On 21 May, the Government of the Netherlands officially announced that it will no longer allow its nationals to initiate new international adoption procedures. This decision takes effect immediately, while providing for a transitional period for ongoing cases. This radical choice certainly represents a break in the evolution of international adoption, breaking a social and political taboo, and perhaps even more so from the country that hosts the headquarters of the Hague Conference.
The Netherlands has followed a very logical path: in February 2021, the expert report commissioned by the Government painted an uncompromising picture of past adoption practices, highlighting the failures of the system and their serious consequences on the development of abuses in the procedures. A few days later, the authorities decided to suspend international adoption procedures . At the end of 2022, the Netherlands decided to resume the procedures, but only with 6 countries of origin considered safe. However, this measure did not put an end to the debates: some members of Parliament considered, for example, that "There is too much room for abuse, and it is not a sustainable way of protecting children" . NGOs also took a position , asking the Government to put a definitive end to the practice of international adoption in order to prevent any violation of Article 21 of the CRC. The decision to stop international adoption therefore concludes a fairly long debate. What lessons can we learn from this?
First of all, we must welcome the fact that a host country has managed to put the issue of the practice of international adoption in the public arena, and then to clearly position itself on the meaning it intended to give it. The Netherlands are naturally not the only ones to be confronted with the backlash of the adoptive practice: France, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland have also undertaken reflections in this direction. But other historical host countries are still completely silent, while they are certainly just as concerned. The Dutch approach is thus part of a broader movement of "freeing speech" that is very salutary and exemplary in form.
On the substance, the question of whether the practice of international adoption is inherently positive or, on the contrary, negative deserves to be debated today.
This measure has always had its promoters (saving children) and its detractors (commercialization of procedures, exploitation of the South by the North), the very nature of adoption (removing and then creating a filiation) being able to legitimately challenge each citizen. It is unfortunately not possible to objectively determine which way the balance tips: is the number of children who have experienced their adoption in a positive way greater or less than those who have suffered from it? How can we assess the overall impact of this measure on unreachable biological families? What have been, yesterday and today, the contributions of adoptees to the evolution of the societies that have welcomed them?
