page 31

2.1.1 Subsidiarity 46.

The principle of subsidiarity is highlighted in the Preamble to the Convention and in Article 4 b). Article 4 b) provides that: ìAn adoption within the scope of the Convention shall take place only if the competent authorities of the State of origin [Ö] have determined, after possibilities for placement of the child within the State of origin have been given due consideration, that an intercountry adoption is in the childës best interests;î. 47. ìSubsidiarityî means that States Party to the Convention recognise that a child should be raised by his or her birth family or extended family whenever possible. If that is not possible or practicable, other forms of permanent family care in the country of origin should be considered. Only after due consideration has been given to national solutions should intercountry adoption be considered, and then only if it is in the childís best interests.24 Intercountry adoption serves the childís best interests if it provides a loving permanent family for the child in need of a home. Intercountry adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children in need of a family.25 48. The subsidiarity principle is central to the success of the Convention. It implies that efforts should be made to assist families in remaining intact or in being reunited, or to ensure that a child has the opportunity to be adopted or cared for nationally. It implies also that intercountry adoption procedures should be set within an integrated child protection and care system, which maintains these priorities. However, States should also ensure that efforts to achieve this goal do not unintentionally harm children by delaying unduly a permanent solution through intercountry adoption. States should guarantee permanency planning in the shortest possible time for each child deprived of his / her parents. Policies should work to promote family preservation and national solutions, rather than to hinder intercountry adoption. 49.

This Guide encourages incorporating intercountry adoption within a comprehensive child and family welfare policy. Important steps toward this goal include coherent legislation, complementary procedures and co-ordinated competences. Such a policy would ultimately incorporate support to families in difficult situations, prevention of separation of children from their family, reintegration of children in care into their family of origin, kinship care, national adoption and more temporary measures such as foster and residential care. Matching for both national and intercountry adoption should be a professional, multi-disciplinary and qualitative decision taken in the shortest possible time on a case-by-case basis, after careful study of the situation of the child and the potential families, and with care being taken that the procedure does not unnecessarily harm the child through its methods of implementation. Such decisions would include systematic implementation of the subsidiarity principle, as appropriate. 50. The Convention refers to ìpossibilitiesî for placement of a child in the State of origin. It does not require that all possibilities be exhausted. This would be unrealistic; it would place an unnecessary burden on authorities; and it may delay indefinitely the possibility of finding a permanent home abroad for a child. 51.

The principle of subsidiarity should be interpreted in the light of the principle of the best interests of the child. For example: 24 See, for example, the responses of Chile, Ecuador, Estonia, India, Latvia, Lithuania, Peru and South Africa to question No 4(b) of the 2005 Questionnaire on the Practical Operation of the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. The Questionnaire and the responses are available on the website of the Hague Conference at: < www.hcch.net > under ìIntercountry Adoption Sectionî and ìSpecial Commissionsî (hereinafter ì2005 Questionnaireî). 25 Statement of Unicefís position on intercountry adoption at Annex 10 of this Guide and at < www.hcch.net > under ìIntercountry Adoption Sectionî and ìRelated documents and linksî. 30 • It is true that maintaining a child in his or her family of origin is important, but it is not more important than protecting a child from harm or abuse. • Permanent care by an extended family member may be preferable, but not if the carers are wrongly motivated, unsuitable, or unable to meet the needs (including the medical needs) of the particular child. • National adoption or other permanent family care is generally preferable, but if there is a lack of suitable national adoptive families or carers, it is, as a general rule, not preferable to keep children waiting in institutions when the possibility exists of a suitable permanent family placement abroad.26 • Finding a home for a child in the country of origin is a positive step, but a temporary home in the country of origin in most cases is not preferable to a permanent home elsewhere. • Institutionalisation as an option for permanent care, while appropriate in special circumstances, is not as a general rule in the best interests of the child. 52. It is noted that in-family adoptions (adoptions by a relative) come within the scope of the Convention (see Chapter 8.6.4 of this Guide). The question may arise as to where the childís best interests lie when the choice is between a permanent home in the State of origin and a permanent home abroad with a family member. Assuming that the two families in question are equally suitable to adopt the child, in most cases the childís interests may be best served by growing up with the biologically-related family abroad. This example illustrates that it is not subsidiarity itself which is the overriding principle of this Convention, but the childís best interests. 53. It is sometimes said that the correct interpretation of ìsubsidiarityî is that intercountry adoption should be seen as ìa last resortî. This is not the aim of the Convention. National solutions for children such as remaining permanently in an institution, or having many temporary foster homes, cannot, in the majority of cases, be considered as preferred solutions ahead of intercountry adoption. In this context, institutionalisation is considered as ìa last resort.î27

.

