Adoption is often not a rosy story, even if you were raised in a happy Dutch family. The committee investigated the role and responsibility of the Dutch government in intercountry adoptions. On 8 February she presented the results of the study. There is often a dark reality behind adoption stories full of abuses. With this report, there is finally recognition for the pain that many adoptees experience. Joëlle Raus Prudence, herself adopted from Mauritius, explains why this is so important.

February 8 was an emotional day. The conclusions of the Joustra Committee's report are clear. It confirms what I and many other adult adoptees have known for a long time: the adoption system is fueling child trafficking worldwide. The process is related to serious abuses of which the Dutch government has been aware since the 1960s. Following the conclusions of the report, intercountry adoption has been completely shut down for the time being. It gives me a strange feeling of relief that the minister is adopting the recommendations in the report.

Although I also immediately think of the grief of intended parents -my parents once were too-, it is time to see what is wrong. Recognizing that adoption is in many cases about love, but it is also a form of human trafficking that hides untold suffering. Especially in the case of closed adoptions † The report states that the origin of the children is often difficult to trace and that the system is perpetuated by many perverse financial incentives, which make the adoption business a lucrative sector. In the past fifteen years that I have delved into my own adoption history, I have heard the most horrible experiences from other adoptees and involved. I've heard stories of young women and girls in parts of Southeast Asia being trafficked to bear children in so-called baby farms† Stories about parents whose children are stolen on their way to the store. There are children who have been 'lost' after natural disasters. And stories about women in Haiti who become pregnant without being married and are manipulated by the (Catholic) church to give up their child for a small fee. The list is endless.

However, this does not happen in a vacuum. It starts with the unfair distribution of wealth and the arrogant attitude of the West. Many people feel parenthood is a right and sometimes go to such extreme lengths to have a child that they override the child's rights. In this way a system of supply and demand has arisen. Many stakeholders in the adoption process are convinced that a child is better off in the wealthy West. The Catholic Church played a decisive role in my adoption. This didn't stop when she gave me up. To this day, they continue to convince her that she made the right choice at the time. It revolves around the perception of the outside world: the shame, the opportunities for mother and child. And to generate income of course.

Being born under less prosperous circumstances is often seen as the guarantee of an unhappy life. That's exactly that arrogant look from the West. People don't think about what it's like to be a child who doesn't know exactly where she comes from and who, when she starts her search, finds out that the information in her adoption file is wrong. Without leads, it is impossible to find your biological family. That pain is overwhelming for some and can result in a life full of grief and psychological problems. I myself had a happy childhood with my white, Dutch parents. But still the search for myself, where I come from and the loyalty conflict that comes with it, is the common thread in my life. But imagine that you ended up in a dysfunctional family, abuse and all that on top of the adoption issue. How do you find a way in life? It's something we don't like to hear, but in the Netherlands there are enough adoptions that are not successful. Not least because the adoptive family does not meet the requirements.

Solicitors for adopted people who are suing St Patrick’s Guild adoption society for facilitating their illegal adoptions have told the High Court that they will make claims of “kidnapping, forgery . . . and conspiracy for wrongful concealment”.

They will say the society engaged in “well-practised and systematically-perfected child abductions contrary to the express prescriptions of the Adoption Act, 1952”.

They will also say that these practices “repeatedly generated ample profits” for the society.

The allegations came to light in a hearing last Monday in which the liquidator of the society sought an order from the High Court enabling it to advertise to find people who may have claims against the society.

The liquidator, KR Professional Advisors Ltd, has also been told by the High Court to contact Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, in order to advertise the liquidation of the society to potential litigants who may have been the victim of illegal adoptions.

The special rapporteur for child protection has warned that “doing nothing is not a credible option” for the State in relation to investigating potential illegal adoptions.

Prof Conor O’Mahony has been asked by the Government to investigate possible future actions after an independent report found that as many as 20,000 files could contain markers indicating potential incorrect registrations or illegal adoptions.

Speaking to The Irish Times, Prof O’Mahony said he wanted to recommend to Government a realistic way forward for the investigation of the files. Although there were “multiple significant challenges” including a large number of records, he said he believed the six-month timeframe he had been given would be enough.

“I welcome the Government’s decision to explore further the options for investigating the practice of illegal adoptions in Ireland. The independent review published yesterday has highlighted that there may be up to 20,000 records that warrant further investigation, as well as a further substantial archive of records in private ownership that was not included in the sample examined.

“Illegal adoptions were criminal offences and human rights abuses, and the State has an onus to make every reasonable effort to establish the extent of the practice and take steps to make information available to those affected and to rectify records where appropriate.”

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Arun Dohle

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 15:23

Subject: Re: Adoption Conference / Conférence sur l'adoption : Today's headlines in Romania - FYI

To: ,

------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Mia Dambach

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 15:24

Subject: Réponse automatique : Adoption Conference / Conférence sur l'adoption : Today's headlines in Romania - FYI

To: Arun Dohle

At a press conference on January 18 this year, South Korean President Moon Jae-in made statements about adoption, which has shaken adoptees and adoptive families around the world.

