abuses did not disappear after 1998. Even after this year,

abuses were frequently in the news and raised in parliament. The government was aware of this.

In most cases, signs of abuse were responded to by referring to investigations by the authorities

in the countries concerned or by expressing confidence in these authorities. In a number of cases

where the interests of the adoptive parents were at stake, or where they insisted on action, the

Dutch government took action itself.

Unofficial translation

10 Signs of abuse in other

countries

10.1

Research material

The previous chapters have shown that in the five countries referred to in the order establishing

the Committee (Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka), systematic abuses

occurred. Later, and in other countries, there was and still is talk of abuse. This chapter consists

of a screening of all the research material provided for signs of abuse in eighteen additional

countries during the entire period that intercountry adoption was possible.

The Committee did not actively search for research material from other countries, as was the case

for the five countries mentioned in the order establishing the Committee. The Committee did study

all the material that emerged during the file review of the five countries as well as all the material

provided by interested parties, regardless of which country this material related to. The total

number of countries looked at by the Committee thus comes to 23. Of the more than 40,000

adoptees in the Netherlands, approximately 34,500 adoptees came from these 23 countries:

approximately 14,500 adoptees from the five countries of the order establishing the Committee

and 20,500 from eighteen other countries.

The main question in conducting the screening was: to what extent were there signs of abuse

with regard to the eighteen other States of origin? The abuses were reported by Dutch or foreign

government agencies, parties involved and intermediaries, or by national and international media.

The signs did not necessarily relate to abuses within the intercountry adoption practice with the

Netherlands, but also with other receiving States.

10.2

Characterisation and system

Based on the investigation, the Committee has distinguished eight types of abuse in adoptions to

the Netherlands. Usually, several types of abuse occurred within one adoption case. An example

of this is child theft associated with document forgery and profiteering. In other words, abuses

usually took place in conjunction with one another.

The following types of abuse have emerged in the research material:

•

Absence of documents and/or personal data;

•

Document forgery;

•

Failure to perform duties in accordance with general principles of good administration

and associated rules and procedures;

•

Fraud and corruption:

Wilfully misleading and deceiving something or someone or

misusing authority or power for personal gain.

Unofficial translation

•

Concealment of status:

Deliberately making a person's parentage and true descent

ambiguous or uncertain.

Child theft:

deliberate and illegal removal of minors from parents or legal guardians.

Child trafficking:

transporting, recruiting or trafficking minors for the purpose of exploitation.

Baby farms:

places where women (whether or not forced, and/or for a fee) are made

pregnant, or where they stay to give birth; to then give up their new-born child for

intercountry adoption.

Based on the available research material, it is not possible to make quantitative statements about

the extent of the types of abuse, for example about percentages of incorrect documentation or

the number of adoptees from

baby farms.

Such signs are taken for information purposes and are

not quantified or validated. The Committee has, however, made the following indicative three-way

classification for the extent of the abuses:

•

Unknown:

in the available and examined research material, no signs of abuse with regard

to that country were found. It is therefore unknown whether such abuses took place in the

country concerned.

•

Occasionally identified:

abuses have been identified in a limited number of sources, by a

limited number of persons or authorities, and/or in a limited period of time.

•

Systematically identified:

abuses have been identified in different sources, from or by

different parties involved, and/or in multiple time periods.

Based on this system, the Committee screened eighteen “additional”

States of origin. Those

eighteen countries were selected on the basis of adoption numbers, signs of abuse in the media

or elsewhere, and/or because they emerged as salient in the research material.

In order to provide insight into the possible effect of the implementation of the Hague Adoption

Convention in the Netherlands on the signs of abuse, a division in time was made between a

period before 1998, the year that the Netherlands introduced the 1993 HC, and a period after

1998. The time ranking of the countries is based on the period in which the adoption numbers

reached their relative largest size. Subsequently, the source material was examined for the

countries. Table 11 shows the results of the screening.

10.3

Main findings

This chapter shows that there are signs of abuse in all screened countries. The general picture

that emerges from the screening is that abuses in intercountry adoption are a systematic problem,

regardless of the country. Abuses have occurred throughout the history of intercountry adoption

up to the present day. The introduction of the 1993 HC in 1998 has not changed this sufficiently.

Examples of countries where this is the case are: China, the Congo, Guatemala, Haiti and

Uganda.

366

366 For a more detailed illustration of the abuses in the other countries, a number of additional cases are discussed in

Appendix G. This concerns Greece, South Korea, Romania, China, India, Guatemala, Haiti and Uganda.

Unofficial translation

Abuses

Concealment of status

Fraud and corruption

Scope/time

period

Country

Document forgery

Maladministration

Missing personal

data/documents

Child trafficking

Bangladesh

Brazil

Countries in the

order

establishing the

Committee

Colombia

Indonesia

Sri Lanka

Chile

Ethiopia

Greece

India

Before and

after 1998

Peru

Poland

Romania

Taiwan

Thailand

South Korea

China

Congo

Guatemala

After 1998

Haiti

Hungary

Uganda

United States

South Africa

Legend

Dark blue

= structurally identified

Light blue

= occasionally identified

Grey

= unknown

Table 11: Signs of abuse

Baby farms

Child theft

Unofficial translation

11 Analysis

11.1

The causes of abuses

The Committee has established that the structural and systematic abuses found were caused by

a complex of factors in both the Netherlands and the States of origin.

Adoptive parents were driven by a mixture of motives. Some wanted to adopt out of the desire to

give an underprivileged child a better future, or to help children in dire humanitarian emergencies

as a result of wars or disasters. Not infrequently, the latter group of idealistic adoptive parents

already had children of their own. Childless couples wanted to be able to take a child into their

family in order to fulfil their desire to have children. Adoptive parents were financially resilient in

relation to the standard of living in many States of origin. Partly because of this, the relationship

between the birth family and the adoptive parents was unequal.

In the States of origin, underdevelopment, poverty, inequality, wars and disasters led - along with

local norms, values and taboos - to children who were orphaned or displaced because their family

was no longer there or could not care for them. For the local homes to which these children were

admitted, intercountry adoption was often a means of reconciling the growing supply of children

with the available capacity. Although these children were often placed for adoption as orphans, in

many cases they turned out not to be orphans, because (one of) their parents was/were still alive.

In most States of origin, unmarried pregnancy and single motherhood were not accepted and the

mother and the child were stigmatised or rejected. There was great social pressure on the mostly

young mothers to give up their children. Therefore, the voluntariness of the relinquishment

decision, even if the relinquishment documents are signed by the mother, is questionable.

Many States of origin were fragile states with - sometimes corrupt - national administrations that

were unable or unwilling to eliminate abuses. Intermediaries often belonged to the local elite and

managed to escape criminal prosecution by using connections. In a number of countries,

investigations into abuses have sometimes been started, but it has been difficult to provide

evidence, and convictions have only rarely been issued. The investigations also functioned as a

lightning rod or were covered up. In a limited number of States of origin, the fuss about abuses

has led to a temporary or permanent stop of intercountry adoption.

The factors of supply and demand have combined to create a financial incentive-driven

international “adoption market”. The high amounts paid as compensation for adoptions

- certainly

in view of the standard of living in the States of origin - had a corrupting effect. The intercountry

adoption system itself acted in some cases as a “child laundering” mechanism because it could

convert children placed for adoption under suspicious circumstances into legitimately adopted

children.

Unofficial translation

The emergence of an adoption market and

making children tradable (“commodification”)

including market terms such as “supply and demand”, “channels”, “intermediaries” and “licenses”

- can in itself be considered an abuse. As a result, the best interests of the adoptees and their

families are insufficiently protected in the States of origin, which were often characterised by

missing or deficient legislation and regulations, weak supervision and often endemic corruption.

These interests are also insufficiently protected in the Netherlands, where intercountry adoption

was initially hardly regulated in national or international legislation and treaties, or was left to

private initiative and where - also due to slowly developing regulations - attention was paid almost

exclusively to the interests of adoptive parents.

In many countries, adoption implied that the legal family ties between the birth parents and

families and the adoptees were completely broken. The child was given a new identity, nationality

and (family) name under which they were registered. Although this practice is sometimes

consistent with prevailing national law, it complicates the adoptees' search for their own origins

and identity and is at odds with international law and treaties.

These circumstances have long left organisations and DIY individuals free to arrange adoptions

themselves or through intermediaries. Tighter regulations and treaties have not been able to

eliminate abuses and, according to some observers, even promoted them, because the supply of

children went “underground”. The Committee has established that many of the explanatory factors

in both the states of origin and the Netherlands are still fully applicable today and are a permanent

incentive for possible abuses.

11.2

The prevailing views on intercountry adoption

The long-term persistence of a positive view of intercountry adoption has had a major influence

on the development of intercountry adoption practice. As a result, despite growing evidence to

the contrary, intercountry adoption was considered the best solution for a child who could not be

cared for at home. Emphasis was placed on the fact that these children were in an emergency

situation for which there were no good solutions available locally. It was firmly assumed that these

children would be better off in the richer, western world anyway.

The dominant image was that of “orphans in need” and adoptive parents who wanted to help.

Adoption was identified with a form of “doing good” by mere benefactors and aid workers. There

was no critical scrutiny despite abuses that occurred even then. This mindset was also embraced

by adoptive parents, intermediaries and other involved parties in the Netherlands, including the

government. Moreover, the way of thinking was in line with the existing desire to have children or

the idealistic motive of the prospective adoptive parents.

