Request_members_questions_adoption.pdf

On Thursday 11 February, the House of Representatives will discuss this with the Joustra Committee

the abuses in intercountry adoption. The conclusions from the report of the

commission are firm. For many adopted children from the period before 1998 this is

report confirming the fact that there have been terrible wrongs

took place and the apologies that the government has made are very empty

its place. We are pleased that this is recognized by the minister.

We are aspiring adoptive parents ourselves (since 2017) and have consciously opted for the

procedure of open adoption (United States) - in which the mother of birth has a

makes a conscious choice, is known and in many cases also accessible to

adopted children in their further development.

The findings in the report are terribly sad and painful for all

those involved, especially the adoptees themselves. However, we are also shocked

by the poorly substantiated and researched conclusions about the current course of

cases (after 1998). The conclusion that intercountry adoption should be suspended

In our opinion, it has not been properly researched for all countries.

We hope that you, as representative of the people, will be the (outgoing) Minister for

Want to ask legal protection for a more careful - better balanced -

research into the current state of affairs.

The Joustra Committee has conducted extensive research into intercountry adoption,

with special attention to Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka

and the period 1967-1998. The conclusions are harsh and disturbing: the committee

notes that this was also the case before 1967, after 1998 and in other countries

adoption abuses. The abuses concern both activities that have

occurred in violation of applicable laws and regulations, as unethical

actions. This is extremely painful for so many children who have been adopted as well

whose genesis seems to be based on abuses.

Insufficient research into the current state of affairs (after 1998)

The Joustra Committee has conducted research from a historical perspective. In 1993

The Hague Adoption Convention has been drawn up. In the report we do not see how

research has been conducted into the current state of affairs. In the statements of

different permit holders, we cannot determine how the current adoptions

have been researched. The statement1 of license holder A New Way states that

no investigation has been made on their files. Licensee NAS also gives this

in its statement2.

It may sound decisive to decide now to suspend everything, but

the (outgoing) Minister for Legal Protection does not do justice to the

due care that is also currently exercised by all those involved

adoption.

Can you ask the (outgoing) Minister for Legal Protection how the

current state of affairs (after 1998) has been investigated and where the decision to all

Suspend adoptions based on - without research being done

have to files?

Open vs closed adoption

The committee indicates that the right of birth parents is not recognized in many

adoptions. For us, this is the reason why we have opted for open adoption.

In the case of open adoption, the birth parents make an adoption plan themselves and have this

the choice to play a role in the life of the child. The committee has none

made a distinction between the manner of adoption and the role of the birth mother

in here. The terms "open adoption" (where the mother is actively involved) and "closed."

adoption "(eg through an orphanage) are not included in the report. While this one

fundamentally different working method and a different bond between adopted child and birth mother. However, the committee does, for example, during the

press presentation emphasizes that one of the identified shortcomings in

adoption is the limited (or nonexistent) role of birth mothers.

To put all adoptions together at the moment is unjustified. Children who

being adopted are generally positive towards international ones

adoption.

3

Can you ask the (outgoing) Minister for Legal Protection whether there are

has been taken into account in the investigation between the closed vs.

open adoption and what are the reasons for equating both procedures

to treat?

The interests of the child come first

Regarding the assessment of the "severity" of the current abuses found, the

Committee not clear: on which sources the results are based and on what

what abuses is this going on - especially after 1998 (see the table on p. 121 of the

report)? We as prospective adoptive parents, but also permit holders, feel the need

obscure the background to these conclusions.

Nevertheless, the committee felt it should recommend intercountry adoption

- also for new licensees such as Stichting A New Way and the approach of

open adoption - should be suspended. That is incomprehensible in our eyes and

unjustified, given the great care with which this process is carried out and

guided by the A New Way Foundation and its partners in the US.

In 2017, the then State Secretary Dijkhoff will transfer to your House of Representatives

questions from the earlier research of the RSJ: “It can be concluded that there are

there are clear cooperation agreements between the Netherlands and the US and are being met

to the principles and starting points as stated in the current legislation and regulations.

I therefore see no reason for the adoption relationship between the Netherlands and the US

to end."

What is there for in the interim period according to the (outgoing) Minister?

Dekker's legal protection demonstrated (through the Committee's investigation

or otherwise) that he now considers it reasonable to also suspend US adoption?

The (outgoing) Minister for Legal Protection cannot close his eyes to this

the abuses of the Dutch government and what went wrong. But the

(outgoing) Minister for Legal Protection cannot close his eyes to

the careful way in which adoption is currently being shaped. Thereby

it does not make sense for all forms and organizations of adoption to be united

shaved, pretending to be the

The situation of 60 years ago is in all cases the situation today.

Please ask the (outgoing) Minister for Legal Protection which

a thorough investigation by the Joustra Committee shows that this

At the moment, abuses were found at current adoption organizations

without doing any specific research on this?

We hope that the (outgoing) Minister for Legal Protection and the government

will realize that - contrary to the limited view of the committee - there are

are solid opportunities for a careful and loving adoption.

Sincerely,

Anne Marie Zimmerman

Maarten den Braber

r