Monday, October 17, 2005 The Forgotten Children The Forgotten Children Sunday October 9th 2005 IN THE grim hospital room in Paediatrics I, an 18-month-old boy is lifted out of his cot and placed on the floor. He leans forward on his chubby fists and casts an inquisitive eye over the strange adults gazing down on him. He cranes his neck, looking to theleft and right, but his limbs remain immobile. After much encouragement, he pushes one tentative fist in front of the other. More minutes pass, and he manages a minuscule advance by shuffling one knee ahead of the other. It's a movement that most normal children would have mastered by that age, but this child's movements are awkward and uncertain. An otherwise vibrant toddler, he's apparently not used to feeling an expanse of floor beneath his limbs. But then, Maxoum Mustafa is enjoying a rare moment of freedom. This perfectly healthy baby has spent the bulk of his short life in the confines of a cot in a small room on the ninth floor of the concrete hospital in Constanta, a once-grand city on the Black Sea in eastern Romania. He has never been outside. On occasion, during the summer, a nurse with a spare moment might bring him to the balcony. Otherwise, his daily routine starts with a shower, followed by a change of nappies, and for the rest of the day he is confined to his cot. There is not a toy in sight. His hours are punctuated by mealtimes - he is fed a largely milk-based diet of rice, sometimes egg, occasionally a piece of meat. He is one of 40 abandoned babies who live in the hospital, and one of 10 on Dr Adriana Apostol's ward on the ninth floor. He shares a room with four other babies in battered-looking cots crammed together into the small room, but Maxoum has been here longest. They lie on bedclothes that have seen better days. Dr Apostol checks Maxoum's records: "Three days with his mother and after that only here," she says wearily. The nursing staff know little about the babies' backgrounds: some, like Maxoum, appear to have been totally abandoned. Others have been temporarily left behind by mothers struggling with poverty or psychological problems. Rashim, a beautiful dark-haired baby who shared a room with Maxoum, was referred to Constanta from another hospital. The medical staff know nothing much about him because he has no birth papers. They do not even know how old he is. "His name will be put on the list and we will wait." Another baby, Demirel, is one of 11 children. He has been in the hospital for less than one month. Nurses are hopeful that his mother will take him home. She has already visited her baby son at the hospital. They say that's a good sign - at least she has not abandoned him entirely. Other children have disabilities: Shaban Atisha, a dark-curly-haired baby, has a cleft palate and heart problems. The baby's mother could not cope. "It is a very, very social problem," said Dr Apostol. Maxoum is one of an estimated 700 abandoned babies who live in hospital wards across Romania. They are forgotten children who have fallen between the cracks as Romania rushes to shed its notorious childcare record to win coveted membership of the EU. Nicolae Ceausescu's regime banned both contraception and abortion and turned State orphanages into dumping grounds for 100,000 unwanted children, many of them disabled. Intent on adhering to best practice to satisfy Europe, more than a decade later the Romanian government has promised to tear the orphanages down. Children can no longer be adopted by foreigners, after the adoption process was found to be corrupt. Older children are being fostered or kept in smaller institutions. Since January, babies under the age of two have been banned by law from living in institutions. Instead, they are placed in foster care with families who receive the equivalent of a monthly wage and food allowance. On paper, it seems an ideal solution. But, as with much in Romania, there is a big disparity between theory and practice. The culture of abandonment continues. In a country as abjectly poor as this, local authorities run out of money. Foster families cannot be paid. Abandoned babies cannot be adopted because they have no identity papers or because their parents cannot be found. Many are Roma babies, spurned because of their gypsy pedigree. With nowhere else to go, they are piling up in Romania's hospitals. John Mulligan, Mairie Cregan and Joan Tuthill first came across the babies' plight in June 1990. The three Irish aid workers were among the first wave of volunteers in Romania after the collapse of Ceausescu's regime. The dictatorship's edifice crumbled to reveal 100,000 abandoned children and adults with disabilities or developmental problems, living in filth in decrepit institutions, eating their own vomit, crippled with "cot legs" and stunted, malnourished frames. The images that unfolded on our TV screens in the aftermath truly shocked the world. Thousands of hungry