There was no room in this mindset for conflicting or unwelcome judgments that could distort this

picture. Prospective adoptive parents benefited from a quick, irrevocable adoption that provided

family security. In this view on intercountry adoption, the feelings and interests of the birth family,

which were often not in the picture at all, were usually completely ignored. No or little attention

was paid to the

Unofficial translation

negative aspects for the children themselves (identity issues, developmental, cognitive and

behavioural problems) as they had been documented since the late 1970s. It was not until the

late 1980s that views on intercountry adoption gradually changed from positive to more realistic

and pragmatic, to critical and even dismissive in the most recent period.

The idea that “everyone benefits” from an adoption has been an important factor for the

government and intermediaries not to intervene, not to investigate reported abuses and not to

rectify demonstrated abuses. Any adoption - even illegal or criminal - was considered a better

option than no adoption at all. Because the children had been adopted “for their own good”, further

investigation into illegal or suspicious adoptions was in most cases neglected. These prevailing

views provide the Committee with an explanation but not a legitimacy for the abuses found. They

have allowed human and children’s rights violations to continue and to be tolerated.

11.3

Intercountry adoption as a system

The intercountry adoption system from the Netherlands can be described as the set of

government and private organisations that deal with intercountry adoption within the framework

of the relevant legislation and regulations. From that perspective, the Committee has looked at

questions such as: What explains the observed attitude of the government? What were and are

the relative weaknesses of the system? What made the system not prevent abuses? Can the

current system be substantially improved so that it is able to guarantee ethical intercountry

adoption? The Committee formulates its answers below.

11.3.1

The role of the Dutch government

For a long time, the Dutch government saw adoption as a purely private matter. It relied on Dutch

intermediaries and foreign authorities despite frequent signs of abuses. The Dutch authorities

have also regularly hidden themselves behind ongoing research in the States of origin, which was

seldom followed up. The policy area received too little attention within the responsible Dutch

government agencies, in particular within the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs, and the

diplomatic missions. The policy area there was dominated by the demand for children and the

interests of the adoptive parents. If problems had already surfaced, the policy or further rules often

did not follow until years later.

Internationally, the government was afraid of jeopardising good relations with the States of origin

by raising issues such as abuses or incorrect documents. The Dutch government agencies

involved accepted the local authorisations and stamps as authentic, even if the contrary turned

out to be the case. The Dutch government did not act because it did not want to frustrate the

adoption process and because it did not want to damage diplomatic relations with States of origin.

If the government did act, it was in cases where the interests of the adoptive parents were at

stake. Representatives

Unofficial translation

of the Dutch government were also involved in individual adoptions in which it acted in violation

of the rules in a number of cases.

The adoption system hardly had a structure of checks and balances. The government itself was

both executor and controller; it maintained a close relationship with intermediaries who often had

links to politics; the audit was not very thorough; adequate supervision was lacking and the

government hardly enforced it due to a lack of capacity. Officials could not counterbalance the

predominant positive views. They faced a lack of knowledge and had insufficient insight into the

situation in the States of origin. Nor did Dutch officials have insight into the way in which the

intercountry adoption market was structured. The government did not act against the problematic

aspects of DIY adoption until it was eventually banned. Even when unlawful practices were

identified, it was seldom prosecuted but often dismissed because of the alleged “best interests of

the child”. In the case of intercountry adoption, the government

was non-resistant and passive,

and did not act. Both in the States of origin and in the Netherlands, this led to impunity for abuses

in intercountry adoptions.

11.3.2

The role of the intermediaries

From the 1970s onwards, more and more intermediary organisations emerged that differed in

professionalism and expertise. The costs of adoption procedures increased. Adoptive parents

were increasingly able to specify their specific wishes - for example, regarding the child's age,

origin, medical condition, gender and skin colour. The Committee has established that Dutch

intermediaries were aware of abuses since the emergence of intercountry adoption. Some

intermediaries were also involved in abuses themselves, for example by deliberately disregarding

the rules, forging documents or engaging with local contacts who were known to be corrupt and

fraudulent. Some Dutch agencies not only mediated in adoptions, but also organised aid projects

in States of origin. However, other organisations consciously decided against this, because they

did not want to give the impression that aid projects would serve as a compensation for placing

children for adoption or that these project funds were used for intercountry adoption.

The intermediaries saw it as their main task to provide for the need for children. A critical attitude

towards States of origin was difficult to combine with this. Although some intermediaries did report

abuses, most preferred to look away. As a result, the intermediaries were, in effect, a conservation

factor with regard to abuses. Overly critical attitudes would also create the risk of declining

adoption opportunities by intermediaries, which would contravene their own institutional interests

and those of the influential adoptive parents.

The intermediaries were partly dependent on the number of adoptions for which they mediated.

For example, the parties competed with each other with promises of faster procedures and shorter

waiting times. Since 2008, it has been stipulated that only a limited number of intermediaries may

be active per State of origin, which reinforced this dynamic. So-called chain consultations -

established to monitor developments in the adoption procedure and discuss

Unofficial translation

any problems between the intermediaries - however, created more tensions between the

intermediaries than they resolved.

The pressure from adoptive parents was high, the waiting lists long and the competition fierce -

so for intermediaries, the

motto was “the faster, the better”. In some cases, this has led to a less

critical look at adoption procedures and excessive confidence in foreign intermediaries whose

actions were often driven by personal (financial) gain. The Dutch intermediaries did not exercise

effective control over the course of procedures in the States of origin.

The documentation and archiving of adoption files by intermediaries regularly leaves a lot to be

desired. Records from the 1970s and 1980s are often incomplete, which makes searching for the

origins of adoptees more difficult, although this has improved somewhat since the 1990s. The

transfer of archival inventories and files of disbanded intermediaries creates confusion for

adoptees about who to contact with their parentage questions.

11.3.3

The role of Dutch politics

Politics has shown interest in intercountry adoption since the 1960s. The political agenda was

largely determined by the interests of adoptive parents. The ability to proceed with, shorten or

speed up adoption procedures was a regularly recurring theme in debates and parliamentary

papers until the turn of the century. Members of parliaments and political decision-makers were

also familiar with abuses: from the early 1960s onwards, critical parliamentary questions were

posed and parliamentary debates were held.

The Committee finds that, although the politicians have raised signs of abuse, they primarily

served the interests of the adoptive parents and not those of the adoptees or the birth family.

Politics has only given minimal substance to its monitoring task with regard to abuses.

11.3.4

The influence of the 1993 HC

As a result of the implementation of the 1993 HC in 1998, the Dutch government established a

Central Authority. Neither in the Dutch relations with the intermediaries, nor with regard to foreign

countries, has the Central Authority been able to acquire a strong position. The embedding within

the Ministry of Justice has been changed several times and the Central Authority has acquired

little or no institutional stature.

With regard to foreign countries, the Dutch Central Authority could not play a formal role in relation

to non-State Parties of the 1993 HC. With regard to the State Parties to the 1993 HC, the principle

of trust applied and the Central Authority saw few opportunities to intervene in the event of

problems. In the performance of its tasks, time and time again, the Central Authority experienced

tensions between the principle of trust and its control and supervision task. Due to this principle

of trust, the possibilities of the Central Authority to critically challenge matters during inspection

missions were also perceived as limited.

Unofficial translation

The same also applied to licensed intermediaries. The Committee is of the opinion that the Central

Authority has therefore insufficiently fulfilled its task as supervisor and protector of the best

interests of the child.

All things considered, the government and intermediaries have set insufficient limits to abuses,

whether through procedural regulation, or through supervision and control. The best interests of

the child still appear to be subordinate because the system does not have sufficient strength to

adequately protect these interests.

11.4

Impact on the parties involved

What consequences has intercountry adoption had for the parties involved? What are the

consequences of the identified abuses for the birth family, the adoptive parents and the adoptees?

Much international research has been conducted into this, as well as research in the Netherlands.

On behalf of the Committee, a representative survey was also conducted among adoptees in the

Netherlands by the Statistics Netherlands (CBS).

11.4.1

Birth families

Birth families (often a single mother with several children) are the least visible and heard of all

parties involved. The adoption decision has often come about under social pressure or coercion.

In addition to extreme forms of child theft or kidnapping, children have also been relinquished by

making false promises to the birth family or having them sign documents they did not understand.

In other cases, birth parents were not familiar with the scope, implications and definitive nature of

intercountry adoption.

Birth parents can suffer from feelings of loss, grief and isolation and are sometimes looking for

their adopted child. The same applies for other relatives. Only a small number of them manage

to find their adopted relatives because the local organisations or intermediaries involved deny

their responsibility and do not provide support or access to information. In some countries, birth

parents or birth families are not entitled to see the adoption papers of their child or relative.

Although voluntary organisations for birth parents have been set up in a few countries, relatively

little has been arranged for this group.

11.4.2

Adoptive parents

A very large group of adoptive parents have legally adopted according to Dutch law. They trusted

that the adoption was in order, which was also in line with the prevailing social view. However,

whether deliberately or not, they, too, have contributed to the creation of an adoption market.

