Legislative background uncrc

728. The delegation of Venezuela took the view that an article such as article 21, dealing with adoption,

which had only been studied in its existing form by the plenary Group for a few minutes at its last meeting

without the participants being able to consult experts or theory on the subject, or their respective capitals,

could only lead to serious confusion. The representative of Venezuela said that, while it was true that that

article was largely based on articles 17 and 20 of the 1986 United Nations Declaration on Social and Legal

Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and

Adoption Nationally and Internationally, her delegation did not consider that enough: recent events reported

in the press and analysed by the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery of the Sub-Commission

on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which clearly demonstrated the existence of a

market for and traffic in children for adoption, especially intercountry adoption, in many parts of the world,

had highlighted the need to combat such practices by all possible national and international forms of action.

Therefore, it was a matter for concern that intercountry adoption should be established as an alternative for

a child who “cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin”, as stated in article 21,

paragraph (b). Adoption created ties of patria potestas going far beyond mere care for children which, in the

case of children deprived of a family and as appropriate, was the responsibility of foster homes properly

chosen by the competent authorities in other words, the system of family placement in its various forms. The

representative of Venezuela stated that the confusion in that article between two legal institutions, namely

adoption and family placement, could only create problems for the children who were the potential victims

of such confusion.

729. The representative of Venezuela said that her delegation also had difficulty with article 21, paragraph

(d), since it was not possible to combat a market for children which obviously existed in the world and at the

same time to institutionalize that market by permitting persons dealing with intercountry adoption to make

“financial gain”. The Venezuelan delegation urged Governments to reflect on the implications of those two

paragraphs in article 21 with a view to deleting them or devising an appropriate wording. Should that not be

possible, Venezuela reserved its position concerning the paragraphs concerned.

Argentina:

44. His delegation was pleased that the preamble to the convention included the affirmation that

children needed special safeguards before as well as after birth. Such an emphasis would ensure that equal

attention was paid to biological and social development, thus contributing to the optimum development

of the child. His delegation had provided the impetus for article 8, concerning the identity of the child, and

260

had played an important role in the drafting of article 21, relating to intercountry adoption.

Points of contention:

Unexpectedly for some members of the Working Group, there were serious difficulties in reaching common agreement

on the content of article 21 concerning adoption. Delegates of States with an Islamic culture had problems accepting

the proposed text because adoption is not recognized in those countries. Moreover, a delegate from a Latin American

State kept blocking a consensus by making statements on financial gain for persons or institutions that act as brokers

in intercountry adoptions.