children were living in squalor, with shaven heads and misshapen bodies, and many were infected with Aids. Ireland responded with a huge humanitarian effort. Convoys of food, toys, medicines and clothes set off for the poverty-stricken country. Many who helped ended up trying to rescue broken children: more than 700 Romanian children were adopted by Irish parents up until 2000. Now, five years on, the world's media has moved on - but John, Mairie and Joan continue to return at least twice a year. They put pressure on the government to improve the lot of disabled and mentally retarded adults, through their charities Aurelia Trust and Focus on Romania (FOR). Mr Mulligan is a former property manager for the ESB; Mairie Cregan is a psychiatric social worker and foster mother for 22 years; Joan Tuthill is a business woman in Dublin. Their aim is to speed up the closure of Romania's infamous institutions in which 20,000 adult mentally and physically handicapped still live. They have had some success: Negro Voda, a once-notorious institution outside Constanta, and highlighted by Mr Mulligan in the media, will be closed - probably in January - and its inmates moved to supervised community homes and a pilot, state-of-the-art residential centre; FOR and Aurelia Trust are funding two of the homes, the Romanian authorities will fund the remainder. While working on this project, the Irish trio began to wonder what happened to the babies abandoned since the orphanages shut down. "A Unicef report said that 1.8 per cent of all newborn babies in Romania were being abandoned," said Mairie Cregan. "We asked, 'Where are they?' We wanted to know where the abandoned babies were going. The government said that no baby under two was in an institution. But we knew there weren't enough foster parents to go around. We wanted to know: where were the abandoned babies?" They asked the question routinely of Romanian officials, and received an unexpected answer at a council meeting in Constanta last June. Petru Dinica, the head of social protection, admitted that 50 babies were abandoned in maternity units in Constanta. Asked why, Mr Dinica said that it was difficult to find adoptive parents for gypsy or handicapped children. LAST MONTH saw Mr Mulligan, Mairie Cregan and Joan Tuthill return to Constanta with Mairead McGuinness, the Fine Gael MEP, and the press in tow. The frustrated staff of the local hospital threw open their doors to display the latest problem besetting Romania's efforts to get its childcare in order. Standing amid cots of gurgling babies, Dr Apostol is happy toelaborate on the difficulties encountered by her nursing staff in trying to juggle tending to sick babies while also caring for 10 healthy ones. The nurses can only do so much. "Most of them [the babies] have never been outside. You can't go with them. You have one nurse. You try to feed them. You start there; everyone cries here. When you finished feeding, they are pee pee and ca ca and you have to change them. And when you finish, the other meal is coming," saysDr Apostol. "In the past, when babies were abandoned in the hospital, we would keep them here and they would go to an orphanage. When a place was free in an orphanage they'd call us and we send them. We don't have any orphanages any more. No foster mother, no foster care, no orphanage. The hospital is the only solution for them." Mairie Cregan holds up a little baby in a pink babygrow who is clearly ill. The baby makes no sound, her head lolls on her neck and her eyes struggle to focus. "It's this little one that worries me," she says. The baby has neurological problems, but at 14 months old, she does not qualify for treatment because she has no identity papers. Abandoned by her mother, she was briefly in foster care but was returned because ofher illness. "When you make any procedure for the child, they ask for certificate, you know. If not, they are actually not paid by the insurance. So they prefer not to do anything," says Dr Apostol. "Officially, she exists only for us." Mairie cradles the baby, saying: "She's beautiful really. I don't think she is going to live." On the floor below is Paediatrics II, where Professor Dr Valeria Stroia cares for 17 babies on her ward. She spoke in halting French and English: "Chaque enfant, pour chaque enfant, il y a une histoire." For every child, there is a story. But most stories were similar. One baby, aged a year and one month, had never been outside the hospital. There once was a playroom, now closed. Another baby, Shaban Atisha, has a cleft palate. She cannot be adopted because her mother cannot be found. As a result, she cannot be declared officially abandoned. She is on a long list for foster care. Eleven more babies are found in the maternity section on the seventh floor. The stories are similar: unexpected babies, unwanted babies born to teenage mothers, babies born into poverty. Some have been there since