There is also a group of prospective adoptive parents whose involuntary childlessness and

genuine desire to have children have been exploited for commercial gain. Adoptive parents may

feel touched by the publicity about the identified abuses and may have doubts about the

procedures at the time of the adoption

Unofficial translation

of their children. After all, the overall picture of intercountry adoption was still positive at the time.

It was not until later years that views on adoption would tilt and eventually become much more

critical. This is sometimes difficult for adoptive parents, because they do not recognise themselves

in the critical images and are convinced that they have acted in good faith, and in the best interests

of the child.

There were also some prospective adoptive parents who wanted to adopt a child by any means

necessary; their own desire to start a family was paramount. For these people, the fact that

adoption brought about family security was crucial; foster care was not considered, because it did

not meet their need. Some within this category have deliberately pushed the boundaries and

acted illegally (such as forgery, smuggling children under false identities, paying extreme sums

for corrupt “intermediaries”, etc.). Some of the adoptive parents have also actively promoted an

adoption market through political mobilisation and organising adoption for other prospective

adoptive parents.

Until the late 1980s, there was not much information about intercountry adoption and adoptive

parents were less prepared for the potential problems that could affect adoptees. These problems

are caused by the traumatic experiences, deprivation or neglect that these children have

experienced at a young age and which can give rise to all kinds of disorders, to a greater extent

with adoptions at a later age. Sometimes these problems also stem directly from the adoption

itself. Not all adoptees have such problems, and some have learned to handle them. For adoptive

parents who are confronted with the - sometimes considerable - problems that their adopted child

experiences, this is painful and sad.

11.4.3

Adoptees

There can be many reasons for adoption. There are children of whom both parents are deceased,

or at least the caring parent. There are also children who were not accepted socio-culturally and

sometimes were unwanted by their parents or mother. For example, children born of rape or

children born out of wedlock in situations where pregnancy and motherhood outside of marriage

were taboo. There are also children of parents who could not care for them because of poverty

or other extreme circumstances and who wanted to give their child a better life. There are also

special needs

children, who need specific care that is not available or too expensive in some

countries. Finally, there are children who are neglected or abused and removed from their homes

or who have been kidnapped or robbed.

Although adoptees were often presented as orphans, many of them still had parents. For most

children, the need for intercountry adoption is not black and white, and pressure to place them for

adoption and other abuses are lurking.

Adoptees themselves are on average moderately positive about intercountry adoption, according

to their answers in the survey of the Statistics Netherlands (CBS). For example, 84% indicate that

adoption has given them more opportunities, and 70% think that adoption should continue to be

possible. At the same time, many adoptees experience contradictions and frictions in their lives.

Both academic research and the survey of the Statistics Netherlands (CBS) have shown that

adoptees face all kinds of problems in their youth

Unofficial translation

to a higher degree than a comparable group. For some adoptees, such problems are permanent

while for others, the problems are temporary.

Adoptees are often confronted with existential questions about the how and why of the adoption

and with questions about their (dual) origin, identity and belonging. They deal with this in different

ways. Some can live with it, while it can be traumatising for others.

The survey of the Statistics Netherlands (CBS) shows that more than four out of five adoptees

think they should be able to find out their background, while half have already started looking for

information about their adoption and background. Of the people who have not done this, more

than a third indicate that they want to do this in the future. However, many searches do not lead

to the desired result because documents or available information are incorrect. Access to files -

both in the Netherlands and abroad - is difficult, costs money and the current remaining

intermediaries have insufficient capacity and expertise to facilitate this. There is no central place

where all data can be found. The adoptees surveyed indicate that they lack a central information

point and that they expect more support from the Dutch government in their search.

When adoptees discover that their adoption involved abuses, this often triggers emotions such

as anger or sadness. or the feeling of betrayal. They may feel ‘trafficked’ or ‘bought’, and this can

have an impact on their self-esteem. In turn, this fuels distrust and anger, directed not only at their

birth parents or adoptive parents, but also towards the involved Dutch and overseas governments

and intermediaries from whom adoptees receive little support or understanding.

Unofficial translation

12 Conclusions

The Committee has investigated abuses in intercountry adoption and the way in which the Dutch

government and intermediaries have dealt with this. The general picture that emerges from this

research is that there were serious abuses during the period under review and that the

government and the intermediaries did not take effective actions against this. They have allowed

the interests of adoptive parents to prevail, and as a result have failed to represent the interests

of both adoptees and their birth parents.

1. Structural abuses in intercountry adoption

In the five countries studied (Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka), serious

intercountry adoption abuses occurred in the period of 1967-1998. There were also adoption

abuses before 1967, after 1998 and in other countries.

•

Abuses occurred in all five countries surveyed during the period of 1967-1998. Although

the nature and extent of the abuses identified varied over time and between countries,

abuses appear to be an almost permanent and systematic problem.

The identified abuses concern both activities that have taken place in violation of

applicable laws and regulations, and unethical acts.

–

Examples of illegal activities are: corruption; making it impossible or more difficult to

find out the origin and identity of adoptees by forging documents; deliberately stating

incorrect information in documents such as age; relinquishment of children for payment

or under duress; child trafficking, theft and kidnapping; baby farming and concealment

of status.

–

Examples of unethical acts include: relinquishing children under false pretences or

moral pressure; the abuse of poverty or other social and cultural circumstances of birth

mothers such as war, disasters and social taboos; inadequate archiving, inaccuracies

in recording data and a lack of transparency in documentation.

The Committee has established that similar abuses also took place before 1967 and after

1998, and in other countries. The pattern of adoption abuses in those countries shows

striking similarities with the five countries studied in depth. Regardless of the different

contexts, abuses in intercountry adoption seem to occur everywhere to this day. The most

important conservation factors in this are the demand for children and the financial

incentive-driven intercountry adoption market where socio-economic inequality, poverty

and making children tradable commodities come together.

Unofficial translation

2. Knowledge and involvement of the Dutch government

The Dutch government was aware of adoption abuses from the late 1960s. In doing so, the

government failed to fulfil its responsibilities and obligations, and failed to intervene when

there was reason to do so.

•

Since the 1960s, there has been a steady stream of reports about adoption abuses at

home and abroad. There were also signs from intermediaries. Since 1961, more than 130

parliamentary questions have been asked about intercountry adoption. Some countries

have unilaterally terminated the adoption relationship with the Netherlands due to abuses.

The Dutch government was aware of these signs, which has been demonstrated by

numerous documents and internal correspondence from relevant (government) agencies

within the responsible Ministry of Justice. Messages between the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and the embassies abroad regularly dealt with the issue of how to deal with

adoption abuses, and information about this was also exchanged in the interdepartmental

correspondence between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In a number of cases, representatives of the Dutch government were involved in adoption

abuses, acting in violation of the rules.

3. Knowledge and involvement of Dutch intermediaries

Dutch intermediaries were aware of adoption abuses. The degree of involvement varies

between the different intermediaries, DIY intermediaries and other private actors.

•

The Dutch intermediaries also had knowledge of abuses in intercountry adoption for a long

time. Before the introduction of the licensing system in 1989, this also includes DIY

individuals.

The involvement of intermediaries in abuses varies. Although much of the documentation

of intermediaries has been destroyed, it has emerged that they were aware of abuses and

that some were also involved directly or through local personnel. Among other things, they

engaged in self-enrichment, circumvention of regulations, for example with regard to the

Dutch long-stay visa

(mvv),

the adjustment of data, or the use of fraudulent lawyers and

other intermediaries with a known dubious reputation. In a few cases, intermediaries

reported suspicions of wrongdoing to the Ministry of Justice.

There are indications of direct involvement in misconduct of employees of intermediaries.

The Committee has not been able to determine whether this only concerns individuals or

whether there were networks.

Unofficial translation

4. The government has not taken effective action against abuses

The Dutch government has failed to take timely measures where it could have done so, for

example by means of legislation with stricter conditions, supervision of adoption practice,

monitoring compliance with legislation and regulations and investigating signs of abuse. This

has allowed abuses to continue.

Background

•

The Dutch government realised too little and too late that intercountry adoption quickly

developed into a market of supply and demand, and that “supply-transcending demand”

contributed to abuses. Financial motives of intermediaries, foreign agencies and local

contact persons played a major role.

•

For a long time, there was a prevailing positive image of intercountry adoption. Insufficient

attention was paid to the disadvantages and problems associated with intercountry

adoption, although these were already known at a relatively early stage to the policy-

responsible Ministry of Justice.

Legislation and regulations

•

The Dutch government has failed to take timely measures where it could have done so.

For too long, it has regarded intercountry adoption as a matter for private parties, namely

adoptive parents and intermediaries, whereby it saw only a limited regulatory role for itself.

•

The Dutch government did not see either policy or supervision regarding intercountry

adoption as a priority and felt no responsibility for the system as a whole. Partly because

of this, the implementation of the policy was insufficiently positioned within the Ministry of

Justice. Officials were insufficiently able to counterbalance intermediaries and

governments in other countries, nor were they sufficiently equipped to effectively

counteract adoption abuses.

•

Adoptive parents, intermediaries and politicians put pressure on the government to

facilitate adoption and speed up procedures. With a facilitating stance, the government

thought it was doing the right thing for these prospective adoptive parents and the foreign

children who were believed to have no parents to care for them. Information to the contrary

was ignored or dismissed.

