The National Board of Appeal's four notes on a study of the Danish adoption agency from Colombia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Sri
The National Board of Appeal's four notes on a study of the Danish adoption agency from Colombia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Sri Lanka from the Minister of Social Affairs and the Elderly
The National Board of Appeal has quietly given birth to their investigation, which does not surprisingly release Denmark from liability in relation to the illegalities they can not deny have occurred in adoptions from the 4 countries they have chosen to investigate.
It is sad to read that in all 4 statements they generally use terms such as "in most cases" or "In several cases". Nevertheless, it was concluded that no illegalities could be detected.
It is predictable that the responsibility is imposed on the donor countries' "unregulated" conditions and not the pressure the adoption agencies imposed on the donor countries, just as it is directly problematic that the economic conditions including the widespread use of donations (which the last revision of the Adoption Act reintroduced) are not proven to be the vast majority of illegalities.
The Adoption Policy Forum can conclude:
That several of the donor countries used the same counterfeiting process as in Nepal, to create the so-called "paper orphans".
That illegal adoptions from Bangladesh and Columbia have clearly taken place
That adoptees from Indonesia, especially from the Yogakarta Orphanage, have been subject to forgeries and extremely sparse documentation
That Terre Des Hommes directly violated Danish regulations and laws.
—-
We demand an in-depth independent investigation
We demand a complete stop to transnational adoption
We demand compensation for anyone who has been adopted without parental consent and with forged papers
We demand that the Adoption Act reflects the responsibility Denmark should take on and regulates much more directly
We demand that the boards and individuals who have acted in adoption intermediaries up to now be held accountable
You can read the National Board of Appeal's investigation here and below we have included excerpts from the four reports highlighting the worst violations.
Bangladesh
In the period 1975-1982, the financial relations in the international adoption agency were not regulated in the Danish rules or by the Danish authorities. Therefore, it can not be ruled out that there may have been financial incentives for the actors involved, as there were no rules for the intermediary organizations' possible remuneration of contact persons or for the payment of fees in donor countries.
In the case of international adoptions, it is common both in a contemporary and in a historical context that the applicants or the organizations pay for certain costs in connection with the processing of the case abroad. It can e.g. be expenses for translation, medical examinations, legal assistance, issuance of special certificates, etc.
Overall, it does not appear from the cases reviewed that the biological parents have signed the waiver declaration “declaration of relinquishment”, which is described as the first step in the adoption process.With this document, the biological parents were to renounce their rights as the child's "caregivers" in court. According to the Dutch report, the declaration should also contain personal information about the person who renounced the rights as a "caregiver" such as name, religion, profession or address. The statements are not based on the specific Danish adoption cases, nor are they mentioned. The National Board of Appeal can therefore not determine on the basis of the cases reviewed whether the declaration has been used or not in the specific cases. Due to the missing declarations, and because there is also no information available about the child's "caregivers", it is not possible to determine where the children who were referred to Denmark originally came from. Seen through the eyes of today, detailed information about the child's origins is essential in the efforts to realize the child's right to know his identity. It can e.g. be information about the background and situation of the biological family, information about birth and place of birth or the like.
The information on why and how the children were placed is generally very sparse. In 12 cases there is no information about this. In four cases, the children came from the street and were handed in by local citizens. In seven cases, the children were first with their biological mothers or relatives, but were then placed in the orphanage. In one of the seven cases, it appears that the biological mother could not afford to take care of the child. In four cases, the biological parents have either passed away or disappeared, and in a single case, the child came to Terre des Hommes' orphanage from another orphanage in Chittagong. Thus, based on the review of the case, the National Board of Appeal can neither confirm nor deny whether the children in some of the cases have stayed in a refugee camp, as mentioned in the Dutch report, before the placement in an orphanage.
It appears from one of the Ministry of Justice's general cases from 1979 that the ministry received a copy of a letter from Terre des Hommes, which was addressed to the two other Danish intermediary organizations Adoption Center and Glemte Børn. The letter states that the authorities in Bangladesh only want to have one contact organization from each of the countries adopting from Bangladesh. It further appears that Terre des Hommes 'representative Cheyne has emphasized that "tremendous troubles" can occur if the authorities' wishes are not respected, as adoptions are an abundantly sensitive issue on the ground. There is nothing in the general cases to suggest that the Department of Justice was informed of the Preger case or responded to the information from Cheyne.
According to current standards for international adoption mediation, there have undoubtedly not been sufficient security measures in the Bangladeshi adoption system in the period 1975-82, or in the Danish mediation to ensure that the best interests of the child were the guiding principle in the individual adoption. This is reflected, among other things, in the fact that there was insufficient regulation of international adoption, and that there is generally sparse information in the specific adoption cases about e.g. the child's background and release. At the same time, during the period in question, there was no regulation of the cash flows associated with the adoptions, which may have created an inappropriate incentive structure. It can therefore not be ruled out that methods for illegal removal of children, as described in the Dutch report, have been used in the Danish cases. Regardless of the fact that the accusations against Terre des Hommes Danmark were not directed against the Danish director but against the contact person in Bangladesh, it can therefore not be denied that the Danish cases have been affected by the illegal conditions that the Dutch report addresses. In addition, two of the other persons against whom, according to the Dutch report, charges were brought, have been responsible for the release and transfer of the guardianship in several of the cases that the National Board of Appeal has reviewed. In view of the sparse information available in the specific cases, as well as the fact that it has not been possible to obtain Terre des Hommes Danmark's general cases on the dissemination from Bangladesh, it is not immediately possible to make a more detailed coverage of the facts of the specific adoptions. However, information from a newspaper article from October 1977 suggests that some of the children Terre des Hommes conveyed came from a refugee camp. The National Board of Appeal does not have information that can invalidate whether this is the same refugee camp from which 100 children, according to Dr. Embosses disappeared.From an adoption professional point of view, there is generally a high risk of unethical and illegal conditions in international adoption mediation if several of the factors that characterized the general conditions of the time in Bangladesh are present.
