Incomprehensible that Belgium continues with adoption from Hungary and Bulgaria'
In Hungary and Bulgaria, disabled children and Roma often end up on lists for foreign adoption. Nevertheless, Flanders continues the adoptions from Eastern Europe.
On November 27, 2023, prospective adoptive parents throughout Flanders will be glued to their computer screens, waiting for a message from the Flemish Center for Adoption (VCA). The final decision will be made that day: can they continue their procedure? Due to reports of malpractice and fraud, the Flemish government decided to examine all its collaborations with the so-called sending countries.
We often associate intercountry adoption with Africa and Asia, but there are also European countries on that list of countries. In a joint study with the Dutch platform Investico, the TV program Zembla , the Hungarian medium Atlaszo and the Bulgarian newspaper 24 Chasa, Knack examined adoptions from Bulgaria and Hungary - the latter has become the second largest sending country to Flanders. , after Thailand. This shows dire situations with Roma children.
Discrimination
Everything revolves around children from Hungary and Bulgaria who were given up for adoption in the past ten years. Eighteen of them ended up in Flanders. The golden rule for adoptions is the principle of subsidiarity: if an adoption is in the best interests of the child, a new home must first be looked for at home, abroad is only the very last option. This is also the rule in Hungary and Bulgaria. There are plenty of candidates in both countries: there are more prospective parents on the waiting lists than children. However, the profile of those children does not necessarily match the preferences of the domestic parents. They prefer healthy, young children from the Bulgarian and Hungarian majority. Roma children, children with disabilities and older children end up on a list for adoption abroad.
The decision to place children outside the home is made too quickly, especially among poor Roma families.
But that is not the only way Roma children end up on 'export lists'. It often starts with the operation of local social services, which must assess potentially precarious family situations. When a child lives in a vulnerable environment, the first response according to international rules should be as much family support as possible. This is exactly where things go wrong for Roma families. 'Dirty dishes in the sink or towels that are not hanging on a rack: these were things that a social worker had to pay attention to during a home visit to Romani. That would not be the case if the family had a different origin," says Vivien Brassói of the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC). The result: the children of vulnerable Roma families are removed from their homes after a short procedure.
The ERRC, the civil society organization TASZ, the International Social Service (ISS) and the children's rights organization Unicef expressly denounce these practices: Hungary and Bulgaria are failing in their support for families. The regulations of both countries state that a placement is the last option, but the organizations see a gap between paper and practice. The decision is made too quickly, especially among poor Roma families. According to Unicef, this has to do with the assumption that Roma parents cannot care for their children. Roma children almost automatically end up in child protection and international adoption. "This leaves a system in place in which little effort is made to stop discrimination against this group," Unicef writes in its analysis for the Flemish government.
Lom, Bulgaria. © AFP via Getty Images
Neglect or poverty?
'Why do you think those children don't go to school or aren't clean? From poverty,” says Agnes Lux, a child rights expert at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. 'But the social services reports then say “neglect”, because poverty cannot be an official reason for removing the child.'
UNICEF shares her concerns. The organization confirms in its report that the lack of parental care in Roma communities is a symptom of extreme poverty among that group. And that conflicts with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: poverty should not be a reason for out-of-home placement. Both Hungary and Bulgaria have already been reprimanded by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child for violating this agreement.
'The social services reports say “neglect”, because poverty should not be an official reason for removing the child.'
It is also poverty that makes it impossible for parents to get their children back after an unjustified placement. Children can be adopted without parental consent if the latter have been deprived of their parental rights. In both Hungary and Bulgaria there is a period of several months after the placement within which the parents must contact the child personally. But due to their vulnerable situation, parents often miss that appointment, says Ilona Boros of the Hungarian civil rights organization TASZ. 'The institutions where the children stay are impossible to reach by public transport from the isolated areas where the parents live. They also don't know that the child can be adopted if they don't show up.' This has far-reaching consequences: 'It is heartbreaking when parents send us an adoption decision for which the appeal period has expired because they did not understand the letter.'
Strengthened by such stories, the European Roma Rights Center conducted a lawsuit against the Hungarian government for years, which it partly won. "The Supreme Court has ruled that children are discriminated against because of their socio-economic status, but that ethnicity plays no role in this," says Vivien Brassói of the ERRC. 'Still, this is a great victory, because it is precisely the Roma families who live in poverty.'
The Orbán government has largely transferred child protection to church organizations. Researchers are no longer welcome there
According to the ERRC, the Hungarian government then ignored the Supreme Court's deadline to tackle discrimination within child protection services. This attitude is indicative of the state of child protection in Hungary, which is struggling with chronic disinvestment. Children who are placed stay in an institution for an average of five years before they can join a family. Moreover, Viktor Orbán's government has transferred a large part of child protection to organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church, and researchers are no longer welcome there.