•

The government stood too much aside from abuses in the States of origin. It considered

the adoption abuses abroad primarily the responsibility of intermediaries and the

authorities of the countries concerned. According to the Dutch government, active

involvement went against the sovereignty of other states, and it did not want to jeopardise

the good relations with other countries. In summary, the response to abuses by the

government can be characterised as absent, turning a blind eye and passive.

Unofficial translation

Monitoring and enforcement

•

The Dutch government has not adequately fulfilled its supervisory task, and has failed to

monitor where it could and should have done this. Occasionally, on the basis of concrete

reports of abuses, a certain form of supervision and enforcement from the Dutch

government did sometimes take place, but the general attitude was one of tolerance and

turning a blind eye.

•

When issuing documents such as the declaration of approval in principle, it was

determined that consent for adoption was only granted if the parents had relinquished the

child “in a way that was valid on the spot and acceptable according to Dutch standards”. It

was the job of the intermediaries to be “diligent” on this

point. However, it has not been

found that the Dutch government has reviewed this.

•

When issuing relevant documents such as Dutch long-stay visas and other visas,

registrations in the civil registry and adoption rulings in court, the Dutch government relied

on previous links in the procedural chain and did not independently review these, even if

it was clear that something was wrong. Border controls were also based on the accuracy

of the documents.

•

With the implementation of the licensing system in 1989, intermediaries could continue

their activities and were granted a license without adequate verification of compliance.

•

Established abuses at adoption intermediaries have never led to the permanent withdrawal

of the license after 1989. However, adoptions from certain countries have been temporarily

suspended by the Dutch government.

Investigation of signs

•

Although the Dutch government was generally well aware of abuses, action was not taken,

or taken too little or too late. Sometimes signs were downplayed or considered not

concrete enough to look into.

•

The Public Prosecution Service has found illegal adoptions in various domestic

investigations into DIY individuals, but this has not led to prosecution. According to the

Public Prosecution Service, the parents did not act for profit and the return of the child was

not considered in their best interest.

5. The social and political image has been crucial in the development and maintenance

of the abuses

For too long, intercountry adoption has been seen socially and politically as a laudable way

to save children in need. In addition, it met the desire of parents in the Netherlands who

wanted family security and who were unable to have children themselves or who wanted to

take a child into

their family out of idealism. Due to this prevailing view of “doing good”, no

timely action was taken against abuses.

•

Intercountry adoption was seen as the best solution for a child in need, and by definition

they would be better off in the wealthier Western world.

Unofficial translation

6. The consequences of adoption abuses for those involved

For many of those involved, the consequences of their adoption are drastic. Due to the way

in which their adoption was conducted, many adoptees are unable to find out their identity.

Not knowing their origins and having to live with unanswered questions cause anger, pain

and sorrow, regardless of how they fare in the Netherlands. Birth parents, birth families and

adoptive parents also experience the drastic consequences of the adoption abuses.

Birth families

•

The birth families, often single mothers with several children, are the least visible and

heard of those involved. The birth mothers are first of all victims, and experience feelings

of loss, sadness and isolation due to the loss of their child. They were sometimes

pressured to give up their child, the concept of “adoption” as used in the Western world

was unknown to them, and in the worst case their child was stolen.

Adoptive parents

•

A number of adoptive parents who adopted a child in good faith and according to the rules

out of good intentions, or a deep desire to have children now (sometimes) feel guilty,

because the adoption appears to be surrounded by abuse, or the transition from another

culture has led to major problems. Some adoptive parents also feel like victims.

Adoptees

•

Adoptees face all kinds of problems in their youth to a greater extent than a comparable

group of non-adoptees. For some adoptees, such problems are permanent, while for

others the problems are temporary.

•

The majority of adoptees are generally positive about their own adoption. The connection

that adoptees feel with the Netherlands is great. More than three quarters say adoption

has given them more opportunities.

•

About half of the adoptees indicate that they have been looking for more information about

their adoption and/or background. Of the half who did not do this, more than a third indicate

that they will (perhaps or certainly) look for this in the future.

•

The search for information about the adoption or the background turns out to be a laborious

process, in which the information found often turns out to be incorrect.

•

Many adoptees are partly or completely unable to find out their identity. Not knowing their

origin and having to live with unanswered questions cause anger, pain and sadness in

some.

•

The vast majority of adoptees want recognition from the Dutch government for the loss

that is partly caused by the actions or negligence of the government, and which has

damaged confidence in the government.

•

In addition to recognition, adoptees need more specialised psychological help and support

in tracing their origins, such as making archives accessible, making DNA research

available and facilitating searches.

Unofficial translation

Unofficial translation

13 Recommendations

The Committee finds serious shortcomings in the way in which the Dutch government and

intermediaries have dealt with adoption abuses. The trust of many adoptees and other involved

parties in the Dutch government and intermediaries has been violated as a result.

The established abuses cannot be reversed. The Committee therefore wants to ensure that the

consequences of the abuses receive sufficient attention and that they are prevented in the future.

This concerns abuses in intercountry adoption, but care must also be taken to prevent abuses

occurring in new forms of family formation, such as commercial surrogacy.

The Committee urges that the following recommendations be taken up vigorously and that

valuable time is not wasted, given that the birth parents of many adoptees are now elderly.

The Committee recommends the following to the Minister for Legal Protection:

1. Government recognition

Recognise that the government has failed to address adoption abuses.

Explanation

The Committee points to the need for the government to restore its violated relationship with

adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents and family. One condition for this is the recognition

by the government that it has failed to combat adoption abuses. An attitude of openness and

transparency towards those who want to retrieve information from the past is appropriate in this

respect.

2. Suspension of intercountry adoption

The current system of intercountry adoption with private elements cannot be maintained. The

Committee has serious doubts whether it is possible to design a realistic public law system

in which the identified abuses no longer occur. Pending decision-making, the Committee

recommends to suspend the implementation of intercountry adoptions.

Explanation

The Committee has established that the system of intercountry adoption with its private elements,

such as private intermediaries, is susceptible to fraud and to date, has given rise to abuses. The

actual options are an important element in the decision-making process

Unofficial translation

to supervise the process of intercountry adoption from the Netherlands within and outside the

national border. In the meantime, the Committee recommends taking a hold in the form of a

suspension. Attention must also be paid to transitional law.

The Committee has doubts whether it is possible to design a realistic alternative system, given

that the many attempts to reduce abuses by means of stricter regulation of the current system

have failed to date.

Finally, the Committee points out the importance of drawing lessons from the past. The inability

to combat abuses in intercountry adoption in recent decades calls for measures for future forms

of family formation that resemble intercountry adoption, such as surrogacy, for example.

3. Establishment of a national Expertise Centre

Provide an independent national Expertise Centre in which knowledge in the field of identity

questions, root searches and aftercare is bundled so that adoptees are facilitated in

accessing their files, the search for their birth parents, finding suitable psychosocial help and

legal support.

Explanation

With this recommendation, the Committee wants to ensure that the consequences of the adoption

receive sufficient attention by offering adoptees support with questions about origins and

providing care and aftercare. This goal can be achieved by making expertise and infrastructure

available. This includes facilitating access to domestic and foreign adoption files and the search

for the birth family, including the parents and other relatives such as (half-)siblings.

The Expertise Centre also provides access to low-threshold facilities that offer good aftercare to

adoptees and adoptive parents, and guide them with the specific life questions associated with

adoption in the form of professional psychological help or the search for it. Legal support can

include matters such as name or age change, multiple nationality and revocation of adoption.

It is important that the government ensures that the current associations, foundations and other

organisational links of adoptees and those involved come together so that optimal use can be

made of existing knowledge.

Unofficial translation

Summary

On 18 April 2019, the Minister for Legal Protection established an independent Committee to

investigate potential abuses related to intercountry adoptions in the past. The assignment set by

the minister focused primarily on the period of 1967-1998 and on the countries of Bangladesh,

Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka.

Purpose of the investigation and the approach taken

The Committee formulated three principal questions based on the assignment set by the minister:

1) What was the extent of abuses related to intercountry adoptions in which adoptees were

brought to the Netherlands?

2) To what extent were the Dutch government and intermediaries aware of and involved in

potential abuses, and how did they respond to signs of abuses?

3) What lessons can be learned from the past, and how can the Dutch government and

intermediaries support adoptees who experience problems due to the way in which their

adoption was conducted?

To clarify the roles and responsibilities of the government and intermediaries, the Committee

focused on the

system

of intercountry adoption. In view of the assignment and the decision to

focus on the system, the Committee did not investigate individual cases or make statements on

personal matters. The investigation focused on 1967–1998, the period specified in the minister's

order establishing the Committee, but it also took the prior history into account and included a

description of signs of abuse in other countries and in the period after 1998. 1998 is the year in

which the Hague Adoption Convention (1993 HC) came into force in the Netherlands.

The term ‘abuse’ is used in many different contexts and with many different meanings, determined

in part by the era in which it is used. The Committee defines ‘abuse’ as:

acting, or failing to act, in

a way contrary to applicable national and international laws and regulations, as well as acting, or

failing to act, in a way which is formally not in conflict with applicable national and international

laws and regulations but which, from an ethical viewpoint, is irresponsible.

The Committee

encountered various abuses, from inaccurate documentation to child trafficking and baby farms.