April. Another baby, Memet Tarcan, was hospitalised after his birth on June 26. He is now well, according to the nurse, but "since then nobody has come for him". Mairie Cregan leaves the wards with serious concerns for the babies' welfare. She believes their liquid diet could delay their language development. The muscle tone of some is weak because they're not getting out of their cots to crawl. She suspects that some babies are being prop-fed in their cots rather than held properly in the arms of a nurse. "They were wet: but that won't kill them as long as they are cleaned properly in between. They don't have nappies, they [the staff] told us that. They were using rags and anything they could get their hands on," she said. "For every three months a child spends in an environment like that, they lose a month of development. They are getting the best care physically that they can. But the fact that they are being fed through bottles is going to cause problems. "The other thing is, they are getting no stimulation whatsoever. The nurses are doing their best but they are totally overwhelmed. These babies are not getting anything like the kind of stimulation they need." NO ONE is happy with the situation. In his ground-floor offices, Dr Nicolae Grasa, the hospital's director, appears to be at the end of his tether. "The problem is, they modified the legislation. Before this modification there were some social buildings [for babies]. The possibility to take the children to these buildings is not possible anymore." And so the babies mount up in his hospital wards. He tots up the numbers in the various paediatric and maternity departments to 40. He complains that apart from living in a totally unsuitable environment, the babies clog up much-needed bed space in the overcrowded 1,100 bed hospital; they eat into his nursing staff and his budgets. He claims that most of them are Roma babies. "These children - many are not identified. They have no vaccination and are coming in contact with other children. And it is possible to spread disease. Economically, we must spend money for food. We don't have enough places here," he says. At the Constanta County's council offices the following day, Marianna Belu, the secretary general, is equally frustrated. The government had done much to overturn Romania's appalling child welfare record, she says. Social workers encourage new mothers at risk of abandoning their children; foster parents are offered five million lei (€140) per month - the equivalent of an average salary - for taking in abandoned children; of about 4,600 children abandoned last year, more than half were returned to their extended families. But now the policies were floundering on a shortage of cash. The babies were the responsibility of the council's Child Protection department, she says. According to Mrs Belu, the babies left behind in hospitals belong in foster care; foster families have to be paid, and her council has run out of money. A translator speaking on her behalf says: "She wants to make clear that kids would not stay in the hospital if they have the money to cover all the costs for the foster families to take them, but they don't have the money at the moment. That's why they are there." Mrs Belu disputes the Constanta doctors' complaints that babies have been living for up to a year and a half on their hospital wards. She insists that they'd normally spend no more than a month or two there. Even if the money did materialise, Mrs Belu has other priorities to juggle: hundreds of families are homeless after the floods that devastated huge tracts of Romania during the summer. Others live in abject poverty. And 20,000 physically and mentally handicapped adults remain in 50 institutions that are earmarked for closure. Mairiead McGuinness is preparing a report for the European Union on the findings of her trip to Romania. It is likely to be considered by the EU for its next report, due this month, on Romania's progress towards accession. She believes Europe must work closely with Romania to effect change. John Mulligan takes a less tolerant view: he looks at the plight of the babies as more evidence of what he views as the Romanian government's obfuscation of figures to satisfy its craving for EU membership. He wants Romania's EU membership to be conditional on a whole slew of reforms, with its target date for entry pushed back another year if necessary. "The European Commission's contention that there are no more children under the age of two in institutions in Romania is not strictly true - they are actually piling up in maternity hospitals again," he said. "While the commission is technically correct that they are not in institutions, they are allowing a serious deception to be perpetrated by allowing these children to stay off the radar." www.focusonromania.net Aurelia Trust, Sutherland Centre, North Street, Skibbereen, Co Cork Maeve Sheehan © Irish Independent