Foreign adoption: 'No one has the courage to stop it'
Intercountry adoption has been under discussion for years. Why does the Flemish government spend 1 million euros on 29 adopted children from abroad?
Knack
Extra cost
Back to November 27, 2023. Adoptive parents on the list for Bulgaria and Hungary breathe a sigh of relief. Bulgaria succeeds with flying colors and receives a 'green' code: the cooperation can be continued. Hungary turns 'orange'. This means that there are 'doubts about the collaboration' and that the Flemish Center for Adoption first organizes a working visit before making the decision. 'Red' had meant an immediate cessation of cooperation with Flanders.
Dupnitsa, Bulgaria. © AFP via Getty Images
Only: the orange warning for Hungary will not change anything in the short term. Collaboration with an orange partner will continue 'unabated' until the working visit, which is planned for Hungary at the end of 2024. Knack spoke to Caro*, an adoptive parent who was ready to travel to Hungary at the end of last year when the country turned orange. "The VCA reassured us then," she tells Knack . 'Code orange had no effect on our adoption, they said. They would investigate that discrimination, as well as the extra costs.'
By those costs, Caro means the invoices of 5,000 euros per adoption that the Hungarian contact person Rita Kardos charged through the adoption service Het Kleine Mirakel. The Flemish Center for Adoption reports that 'clarification' is needed about the costs, because the procedure itself is free in Hungary. It was confirmed to Knack that Kardos will continue to work until the working visit, although with a more limited range of tasks for the VCA.
During that working visit, the VCA also wants to gain a better insight into discrimination. "Because it is difficult to determine on paper, we will see whether there is actually a specific population group that has more difficult access to support," says Ariane Vandenberghe, head of the Flemish Center for Adoption. Several NGOs, including TASZ, have already extensively described the problem of out-of-home placement as 'systematic'.
The orange warning for Hungary will not change anything in the short term.
Surprising decision
The question is: how can you cooperate with a country that the European Union no longer considers a 'full democracy'? In recent years, the Flemish government has pumped more than 1 million euros of tax money per year into the adoption services, which maintain cooperation with partner countries. That amounts to about 40,000 euros per child. Should you spend those resources on countries accused of discrimination in the adoption process?
Information from the Dutch government states that 'Hungary sees questions about an adoption proposal as a sign of insufficient trust'. 'That's not too bad for Flanders. We receive extra information if we request it," Ariane Vandenberghe responds. 'The conversation we will have about supporting families will of course be more sensitive. But we try to do that in a respectful way, because we work with that country.'
The fact that Flanders dares to mention shortcomings in its decision and openly criticizes the partner countries is seen as very positive by several experts. But how the government ultimately arrives at a green and orange color code based on that critical analysis is less clear. "I really don't understand it," says Wouter Vandenhole, professor of children's rights and human rights at the University of Antwerp. 'Those children are simply pushed into the overflow bin of intercountry adoption.' Vandenhole finds the jump from available information to the decision 'not convincing'. Elvira Loibl, who conducted research into adoption at the University of Maastricht, also calls the decisions about Bulgaria and Hungary 'surprising'.
Flemish arithmetic
How come Hungary and Bulgaria still survive? The VCA made its final decision based on ten major themes. For each theme, it took a 'weighted average' of the assessment by all partners, after which each theme was given a 'global' color code (green, yellow, orange, red).
'I really don't understand the decision of the Flemish Center for Adoption.'
(Wouter Vandenhole, professor of children's rights, University of Antwerp)
The children's rights organizations ISS and Unicef, the adoption services, the government abroad and adoptees were given their say. In the VCA documents it is striking that the adoption services in Flanders and foreign governments assess the procedure much more positively than the children's rights organizations and the adoptees. For example, the adoption service Het Kleine Mirakel writes that it experiences the information from Unicef 'differently'.
These differing estimates and the resulting averages produce a collage of green, yellow and orange shades for the ten themes, but no red. Even the theme that judges the principle that foreign adoption should only be the very last option – what experts call the major problem with this screening – receives a code yellow at worst.
And then follows a fascinating example of algebra in the meeting room of the Flemish Center for Adoption. Hungary gets the worst report: four orange themes, three yellow and three green themes. The end result is orange. For Bulgaria, the VCA calculates as follows: the sum of four green themes, four yellow themes and two orange themes results in… a green final score. And this for a country that was recently asked by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to ensure that Roma children and children with disabilities 'are not discriminated against in the adoption process'.
Future for adoption
Other European countries also have their hands full with this issue. In Norway, the authorities did turn Hungary dark red: at the beginning of June, the country announced that 'it has not been proven that international adoptions from Hungary can be carried out in a fully legal, ethical and responsible manner'. Cooperation with Bulgaria can continue for the time being.