Adult adoptees’ welfare and search behaviour

The Committee asked Statistics Netherlands (CBS) to conduct a representative study of the

issues affecting intercountry adoptees in the Netherlands. Approximately half of the adoptees

indicated that they had searched for more information about their adoption. Of the persons who

had not made such a search, more than one third indicated a wish to do so in the future. However,

many searches fail to produce the desired result, as the available documents or information are

not accurate.

Unofficial translation

The five countries named in the order establishing the Committee

The report reconstructs the actual course of events surrounding intercountry adoption in,

successively, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The political, economic

and sociocultural malaise in the States of origin influenced intercountry adoptions from the 1960s

onwards. For example, there was a social taboo surrounding unmarried pregnancy and

motherhood. There was little relevant legislation: for a long time, intercountry adoption took place

privately, without government oversight. Individual intermediaries, such as lawyers and doctors,

and even criminal networks were able to take advantage of this situation. This encouraged

abuses.

Intercountry adoptions were characterised by large-scale, systematic abuses. Every imaginable

form of abuse was reported, from missing archives to child trafficking. Although instances of abuse

were known to several Dutch government bodies and to politicians, for a long time, the

organisations and people concerned took no action. Reports of abuse were ignored and not

followed up by the Dutch government.

Despite this awareness of abuse and a desire to take a stricter approach, the Netherlands

continued to assign responsibility for solutions to the authorities in other countries. The adoption

papers were not subjected to strict controls. It has been shown that two Dutch government officials

were involved in two separate illegal Brazilian adoptions. There are no indications that this

involvement was motivated by self-enrichment. The intermediaries were subject to only minimal

oversight, and the large proportion of ‘DIY’ adoptions

took place with no oversight at all. Dutch

intermediaries were also aware of abuses; some intermediaries

– both ‘DIY’ individuals and larger

organisations

–

were involved in abuses.

Adoption-related abuses in other countries

In addition to the five countries named in the order establishing the Committee, the Committee

screened a further 18 countries for abuses both before and after 1998. In total, the Committee

studied 23 countries. The two most important findings from the screening were that abuses either

were or are reported in all the countries screened, and that abuses continued to take place after

the 1993 HC came into force in the Netherlands in 1998.

After 1998

The Committee also described the development of intercountry adoption in the period following

the Netherlands’ introduction of the

1993 HC in 1998 and the founding of the Central Authority.

The Committee’s investigation shows that abuses did not disappear

after 1998. Even after that

time, many abuses continued to make the news and be discussed in parliament. The Dutch

government was aware of the situation. In most cases, the response to reports of abuses involved

either referring to investigations by the authorities in the countries in question or expressing trust

in those authorities. The Dutch government did act in some cases, when the adoptive parents’

interests were at stake or when adoptive parents demanded government action.

Analysis of the adoption system

The Committee established that the structural and systematic abuses identified are caused by a

complex of factors, both in the States of origin and in the Netherlands. The Committee asserted

that many of these explanatory factors continue unabated to this day and form a lasting trigger

for potential abuses.

Unofficial translation

Adoptive parents had a range of different motives. Some were idealistic and wished to give an

underprivileged child a better future, while others wanted to bring a child into their family to fulfil

their desire to have children. In the States of origin, factors such as poverty, war and disasters

caused children to be orphaned or displaced; their families either no longer existed or could not

care for them. In most States of origin, unmarried pregnancy and motherhood were not socially

accepted and the mother and the child were stigmatised or repudiated.

Factors of ‘supply and demand’ led to the creation of an international ‘adoption market’ motivated

by financial incentives. The large sums paid out as compensation for adoptions had a corrupting

effect, especially considering the standard of living in the States of origin.

The positive image of intercountry adoption, which was sustained for a long time, was very

influential. In spite of growing evidence to the contrary, this image caused intercountry adoption

to be identified as the best solution for a child who could not be cared for at home. The dominant

impression was one of ‘needy orphans’ and adoptive parents

who wanted to help. Adoption was

identified with ‘doing good’ by benefactors and aid providers.

For a long time, the Dutch government saw adoption as a purely private matter, relying on Dutch

intermediaries and overseas authorities despite frequent reports of abuses. The Dutch

government failed to take action internationally, partly so as not to frustrate the adoption process

and partly out of a desire not to damage diplomatic relations with the States of origin.

The adoption system had almost no structure of checks and balances. The Dutch government

itself was both operator and inspector, it maintained a close relationship with intermediaries who

often also had political connections, the monitoring was inadequate, there was insufficient

oversight, and the government barely enforced the rules. In terms of intercountry adoption,

therefore, the government was a passive follower and did not act even when it had good reason

to take action. This created a sense of impunity around abuses, both in the Netherlands and in

the States of origin.

The Dutch intermediaries saw their primary task as meeting the demand for children. It was

difficult to combine this priority with a critical attitude towards the States of origin. Although some

intermediaries reported abuses, in general they

–

like the government

–

preferred to look the other

way. In practice, this meant that the intermediaries were a factor in permitting abuses to continue.

The pressure from adoptive parents was high, the waiting lists were long and the competition was

fierce. Intermediaries’

documentation and archiving of adoption files often left a lot to be desired.

Dutch politics has shown an interest in intercountry adoption since the 1960s. The Committee

established that, although politicians did raise reports of abuses, they primarily served the

interests of adoptive parents and not those of adoptees or their birth families. Politicians barely

exercised control when it came to abuses.

All in all, the government and intermediaries did not set sufficient boundaries for abuses, either

through procedural regulations or through oversight and control. Even today, the interests of the

child are still subservient, because the system is not robust enough to protect them.

Unofficial translation

Consequences for the people involved

The analysis of the consequences of the abuses identified by the Committee, whether for the birth

parents and family, the adoptive parents or the adoptees, reveals a ‘history of loss’. Some birth

parents suffer feelings of loss, sadness and isolation, and some are searching for their child. The

same is true for other relatives.

A very large group of adoptive parents have legally adopted the children according to Dutch law.

They trusted that the adoption was in order

–

an assumption which fits with the dominant social

view. However, whether deliberately or not, they, too, have contributed to the creation of an

adoption market. There is also a group of potential adoptive parents whose involuntary

childlessness and genuine desire to have children have been exploited for commercial gain.

There were also some potential adoptive parents who wanted to adopt a child by any means

necessary; their own desire to start a family was paramount. They deliberately pushed the

boundaries, and in some cases they acted illegally.

Although adoptees were often presented as orphans, many of them still had parents. Adoptees

are often confronted with existential questions about the how and the why of their adoption, as

well as questions about their double origins, identity and belonging. Different adoptees deal with

that in different ways: some can live with it comfortably, while others may be traumatised.

When adoptees discover that their adoption involved abuses, this often triggers emotions such

as anger or sadness. They may feel

‘trafficked’ or ‘bought’, and this can have an impact on their

self-esteem. In turn, this fuels distrust and anger, directed not only at their birth parents or adoptive

parents, but also towards the involved Dutch and overseas governments and intermediaries from

whom adoptees receive little support or understanding.

At the end of the report, the Committee shares its conclusions and recommendations.

Unofficial translation

List of abbreviations

BIA

Dutch Bureau for Intercountry Adoption and Youth Welfare [Stichting Nederlands

Bureau voor Interlandelijke Adoptie en Jeugdwelzijn]

CBS

Statistics Netherlands [Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek]

Fiom

Dutch Single Mother Association for the Federal Territory [Federatie van Instellingen

voor de Ongehuwde Moeder]

1993 HC

IAPA’s

ICBF

ICS

IJZ

IND

ISS

UNCRC

J&S

MinFA

MinJus

MVV

NVP

RSJ

RvdK

SAV

SIA

TdH

S&J

Wob

Wobka

Wobp

The 1993 Hague Adoption Convention

Instituciones Autorizadas para desarrollar el Programa de Adopción

Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar y Familiar

International Commercial Surrogacy

Youth Care Inspectorate [Inspectie Jeugdzorg]

Immigration and Naturalisation Service [Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst]

International Social Service

International Convention on the Rights of the Child

Ministry of Justice and Security

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ministry of Justice

Dutch-long stay visa [Machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf]

Dutch Association for Foster Families [Nederlandse Vereniging voor Pleeggezinnen]

Council for the Application of Criminal Law and Youth Protection [Raad voor

Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming]

Child Care and Protection Board [Raad voor de Kinderbescherming]

Adoption Facilities Foundation [Stichting Adoptievoorzieningen]

Foundation for Intercountry Adoption [Stichting Interlandelijke Adoptie]

Terre des Hommes

Ministry of Security and Justice

United Nations

Government Information (Public Access) Act [Wet openbaarheid van bestuur]

Placement of Foreign Children Act [Wet opneming buitenlandse kinderen ter adoptie]

Placement of Foreign Foster Children Act [Wet opneming buitenlandse

pleegkinderen]

Unofficial translation

Glossary

Term

Adoption

Description/definition

The legal placement of a child not of your own. Adoption creates

a new, legally established family relationship between the

adoptive parent(s) and the child.

Term used for the three parties directly involved in an adoption,

namely: the birth parent(s), the adoptee(s) and the adoptive

parent(s).

Term used by some scholars to emphasise the financial and

political-economic incentives associated with the adoption

system. Also called “baby market”.

Adoption triangle

Adoption market

Adoptive parent(s)

Person(s) or couple adopting a child. After the court has

pronounced the adoption, a new, legal family relationship

arises between the adopted child and the adoptive parent(s).

