The hardest observation is that the adopted children offered were 'usually' not orphans at all.

Most striking about the report on intercountry adoption is that the abuses had been grinning in the face of the state, the mediators and often the adopting families for decades. Without taking action or stepping back.

This is NRC's daily commentary. It contains opinions, interpretations and choices. They are written by a group of editors selected by the chief editor. In the comments NRC shows what it stands for. Comments offer the reader a handle, an angle, it is "first aid" with the news of the day.

The hardest observation is that the adopted children offered were "usually" not orphans at all. But displaced, outcast by poverty or excluded by extra-marital birth. Then they were channeled abroad via the adoption market to relieve the burden on the shelter.

So in the adoption scandal there are also "duped parents". These are the carefully anonymous or kept birth families, which have often been misguided. They have no say in this matter - they are the most to blame.

The pattern in the Dutch institutions was looking away, tolerating, neglect, neglect, powerlessness, etc. Intercountry adoption could last for so long because of a collective mistake. That a foreign child in need would in principle be served by adoption and emigration. That children were saved with it. Adoption would be "for their sake."

With today's knowledge, this can only be pleaded for children with locally untreatable medical problems. Or for children who have proven to be socially excluded and are not actually allowed to exist on the spot. But that's it. Such adoptions from abroad can only remain possible under the strictest conceivable forms of state supervision.

The merit of the report of the committee on intercountry adoption is that it spares no one and comes with the right conclusion. Acknowledge the mistakes and suspend all adoptions. It is bitter to read how checks and balances, oversight mechanisms, regulatory attempts and self-regulation have failed over the decades. There were always interests that weighed more heavily. From relations with the country of birth, the wish to have children of the adoptive parents or their well-intentioned idealism. According to the report, politics mainly served the interests of the adoptive parents and gave "only minimal content" to the controlling task. The State failed to leave adoption to private initiative that controlled it too little, or too late or too weak. Or all three. Experts were not listened to.

That the scandal is no bigger is probably because the children themselves are moderately positive about their adoption. 70 percent believe that such adoption should continue. 84 percent think they were given more opportunities in the Netherlands than in their native country. At the same time, many of them also face existential questions about identity and their biological family.

Minister Sander Dekker (legal protection, VVD), who established the committee, did the right thing at the last minute of Rutte III and generously followed the advice. All future intercountry adoptions have been suspended. He promptly apologized for "that the government has not done what was expected of it." At the same time, he offers adoptees practical legal and social psychological help. Moreover, the State will no longer rely on prescription in proceedings.

Whether these practical concessions are sufficient must become clear in a debate with the Lower House. He can then also look at himself. It is clear that the needs of the adoptees must be central. And the debt to the birth families must also be paid.

**************************************************************************************************************************

M. What is striking about the report on intercountry adoption is that the abuses had been staring the state, the mediators and often the adopting families in the face for decades. Without taking action or stepping back.

This is NRC's daily commentary . It contains opinions, interpretations and choices. They are written by a group of editors selected by the chief editor. In the comments NRC shows what it stands for . Comments offer the reader a handle, an angle, they are 'first aid' for the news of the day.

The hardest observation is that the adopted children offered were 'usually' not orphans at all. But displaced, rejected by poverty or excluded by extra-marital birth. Then they were channeled abroad via the adoption market to relieve the burden on the shelter.

In the adoption scandal there are therefore also 'duped parents'. These are the carefully anonymous or kept birth families, which have often been misguided. They have no say in this matter - they are the most to blame.

The pattern in the Dutch institutions was looking away, tolerating, neglecting, neglect, powerlessness, etc. Intercountry adoption could exist for so long because of a collective mistake. That a foreign child in need would in principle be served by adoption and emigration. That children were saved with it. Adoption would be "for their sake."

With today's knowledge, this can only be pleaded for children with locally untreatable medical problems. Or for children who have proven to be socially excluded and are actually not allowed to exist on the spot. But that's it. Such adoptions from abroad can only remain possible under the strictest conceivable forms of state supervision.

The merit of the report of the committee on intercountry adoption is that it spares no one and comes with the right conclusion. Acknowledge the mistakes and suspend all adoptions. It is bitter to read how checks and balances, supervisory mechanisms, regulatory attempts and self-regulation have failed in recent decades. There were always interests that weighed more heavily. Of the relations with the country of birth, the wish to have children of the adoptive parents or their well-intentioned idealism. According to the report, politics mainly served the interests of the adoptive parents and gave 'only minimal substance' to the controlling task. The State failed to leave adoption to private initiative that controlled it too little, or too late or too weak. Or all three. Experts were not listened to.

That the scandal is no bigger is probably because the children themselves are moderately positive about their adoption. 70 percent believe that such adoption should continue. 84 percent think that they were given more opportunities in the Netherlands than in their native country. At the same time, many of them also face existential questions about identity and their biological family.

Minister Sander Dekker (legal protection, VVD), who established the committee, did the right thing at the last minute of Rutte III and generously followed the advice. All future intercountry adoptions have been suspended. He promptly apologized for "that the government has not done what was expected of it." At the same time, he offers adoptees practical legal and social-psychological help. Moreover, the State will no longer rely on prescription in proceedings.

Whether these practical concessions are sufficient must become clear in a debate with the Lower House. He can then also look at himself. It is clear that the needs of the adoptees must be central. And the debt to the birth families must also be paid.

.