It is worrying that more children are adopted away without consent, says the researcher. Lolland Municipality is responsible for most forced adoptions in the country.

Several children are adopted away against the will of their parents.

Last year, 30 children were forcibly adopted, according to figures from the National Board of Appeal.

That is 9 more than in 2019 and 20 more than in 2018. Back in 2016, one child was forcibly adopted.

And it is a worrying development because there is not enough knowledge about forced adoptions, says adjunct professor at Aalborg University Inge Bryderup, who researches child placements.

Until 2009, all adoptions from the United States concerned partial mediation adoption procedures. This meant that the Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs), after receiving permission from a Dutch adoption license holder, started the adoption procedure themselves through a self-established contact in America and took care of everything themselves. In 2009, the Dutch government decided against partial mediation in American adoption procedures. The main reason for this decision was the lack of insight into the details of an American adoption procedure. Partly for this reason, there was a sense that ‘things might not be completely right’ with adoptions from the USA For a long time, it remained uncertain what the future of the American adoption procedures might be. Especially when at a certain moment the American adoption contacts Michael Goldstein and Adoption ARC – both with long-term experience in intercountry adoption mediation to the Netherlands – stated that it would not be possible for them to work with the existing Dutch adoption license holders. This would have meant the end of adoptions from the United States.

Meanwhile, the Dutch Central Authority for Intercountry Adoption (CA) took over the complete adoption mediation responsibilities for these American contacts, although this should not have been the role of the CA in an adoption procedure, because the CA should monitor the adoption license holders and all the individual adoption procedures. However, this concerned a temporary situation, which also meant that the mediations from the United States would come to an end.

Some of the adoptive parents felt strongly about this, and in their free time and of their own free will they founded a new adoption license holder, applied for the license, asked permission to provide mediation services in the United States and in the Netherlands, and held meetings with Adoption ARC and Goldstein to establish new partnerships with them.

After putting a lot of time and energy into it, their efforts did not go unrewarded. The founding of this new adoption license holder, Adoption Foundation A New Way (Adoptiestichting A New Way) made it possible to continue with the adoptions from the United States, and to place these children with safe and loving families in the Netherlands: with hetero couple’s, individual applicants, and same-sex couples!

!

The topic of the Greek-born children sent abroad for adoption is both brand-new and 70 years overdue. It does not call for publicity or hyperboles, as has been the case, but for further in-depth study and public dialogue, conversant with global trends. The topic came to me somewhat coincidentally, as I tried my best to respond to the questions of a descendant of a Greek-to-American adoptee. After all, the children of adoptees are still partially adopted themselves. Their parents’ search for origins and reliable data is also the hoped-for answer to their own search. As I tried to address the specific inquiry of the son of this “political adoptee” of 1955, I found myself unravelling hitherto unknown adoption networks, their prior histories, their subsequent scandals, the biopolitical or socioeconomic rationales underpinning these adoptions, the random records they left behind, and, lastly, the unresolved emotions and psychosocial consequences of these adoptions that have lasted to this very day. With the 2019 publication of my book and the many opportunities to present it since, the topic of the post-war Greek adoptions abroad has now gained popular civic import, along with other issues that Greece, the Greek diaspora, and migrants arriving in Greece have been raising. The need for an in-depth investigation (or Greek self-investigation), with no holds barred, remains urgent, as does the need to overhaul the savior discourse, on the one hand, and the language of illegalities-only, on the other. This online presentation points to current and future directions, in which I am eager to play a constructive role.

On 8 February 2021, the government of the Netherlands issued a moratorium on all international adoptions, that is, on all placements of foreign-born children with Dutch parents (Dutch suspend foreign adoptions after abuses found - BBC News). This very recent decision sent shockwaves through the international adoption world. How did it come about and why? And what does this decision have to do with Greece? These questions structure the exposé below.