Adoption system

The entirety of government and private organisations that deal

with intercountry adoption and the applicable laws and

regulations. Also called adoption regime. This report

emphasises the mechanisms and actions of the Dutch

government and intermediaries in intercountry adoption.

Declaration of

relinquishment

Apostille Convention

Written document signed by the birth parent(s) stating that they

are relinquishing their child.

International treaty that provides for the use of certain official

documents (such as birth certificates) abroad by means of a

certificate procedure, the Apostille.

Baby farms

Places where women are made pregnant or stay to give birth; to

then give up their new-born child for adoption (whether or not

against their will and/or payment).

Baby market

See adoption market.

Unofficial translation

Declaration of approval in

principle

Written notification issued by the Ministry of Justice to

prospective adoptive parents that “in principle there is no

objection” to the placement of a foreign adopted child.

Intermediary(ies)

Organisation/agency involved in the adoption system on a

professional or voluntary basis. Also called: adoption

intermediary; adoption institution; adoption agency;

mediating body organisation; mediation body(ies), license

holder(s) (after the introduction of the Wobp in 1989).

Placement of a child, whereby both the child and (one of) the

adoptive parent(s) have the same nationality and/or reside in

the same country.

Body charged with implementing and enforcing the

adoption policy of a country that is a member of the Hague

Adoption Convention (1993 HC).

Turning something into a tradable commodity.

A woman who bears a child for a person or couple. A

surrogate mother is considered to be a woman who has

become pregnant with the intention of giving birth to a child on

behalf of someone else who wishes to acquire parental

authority over that child or who otherwise wishes to

permanently take on the upbringing of that child.

Domestic adoption

Central Authority

Commodification

Surrogate mother(hood)

Adoptee(s)

A person who is a full child of adoptive parents in a legal

sense, where the legal ties between the adoptee and the birth

parent(s) have been severed. Also called: adoptive child.

Birth mother

The woman from which an adoptee was born. Other words

are: distance mother; biological mother; original mother;

natural mother.

The parents from which an adoptee is born. Also called:

natural parents; biological parents; distance parents;

original parents.

Convention that includes safeguards and guidelines for

intercountry adoption. The 1993 HC was established in May

1993. In the Netherlands, it entered into force in 1998.

The UNCRC, also known as the United Nations Convention on

the Rights of the Child, was drawn up in 1989. It entered into

force in the Netherlands in 1995. The UNCRC consists of the

rights of children under the age of 18. Article 21 in the

convention is devoted to adoption.

Birth parents

Hague Adoption

Convention (1993 HC)

International Convention

on the Rights of the

Child (UNCRC)

Unofficial translation

Immigration and

Naturalisation Service

(IND)

The IND is part of the Ministry of Justice. The IND implements

Dutch immigration policy, such as assessing and granting

residence applications for persons who wish to (permanently)

reside in the Netherlands. Until 1993, the Immigration Service

was the predecessor of the IND.

Periodic meeting of stakeholders within the adoption chain,

including the licensed intermediaries and the Central Authority.

Kidnapping; child abduction.

Clandestine market in trafficked children; sale of children. Also

called: child laundering.

Entry visa for establishment in the Netherlands. An

mvv is applied for at the Dutch diplomatic

representation in the child's State of origin and is

issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

With abuse, the Committee understands: acts or omissions that

are contrary to applicable national or international laws and

regulations, as well as acts or omissions that are not formally

inconsistent with applicable national and international laws and

regulations, but are ethically irresponsible.

Chain consultation

Child theft

Child trafficking

Dutch long-stay visa

(mvv)

Abuse

Moratorium

(Board of) Principal

Public Prosecutors

Legal term meaning suspension.

The national leadership of the Public Prosecution Service (OM).

The Board determines the investigation and prosecution policy of

the Public Prosecution Service. This makes it the highest

decision-making body within the Public Prosecution Service.

The Board that advises on the suitability of adoptive parents to

have a child placed with them. The Board carries out the home

study and advises the Minister of Justice on the granting of a

declaration of approval in principle.

A(n) (adopted) child with (any form of) a psychological,

medical, cosmetic or other type of condition.

Full adoption occurs when the legal family relationship

between the adopted child and the birth parent(s) is broken

and is replaced by family law relationships between the

adoptive parent(s) and the adopted child.

Principle that sees intercountry adoption as the last resort

for possible child protection. Before intercountry adoption,

other options should be explored.

Child Care and

Protection Board (RvdK)

Special needs (adoptive)

child

Full adoption

Principal subsidiarity

Unofficial translation

State Party(ies)

A country that has signed and ratified the Hague Adoption

Convention.

Deliberately making a person's parentage and true descent

ambiguous or uncertain.

The system of licenses set up by the Ministry of Justice in

1989 for organisations that mediate in intercountry

adoption, and thus implies a ban on mediation without a

license.

Starting point included in the 1993 HC. The aim is to ensure

that State Parties can rely on each country to perform its

duties and responsibilities properly.

Concealment of status

License holder system

Principle of trust

Aliens Act implementation

The Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines contain the policy

guidelines

and implementation rules for Dutch immigration policy.

Government Information

(Public Access) Act (Wob

request)

Placement of Foreign

Children Act (Wobka)

Dutch citizens can submit a Wob request to have certain

government information disclosed.

Current Dutch adoption legislation. In 1989, the

Placement of

Foreign Foster Children Act

[Wet opneming buitenlandse

pleegkinderen] (Wobp) came into effect, which in 1998 was

renamed to the

Placement of Foreign Children Adoption Act

[Wet opneming buitenlandse kinderen ter adoptie] (Wobka).

Intercountry adoption without the use of a licensed

intermediary.

Adoption whereby the existing family relationship between

the adoptee(s) and the birth parent(s) is not broken.

DIY individual (DIY

adoptions)

Simple adoption

Unofficial translation

Resource list

Literature

Abreu, D., ‘BabyBearing Storks: An Analysis of Brazilian Intermediaries in the Adoption Process’,

in: D. Marre

en L. Briggs (red.), International Adoption: Global Inequalities and the Circulation

of Children

(New York, 2009), pp. 138153.

African Child Policy Forum,

Intercountry Adoption: An African Perspective

(Addis Abeba, 2012).

Altstein, H. and R. Simon,

Intercountry Adoption: A Multinational Perspective

(New York, 1991).

Annuate, C., ‘Psychological problems of late adoption as observed in Brazil through a cultural-

historical approach’,

Psychology in Russia,

6:4 (2013), pp. 176-184.

Bailey, J., ‘Expectations of the Consequences of New International Adoption Policy in the U.S’,

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,

36:2 (2009), pp. 169-183.

Bakarbessy,

L. and D. Purnama Anugerah, ‘Implementation of the best interest of the child

principles in Intercountry Adoption in Indonesia’,

Yuridika,

33:1 (2018), pp. 74-92.

Balsari, S. et al., ‘Protecting the Children of Haiti’,

The New England Journal of Medicine,

362:9

(2010).

Bartholet, E., ‘International Adoption: Thoughts on the Human Rights Issue’,

Buffalo Human

Rights Law Review,

13 (2007), pp. 151-200.

Bartholet, E. and D. Smolin. ‘The Debate’, in: J. Gibbons and K. Rotabi (red.),

Intercountry

Adoption: Policies, Practices, and Outcomes

(Farnham, 2012) pp. 232-251.

Bergquist, K., ‘Operation Babylift or Babyabduction: Implications of the Hague Convention on the

humanitarian evacuation and ‘rescue’ of children’,

International Social Work,

52:5 (2009), pp.

621-633.

Bos, P.,

Once a mother: Relinquishment and adoption from the perspective of unmarried mothers

in South

India (2007).

Branco, S., ‘The Colombian Adoption House: A Case Study’,

Adoption Quarterly,

23:1 (2020).

Breuning, M. and J. Ishiyama, ‘The Politics

of Intercountry Adoption: Explaining Variation in the

Legal Requirements of Sub-Saharan

African Countries’,

Perspectives on Politics,

7:1 (2009),

pp. 89-101.

Bunkers, K., V.Groza and D. Lauer, ‘International Adoption and Child Protection in Guatemala: A

Case

of the Tail Wagging the Dog’,

International Social Work,

52 (2009), pp. 649-660.

Cahyono, A., ‘Cross-Border Child Adoption: Protection and Challenges in Indonesia’, in: H.

Harkrisnowo, H. Juwana and Y. Oppusunggu (red.),

Law and Justice in a Globalized

World

(London, 2017), pp. 241-248.

Cantwell, N.,

The Best Interests of the Child in Intercountry Adoption

(Florence, 2014).

Cardarello,

A., ‘The Movement of the Mothers of the Courthouse Square: “Legal Child Trafficking”

Adoption and Poverty in Brazil’,

Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology,

14:1 (2009), pp. 140-161.

Cardarello, A., ‘The Right to have a Family: “Legal Trafficking of Children”, Adoption and Birth

Control in Brazil’,

Anthropology & Medicine,

19:2 (2012), pp. 225-240.

Cardoso Siqueira, A. et al., ‘Ensuring the Rights of Birthmothers to Place Their Children for

Adoption’, in: D. Dell’Aglio and S. Koller (red.),

Vulnerable Children and Youth in Brazil

(Cham,

2017) pp. 169-188.