t

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY 
 
Directorate C : Civil justice, rights and citizenship 
  Unit C1 : Civil Justice 
 
Brussels, 6 October 2005 
JLS.C.1/ME/ic – D/05/10685 
 
 
MISSION REPORT  
 
Object: 
Special  Commission  concerning  the  Hague  Convention  of  29  May  1993  on 
co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption  
 
The Hague, 17-23 September 2005   
 
I attended the Special Commission concerning the application of the 1993 Hague Convention 
on inter-country adoption which took place in the Hague 17-23 September. Approximately 
230  participants from 66 States attended the conference. To date,  67 States have ratified or 
acceded  to the  Convention (all EU Member States except Greece). The seminar was highly 
interesting and the role of the European Commission with regard to the new Romanian law 
on adoption was invoked on several occasions.  
 
1. 
Introduction 
The  Special  Commission,  which  was  organised  by  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private 
International  Law,  was  devoted  to  the functioning and implementation of the 1993 Convention 
on  Protection  of  Children  and  Cooperation  in  respect  of  Inter-country  Adoption  (“the  1993 
Hague  Convention”).  The  Convention,  which  been  in  force  for  ten  years,  is  ratified  by  67 
States. China, which has the largest number of inter-country adoption (over 11.000 children in 
2003),  deposited  its  instrument  of  ratification  on  the  eve  of  the  meeting.  The  discussions  took 
place  on  the  basis  of  a  Draft  Practice  Guide  drawn  up  by  the  Secretariat  of  the  Hague 
Conference on Private International Law.   
Statistics presented at the Special Commission showed that  inter-country adoption is steadily 
increasing at a global level. The U.S., which adopts an increasing number of children (21.000 
children  in  2003)  have  signed  but  not  yet  ratified  the  Convention.  Although  inter-country 
adoption predominantly remains a movement of children from poorer to richer countries, cultural 
differences  remain.  Hence,  no  Islamic  State  has  ratified  the  Convention  since  the  notion  of 
“adoption”  is  not  recognised  in  Islam.  Moreover,  very  few  African  States  have  ratified  the 
Convention, since there is little or no inter-country adoption in Africa due to cultural factors.    
2.  
General structure and objectives of the 1993 Hague Convention 
The  1993  Hague  Convention  does  not  intend  to  serve  as  a  uniform  law  on  adoption,  but  to 
establish general principles and minimum standards. The over-riding principle is that inter-
 
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11. 
Office: LX46 1/26. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 295.13.67. Fax: (32-2) 299.64.57. 
 