According to online media coverage, the president said adoptive parents should have the option to cancel an adoption within a certain time period and possibly be able to swap the child for another.

With good reason, adoptees and adoptive families have been both shocked and outraged by such statements by the head of state in a country that has carried out thousands of adoptions for more than six decades and still carries out hundreds of adoptions - national and international. Korean opposition politicians and the Korean public have also promptly criticized President Moon, who is also a former human rights lawyer, for using these statements to reduce adoptees to a commodity that can only be returned or exchanged.

The president's spokesmen have tried to calm the anger by saying that the president has been misunderstood and misunderstood, and that he instead believed that foster families should be allowed to change their minds before a formal adoption. The many outraged adoptees and adoptive families do not believe this explanation is adequate, and a petition has been launched to demand a clear denial and an unequivocal apology.

Adoption & Samfund also believes that the statements - as they appear in the media coverage online - are criticisable, but also incomprehensible, and we have approached the Korean Embassy in Denmark to get an official indication of whether the said statements are actually comprehensive for the Korean government's view of adoption.

Linda Carol Trotter (born Eftychia Noula), is the president of The Eftychia Project, a nonprofit group that provides assistance and support — free of charge — to Greek adoptees who are searching for their roots.

Growing up as a typical American child in San Antonio, Texas, she had been born in the village of Stranoma in Nafpaktia, and had been given up for adoption because she had been born out of wedlock and her mother had been “a bit of an outcast” since giving birth to her.

Grecian Delight supports Greece

A lady in the village “who had a reputation for getting rid of unwanted babies” took her mother away to Athens after becoming Eftychia’s godmother, Trotter says.

Pretending to have her mother’s interests in mind, the woman told her to get a job to support herself, and give the child to the Athens Nursery while she got herself back on her feet. After doing so, she could then go back to the Nursery and reclaim her daughter.

A review into the prevalence of illegal adoptions in Ireland has found that up to 20,000 files could potentially relate to irregular birth registrations.

The review team examined 1,496 records from 25 adoption agencies and found that there were specific phrases called “markers”, or language that could indicate an improper registration or a “suspicious practice” on 267 records – nearly 18 percent of files.

Based on the prevalence of these “markers” within this sample, the review estimates that between around 5,500 and up to 20,000 files may have similar indicators within the wider State archives, consisting of about 100,000 records.

Both the Adoption Authority of Ireland (AAI) and Tusla warned they had found limited direct evidence of further illegal adoptions, with AAI saying its search for indicators of incorrect registrations “did not yield any meaningful information”.

Illegal adoptions: Government seeks advice on next steps

Iadopted my daughter when she was six years old. She had been in the care of a local authority pretty much since birth. Now 18, she and I both worry about the current predicament for many children in the UK who grow up with a local authority as their corporate parent, a situation exacerbated by the pandemic as lockdown puts families under pressure. “How can we change things?” my daughter asked me as we completed my book about adopting, The Wild Track, together. “Who will really listen?”

Government statistics show that, in England as of 31 March 2020, there were 80,080 children in care. In that same period only 3,440 children were adopted. But in 2015 the number of adoptions in England had risen to 5,360. Why this rise? And why the subsequent fall?

In 2005, a review of the adoption system introduced amendments, including support for adopters and – reflecting changing attitudes – broadening the field of prospective adopters to include single parents and the LGBTQ+ community. In 2011, a significant adoption reform programme followed on from a report by Martin Narey, a government adviser on children’s social care, initiated by Tim Loughton, then parliamentary undersecretary for children and families, and Edward Timpson, who took over that post in 2012 – and supported by Michael Gove, then education secretary. The latter two had a personal investment: Timpson, the son of John (of the shoe repair chain), grew up with children fostered by his parents; Gove and his sister were adopted as babies.

The plan was to make faster decisions on release for adoption, to speed up court procedure, to find more prospective adoptive parents, and to relax strictures on matching and the search for “perfect” homes. As Gove put it at the time: “We can’t afford to ration love.”

But then came some important legal rulings. In one case from 2013 the judges declared that adoption was only appropriate “where nothing else will do”. Also that year, a survey of case law concluded that “the severance of family ties inherent in an adoption without parental consent is an extremely draconian step and one that requires the highest level of evidence”. Social workers, while eager to place children at risk, felt constrained and cautious.

A woman adopted from Southport in 1953 was brought to tears when she found out her birth mother was still alive.

Margaret, who grew up in Warwickshire, was adopted from Southport when she was just six months old.

Born in 1953, the woman always believed her birth mother was one of the many Irish women who came over in the 1950's for the sake of adoption.

Margaret went on BBC2 's DNA Family Secrets in order to search for her birth mother.

Going into the show, the only thing Margaret knew about her biological mother is the name written on her birth certificate, although she wasn't convinced that it was a real name.