Therefore it must be repeated yet again that the right of the child does exist, when the child is declared adoptable, to give priority to finding a foster family in the country of residence, and subsidiarily in another country if there is no other solution; but no right is recognized to the families to dispose of a child whatever the motivations of the families wishing to adopt. Additionally, it is the sole competence of the country of origin (in this case Haiti) to decide to authorize the adoption, it is not up to the foster country to exercise pressure to obtain children.
Haiti. Toward a resumption of international adoptions?
Editorial by M. Jean Zermatten
For many years, Haiti has been a country of origin for international adoptions. At the time of the earthquake, the press related a very high number of children who had been adopted in the days and weeks following the tragic event.
In 2009, we estimate that 1'200 children were subject to international adoption. In 2010, that is to say after the earthquake (12.01), this number rose to 2’400 children. In relation to the total number of 37’500 children having been subject to international adoption worldwide, this signifies that in 2010, Haiti, a country of 10 million inhabitants, practiced 6,4% of all international adoptions!
It is indeed an alarming number. All the more when one knows of the weakness of the control system and the inexistence of a Haitian central authority, while awaiting the ratification of the Hague Convention. It is proof of an observation made many times: the lower the exigencies for international adoption are and the more haphazard the control, the more a country is at risk of seeing their children outbound towards foster countries. Currently Haiti is a country where one comes too easily to adopt children.
In addition, numerous adoptions are done directly, without going through the Institute of Social Well-Being and Research which should function as a control body, by the contact between an adoptive family (or an adoption agency) and a nursery through the exchange of money, either directly or indirectly, to provide care, housing and food to the child, the candidate for adoption. The monthly amounts thus allocated are very high compared to the local standard of living, which often leads to the slowness of the process in order to secure a substantial revenue for a longer period of time. These practices are known and are being fought by the IBESR, which has already shut down several nurseries; the reasons for these shutdowns are not solely motivated by these practices, but also by the unsanitary conditions of certain places and the unsuitability of the care provided to little children.
Additionally, the documents permitting the child to exit Haiti are often falsified, as are those related to the child’s age and identity, and those which counterfeit the authorizations of the IBESR. This question also brings up that of the complicity of certain lawyers and the weakness of birth registrations.
After the media hype, the situation concerning adoptions was "frozen" by some countries, on their own initiative and for more than a year, in order to permit Haiti to ratify the Hague Convention on Protection of children in respect to inter-country adoption (1993), and in order to adopt a national law on adoption as well as to designate a central Authority. These procedures have not achieved their goal, even if the parliament is considering a bill and the State has signed The Hague Convention (02.03.2011) and President Martelly announced his upcoming ratification; nevertheless the countries which had auto limited themselves announced the imminent resumption of the practices of international adoption.
This situations remains preoccupying, since in reality nothing has changed and Haitian children are not protected against fraudulent adoptions; their best interest is not guaranteed and there are high risks of child sale, as it is proscribed by the Optional Protocol of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (2000) to which most countries are a party to.
Therefore it must be repeated yet again that the right of the child does exist, when the child is declared adoptable, to give priority to finding a foster family in the country of residence, and subsidiarily in another country if there is no other solution; but no right is recognized to the families to dispose of a child whatever the motivations of the families wishing to adopt. Additionally, it is the sole competence of the country of origin (in this case Haiti) to decide to authorize the adoption, it is not up to the foster country to exercise pressure to obtain children.
The continuation of the freezing of adoptions in Haiti seems to be required!