country adoption shall take place “in the best interests of the child” with respect for his or 
her fundamental rights. The purpose of the Convention is to define substantive principles for the 
protection  of  children,  establish  a  legal  framework  of  co-operation  between  authorities  in  the 
Sending States and the Receiving States and, to a certain extent, unify private international law 
rules on inter-country adoption. However, the fact that many questions are regulated by national 
law has led to divergent interpretations of certain key concepts under the Convention, such as 
“improper financial gain”. This led certain delegations to call for unification or clear guidelines 
with respect to e.g. fees and accreditation. 
Another  inherent  weakness  of  the  Convention  seems  to  be  that  it  does  not  require  acceding 
States  to  present  an  implementation  plan  how  they  intend  to  fulfil  the  obligations  enshrined  in 
the  Convention.  As  an  example,  Guatemala  acceded  to  the  Convention  in  2002,  despite 
objections of several States, although it was clear that the situation in Guatemala was such that 
the Convention could not be applied properly.  Another example is Turkey, which acceded to the 
Convention  in  2004,  but  had  not  yet  designated  a  central  authority  as  required  by  the 
Convention. 
The 1993 Hague Convention refers only to “Contracting State” without making any distinction 
between  “Sending  States”  and  “Receiving  States”.  However,  these  concepts  are  commonly 
used  and  influenced  the  discussions.  Hence,  the  Receiving  States  had  a  certain  tendency  to 
approach  a  question  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  adoptive  parents.  This  perspective  did  not 
necessarily coincide with the perspective of the Sending States.  
3. 
Inter-country adoption within the European Union 
3.1.   
The role of the European Community  
Interestingly,  the  European  Union  comprises  now  both  “Sending  States”  and  “Receiving 
States”.  The  Eastern  European  States  are  all  Sending  States  (except  Romania,  see  point  3.2.) 
whereas the “old” Member States are all Receiving States.  Within the European Union, France, 
Italy,  Spain  and  Sweden  have  the  highest  number  inter-country  adoptions.  Inter-country 
adoptions  have  doubled  in  Spain  during  the  recent  years (4.000 children in 2004). Sweden has 
the  highest  number  of  inter-country  adoptions  per  capita  (approximately  1.000  children  per 
year). 
There is currently no Community instrument dealing with inter-country adoption. Adoption is 
for  example  explicitly  excluded  from  the  scope  of Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 on parental 
responsibility. The subject is therefore a matter of national competence. All EU Member States, 
except Greece, have ratified or acceded to the 1993 Hague Convention. 
At  a  general  level,  I  explained  that  child  protection  is  a  key  priority  for  the  European 
Commission  and  Vice  President  Frattini.  In  this  context,  I  informed  the  participants  of  the 
future Commission Communication on Children’s Rights which will be presented at the end 
of 2005 or beginning of 2006. This was met with interest and I discussed with several NGO’s, 
UNICEF and the Hague Conference of Private International Law on their possible involvement 
in this project. 
In  the  context  of  enlargement,  I  mentioned  that  children’s  rights  form  part  of  the  political 
criteria  that  all  candidate  countries  must  fulfil.  I  recalled  that  the  Community  acquis  in  the 
form  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  and  the  1989  UN  Convention  on  Children’s 
Rights  (UNCRC)  constitute  crucial  references  and  benchmarks  for  the  Commission  in  the 
assessment  of  the  situation  in  candidate  countries.  This  implies  that  all  Member  States,  in  line 
with  the  UNCRC,  are  bound  to  have  sufficient  protection  in  place  for  children  who  are 
temporarily or permanently deprived of parental care. 
 
