Statskontorets adoptionsutredning gränsar till korruption | GP (The State Office's adoption investigation borders on corruption
19 February 2021

DebateA touch of corruption when the State Treasury on behalf of the government investigates international adoption activities, write Maria Fredriksson and Lisa Wool-Rim Sjöblom, themselves adopted from Korea.

On behalf of the Government, the State Treasury has written the report “The organization of international adoption activities (2021: 1). It is based, among other things, on interviews with representatives of relevant actors, such as intermediaries and associations for adoptees, as well as four unnamed adopted persons who have not been members of any interest group. They were contacted through the adoption organization Adoptionscentrum.

Questioned selection

The statements of the four adoptees are similar to those of the adoption agencies, which is why the State Treasury was asked who these four adoptees were. It turned out to be the Adoption Center's current chairman, vice chairman (also adoptive parent), an administrator for the association's activities "Travel and roots", and a former chairman. The choice of these four is justified by the fact that "it is important for the credibility and legitimacy of an investigation to shed light on different perceptions that exist within the discourse."

These adoptees cannot be considered to add any perspectives that have not already been presented via other interviewees other than that, unlike some of the other adoptees, they are clearly in favor of continued adoption mediation. Furthermore, it is serious that the State Treasury seems to consider that a legitimate fight for ethical adoptions and redress is about perceptions and perspectives and that they pose victims of illegal adoptions against opinions from four adoptees who are so strongly linked to Sweden's largest adoption agency.

Lack of competence, transparency and legal certainty are the most recurring views throughout the report.

In light of this, it is not surprising that a remarkably large area in the report is devoted to concerns about the survival of adoption agencies and government costs, especially given that lack of competence, transparency and legal certainty are the most recurring views throughout the report.

We believe that this greatly undermines the report's credibility and it is remarkable when it concludes that one of the reasons why Sweden should continue to adopt despite shortcomings in legal certainty, equality, competence, transparency and child perspective is that it is a good way for Sweden to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Other countries act differently

In the Netherlands, a government inquiry into its adoption activities with similar results led to the country being temporarily closed to international adoption. The Swedish investigation comes to a different conclusion and the reason for this conclusion may lie in the statements that come from four adoptees with strong ties to the largest adoption mediator in Sweden. There is therefore reason to believe that the interviews with these four adoptees were a strong contributing factor to the investigators coming to such a diametrically different conclusion than their Dutch investigative colleagues.

Maria Fredriksson , Korean adopted

Lisa Wool-Rim Sjöblom , Korean adopted