Home  

International adoption to Denmark has stopped. At least for now, because politicians are closing the door.

En December morning in 1978, Claudia Alejandra Svane sat on a plane to Denmark. She had a stack of papers with her. If the five-year-old Claudia could read, she would see that she was born out of wedlock and that she therefore now had to go to Denmark to be an adopted child.

The papers also contained gruesome details: She had allegedly been found abandoned and hungry in front of a church in Santiago de Chile – the capital of Chile. She had no parents.

That was the story her Danish adoptive parents Alisa and Ole were told. That was the story she herself grew up with in an otherwise incredibly safe childhood home in the small town of Manna near Brønderslev in North Jutland. That was the story she and the adoptive parents believed. That was the truth.

But it was all a lie. The papers were fabricated.

In the real world, at the age of three or four, little Claudia had come to the hospital in Chile's capital with an inflamed head wound. Records show how the hospital would keep her overnight. And when her mother came to collect Claudia the next day, the doctors told her that the young girl had died. The mother demanded to see her daughter's body, she came several days in a row, she protested, complained, maybe cried, but the doctors refused to hand over the body. And so it turned out. And all the while, money changed hands, and Claudia was secretly sent to Denmark.

The intercountry adoption debate: about children's rights then, now and in the future

Event details

Center for Children's Rights Amsterdam in collaboration with Spui25

External event

November 14, 2024

Spui 25-27, Amsterdam

Le Blogueur, cette semaine : Le choix d’adopter

26 NOVEMBRE 2010 À 13H30

Le Blogueur, cette semaine : Le choix d’adopter

Jusqu’où peut aller le « choix » d’un enfant, de son âge, de ses origines ou de sa couleur de peau, quand on souhaite adopter ? 
 

  •  
  • Le Blogueur se penche sur les réalités européennes d’un phénomène devenu glamour à Hollywood : l’adoption internationale et le droit de « choisir » son enfant. En Europe, les critères diffèrent d’un pays à l’autre.

    Le Blogueur enquête en Espagne, grand pays adoptant qui accompagne paternellement les parents, en leur donnant entre autres le choix du pays d’origine de leur futur enfant.

    En Grande-Bretagne au contraire, on évite l’adoption internationale afin de favoriser la proximité ethnique. La ressemblance entre les parents et l’enfant fait partie des critères permettant son adoption par le couple. L’adoption sans tabou ? 

    Quant à la Roumanie, longtemps premier vivier d’enfants dans le monde, elle interdit aujourd’hui à l’Europe l’adoption de ses enfants alors qu’elle en a 70 000 sur les bras… Au nom de la lutte contre le trafic d’enfants, peut-on refuser à toute une génération le droit d’être adoptée ? Car dans cette histoire, plus personne n’a le choix…


    N'ésitez pas à envoyer vos idées ou vos liens pour les prochaines émissions !

 

Prejudice that 'denies ethnic babies a home': Barnardo's chief blames councils for fall in adoptions

Prejudice that 'denies ethnic babies a home': Barnardo's chief blames councils for fall in adoptions

By KATE LOVEYS

Last updated at 11:02 AM on 24th January 2011

The number of babies adopted is falling as ‘prejudiced’ local authorities will not let white parents look after ethnic children, the head of Barnardo’s says.

Just 70 under the age of one were found homes last year – a mere 2 per cent of the total 3,200 children adopted.

Cameron's flagship children's policy 'faces crisis' as adoption figures fall

Cameron's flagship children's policy 'faces crisis' as adoption figures fall

Prime minister’s promise to speed up process falters as figures show drop in children being matched with families

Barnardo’s is concerned about decline in children being put forward for adoption.

Barnardo’s is concerned about decline in children being put forward for adoption. Photograph: I Love Images/REX Shutterstock

Patrick Butler Social policy editor

'Stop trying to fix families we can't fix': Barnardo's head's 'heretic' call for bad parents to lose their children

'Stop trying to fix families we can't fix': Barnardo's head's 'heretic' call for bad parents to lose their children

By STEVE DOUGHTY

Last updated at 11:48 PM on 06th September 2009

Comments (0)

Add to My Stories

Barnardo’s moderniser

Barnardo’s moderniser

December 9, 2005 in Workforce

Curriculum Vitae

Born: 1942, Sheffield.

Educated: City grammar school, Sheffield and Leeds University.

Take more children into care, says Barnardo's chief Martin Narey

Take more children into care, says Barnardo's chief Martin Narey

The head of the charity Barnardo's has provoked a new debate over problem families with a controversial call to take more children into care.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Martin Narey said that social workers should remove more, not fewer, children from their natural parents.

He admitted many professionals would regard his views as "heresy", and criticised the prevailing philosophy of social services departments which, he claimed, sought to keep families together wherever possible.

His call comes amid widespread public concern over how problem families should be tackled, in the wake of the Baby P scandal and the debate over "broken Britain".

His remarks divided social workers and politicians. The Conservatives welcomed the call for more intervention, but family justice campaigners said that any such change would lead to more children being removed without good cause.