2 
3.2   
The new Romanian law on inter-country adoption: 
Although not being an item on the agenda, the new Romanian law on inter-country adoption 
was frequently invoked during the meeting. The new law, which entered into force on 1 January 
2005, limits inter-country adoption from Romania to grandparents living abroad.   
I explained that the Commission has actively encouraged the Romanian reform of its child care 
sector by financial assistance (the PHARE programme) and that Bulgaria has been given similar 
support. The Commission has supported the efforts made by the Romanian government to 
reform  its  child  protection  policy  by  closing  down  large,  old-style  residential  institutions 
and replacing them with alternative measures, including smaller homes and foster homes, and 
large  awareness-raising  campaign.  I  explained  that  the  Commission  and  the  Romanian 
government had been advised on the reform by an Independent Panel of Family law expert from 
different Member States.  
I  underlined  that  the  Commission  will  continue  to  support  the  Romanian  authorities  in  their 
efforts  and  that  the  new  Romanian  law  on  inter-country  adoption  brings  it  into  line  with  the 
practice  of  EU  Member  States.  The  new  law  is  also  in  line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity 
enshrined in the 1993 Hague Convention and Article 21 of the UNCRC,  which implies that 
inter-country  adoption  can  only  be  the  last  resort  after  all  other  solutions  have  been 
exhausted, i.e. not only national adoption but also e.g. foster care. Inter-country adoption 
shall  thus  be  based  solely  on  the  best  interests  of  the  child  and  scrupulously  respect  the 
principle of subsidiarity. I finally assured that the Commission will continue to support current 
and future candidate countries in their efforts to respect the rights of the child. 
Following my intervention, certain participants (e.g. Nordic Adoption Forum) took the floor and 
advocated  a  broader  interpretation  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  implying  that  inter-
country  adoption  should  not  be the last resort, but a possibility whenever the biological family 
cannot take care of the child in the State of origin. A permanent home in a receiving State would 
always  be  preferable  to  a  provisional  home  in  the  State  of  origin.  Some  Receiving  States  also 
argued that the Sending States did not have the necessary resources to take care of their children 
and that such efforts must not be at the expense of the welfare of the children.   
Although  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law  and  other  participants  were 
generally very supportive of action of the European Commission with regard to Romania, 
which has led to considerable progress, certain people voiced concerns that the new Romanian 
law was “too strict” and not sufficiently flexible.  
I  was  later  told  by  the  Romanian  delegation  that  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private 
International  Law  has  expressed  some  doubts  on  the  compatibility  of  the  new  Romanian 
law  with  the  1993  Convention.  However,  as  is  stated  in  the  Draft  Practice  Guide,  the 
ratification of the Convention does not in itself entail a duty to organise inter-country adoption.  
3.3.   
The so-called Romanian “pipe-line” cases 
During  the  conference,  certain  delegations,  notably  Germany,  Austria  and  Israel,  openly 
requested  the  Romanian  authorities  to  clear  so-called  “pipeline”  cases  where  applications 
had been introduced during the moratorium 2001-2004. The U.S. delegation emphasised the risk 
of letting children wait too long as a result of “pipe-line” cases.  
To Romanian delegation explained that the moratorium on international adoptions which was 
in place between October 2001 and December 2004, was introduced to tackle the wide-spread 
abuse and corruption that took place in Romania during the 1990’s. During the moratorium, the 
Romanian  government  approved  the  international  adoption  for  the  cases  registered  before  the 
moratorium. Despite the fact that Romania had no legal framework for processing new cases of 
international adoptions during the time of the moratorium, foreign families continued to file 
3 
requests  to  adopt  Romanian  children  based  on  false  expectations  that  the  ban  on 
international  adoptions  would  be  lifted.  These  applications  were  pure  administrative  acts 
and did not signify approval of the request since no decision on “matching” had taken place as 
prescribed  by  the  1993  Hague  Convention.  To  clarify  the  situation  of  these  cases,  a  Working 
Group  of  Romanian  specialists  has  been  set  up  which  will  analyse  each  file  to  assess  the 
situation of each child. The Group will publish its final report before the end of this year.  
4.   
Other issues  
  Fees and charges 
 
The  1993  Hague  Convention  allows  Receiving  and  Sending  States  to  charge  “reasonable  fees 
and  charges”  for  services  provided.  Concerns  arise  when  fees  and  payments  are  not  properly 
regulated and/or adoptive parents pay families of origin directly. In certain States, it is common 
practice  that  adoptive  parents  are  asked  for  high “donations”. It was generally called for clear 
and harmonised criteria to tackle the problem of corruption, falsified documents and the sale of 
children.  It was also recognised that financial aid, if not correctly channelled, may lead to abuse 
and  pressure  on  Sending  States  to  accept  more  applications.  As  an  example,  the  Estonian 
delegation  explained  that  Estonia  does  not  accept  monetary  help  from  accredited  bodies,  since 
“they want our children in return”. Certain countries would offer babies and healthy children to 
applicants who offer the higher fees or even sell children using falsified documents.  
  Accreditation   
 
The  1993  Hague  Convention  allows  designated  bodies,  and  in  some  cases,  non-accredited 
persons  to  perform  some  of  the  functions  of  the  Central  Authority.  All  bodies  must  meet  the 
standards  set  out  in  the  Convention,  e.g.  only  pursue  non-profit  objectives  and  be  subject  to 
supervision  by  competent  authorities.  The  great  majority  of  States  use  accredited  bodies  to 
perform certain tasks. However, the U.S. consistently uses non-accredited bodies for the purpose 
of  inter-country  adoptions.  Certain  States,  e.g.  Austria,  Australia  and  Malta,  do  not  use 
accredited bodies at all, but work only through central authorities.  
  The “right” to adopt    
 