Unofficial translation

Carro, J., ‘Regulation of Intercountry Adoption: Can the Abuses Come to an End?’,

Hastings

International and Comparative Law Review,

18:1 (1994), pp. 121-155.

Carvalho da Silva, D., ‘The Legal Procedures for Adopting Children in Brazil by Citizens and

Foreign Nationals’, in: E. Jaffe (red.),

Intercountry Adoption: Laws and Perspectives of

“Sending” Countries

(Dordrecht, 1995), pp. 121-138.

Cheney, K., ‘“Giving Children a Better Life?” Reconsidering Social Reproduction Humanitarianism

and Development in Intercountry Adoption’,

European Journal of Development Research,

26:2 (2014), pp. 247-263.

Cheney, K., ‘Blood binds: Confronting the moral and political

economies of orphanhood and

adoption in Uganda’,

Childhood,

23:2 (2016), pp. 192-206.

Chirwa, D., ‘Children’s rights, domestic alternative care frameworks and judicial responses to

restrictions on inter-country

adoption: A case study of Malawi and Uganda’,

African Human

Rights Law Journal,

16:1 (2016), pp. 117-144.

Deijle, D.,

Postpakketjes van overzee: Gelegaliseerde kinderhandel in adoptie van kinderen uit

Indonesië

(Brónsgreun, 2020).

Dickens, J., ‘The paradox of inter-country adoption: analysing Romania’s experience as a sending

country’,

International Journal of Social Welfare,

11:1 (2002), pp. 76-83.

Dickens, J., ‘Social Policy Approaches to Intercountry Adoption’,

International Social Work,

52:5

(2009), pp. 595-608.

Dorow, S.,

Transnational Adoption: A Cultural Economy of Race, Gender and Kinship

(New York,

2006).

Dries, L. van den, F. Juffer, M. van IJzendoorn and M. BakermansKranenburg,

‘Fostering

Security? A Meta-Analysis

of Attachment in Adopted Children’,

Children and Youth Services

Review,

31:3 (2009), pp. 410-421.

Freundlich, M.,

Adoption and Ethics: The Market Forces in Adoption

(Washington DC, 2000).

Fonseca, C., ‘Orphanages, Foundlings, and Foster Mothers: The System of Child Circulation in

a Brazilian Squatter

Settlement’,

Anthropological Quarterly,

59:1 (1986), pp. 15-27.

Fonseca, C., ‘Inequality near and far: Adoption as seen from the Brazilian favelas’,

Law & Society

Review,

36:2 (2002), pp. 397-432.

Fonseca, C., ‘An unexpected reversal. Charting the course of international adoption in Brazil’,

Adoption & Fostering,

26:3 (2002), pp. 28-39.

Fonseca, C., ‘The Politics of Adoption: Child Rights in the Brazilian Setting’,

Law & Policy,

24:3

(2002), pp. 199-227.

Fonseca, C., ‘Patterns of Shared Parenthood among the Brazilian Poor’,

Social Text,

21:1 (2003),

pp. 111–127.

Fonseca, C., ‘An unexpected reversal: the “demise” of international adoption in Brazil’,

Dados,

(2007).

Fonseca, C., ‘Transnational Connections and Dissenting Views: The Evolution of Child Placement

Policies in Brazil’, in: D. Marre and L. Briggs (red.),

International Adoptions: Global Inequalities

and the Circulation of Children

(New York, 2009), pp. 154173.

Fronek, P., ‘Intercountry Adoption in Australia: A Natural Evolution or Purposeful Actions’, in: C.

Spark and D. Cuthbert (red.),

Other People’s Children: Adoption in Australia

(Melbourne,

2009), pp. 75-94.

Fronek, P. and D. Cuthbert, ‘History Repeating … Disaster-Related

Intercountry Adoption and the

Psychosocial Care of Children’,

Social Policy & Society,

11:3 (2012), pp. 429-442.

Gair, S. ‘Hearing the Voices of Social Workers in Past Adoption Practice with Mothers and Their

Babies for Adoption: What Can We Learn?’, in: C. Spark and D. Cuthbert (red.),

Other

People’s Children: Adoption in Australia

(Melbourne, 2009), pp. 37-54.

Unofficial translation

Gibbons, J. and K. Rotabi, ‘Best Practices in Implementing the Hague Convention’, in: J. Gibbons

and K. Rotabi (red.),

Intercountry adoption: Policies, Practices and Outcomes

(London, 2016),

pp. 255-264.

Giberti, E., ‘Excluded mothers: Birth mothers relinquishing their children’, in: P. Selman (red.),

Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and Perspectives

(London, 2000), pp. 459-466.

Goodwin, M.,

Baby Markets: Money and the New Politics of Creating Families

(New York, 2010).

Graff, N., ‘Intercountry adoption and the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Can the free

market in children be controlled?’,

Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce,

27:2

(2000), pp. 405-430.

Hartog, E. den, and J. Derix,

Rebel voor het Leger: Memoires

(Baarn, 1985).

Högbacka,

R., ‘The Quest for a child of One’s Own: Parents, Markets and Transnational

Adoption’,

Journal of Comparative Family Studies,

39:3 (2008), pp. 311-330.

Högbacka, R.,

Working Paper No. 598 Intercountry Adoption, States of origin, and Biological

Families

(The Hague, 2014).

Hoksbergen, R. and W. Wolters (red.),

Verstoorde relaties, adoptie en hulpverlening

(Baarn,

1989). Hoksbergen, R., ‘Vijftig jaar adoptie in Nederland:

Een historisch-statistische

beschouwing’

(Utrecht, 2000).

Hoksbergen, R.,

Kinderen die niet konden blijven: Zestig jaar adoptie in beeld

(Soesterberg,

2011). Hoksbergen, R., and H. Walenkamp (red.),

Adoptie uit de kinderschoenen

(Deventer,

1983).

Hoksbergen R., and H. Walenkamp (red.),

Kind van andere ouders: Theorie en praktijk van adoptie

(Houten, 1991),

Howell, S., The Kinning of Foreigners: Transnational Adoption in a Global Perspective (New York,

2006).

Hübinette, T.,

Comforting an Orphaned Nation: Representations of International Adoption and

Adopted Koreans in Korean Popular Culture (Stockholm, 2005).

Hübinette, T. ‘From Orphan Trains to Babylifts: Colonial Trafficking, Empire Building, and Social

Engineering’, in: J. Trenka, J. Oparah and S. Shin (red.),

Outsiders within: Writing on

Transracial Adoption

(Cambridge, 2006), pp. 139-149.

Johnson, K.,

Wanting a Daughter, Needing a Son: Abandonment, Adoption, and Orphanage Care

in China

(Minneapolis, 2004).

Johnson, K., ‘Chaobao: The Plight of Chinese Adoptive Parents in the Era of One-Child Policy’,

in: T. Volkman (red.),

Cultures of Transnational Adoption

(Durham, 2005) pp. 117-141.

Joyce, K.

The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption

(New York,

2013). Juffer, F. and M. van IJzendoorn, ‘Review of MetaAnalytical

Studies on the Physical,

Emotional and Cognitive Outcomes of Intercountry

Adoptees’, in: J. Gibbons and K. Rotabi (red.),

Intercountry adoption: Policies, Practices and Outcomes

(London, 2016), pp. 175-186.

Loibl, E.,

The Transnational Illegal Adoption Market: A Criminological Study of the German and

Dutch Intercountry Adoption Systems

(The Hague, 2019).

Lovelock, K., ‘Intercountry Adoption as a Migratory Practice: A Comparative Analysis of

Intercountry Adoption and Immigration Policy and Practice in the United States, Canada and

New Zealand in the Post W.W. II Period’,

International Migration Review,

34:3 (2000), pp. 907-

949.

Maule, H. and M. Thijssen,

Geen tijd om te Bidden: het verhaal van Eva den Hartog

(Bussum,

1977).

McGreery Bunkers, K. and V. Groza, ‘Intercountry Adoption and Child Welfare in

Guatemala’, in: J.

Gibbons and K. Rotabi (red.),

Intercountry adoption: Policies, Practices and

Outcomes

(London, 2016), pp. 119-131.

Unofficial translation

McKinney, L., ‘International Adoption and the Hague Convention: Does Implementation of the

Convention

Protect the

Best Interests of Children’, Whittier Journal of Child & Family

Advocacy, 6:2 (2007),

pp. 361-412.

Mezmur,

B., ‘Intercountry Adoption as a Measure of Last Resort in Africa: Advancing the Rights

of a Child Rather than a Right to a Child’,

International Journal on Human Rights,

10:1 (2009),

pp. 83-104.

Mónico, C. and K. Rotabi, ‘Truth, Reconciliation and Searching

for the Disappeared Children of

Civil War: El Salvador’s Search and reunion Model Defined’, in: J. Gibbons and K. Rotabi

(red.),

Intercountry adoption: Policies, Practices and Outcomes

(London, 2016), pp. 301-310.

Mookherjee,

N., ‘Available Motherhood: Legal Technologies, “State of Exception”, and the

Dekinning of “War-Babies” in Bangladesh’,

Childhood,

14:3 (2007), pp. 339-354.

Moreira Alves, J., ‘A Panorama of Brazilian Civil Law From its Origins to the Present’,

Panorama

of Brazilian Law,

(1992), pp. 108-120.

Post, R.,

Romania: For Export Only; The Untold Story of the Romanian

‘Orphans’ (Amsterdam,

2007).

