News Site: April 2010

UNICEF has received many enquiries from families hoping to adopt children from countries other than their own. UNICEF believes that all decisions relating to children, including adoptions, should be made with the best interests of the child as the primary consideration. The Hague Convention on International Adoptions is an important development, for both adopting families and adopted children, because it promotes ethical and transparent processes, undertaken in the best interests of the child. UNICEF urges national authorities to ensure that, during the transition to full implementation of the Hague Convention, the best interests of each individual child are protected.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible. Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her.

For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. Inter-country adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution. In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.

Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery.

Many countries around the world have recognised these risks, and have ratified the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption. UNICEF strongly supports this international legislation, which is designed to put into action the principles regarding inter-country adoption which are contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These include ensuring that adoption is authorised only by competent authorities, that inter-country adoption enjoys the same safeguards and standards which apply in national adoptions, and that inter-country adoption does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it. These provisions are meant first and foremost to protect children, but also have the positive effect of providing assurance to prospective adoptive parents that their child has not been the subject of illegal and detrimental practices.

The case of children separated from their parents and communities during war or natural disasters merits special mention. It cannot be assumed that such children have neither living parents nor relatives. Even if both their parents are dead, the chances of finding living relatives, a community and home to return to after the conflict subsides exist. Thus, such children should not be considered for inter-country adoption, and family tracing should be the priority. This position is shared by UNICEF, UNHCR, the International Confederation of the Red Cross, and international NGOs such as the Save the Children Alliance.

Five to Twelve

Many people believe that the quest for intercultural, acceptable and humain child protection laws is one of a deep complicated and long breath, but nothing is less true as this conclusion. In a world were we can decide to cut and continue the 'lungs' of the earth in a few months and decide to go to war to a non-western country in less than nine months would not be able to create international multi lateral laws to protect children worldwide within a few years? What are the interests why we are not willing to protect the most vulnerable ones? What are the real stakes ? At least one questions remains. If these children and the parents were we talking about would be western citizens; would they been processed for adoption as fast and easily as we do now to others?

Intercountry adoption cannot be considered as a protection measure

According to the European Independent (Law) Panel:

Intercountry adoption cannot be considered as a protection measure. Other Member States protect their children and deal with the issues in-country. Out of home placement is available, guidance to parents given and family allocations provided. It is therefore not necessary to abandon children. Adoption is not a facility but should be a last resort of providing real orphans a permanent home. For other children we need to see upon strict and protected environment and regulations without focusing on adoption alone. Children need homes, but not because of adults want them to have one.

The Holy See

The Vatican to the Hague Conference, where a fundamental principle was confirmed, i.e., that:

"children are not isolated individuals but are born in and belong to a particular environment. Only if this native environment cannot, in one way or another, provide for a minimum of care and education should adoption be contemplated. The possibility of providing a better material future is certainly not, of itself, a sufficient reason for resorting to adoption".

Adoptees need to unite

The thousands of uncontrolled Adoption Agencies gathered around the world are knowledge centers with decades of information and experience. Billions of Euros have been passed the accounts since (each year around 1.5 billion euros) Are we really believing that these centers are willing to give up their position so easily after a all these years of 'helping' children. Even after some years of decline of adoptions rates ?

Instead of practicing the change into child protection programs they are hiring fellow Adoptees as a strategic social marketing tool to withstand and reject the opposition of other Adoptees who are trying to proof they have been mistreated, coerced or even have send away with treats by the same agencies as they have been adopted by, even after they proved to be sold for adoption with the phrase; "are you not better off" Prof. D. M. Smolin Law professor at Cumbarland School of Law in Alabama, said in an earlier radio interview about this better of issue this;"This 'better off' argument is like justifying a rape because it produced a healthy baby. When the rich of the world use their power and money to take away the children of the poor, it is a crime, not a humanitarian act.

Divide and Conquer

Many different visions and secularization of organizations for adoptees (most times co-managed by adoption parents) has been making it quite difficult to gather powerful and independent persons and adoptee organizations to create a shield against the powerful tactics of Politics, Adoption Parents, NGO's and Agencies who play the classical game of 'divide and conquer' with adoptees to make it almost impossible to create a solid foundation for a common place to meet. But there is a time that 'lost voices' and lost lives', nevertheless how 'successful' they might appear in society, will understand one day, that there exist a point of no return. A point which touches existential meanings of life. When they arrive at this crucial point, they need fellow adoptees who understands them and share their insecurities which comes along with adoption without being victimized or being forced into the roles of 'victims'. Organisations like the UAI does provide these services to adoptees by other fellow adoptees .

2010 UAI International Adoptee Conference

The UAI is preparing an International Conference on (Intercountry) Adoption in 2010. Organized and managed by adoptees. More information will follow ASAP. The UAI believe that we need to respect each others (different) point of views but at the same time understands that there is a certain urgency to make every adoptee in the world aware that international treaties and laws are in process to ‘locate’ and ‘free’ more ‘adoptable’ children for adoption worldwide. Hand in hand with diplomatic activities and trade agreements. Children become the so-called non-traceable pay offs for many countries worldwide. To stop these illicit Adoption practices adoptees need to understand that looking away will not help anyone; especially not the (future) children and their parents. Therefor we need to unite. Unite to become stronger, but at the same time to show that adoption is not a natural succesful intervention but a human created construction which has a price. Most times paid by parents and adoptees as first. We need to share and hear the different opinions about this issue. Thats why the UAI exis and invites you to come to the Netherlands for the first international and global conference on adoption. 'Adoption beyond better of and happiness'.