The representative of UNICEF stressed that the term “applicant” used in the 1993 Convention 
and the Draft Practice Guide is misleading, since it gives the impression that a couple who have 
submitted an application to register as potential adoptive parents have an unconditional right to 
adopt. The applications should be treated merely as an offer to receive a child. UNICEF stressed 
also that the concept of the “child best interests” should not be seen in isolation from the child’s 
fundamental rights, e.g. the right to identity and the right to be cared for by one’s parents. 
  The right to information concerning “available adoptive children”    
 
Many Receiving States emphasised the rights of adoptive parents and their need to have reliable 
information on the number of “available adoptive children” and their profile (e.g. whether they 
are young and healthy) from the receiving States so that prospective adoptive parents would not 
have “false hope” on the “availability of children”. 
However,  as  e.g.  Slovakia  pointed  out,  such  information  would  not  only  be  impossible  to 
provide,  but  it  would  be  problematic  from  an  ethical  point  of  view,  since  it  would  convey  the 
misleading  message  to  prospective  parents  that they have an unconditional right to adopt these 
children. The Sending States explained that they could only give an estimate on the number of 
applications that their central authorities can handle. 
 
4 
  The right to post-adoption reports 
 
The practice of sending a report on the situation of the adoptive child to the Sending Country is 
not  regulated  in  the  1993  Hague  Convention.  However,  it  is  wide-spread  practice  in  many 
Sending  States  to  request  adoptive  parents  to  present  such  reports,  sometimes  several  times  a 
year until the child reaches the age of majority. The representative of UNICEF pointed out the 
risk that post-adoption reports replace a careful control before the adoption.  
This question caused a certain tension between Sending and Receiving States. Certain Receiving 
States, e.g. Austria, Germany, Finland and the U.S., emphasised the adoptive parents’ right to 
private life and argued that they could not be legally obliged to submit a report.  The Sending 
States tried to explain the reasons why they ask for such reports. Lithuania explained that they 
may  help  to  change  the  very  negative  attitude  of  the  general  public  towards  inter-country 
adoption.  Kazakhstan  argued  that  they  wanted  such  reports  in  view  of  their  experiences  when 
children had gone missing and been abused after inter-country adoption. Also Brazil mentioned 
the  risk  of  sexual  abuse  as  an  objective  reason  for  these  reports.  There  are  also  differences  of 
national law, since the laws of several Sending States require post-adoption reports whereas such 
reports are unknown under the laws of Receiving States.  
5. 
Conclusion 
It was very useful that a COM representative attended the 5-days meeting, which treated topics 
that  are  highly  relevant  for  the  Commission’s  current  and  future  activities  in  the  field  of 
children’s  rights.  The  question  of  inter-country  adoption  is  also  very  topical  in  the  context  of 
Romania’s accession. In view of the sensitive political nature of the latter question, it would be 
useful  that  a  representative  from  DG  ELARG  attend  meetings  of  this  kind.  The  meeting 
also  allowed  for  very  interesting  discussions  and  contacts  concerning  the  Commission’s  future 
Communication on Children’s Rights.  
 
(Signed) 
Monika Ekström 
 
 
Copy:   Unit  C1,  Mr  Tenreiro,  Mr  Fonseca  Morillo,  Mr  Nielsen,  Mr  Trousson,  Ms  Knudsen,  
Ms Zwaenpoel (DG JLS) 
 
Ms Schmitt (CAB)  
 
Mr De Lobkowicz, Mr Summa, Mr Wild, Ms Tuominen, Ms Post (DG ELARG)   
Ms Neagu (DG RELEX), Delegation of the European Commission in Bucharest 
5 

.

From: DaziChain@aol.com [mailto:DaziChain@aol.com]

Sent: Donnerstag, 29. September 2005 03:49

To: Arun.dohle@gmx.de

Subject: NOCs

Arun,

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES

23/09/2005

Adoption of children from overseas

CHAIR —Welcome. It is a great pleasure to have you with us today.