International adoption as a mass phenomenon is now more than 70 years old, and some 65 years old in the Netherlands, specifically. Many Dutch adoptees have helped to unmask irregularities in this long history, and also the lack of political (and legislative and cultural) will to address any long-documented abuses. After all, the fairytale of adoption says that “everyone gains” in intercountry adoption, as it has traditionally been called. And isn’t any adoption better than no adoption at all? As the Dutch government rightly concluded, if international adoption cannot be done well, if it continues to suffer from systemic problems, it should be stopped altogether. The irregularities of the past should first be corrected before any new international adoptions can be undertaken, if resuming them is even desirable. Activists for adoptee rights worldwide have been working hard to advance knowledge and awareness of international adoption’s tainted, commercialized, and deeply neocolonial history. They advocate for remedial moratoria on the Dutch model.[1]

The much-touted “adoption triangle” (which ties the birth parents, the child for adoption, and the adoptive parents together in an equilateral triangle) is a deeply skewed triangle: the corners of the triangle, or the parties privy to the adoption, are not treated as equals even though they are always depicted that way. The “adoption triangle” represents older adoption terminology, and we would do well to re-imagine the adoption triangle as an adoption “constellation.” The lost birth family is broader than the suffering birth mother (and father).[2] In recent developments, it has become painfully obvious that many of the searches for a missing child are initiated by half-siblings, by half-cousins, by aunts and uncles, and even by neighbours of the missing child. It is important to reflect on the birth culture as larger than the missing connection with a birth parent, even if the child was orphaned. A potential family network and community network are at stake in the land of origin, too, and these networks are often much larger and much more close-knit than the typical small nuclear family.

This “history of loss” contrasts sharply with the supposedly “win-win situation,” or the cliché formula that has traditionally underpinned intercountry adoption. Notice how the “win-win” formula typically refers to adopted children and their new parents, not to the birth family. This mentality of “everybody gains” has been an important motivating factor for western governments and intermediaries not to intervene or even try to correct known missteps—because any redress would inevitably make one of the two parties “lose.” This mindset has been consolidated, time and again, by the fact that illegal intercountry adoptions are seldom recalled or undone—or even lead to severe punishment. The trope of the “best interests of the child” has redefined individual and societal definitions of right and wrong, and convinced many that, no matter what, the end justified the means. There is an overwhelming sense that even a criminal adoption is a still victimless crime, which erodes any motivation to further investigate the crime, since children are, after all, adopted “for their own good,” and the latter motto may well be applied to the birth mothers as well. A shift in mentality becomes viable only when the adoptive parents are bold enough to state their suspicions, when social services notice child abuse within adoptive families, and when the adult adoptees start speaking and writing for themselves—a critical point that I will revisit in future writing projects. That shift is far from complete, and the media continue to hold up a rosy picture of international adoption, in which supposedly nothing ever goes wrong. And, even if something “unforeseen” happened, the child is supposedly still better off for having been adopted.

A Kenyan woman has been charged with fraud with a very bitter aftertaste in Nairobi. She is accused of cheating a single Dutch farmer who wants to have children as much as 2.9 million Kenyan shillings (about 22,300 euros) with a non-existent surrogacy agreement. "After she showed me the contracts, I felt that I could trust her and her agency," said 36-year-old Dion van Aardt in an emotional testimony in court on Tuesday.

“I couldn't be lucky when the surrogacy agency reported that the first scan showed that he was going to be a boy. Filled with paternity, I began to prepare, buy diapers and baby food, and look for a household help to help me raise it, '' the court and Kenyan media told the 30-something.

The second scan, which, according to Winnie Maina's surrogacy office, showed that the baby was going to be a girl, made Van Aardt decide to name his daughter "after my mother," he said moved. The woman sitting in court then burst into tears. The court had also been visibly affected, as were other family members of the thirties present. They were deeply involved in Dion's impending fatherhood and even organized a baby shower to celebrate the arrival of his daughter. "Winnie Maina had suggested that," said Van Aardt.