The Netherlands sees it differently. On May 21, outgoing Minister of Legal Protection Franc Weerwind abruptly declared that he would definitively put a stop to intercountry adoption to the Netherlands from all countries, with a phase-out plan. In his statement he continues to defend the Dutch country analysis, where both Hungary and Bulgaria were assessed positively.
The contrast with Flanders is great. At the moment that the Netherlands pulled the plug on intercountry adoption, Flemish Minister of the Family Hilde Crevits (CD&V) had a new adoption decree approved. In summary: Flanders is committed to a future for adoption, but with stricter rules and a different role for the adoption service.
The screening of the countries of origin has an important place in the new adoption policy. The new approach must 'eliminate the risk of malpractice as much as possible'. According to Professor Vandenhole, it is written in the stars that there will be further reforms in the future: 'If you look at the European dynamics, a change is inevitable.' The question remains whether Flanders will continue to defend cooperation with Hungary and Bulgaria in that case. As far as Vandenhole is concerned, it is better to put that attitude aside: 'Going along with the logic of discrimination is a problem of principle.'
* Caro's real name is known to the editorsThis article was produced with the support of the Pascal Decroos Fund.
COMMENTS
Flemish Center for Adoption
'A screening is a starting point. This allows you to view the basic conditions or policy on paper, but it remains important to check whether it works well in practice.'
About 'contact person' Rita Kardos: 'She was chosen as contact person because of her experience and because she was approved by the Hungarian government. The costs were further clarified with the adoption service and the corresponding performance. Further customs clearance is material for the on-site visit. But from the totality of achievements there seems to be no reason to question the amounts.'
On discrimination: 'We need to clarify this further because it is indeed essential. Preventing children from being removed from the home is the first step in the adoption chain. Hence the orange score. Prevention is not the strongest part of Hungarian youth protection policy. We have to look at that on the spot. In Bulgaria there was indeed some concern about discrimination, but in other areas there were fewer concerns in the screening. This allows you to start, but it must be examined whether you see traces of systematic discrimination against certain population groups in practice. Is the same population group always quickly removed from their home? And has enough support been given so that those children can return home?'
About the 'surprising decision': 'This is a decision supported by the VCA based on all available information and with input from international experts, validated by Unicef. As for Hungary, there is no decision yet. The code orange indicates that there are elements of concern in the screening that must be verified via a site visit.'
Minister of the Family Hilde Crevits
'The discrimination that Roma communities experience in these countries, including in access to preventive family support services, is of course a negative aspect of the screening. If families are insufficiently supported when they experience difficulties in caring for their children, the chance of out-of-home placement (a first possible step in an adoption procedure) indeed increases. Prevention is therefore a weak point. In both countries, however, the youth protection systems are well developed for the further course of the adoption procedure, which means that there are generally sufficient guarantees to justify the start of a collaboration. It is important (and this applies to any favorable screening) to keep a close eye on ongoing collaborations.'
Bulgaria
“Your claim that there is a tendency in national adoptions not to accept children because of their ethnicity is not true. Supporting the contrary is the fact that the number of children available for international adoption has decreased in recent years,” reports the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice. Regarding the lack of support for families and rapid out-of-home placements, it writes to Knack : 'According to Bulgarian law, the social services must ex officio investigate within six months after the child has been removed from the home whether there are possibilities for the child's reintegration in his biological family, including providing financial support, material assistance and/or social services for the parents. Moreover, there is no time limit within which a parent can apply for the child's reintegration.'
"Bulgaria has built a system based on the principle that the family is the best environment for the upbringing and development of every child," the Bulgarian Ministry of Social Affairs writes to Knack . 'Child protection legislation focuses on supporting parents and families to prevent risks so that they can continue to raise their children at home. (…) The policy is aimed at providing timely and comprehensive support to children and families, including those from vulnerable groups.' (…) 'Child protection legislation does not discriminate against children on any grounds. In no case was the child's ethnicity or disability a factor in the decision to remove the child from the family. The reasons why children are most often abandoned or removed from families in Roma communities or when they have disabilities are complex and often related to other factors. Some of these factors include illiteracy and lack of education.” (…) 'Biological parents receive full information from social workers about their rights and obligations. In order not to break the emotional bond between parents and children, social workers organize and supervise meetings between them, provided that this does not conflict with the interests of the child. Lack of knowledge of the law and illiteracy should not be an excuse for their inaction in taking measures to enhance parental capacity and prevent adoption.”
Hungary
We contacted the Hungarian authorities several times, in English and Hungarian, but there was no response to our findings.
The Little Miracle
Refused an interview several times and did not respond to the country screening findings via email.