Witnesses were then sworn or affirmed—

Working Group on Children without Parental Care The Working Group's main aim is to promote and contribute to drawing up international standards for the protection of children without parental care, and to secure their adoption by the UN General Assembly. Convenor: International Social Service (Nigel Cantwell and Sylvain Vité) Overall objective The NGO Working Group was set up in November 2004 following the Decision of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in September 2004 recommending that the Commission on Human Rights itself set up a working group to develop international standards for the protection of children without parental care. In this context, for its initial months of operation (November 2004-April 2005), the Working Group's specific initial objective was to ensure that the Commission on Human Rights take on board this recommendation. Current activity Draft guidelines on the protection of children without parental care were prepared by the working group during 2005 and early 2006. Those draft guidelines were then reviewed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and used as a basis for discussion during a governemtal expert meeting. Read the latest version (2006) of the draft guidelines currently being developed (English Español Français Português Arabic) The Group of friends (Group of States supporting the guidelines) met twice: in July in Geneva and in September in New-York. The guidelines are expected to be adopted in September 2008 at the UN General Assmbly. On 9-11 August, in Brasilia, a meeting of governmental experts took place hosted by the Brasilian government in order to review the draft guidelines. NGOs were not present during this meeting but the convenors of the NGO working group on children without parental care - attended the meeting in order to answer questions regarding the draft guidelines. This working meeting constituted a good start to the process of government examination of the draft Guidelines. Approximately 40 governments were represented, from all continents. Three members of the CRC Committee took part: Jaap Doek (chair), Norberto Liwski (Argentina) and Rosa Maria Ortiz (Paraguay). Brazil chaired the meeting. Brazil has agreed to take overall responsibility for ensuring the follow up to the meeting and set up an advisory group of volunteer governments from those present to make sure that the outcomes reflect the debates. The CRC Committee is committed to continuing to "accompany" the process. During it was requested that ISS served as secretariat for the follow-up. ISS will therefore be drawing up a full list, point by point, of issues raised and modifications suggested at the meeting (by mid-September). This will be submitted to Brazil and reviewed by the advisory group. Following this, a new proposed draft will be drawn up on that basis. After review by Brazil and the advisory group, that draft is due to be widely circulated to governments and others, hopefully before the end of the year. Further opportunities for wider consultation will need to be organised thereafter. Side Event on the "Need for International Guidelines for the Protection of Children without Prental Care" On 15 September 2005, just before the Day of General Discussion which was devoted this year to children without parental care, the working group organised an NGO event. Around 60 people attended the NGO panel presentation, followed by a lively discussion and a market place in which NGOs could share their work. You can have a look at the presentations given during that event: Launch of the first paper of the 'First Resort' series David Tolfree, Save the Children UK Child participation in setting standards for out-of-home care Monika Niederle, FICE on behalf of the Quality4Children project Preventing separation Zeina Allouche, SOS Children's Villages Lebanon Piloting practice standards for the out-of-home care of children Diane Swales, Save the Children UK

K

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

“Helsinki Commission”

Testimony of

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs

Maura Harty

Washington -- Contemporary child development research shows unequivocally that placing infants in hospital or orphanage care for longer than 4-6 months permanently damages them in terms of their cognitive, emotional and behavioral development, an expert witness told a congressional hearing September 14.

“A reasonable estimate is that an infant loses 1-2 IQ points per month and sustains predictable losses in growth as well as motor and language development between 4 and 24 months of age while living in an institutional environment,” said the witness, Dr. Dana Johnson, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota and director of the International Adoption Clinic.

Dr. Johnson’s testimony underscored why the United States Helsinki Commission – a body that monitors human rights issues – was holding a hearing on the impact of Romania’s newly implemented ban on intercountry adoptions, a ban characterized by the commission’s chairman as “undeniably a human rights abuse.”

The European Union (EU) also came in for heavy criticism by commission members because of the role it has played in pressuring Romania to adopt the new law.

Commission Co-chairman Christopher Smith opened the hearing by providing a brief overview of the problem. As a legacy of Nicolae Ceaucescu’s dictatorial rule, the abandonment of children has been a serious problem in Romania for decades.