State invokes limitation period in remote mothers lawsuit

On Friday, September 24, 2021, the District Court of The Hague heard the proceedings on the merits of Trudy Scheele-Gertsen and Bureau Clara Wichmann against the State. During the at times emotional hearing, the Court offered several women the opportunity to tell their stories. The Court expects to rule in this case on December 15, 2021.

This case concerned the question of whether the State acted unlawfully towards Mrs Scheele-Gertsen and other mothers who renounced their child in the years 1956-1984. Distance mother Trudy Scheele-Gertsen held the Dutch State liable for the harm caused to her . Trudy says she was forced to give up her child for adoption in the 1960s, while she wanted to take care of him herself. Interest group Bureau Clara Wichmann supported the case by standing up for the interests of all women who have been separated from their child.

Invocation of statute of limitations

The State invokes the limitation period because this concerns a civil procedure.

The State says the case is time-barred because it happened so long ago. In addition, there is no evidence of wrongful conduct. In particular, the role of the Child Protection Board was often discussed. 'At the time, the Child Protection Board acted in good faith', says state lawyer Mette van Asperen. She refers to the existing renunciation and adoption files as objective evidence.

“That does not alter the fact that the government understands that women look back on the relinquishment with mixed feelings, and that they have had and perhaps still have grief,” says Ms. van Asperen. She adds that outgoing Minister Sander Dekker (Legal Protection) wants to continue to talk to this group of women, in order to work towards recognition in this way. “He recognizes the suffering and calls it a black page in the history of the Netherlands. He doesn't do that for nothing.”

Exception to statute of limitations

Attorney Lisa-Marie Komp represents Trudy and Bureau Clara Wichmann in this case. She requests the Court to make an exception to the limitation period. It invokes the so-called reasonableness and fairness in this regard. She referred to a similar case in Australia (State of Victoria) in which the limitation period for such claims is also under discussion.

Ms Komp also referred to the case of Dilani Butink and the decision by Minister Dekker to no longer invoke the limitation period in cases concerning intercountry adoption . She argued that this could also apply in this case. The State Attorney does not see that parallel. This is because remote mothers in the Netherlands would always be able to view their file. This is refuted by the prosecutors.

Women who have been in a particularly vulnerable position have been left to their own devices, as far as the prosecutors are concerned. According to Mrs Komp, the Child Protection Board should have prevented mothers and children from being separated. According to her, the Child Protection Board has failed to provide correct and complete information, has not looked after the interests of mother and child and the State has acted negligently in doing so. Initiating civil proceedings is seen by Mrs. Komp as 'empowerment'. A way for women to still stand up for their rights.

Recognition

The women have lived for years with a secret for fear of not being believed. Many women have felt left out or feel left out to this day. Will van Sebille, founder of the Dutch Distance Mother Foundation, said the following on behalf of these women:

'I have spoken to more than 300 women. There is enormous diversity in the situation and the story of these women. The constant factor is that all of them were not believed. You may not remember the story in detail, but the experience is so traumatic for many; you don't forget that. There is a need for recognition. To be taken seriously and not put away as people who don't remember well enough.'

You can't change history, but the recognition can make all the difference in the guilt and shame that women have carried with them for decades in some cases, concludes Mrs. Komp.

Invoking prescription is difficult for Fiom to reconcile with recognition

During today's session, we once again heard the stories of women who to this day experience pain because of their past. This never expires. The experience also has an impact on future generations.

The State's appeal to prescription does not contribute to recognizing the suffering of women and those around them. Women who have had to give up their child under pressure or coercion in the past should be taken seriously in their experience. Only when it is recognized that this has been done to women, women who to this day are still afraid to speak out can break the silence.

The verdict will follow on December 15, 2021. It is the request of the plaintiffs to do this publicly. The court will consider this.

.