Caesarean section

When he heard nothing on the date that the surrogate mother was due, according to the agency, the farmer from Nanyuki (about 200 kilometers north of Nairobi) did not immediately feel wet. "The surrogate mother was not yet in labor," it said. He was then put on the line for several weeks with news that the woman had been hospitalized and that she refused a caesarean section, the only option, so to speak. Van Aardt then started packing his luggage and preparing for a stay in Nairobi to be with his daughter. "When I was about to leave, Winnie Maina called with the message that mother and child had died," sniffled the Zimbabwe-born Dutchman.

“F*** the f***!” shouted Kaval Raijada raising his middle finger at a journalist who had clicked him with the sour-faced Arti Dhir puffing a cigarette outside Westminster Magistrates’ Court on a rare pleasant January day in 2019. At thirty, Raijada looked like a grumpy teenager whose attempts to fit in with the english blokes only made him stand further apart, as his fifty-four-year- old wife looked on with a dull resigned look of a passing stranger witnessing the tantrums of a spoilt brat.

There was nothing in the behaviour of the two that showed them as a loving couple keen to establish a happy family or the mature compatibility required to raise a boy of eleven. Dhir and Raijada were at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London to fight their extradition to India on charges of murdering their adopted son to claim money from his life insurance...

The Indian government requested Britain to extradite Arti and Kaval to stand trial in India on six counts: conspiracy to commit murder, murder, attempt to commit murder, kidnapping, abduction for the purpose of committing murder and abetting a crime. On 29 June 2017, a provisional warrant was issued and the two were arrested that same day and produced in Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Initially, they were remanded into custody.

When substantial securities were paid, they were remanded on conditional bail. on 29 August, a certificate was issued to pursue the case under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003 where India, being a Category 2 territory, had to show a prima facie case before extradition could take place.

After the case management hearings, a two-day trial was fixed for 21 and 22 January 2019 in Westminster Magistrates’ Court, being presided over by Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot who a month before had ruled to extradite liquor baron Vijay Mallya to India. With what seemed like an open-and-shut case, many were confident that this case too would meet with the same conclusion. Alas, it was never meant to be so!

In the beginning, anonymous sperm donation was the standard. Since 1993, some clinics have worked with two types of donors: completely anonymous (A donor) or a donor that can be traced to the child in the long run (B donor). Information about these B donors appears to be only allowed after the donor's consent has been given. This means that they can also choose to remain anonymous. What are their considerations? Talking to a donor and moving from anonymity to contact.

Call

Anonymity is a complicated concept, according to Jeroen's (pseudonym) story. That story starts in 1995. “My wife was pregnant with our third child. Unfortunately, she miscarried after three months. That meant that a new pregnancy was no longer realistic, given our age. ”

"We could imagine that the children wanted to know who I was later on."

About a year later, he reads a call from a clinic to register sperm donors. In consultation with his wife, he decides to start the conversation. “We considered ourselves happy with our children, and we wish others that too. Together we decided that I would donate as a B donor. We could imagine that the children later wanted to know who I was. ”

In the Netherlands, on 8 February 2021, the so-called Joustra report , prepared by the Committee for the Study of International Adoption for the Ministry of Legal Protection, was published . The report presents studies of adoptions to the Netherlands from 23 countries with emphasis on the period 1967-1998 and special focus on adoptions from Bangladesh, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Colombia and Indonesia.

The conclusions speak for themselves: In all countries, irregularities and systematic blackmail of mothers and child trafficking have been identified - even after the introduction of the Hague Convention in 1998 - a convention whose main purpose is otherwise to ensure that international adoptions are carried out on a legal and ethically sound basis. .

The report has led the Netherlands to impose a temporary ban on adoption applicants, and it has not yet been decided whether the country will definitively shut down the placement of foreign children into childless families.