Black Pages in Adoption History

Understanding the background and history of international/transnational/ transracial/intercountry adoption makes us aware about the many black pages of adoption history and the trade offs of Corporate Bodies, NGO’s, Adoption Agencies, Churches, and Diplomatic Corps sacrificing lives of children, cultures and nations.

As mature adoptees we are a part of this chain and looking away makes us equally responsible for the next generation of adoptees who will ask the question which many of us probably did, or was afraid to, ask; ‘Was there no one who tried to protect me and my parents? ‘

The UAI believes that we have moral and personal obligation to others, knowing and understanding the (our personal) adoption history better day by day. We need to share and become active in the worldwide movement of intercountry adoption for others, the next generation but the most for ourselves.

Parents need Priority

Western International NGO's and institutes etc. have taken over the individual rights of human beings. They decide about life and death by creating or rejecting treaties and trade agreements to continue poverty and injustice towards them who needed the protection the most.

Adoption parents whom saying that they adopt obeying the rights and interest of the children are most times adopters who are eager to adopt due their childlessness or already adopted others children and became aware about the reality behind international adoption. Because of all the criticism the last few years, we see a change in approach in the adoption debate and developement.

Pro adoption lobbies are changing their tactics now and using 'spiritual and semi-philosophic arguments' saying 'that children are not longer a possession of parents and have a own life' and due regard free to decide on by others than their own parents. The effect of institutionalization of such point of view towards unprotected parents will lead to into more so-called adoption relieve centers and maternity homes close to adoption agencies - the so called pipeline or one stop shopping proces - should warn us and leave many question marks open regarding the (un)willingness to protect parents and their children.

Some intellectual and/or financial influential persons abuse the words of the fine Lebanese Poet and author; Kahlil Gibran on ‘Children’ from his famous work the Prophet. Many fight for the open gateway to have children as a backup when biological attempt and/or IVF will not work out. The last resort for children became a last resort for to be wish parents.

The need is there to prioritize the real interest. As long we take children away from their unprotected parents because of poverty of so called social inequality of culture - which many times started after the influence of western religion and colonial imperialism (Kim & Henderson) and later the devastating wars – we can not say that relinquishment is a voluntarily and a free moment of choice.

We should not focus on the rights of the children nor the treaties how to protect the ‘process flow’ of the adoption procedures but equip young people to fight against bureaucracy and legal injustice. Instead of that, we should focus on giving them sex education (preservatives) and help those parents who are thinking about relinquishment, the possibility of a free and independent qualitative legal and social council before deciding about adoption or other alternatives. Social acceptance and financial support must become the contextual approach within the inhabitance of the culture of the parents and their children.

International Politics should be warned

Children become the exchange rate of political parties and international dealings. The international community is looking and freezes the debates contentwise afraid loosing the possibility to get more children from allocated countries. The Chadian/France case of Arche de Zoe is just one example of many. Child trafficking for adoption is allowed and does not fit into any criminal law. Even ‘illegally’ taken children for adoption are processed in the Dutch legal system to be accepted for adoption just like many other (European) countries abroad do under the family of life article 8 of the ECHR.

Many adopters are looking for mazes in the international law and community to prevent problematic issues in the country of origin or their own country. Like we know nowadays that some Dutch couples are moved to France, Belgium and Germany to have a faster and less difficult adoption procedure as in the Netherlands. We call these tactic’s the ‘foreign routes’ or The France or German route’.

The Battle about children

The battle has begun or even existed for many decades now. Due the lack on healthy white babies in the west; the marketplace moved to Asia. But due regard of the high demand of babies for intercountry adoption from Asia, especially China en South Korea, who became super suppliers of children for the west, it's seemingly still not enough. Approximately 42.000 intercountry adoptions of last year came from + 100 different countries from all over the world. For example, the white babies (Russia, Ukraine) for the USA and their black babies for gay couples in Europe, like the Netherlands.

Return on Investment

Prices for the children depending on, age, skin color, health, color eyes and hair vary from 5000 euro till around 40.000 euro per child. Israel decided because of market and financial reasons to change their dollar rates for adoption into euros because of the exchange rate stability. In the Netherlands the adoption tax deduction discussion started because of the decision by the Dutch Tax Authority to decrease the possibilities. So you can see, Adoption is a process for and by many parties.

The Society of the Open Market

The biggest danger of the latest developments within Intercountry Adoption is social consumerism. What we cannot provide ourselves we can buy. Money talks and ethical or moral responsibility is a hard bargain if the wish for a child appears. Respecting the human wish to propagate to an automatic overlap towards intercountry adoption is a dangerous one in a world of an open market.

In many (professional) environments like; Gynecologists, Priests, Teachers and Pedagogues, adoptions have been advertised as a (almost natural) third option of receiving babies. This twisted moral concept/thinking should be contested with the realistic understanding that for the birth of each child there is still a man and a woman needed to conceive a child and thus there are parents. Nevertheless the way they got the child. They have a human dignity we should respect. We are not and may not be their judges or their ethical, social projection nor reflection. INstead we should be the society who should take care of them, shelter them when necessary. And if life forces them to make life influential decision, like adoption, they should receive all the support they need. Unconditionally.

UAI © 2008