Mr Narey also said that once the decision had been made to take a child away from their family, there should be greater use of residential care – formerly known as children's homes – as an alternative to placing challenging children with a succession of foster families.

He said: "The emphasis is – too much in my view – on fixing families."

Describing a case dealt with by Barnardo's, where children with rotten teeth and poor school attendance had been removed from their "scandalously neglectful" family and had begun to improve in foster care, Mr Narey said: "The whole direction of statutory and voluntary sector effort, it seemed to me, was directed to seeing whether this family could be fixed.

"In time, that would probably involve the children returning to a home which might, if not immediately, once again descend into inadequacy and neglect. Why would we want to take that risk?"

Referring to Baby P and Shannon Matthews, he went on: "Long before the revelations around these two children I have wondered whether we need fundamentally to reassess our approach to care and to residential care in particular."

Mr Narey, a former director general of the Prison Service who left government to run Barnardo's in 2005, said local councils and charities tended to regard placing a child in care as "the worst possible choice for any child", particularly if the youngster was heading for a residential home rather than foster care.

He called for a fresh look at the way children's homes are set up and financed. "It cannot be beyond us to provide high quality residential care," he said. "Indeed – to add to my heresies in this paper – I have seen such care provided in the UK by the private sector."

Welcoming the remarks, Michael Gove, the shadow children's secretary, said: "I think after Baby P a change is now going on, where people do realise that the interests of the child are paramount. It is not good enough to leave children in circumstances, with the birth parents, where that child could be at risk of abuse.

"Foster parents do a fantastic job but we do need to look seriously at other care options. I am not saying that residential care is the right answer in all circumstances, but we do need to give consideration to improving it because we cannot leave children like Baby P in places where they face significant risks."

However, John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of Justice for Families, pointed to data from the Department for Children, Schools and Families which showed that among 7,800 children taken into care in 2006, only 1,800 had been returned to their families by March 2007.

"I'm not sure Mr Narey really understands what is going on. Nor am I sure that he has the practical experience," said Mr Hemming.

"His basic assertion that more children need to be taken into care and fewer need to be returned to their families ignores the statistics."

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the union for family court staff, Napo, disagreed with Mr Narey's suggestion that more children should be taken into residential care.

"Barnardo's have a vested interest in residential homes because they run some of them," he said. "All the evidence suggests residential care should be used as little as possible because the experience is damaging."

Baby P, who was 17 months old, died in August 2007 after suffering more than 50 injuries while living with his mother, 27, her boyfriend, 32, and their lodger Jason Owen, 36, despite being on the "at risk" register and receiving 60 visits from health and social workers.

Karen Matthews, the mother of Shannon, was jailed for eight years last week along with the child's uncle Michael Donovan for kidnapping the youngster, then aged nine, for £50,000 in reward money, raising further questions about the way the family had been handled by social workers.

Wes Cuell, director of children's services at the NSPCC, broadly agreed with Mr Narey's assessment.

He said: "We should not be keeping children out of care just because we don't like what care represents.

"If children need to be in care, they should be, and we should find the right sort of care for them which is not based on traditional beliefs about care based in families.

Ian Johnston, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said: "Martin is right to say that we need to look at things differently. I would like to think that most social workers will look at all the possibilities."

Echo of Dickensian England heard in Ontario courts.(

Echo of Dickensian England heard in Ontario courts.(suit against Barnado's Homes)(Brief Article)

-->

From: Community Action  |  Date: 7/15/2002

-->

Barnardo's in pounds 400m lawsuit over children sent to be farm

Barnardo's in pounds 400m lawsuit over children sent to be farm

Independent, The (London),  Jun 19, 2002  by Sam Greenhill

-->

BARNARDO'S WAS accused yesterday in a pounds 400m lawsuit of shipping destitute children from Britain to become farm "servants".

A class action launched at Ontario's Superior Court of Justice alleges the children's charity sent youngsters to Canada even though some still had parents living in Britain.

Many of those who were migrated, between 1870 and 1939, were subsequently abused, in what was described as "a little-known disgraceful chapter in Canadian history".

The action was launched on behalf of 86-year-old Harold Vennell, from Ontario, who was shipped to Canada at the age of 14. He had been a Barnardo's boy since 1923, when he became ill with rickets and his single mother could not look after him. Mr Vennell claims he ended up on an Ontario farm working 18 hours a day, seven days a week, was given meagre food and was abused by the farmer and his wife.

His lawyers have set up a website detailing his claim and inviting other Barnardo's children with similar allegations to add their names to the action, which could cost the charity an estimated pounds 400m. Harvey Strosberg QC, for Mr Vennell, said Barnardo's shipped 30,000 children to Canada during the time of its migration programme.

He said: "While Barnardo's intentions may have seemed laudable to some, it is now indisputable that many of the migrant children were neglected, abused or otherwise mistreated - and such mistreatment must have been known to Barnardo's representatives."