31 januari 2007

Hoe een gemanipuleerde

"Ik wens u een nieuwsarm 2007 toe", schreef ik kortgeleden op mijn weblog. Goede kans, dat u een meer zonnige kijk op het leven krijgt als u niet altijd gelooft wat het nieuws ons brengt. Dat was de stelling die ten grondslag lag aan deze nieuwjaarsgroet. "Goed nieuws is gÈÈn nieuws en omdat de krantenkolommen van zoveel kranten en de zendtijd van zoveel tv-stations steeds weer gevuld moeten worden, wordt nieuws ook in toenemende mate geconstrueerd", signaleerde ik. We lopen dus met een veel negatiever wereldbeeld rond dan op grond van de feiten noodzakelijk is. Tot mijn spijt maakt ook het door mij bewonderde Pauw&Witteman zich schuldig aan nieuwsconstructie en dat is -mede gezien de reputatie van beide interviewgrootheden- een zeer onbevredigende vaststelling.

Goed nieuws, is geen nieuws

Afgelopen donderdag was eindredacteur Paul Vertegaalvan het KRO-programma Spoorloos te gast bij het programma om verslag te doen van een unieke en succesvol verlopen zoektocht naar de biologische ouders van een Chinees vondelingetje. Een uitzending met een goede afloop, mogelijk het begin van een bijzondere relatie met China, goedbeschouwd een sprookje dus. "Goed nieuws, is geen nieuws", moet de redactie van Jeroen en Paul gedacht hebben. Dus stuurde het programma een alerte verslaggever naar de organisatie Wereldkinderen om hun commentaar te registreren. "Ik denk, dat hij uit is op iets wat ik niet heb willen zeggen", meldde de directeur van Wereldkinderen in de loop van de dag, al kon op dat moment niemand bevroeden in welke vorm de uitgelegde bananenschil zich 's avonds in de uitzending zou vertonen. Dat werd duidelijk toen het presentatieduo Paul Vertegaal streng aansprak op de mogelijke gevolgen van deze uitzending, namelijk dat de Chinese grenzen misschien wel dicht zouden gaan. Het ANP nam het nieuws serieus en meldde: "Het grootste Nederlandse adoptiebureau Wereldkinderen vreest voor de relatie met China". "In het ergste geval", aldus het ANP, "mogen er helemaal geen kinderen meer uit China geadopteerd worden".

.

Article 

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2007

Farewell Natalie

Sadly, we are not going to be able to adopt Natalie. We received official word today that she will not be staying in the Acres of Hope (AOH) program. An explanation follows, divided by headings so you can easily skim for important details.

NATALIE’S REAL STORY: We accepted Natalie’s referral late in July, and in August we learned that her case was being reinvestigated. Gradually the truth came out. A group of older girls, including Natalie, were presented to AOH by their “aunts” who asked AOH to please try to help them find a home in America like all the little children that get adopted. Apparently adoption is not well understood in Liberian culture and so the girls were told to lie and say that their parents were killed in the civil war. As it turns out, they all had living parents and all but Natalie were immediately dismissed from the program. AOH understood the desperation of parents who would do anything to seek a better life for their children. However, they could not let the community think this was an acceptable way to get help.

For reasons we don’t fully understand, they thought Natalie’s case could be worked out. Natalie is the youngest of approximately 13 children born to her mother. Her mother wanted some hope for her “baby”. Natalie’s father was a skilled mechanic before the war, but like many men in Liberia, he became discouraged in a society of approximately 90% unemployment. He became indifferent to his children and their mother and a little too friendly with palm wine. He was OK with Natalie being adopted.

19/12/07: Gisteren was de bijeenkomst bij WK over de stagnerende procedures in Haïti.

Het was erg interessant, we hebben zeker meer duidelijkheid gekregen, maar heel positief was het niet. Eerst heeft Pauline vertelt over haar werkbezoek aan Haïti, daarna mochten we vragen stellen.

Ze zijn bezig met de nieuwe wet. Dit naar aanleiding van een rapport van Unicef uit 2005. Hierin werden veel misstanden aan de kaak gesteld. Het concept is klaar, als het goed is gaat er in januari over gestemd worden. De nieuwe wet is gunstig voor het belang van de kinderen, dus dat is erg belangrijk. Wel gaat het veel veranderingen inhouden en de vraag is hoe ze dat kunnen gaan implementeren met het weinige geld dat ze hebben. En erg jammer is dat het nu zoveel vertragingen tot gevolg heeft, wat natuurlijk niet in het belang van het kind is.

Tot die tijd (half januari) ligt alles stil! In ieder geval de dossiers die niet aan de wet 1974 voldoen (waaronder wij dusL). Pauline van WK is optimistisch, zij heeft een goed gevoel over gehouden van het bezoek aan Haïti. Het lijkt weer te gaan lopen (toch hebben wij er 6 maanden over gedaan de IBESR in te komen, waarschijnlijk omdat we niet aan de wet 1974 voldoen). Zij denkt ook dat na het stemmen over de wet alles weer beter zal gaan.

Op een vraag van iemand werd er door WK aangegeven dat wat je aan verklaringen bij je dossier kan voegen zoals samenwoonverklaringen of een verklaring dat je ongewenst kinderloos bent, dit zeker zou kunnen helpen. Ze gaan hiervan voorbeelden op het extranet zetten.

You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Lords Select Committees > European Union > European Union

Select Committee on European Union Written Evidence

Memorandum by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne MEP

A. SUMMARY

1. I support the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a restatement of the core values of the European Union since its inception.