World is being deceived ?

Coloured kids not welcome in the US ?

While the Homolobby and the involved Adoption Agency in the Netherlands made clear last year, that the urgency is there to adopt coloured children from the US while they are not adoptable within US boarders, the US is lifting hundreds to thousands coloured children from Haiti right now.

The Dutch government and public were convinced that the necessity was there to enhance and extend US adoptions to the Netherlands in the interest of the children of colour.

No government did ever demanded a thorough research included the opinion from adoptees of colour unless they supported the voice of adopters.

Neo Colonialism ?

It is a strange world where everyone forgot to look to the parents and adoptees and their needs. Instead they keep the supply of children circulating as long the children are not theirs. And at the end, it looks that, the more colour you have, the easier the availability of these children for intercountry adoption exists.

If that conclusion is correct, than the long avoided debate about 'possession' and 'power of decision' by one part of the world colour ruling and deciding about other people of colour should raise questions. Some adoptees already wrote in the nighties about mechanisms of neo-colonialism. To push the intercountry adoption issue towards this topic seems to be harsh and extreme, but it becomes day by day more difficult not to raise this question.

The hunt for children

With knowing all this and peace-corps and student recruiters scattered around the world to find new coloured children for the west, the question should be raised now; how valid are the adoptions from western countries based on colour ?.

Until now, no government has ever answered this question. But should it not become time now, the world should raise this question ?

United Adoptees International © 2010

Dutch Government accept bribes to get Haitian Children

Euphemistic word use to cover Payments

Already in an earlier report, the so-called 'Kalsbeek Rapport' reported that 'unregular'payments would be acceptable to proceed the adoption procedure. They used the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions which has nothing to do with Adoption or otherwise Childprotection issues. The Kalsbeek committee with i.e. adoptive mother and renowned adoption researcher prof. dr. Femmie Juffer, accepted bribery and calls it 'Facilitation Payments' (see page 50).

The argument to accept these minor payments as they call it, is because it is the custom of the country to act in this way. But what is meant with small or minor payments runs between 1000-1.500 euro per child to Haitian authorities* and in the cases of China (so called Orphanage Humanitarian Aid Fee) 3.500 euro's per child in bare cash to the local board of the orphanage, can be a huge amount for the receiver in these countries. And in comparison you cannot keep saying that these amounts are minor payments. Not even for Western standards as we call 100.000 Chinese Adoptees x 3.500 euro's is 350.000.000,- euro and for the Haitian Children adopted in the Netherlands, 1.000x1.000 = 1.000.000,- in cash. And this is only the additional 'fee'. Not the general adoption fee or expenses for the adoption procedure of a Haitian or Chinese child. And no one knows where this money 'officially' is meant for.

The recent report (Interlandelijke Adoptie, knelpunten in het stelsel) from the Youth Inspectorate in the Netherlands says in the part of the investigation about adoption agency Wereldkinderen (page 14) that in the case of Haiti ,Wereldkinderen decided to stop with adoptions from Haiti due to raising fees to Haitian Authorities to get the children for adoption. They said, that the corruption was growing and decided to stop adoptions from Haiti. This example in the report confirms the stories the UAI received from anonymous adoptive parents who adopted from Haiti a few years ago.

It is very strange that NAS (and former agency Flash) the other Adoption Agency who was quite in a hurry to get children from Haiti this week, does not report anything about these issues. While they work with the same authorities.

Its more as shameful that the Dutch government and the adoptionlobby is enforcing adoptions in a situation like in Haiti right now. But it is unforgivable for many adoptees, that they have been sold and bought by and trough the related governments without a blink of an eye.

Adoption was and is a baby and child-market where everyone provides from except the parents of origin and many Adoptees who get at the longterm brainwashed by programmes as 'Spoorloos' to create persons or group of mythical proportions from an independent human being with a genealogy in the country from origin, into a victim who is rescued by adoption and therefore, has to act as a mascot for the adoption society to keep the adoptionindustry rolling.

Once adoption was meant as a last resort but who dare to dig deeper into the reality of adoption finds a world of facilitations to serve prospective adoptionparents and their governments. Because it became clear, once you are adopted, the government and their assets don't care about Adoptees at all. The proof of this, is that no receiving government ever changed a law voluntarily to meet the needs of Adoptees and their interests. Suddenly what once was used to get the child stays with the child. Adult adoptees who are critical are assessed as outlaws in the (intercountry) adoption system. This is not just a meaning, but mechanism which you can see every day, every month and every year. Decade by decades. With no interest in Adoptees and the urgent need for national and international debates regarding this problematic issue.

At the end, the Adoptees who do not want to become a stranger to him/herself, will finally stands alone in a bewildered landscape where he or she does not really fit. Except, when it becomes an anonymous or silent assimilated creature or as a symbol and a mascot for the success of adoption 'sponsored' by faciltation payments**.

* Not only the Netherlands paid extra, it is expected that all countries who adopted from Haiti paid 'additional' fees to get the children 'freed' for intercountry adoption.

**The so called 'facilitation payments' are not defined as bribes because the Dutch government accept the so called none defined additional payments in cash to get children for adoption by using 'facilitation payments' which is according to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprise not a bribe (page 56). But the fact, that the adoption community and its governments use economical guidelines for multinational enterprise to clarify the financial procedure should somhow at least create suspicion. The UAI cannot imagine that the use of euphemistic words like 'facilitation payments' will take the reality away that children are sold and bought due to international treaties like the OECD guideline.

Council of Europe Conference reveals itself as a Adoption Lobby Network

Conference on "Challenges in Adoption Procedures in Europe" at 30 November - 1 December 2009 in Strasbourg

Planned as conference for discussion about the interest for (to be adopted) children and an European stance on this issue, the conference itself revealed itself fast as pro-adoption lobby with the intention to establish an European Law for fast track adoption where again the rights and interests for (birth)parents and Adoptees have no consideration.

