ACT mail - Better Care Network (Bep van Sloten) about Draft Guidelines
12 August 2009
From: Roelie Post <roelie.post@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:10:38 +0200
Subject: Re: FW: Guidelines and ICA
To: Bep van Sloten <bepvansloten@ziggo.nl>
Cc: hilbrand westra <uai.hwestra@gmail.com>, Arun Dohle <arun.dohle@gmx.de>
Bep,
I'll write in English so that I can copy in Arun.
These guidelines are changing the intention of the UNCRC. I refer to the
Unicef Implementation Handbook that describes that there was NO agreement on
the US/French proposals to include adoption as a necessary care option,
because it was considered that there are also other ways to find permanency
for a child (I am quoting by head, as I am on holiday and do not have the
Handbook here - which unfortunately is not available online!).
For example, article 160 places adoption as a preferred option, or Kafala,
and makes all other options secundary.
By not especially referring to article 21b (adoption MAY be considered as
LAST option), the guidelines do not contribute to clarity on the ica issue
and leaves all possible options open.
*160. Should family reintegration prove impossible within an appropriate
period or be deemed
contrary to the child’s best interests, stable and definitive solutions,
such as kafala of Islamic law
or adoption, should be envisaged; failing this, other long-term options
should be considered,
such as foster care or appropriate residential care, including group homes
and other supervised
living arrangements.*
In fact, by making adoption the first option after family re-integration,
the Hague Convention then makes ica the second step - and thus bypasses
fostercare or other suitable manners of care. Hereby we are allowing a
demand driven children market, where private agencies mediate children for a
lot of money and we make local child protection dependent on money of
foreign adoption agencies.
The Guidelines fit perfectly in the worldwide pressure to allow intercountry
adoptions from any country, the US recently setting the example. As we know
this has nothing to do with the rights OF children but with the right to
have children...
For more on this you may read my recent article published by the Dutch
Ministry of Justice
http://www.icasn.org/resources/research/The%20Perverse%20Effects%20of%20the%20Hague%20Adoption%20Convention%20by%20RPOST.pdf
Best regards,
Roelie
2009/8/12 Bep van Sloten <bepvansloten@ziggo.nl>
> Roelie en Hilbrand,
>
> Onderstaande reactie kreeg ik van Nigel dus zoals je ziet worden we steeds
> meer benieuwd wat jullie exacte bezwaren zijn.
>
> Die zou ik dan met referentie naar de relevante artikelen moeten krijgen
> zodat we hier goed op kunnen anticiperen ook in de lobby voor de adoptie van
> de Guidelines in the UNGA.
>
>
>
> Groeten,
>
> Bep
>
>
>
> Hi, Bep.
>
>
>
> Just to note that the only reaction to the Guidelines I have had from
> pro-ICA quarters was in fact resolutely negative - principally because the
> "extremely problematic" Gs make no explicit mention of the intercountry form
> of adoption and "refer to foster care as 'family-based' and smaller group
> homes as 'family-like'... While the guidelines do take into account the
> recent consensus in favor of permanency, they indicate that intracountry
> foster care is the preferred solution (as compared to intercountry
> adoption)" and "fail to discuss the best option for permanency when there is
> little prospect of family reunification or domestic adoption: this is
> extremely worrying."
>
>
>
> That is in an article ("The Missing Link", 2008, footnote 37) by Sara
> Dillon who works a lot with the infamous Elizabeth Bartholet at Harvard. She
> later wrote to me that I could "not persuade me to like the draft
> guidelines, I'm afraid."
>
>
>
> So indeed it would be most interesting to know the precise reasons for
> which ACT fears the Gs might be exploited by pro-ICA advocates.
>
>
>
> All good wishes as ever.
>
> Nigel
>
> --
> *****************************************************
> Nigel Cantwell
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:10:38 +0200
Subject: Re: FW: Guidelines and ICA
To: Bep van Sloten <bepvansloten@ziggo.nl>
Cc: hilbrand westra <uai.hwestra@gmail.com>, Arun Dohle <arun.dohle@gmx.de>
Bep,
I'll write in English so that I can copy in Arun.
These guidelines are changing the intention of the UNCRC. I refer to the
Unicef Implementation Handbook that describes that there was NO agreement on
the US/French proposals to include adoption as a necessary care option,
because it was considered that there are also other ways to find permanency
for a child (I am quoting by head, as I am on holiday and do not have the
Handbook here - which unfortunately is not available online!).
For example, article 160 places adoption as a preferred option, or Kafala,
and makes all other options secundary.
By not especially referring to article 21b (adoption MAY be considered as
LAST option), the guidelines do not contribute to clarity on the ica issue
and leaves all possible options open.
*160. Should family reintegration prove impossible within an appropriate
period or be deemed
contrary to the child’s best interests, stable and definitive solutions,
such as kafala of Islamic law
or adoption, should be envisaged; failing this, other long-term options
should be considered,
such as foster care or appropriate residential care, including group homes
and other supervised
living arrangements.*
In fact, by making adoption the first option after family re-integration,
the Hague Convention then makes ica the second step - and thus bypasses
fostercare or other suitable manners of care. Hereby we are allowing a
demand driven children market, where private agencies mediate children for a
lot of money and we make local child protection dependent on money of
foreign adoption agencies.
The Guidelines fit perfectly in the worldwide pressure to allow intercountry
adoptions from any country, the US recently setting the example. As we know
this has nothing to do with the rights OF children but with the right to
have children...
For more on this you may read my recent article published by the Dutch
Ministry of Justice
http://www.icasn.org/
Best regards,
Roelie
2009/8/12 Bep van Sloten <bepvansloten@ziggo.nl>
> Roelie en Hilbrand,
>
> Onderstaande reactie kreeg ik van Nigel dus zoals je ziet worden we steeds
> meer benieuwd wat jullie exacte bezwaren zijn.
>
> Die zou ik dan met referentie naar de relevante artikelen moeten krijgen
> zodat we hier goed op kunnen anticiperen ook in de lobby voor de adoptie van
> de Guidelines in the UNGA.
>
>
>
> Groeten,
>
> Bep
>
>
>
> Hi, Bep.
>
>
>
> Just to note that the only reaction to the Guidelines I have had from
> pro-ICA quarters was in fact resolutely negative - principally because the
> "extremely problematic" Gs make no explicit mention of the intercountry form
> of adoption and "refer to foster care as 'family-based' and smaller group
> homes as 'family-like'... While the guidelines do take into account the
> recent consensus in favor of permanency, they indicate that intracountry
> foster care is the preferred solution (as compared to intercountry
> adoption)" and "fail to discuss the best option for permanency when there is
> little prospect of family reunification or domestic adoption: this is
> extremely worrying."
>
>
>
> That is in an article ("The Missing Link", 2008, footnote 37) by Sara
> Dillon who works a lot with the infamous Elizabeth Bartholet at Harvard. She
> later wrote to me that I could "not persuade me to like the draft
> guidelines, I'm afraid."
>
>
>
> So indeed it would be most interesting to know the precise reasons for
> which ACT fears the Gs might be exploited by pro-ICA advocates.
>
>
>
> All good wishes as ever.
>
> Nigel
>
> --
> ******************************
> Nigel Cantwell