The Swedish government has just decided to conduct a similar study of adoptions to the country from the 1960s to the 1990s. The study also aims to account for the responsibilities of Swedish intermediary organizations and the state in any illegalities.

The background for the government decision is, among other things, an ongoing investigation in Chile, which shows that thousands of adoptions of Chilean children to Sweden and other countries have been made on an illegal basis, with false papers and without parental consent. In addition, adult Swedish adoptees via the association chileadoption.se, among others, have worked for years through various media channels to inform the public about the systematic fraud within adoption.

Chennai: Children with special needs have not found favour with childless parents looking to adopt kids. Most children from

adoption centres in Tamil Nadu have found homes abroad, but not within the country, as per data from the department of social

defence.

The United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which India ratified in 1992, insists on paying due regard to a

child’s ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds while giving them for adoption. This aspect is largely achieved when it comes

Nikwi Hoogland (26) found her biological parents two years ago, after a search that went much more smoothly than she expected. With her acquired knowledge, she started advocacy organization Adoptiepedia - which she launched last week - to inspire, inform and connect other adoptees. "I picked up my phone and read: 'Congratulations, it is your birth mother'."

Nikwi was 9 months old when a Dutch couple adopted her from China. The period that followed was not always easy. "When I first went to school, I was the only Asian. Other kids felt it necessary to emphasize that and were constantly shouting things at me like 'slit-eye' and 'bamibal'."

"I'm outgoing and therefore quite present. My bullies thought that was annoying, I guess - and then said, 'Gook, shut up,' or they would yell in my face that they thought I was disgusting. I felt left out throughout my childhood. The high school bullying reached its peak and they sometimes called me straight to the face 'cancer chinese' or 'hey dirty chinese'. It was terrible. "

'Asians are stupid and ugly'

Because Nikwi was so hated for her origins, she grew disgusted with herself. "In my eyes, Asians were stupid and ugly. I didn't want to have anything to do with it and was therefore not at all concerned with my biological family. Sometimes I even tried to talk exaggeratedly ABN, in the naive assumption that people would tell me as a Dutch person. would see. "

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. She presented the results of the study on 8 February. There is often a dark reality behind adoption stories full of wrongs. 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 report are clear. It confirms what I and many other adult adoptees have known for a long time: the adoption system is inciting child trafficking worldwide. The process is linked to serious abuses of which the Dutch government has been aware since the 1960s. In response to the report's conclusions, intercountry adoption has been completely halted for the time being. It gives me a strange feeling of relief that the minister is adopting the report's advice.

Although I also immediately think of the grief of prospective parents - my parents once were -, it is time to see what is wrong. To recognize that adoption is in many cases about love, but 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 maintained by many perverse financial incentives, which makes the adoption business a lucrative sector. In the past fifteen years that I have studied my own adoptive past, I have heard the most horrible experiences from other adoptees and those involved. I have heard stories of young women and girls in parts of Southeast Asia who traded to give birth 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 that parenthood is a right and sometimes go to such extreme lengths to have a child that they ignore the rights of the child. This has created a system of supply and demand. Many stakeholders in the adoption process are convinced that a child is better off in the rich 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's about the perception of the outside world: the shame, the opportunities for mother and child. And of course to generate income.

Being born in less prosperous circumstances is often seen as the guarantee of an unhappy life. That is exactly that arrogant view from the West. People do not think about what it is like to be a child who does not know exactly where she comes from and that - when she starts her search - finds out that the information in her adoption file is incorrect. Without leads it is impossible to find your biological family. For some, that pain is all-consuming and can result in a life full of sadness 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 conflict of loyalty that goes with it, is the common thread in my life. But imagine ending up in a dysfunctional family, enduring abuse, and all of that on top of the adoption issue. How do you find your way in life? It's something we don't like to hear, but in the Netherlands there are plenty of adoptions that are not successful. Not least because the adoptive family does not meet the requirements.