Post, R., ‘De perverse effecten van het Haags Adoptieverdrag’,

Justitiële verkenningen,

34:7 (2008), pp. 25-37.

Pringle, R., ‘Adoption in Britain: Reflexive Modernity’,

Australian Feminist Studies,

19:44 (2004),

pp. 225-240.

Probyn, E.,

Outside belongings

(New York, 1996).

Roby, J. and S. Matsumura, ‘If I Give You My Child, Aren’t We Family? A Study of Birthmothers

Participating in Marshall Islands-U.S.

Adoptions’,

Adoption Quarterly,

5:4 (2002), pp. 7-31.

Roby, J., ‘From Rhetoric to Best Practice: Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption’,

Children’s

Legal Rights Journal

27:3 (2007), pp. 48-71.

Roby, J. and J.

Ife, ‘Human Rights, Politics and Intercountry Adoption: An Examination of Two

Sending Countries’,

International Social Work,

52:5 (2009), pp. 661-672.

Rotabi, K., ‘Fraud in Intercountry Adoption: Child Sales and Abduction in Vietnam, Cambodia and

Guatemala’,

in: J. Gibbons and K. Rotabi (red.),

Intercountry adoption: Policies, Practices and

Outcomes

(London, 2016), pp. 67-76.

Saclier, C., ‘In the best interests of the child?’, in: P. Selman (red.),

Intercountry Adoption:

Developments, Trends and Perspectives

(London, 2000), pp. 53-65.

San Román, B. and K. Rotabi, ‘Rescue, red tape, child abduction, illicit adoptions, and discourse:

Intercountry adoption attitudes in Spain’,

International Social Work,

62:1 (2019), pp. 198-211.

Sarri, R., Y. Baik and M. Bombyk,

‘Goal Displacement and Dependency in South KoreanUnited

States Intercountry Adoption’,

Children and Youth Services Review,

20:1-2 (1998), pp. 87-114.

Schrover, M., ‘Parenting, citizenship and belonging in Dutch adoption debates 1900-1995’,

Identities,

11 (2020), pp. 1-19.

Scroggs, P. and H. Heitfield, ‘International Adopters and Their Children: Birth Culture Ties’,

Gender Issues,

19 (2001), pp. 3-30.

Selman, P., ‘Intercountry Adoption in the New Millennium: The ‘Quiet Migration’ Revisited’,

Population Research and Policy Review,

21 (2002), pp. 205-225.

Selman, P., ‘Trends in Intercountry Adoption: Analysis of Data from 20 Receiving Countries,

1998-2004’,

Journal of Population Research,

23:2 (2006), pp. 183-204.

Selman, P., ‘The Rise and Fall of Intercountry Adoption in the 21st Century’,

International Social

Work,

52:5 (2009), pp. 575-594.

Selman, P., ‘The Global Decline of Intercountry Adoption: What Lies Ahead?’,

Social Policy and

Society

11:3 (2012), pp. 381-397.

Unofficial translation

Selman, P., ‘Intercountry Adoption of Children from Asia in the Twenty-First Century’,

Children’s

Geographies,

13:3 (2015), pp. 312-327.

Slot, B., ‘Adoptie en welvaart: een analyse van vraag en aanbod van adoptiekinderen’,

Justitiële

verkenningen,

34:7 (2008), pp. 11-24.

Smolin, D., ‘Intercountry Adoption as Child Trafficking’,

Valparaiso University Law Review,

39:2

(2004), pp. 281-326.

Smolin,

D., ‘The Two Faces of Intercountry Adoption: The Significance of the Indian Adoption

Scandals’,

Seton Hall Law Review,

35:2 (2005), pp. 403-493.

Smolin, D., ‘Child Laundering: How the Intercountry Adoption System Legitimizes and Incentivizes

the Practices

of Buying, Trafficking, Kidnapping, and Stealing Children’,

The Wayne Law

Review,

52 (2006), pp. 113-200.

Smolin, D., ‘Intercountry Adoption and Poverty: A Human Rights Analysis’,

Capital University Law

Review,

36 (2007), pp. 413-453.

Smolin, D., ‘Child

Laundering as Exploitation: Applying AntiTrafficking Norms to Intercountry

Adoption under the Coming Hague Regime’,

Vermont Law Review,

32 (2007), pp. 1- 55.

Smolin, D., ‘Child Laundering and the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: The Future

and

Past of Intercountry Adoption’,

University of Louisville Law Review,

48:3 (2010), pp. 441-

498.

Terr, L., ‘What happens to early memories of trauma? A study of twenty children under the age

of 5 at the time of documented traumatic events’,

American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry,

27:1 (1988), pp. 96-104.

Triseliotis, J., ‘Intercountry Adoption: Global Trade or Global Gift?’,

Adoption and Fostering,

24:2

(2000), pp. 45-54.

Van Steen, G.,

Adoption, Memory and Cold War Greece

(Ann Arbor, 2019).

Werdmuller,

A., ‘De geschiedenis van afstand ter adoptie in Nederland’,

Jeugdbeleid,

11:1

(2017), pp. 65-70.

Wiley, M. O’Leary and A. Baden, ‘Birth Parents in Adoption: Research, Practice, and Counseling

Psychology’,

The Counseling Psychologist,

33:1 (2005), pp. 13-50.

Yngvesson, B., ‘Going “Home”: Adoption, Loss of Bearings, and the Mythology of Roots’,

Social

Text,

21:1 (2003), pp. 7-27.

(Research) reports and other publications

Adviesbureau Van Montfoort,

Evaluatieonderzoek Wobka: Een evaluatieonderzoek naar de Wet

opneming buitenlandse kinderen ter adoptie

(Woerden, July 2004).

Andersson Elffers Felix (commissioned by the Ministry of Safety and Justice),

De toekomst van

de keten voor interlandelijke adoptie

(Utrecht, May 2016).

Bitter, S., A. Bangerter and N. Ramsauer,

Adoptionen von Kindern aus Sri Lanka in der Schweiz

1973-1997. Zur Praxis der Privaten Vermittlungsstellen und der Behörden

(January 2020).

BMGN Low Countries Historical Review,

Child Separation: Post(Colonial) Policies and Practices

in the Netherlands and Belgium,

135:3-4 (November 2020).

Cantwell, N., International Social Service (ISS), Is

intercountry adoption linked with trafficking for

exploitation?

(2005).

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS),

‘Aantal adopties sinds jaren zestig niet

meer zo laag’, 20 June 2012,

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2012/25/ aantal-adopties-sinds-

jaren-zestig-niet-meer-zo-laag.

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS),

Documentatierapport Adoptiekinderen 1995-2012

(September 2014).

Unofficial translation

Comisión Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala,

Report on Players Involved in the

Illegal Adoption Process in Guatemala since the Entry into Force of the Adoption Law

(Decree

77-2007) (Guatemala, December 2010).

Commissie lesbisch ouderschap en interlandelijke adoptie (Commissie Kalsbeek),

Rapport

interlandelijke

adoptie: “Alles van waarde is weerloos”

(The Hague, May 2008).

Dambach M. and C. Baglietto, ISS,

Haiti: ‘’Expediting’’ intercountry adoptions in the aftermath of

a natural disaster… preventing future harm

(August 2010).

Fiom,

Latar 2018, De Landelijke Afstand Ter Adoptie Registratie

(July 2019).

Holz M., et al., Terre des Hommes,

“Wir suchen Eltern für Kinder” Die Geschichte der

Adoptionsarbeit von terre des hommes

(2013).

Högbacka, R. (International Institute of Social Studies, ISS),

Intercountry Adoption, States of

origin, and Biological Families, Report for Thematic Area 2 International Forum on Intercountry

Adoption and Global Surrogacy 11-13 August 2014

(December 2014).

Inspectie Jeugdhulpverlening en Jeugdbescherming,

Adoptie in het belang van het kind? Adoptie

van kinderen uit Haïti via bemiddeling van Stichting Flash

(October 2002).

Inspectie Jeugdzorg,

Meiling en adoptie uit India: Onderzoek naar het handelen van vergunning-

houder interlandelijke adoptie Meiling in de periode 1995 t/m 2002 naar aanleiding van

signalen over mogelijke misstanden in India

(Utrecht, October 2007).

Inspectie Jeugdzorg,

Aandacht voor matching: Het gezinsonderzoek door de Raad voor

de Kinderbescherming bij interlandelijke adoptie

(September 2009).

Inspectie Jeugdzorg, Achtergrond onbekend?

Onderzoek naar het handelen van twee

vergunninghouders bij de interlandelijke adoptie van zeven Chinese kinderen

(November

2009).

Inspectie Jeugdzorg,

Interlandelijke adoptie: knelpunten in het stelsel

(December 2009).

International Social Service (ISS) and Terre des Hommes,

Preliminary Findings of a Joint

Investigation on Independent Intercountry Adoptions

(Geneva, 1991).

International Social Service (ISS),

Exposing myths about the number of adoptable children and

the need for more precision when defining who is adoptable

(2008).

International Social Service (ISS),

Investigating the Grey Zones of Intercountry Adoption

(2012).

International Social Service (ISS), Responding to Illegal Adoptions: A Professional Handbook (April

2016).

International Social Service (ISS),

Towards a greater capacity: learning from intercountry adoption

breakdowns

(2017).