United Adoptee International (UAI) representative; Joan Hansink, asked some questions which were not been answered by the panel.

The fact that the preparatory committee of the conference had tried to deny access of the UAI to this conference shows the real fear of interference of critical Adoptees in the international debate.

Watch the video's: (Joan Hansink is to see at video 2 and 6 at the Q&A period)

Part 1	mms://coenews.coe.int/vod/091130_01_e.wmv
Part 2	mms://coenews.coe.int/vod/091130_02_e.wmv
Part 3	mms://coenews.coe.int/vod/091130_03_e.wmv
Part 4	mms://coenews.coe.int/vod/091130_04_e.wmv
Part 5	mms://coenews.coe.int/vod/091201_01_e.wmv
Part 6	mms://coenews.coe.int/vod/091201_02_e.wmv
Part 7	mms://coenews.coe.int/vod/091201_03_e.wmv

Happy New Year Wishes

On behalf of the board and members of United Adoptees International, I want to wish you all the best wishes for 2010.

Warm greetings from a cold Netherlands,

Hilbrand W.S. Westra

Europe wants more adoptions

Declining supply of children for want-to-be parents leads to a new European policy

On the 30^th of November and the 1^st of December, the European Commission organizes the Conference: Challenges in Adoption Procedures in Europe: ‘Ensuring the Best Interests of the Child’. This is a preparation for a new European Adoption Policy, which will have major implications for children in child protection, including foster children or children in children’s homes. These children could, with the new measure, easily qualify first for European and then international adoptions.

The foundation United Adoptees International (UAI) hopes that Vice President Joan Hansink can be present to stand up for the rights of children and parents. The UAI believes that children have the right to be raised by their parents and if not possible the right to social protection or alternative forms of care provided by the governments. Adoption is not the solution to a failing care system. The European Union guarantees its citizens the right for social protection. Does this not count for these children and their parents?

In practice, the new policy would mean that children in foster in no time would be available for adoption. For example, a Dutch child in foster care would after 18 months become adoptable for a couple from the Netherlands. If there would be no possibility, then the child could be adopted by a couple from Naples. As a last solution, the child can be adopted worldwide. Another consequence will be that under the new European Adoption Convention and the new policy no longer only children under 8 years can be adopted, but also up to 18 years. Parents get like this little chance to get their children back and to keep them, and it relieves governments of their obligation to provide alternative care for children who cannot be raised by their parents (Article 20c of the UN CRC). With the declining supply of children for want-to-be parents these adoptions are a solution. But this is not in the interest of children.

The European Union has asked Romania in 2000 no longer to export children, but apparently gets back to that decision. Also, the Council of Europe, with the European Adoption Convention, is working towards paving the way for adoptions by gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals. The strong adoption lobby is working through the European Commission and searches to legalise new adoption opportunities. There is little to no publicity about the conference and invitations were carefully picked, especially to prevent nasty dissonant voices. The UAI and its partners intercepted at the last moment the announcement for the upcoming European Commission and Council of Europe Conference in Strasbourg via its Finnish contacts. Participation by the UAI was initially not accepted and remains until today still uncertain.

Interestingly, the Dutch government accepted the European Convention and the new adoption policy apparently uncritically, without realizing that it will have consequences for the Dutch policy regarding (inter-country) adoption and its existing care system for children. It is remarkable that the Convention on the Dutch website is shown as a hammer piece, while the majority of the Members of Parliament, except the Christian Democrats, does not seem to be aware of the European Adoption Convention. The Convention as now formulated, will according to the UAI lead to an infringement of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UAI has in recent years pointed out the consequences of the upcoming Convention and policy to several MPs charged children’s rights.

The UAI is not convinced of the good intentions of the current compilers and the democratic process of all this and hopes to have the opportunity to be present in Strasbourg to demand attention to children and parents who as a vulnerable group do not have a voice in the debate.

For more information see : www.adoptionprocedure.net

And for the Adoption Lobby see: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=65ECF0C3AFE7961A

Illegal Adoption from Philipines raises questions in House of Representatives

United Adoptees International has been active to address the on going acceptance of the Dutch government of so-called 'illegal' adoptions which seems the most of the time, cases of pure child-trafficking for adoption.

After many cases last few years also this year cases appeared into the open.The most recent case is a couple from Leeuwarden (Friesland) which trafficked a child from the Philippines to adopt. The wife, self from Philippine descent, and a policeman, where travelling in the Philippines and where told by an woman, that she wanted them to have the baby, which she said, she was the mother.

Arrived in the Netherlands, the policeman actually tried to embezzle the birth-certificate of the child as was it his own.

Even-though this case was a clear example of child-trafficking for adoption and embezzlement of status of the child, done by an government official, the public prosecutor lost his case in court and both suspects where free to go.

The judge declared in court, that it was in the best interest of the child to be adopted. But the real issue is, that according international criminal law, (accomplishment) abduction and theft or child-trafficking in order to obtain a child for adoption as prospective adoption parent is still not punishable.

One of the reasons why prospective adoption parents still try several routes to adopt children and act as receiver fully innocent.

Nevertheless, the UAI addressed this issue again and the SP party was willing to look into this issue and asked questions to the ministry of Justice regarding this Philippine-Dutch case. The UAI is not very hopeful that the questions will lead to an end of 'illegal' adoption while the House of Representatives in the Netherlands did not care about these issues before and where not willing to close the gap in the law to prevent practices like this. Which can only lead to one conclusion, that States and Nations are not cooperating to protect children and mothers in need. Because it is in the best interest of children that adoption will be continued....?