Colombia
It was problematic that AC Børnehjælp approved matches in advance and accepted specific children on behalf of Danish applicants . Firstly, because AC Børnehjælp thereby circumvented the Danish rules for matching children, which at that time had to be approved by Mødrehjælpen and not by AC Børnehjælp. In this connection, the child's skin color was not included as part of the assessment. Secondly, because AC Børnehjælp accepted the child on behalf of the applicants without the applicants' knowledge.AC Børnehjælp has therefore put both the child and the applicants in a difficult situation. AC Børnehjælp may have put unnecessary pressure on the applicants to accept a child that AC Børnehjælp had already undertaken to receive from the partner. At the same time, it could have put the child in an even more vulnerable situation if the applicants did not accept the match.
There are no birth certificates or civil registry entries in any of the six cases. In two cases, there is neither an order for adoption nor a letter from a notary. Only the letter from the Colombian guardian (Mrs Trujillo) to the Colombian immigration authorities states that the children were allowed to leave the country. In addition, there is a letter from the adopters' representative (Vargas) to the same authority stating that the child would be received in Denmark.
However, it appears from one of the general cases that AC Child Welfare in August 1986 informed the Family Law Directorate in which adoption cases from Colombia, the organization had not yet received a Colombian adoption sentence and birth registration. The adoption judgment and the birth registration were used as a basis for issuing a Danish adoption permit. The letter states that the documents were not sent in 18 cases in the years 1981 to 1986. In 1986 alone, AC Børnehjælp had not received the documents in seven cases.
This does not in itself indicate that the individual adoptions have been linked to illegal behavior. However, the National Board of Appeal has not found in the reviewed material information as to what was the reason why in these cases there was no adoption judgment or a birth registration. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to assess whether the cases have followed the relevant processes and leaves doubt here.
Indonesia
The purpose of the study has been to find out whether DanAdopt's placement of children from Indonesia coincided with the Dutch placement, including whether children from the orphanage Kasih Bunda or the island of Biak were transferred to Denmark. The information that has been available to the National Board of Appeal about the dissemination from Indonesia to Denmark generally testifies to a process that has not been associated with illegal dissemination. In this connection, however, it should be mentioned that the dissemination from Indonesia in the 1970s and 1980s, as from many other countries, was relatively unregulated compared to today. At that time, in the eyes of today, there were insufficient security measures in place to secure the rights of the individual child. This was true in relation to the Indonesian system, but also the Danish one. This is expressed, among other things, by the fact that there was insufficient regulation of international adoption, that there were risk factors as a result of financial interests, just as there was generally sparse information in the specific adoption cases about e.g. the child's background and release.
Financial incentives The National Board of Appeal has not found concrete examples of partners having received large sums of money privately in connection with the adoptions to Denmark. However, it cannot be ruled out that there has been a financial incentive associated with the adoption mediation on the part of the partners. Although there are estimates of the costs of adoptions, the costs of childcare in orphanages are not always specified. The individual orphanages and clinics were probably not state-subsidized in Indonesia. Therefore, 29 of these orphanages and clinics may have been dependent on the annual donations they received from, for example, adoption organizations.The National Board of Appeal has seen two examples of "sponsorships" of children and biological mothers with a view to adoption to Denmark. In the eyes of today, it is problematic that DanAdopt has sponsored mothers before the birth with a view to a future adoption, just as it is also problematic that DanAdopt has sponsored children's hospital stays with a view to future adoption. In the eyes of today, it is particularly problematic to sponsor the biological mothers prior to the birth with a view to the children being adopted to Denmark. The fact that the biological mothers' health and safety in connection with pregnancy and childbirth has been dependent on the direct support from DanAdopt has, all other things being equal, influenced the biological mother's stance on adoption. Seen in the context of the way in which adoption mediation was conducted at the time, it was not uncommon for that an organization such as DanAdopt financially supported maternity clinics, for example, from which they also adopted children. However, it was most often not the support of specific mothers or births, but general donations that went to the clinic as a whole.
That birth registration appears on the adoption cases or is mentioned in the judgment. The birth records that appear on the adoption cases are all issued for use in the adoption case. They were issued at the local mayor's office with two witnesses present. They were all valid for six months. In the adoption cases where there was no birth registration, it is mentioned in the judgments that a birth registration has been submitted to the court in connection with the trial. In several of the birth registrations that the National Board of Appeal has seen, the child has had a Danish name on the birth registration. Seen through the eyes of today, it is remarkable that the child is given a Danish name before a judgment on adoption has been handed down.However, birth registration was generally not widespread in Indonesia at this time, unless the registration served a specific purpose. Therefore, it is likely that the birth registrations in these adoption cases constitute a step in the adoption case itself and not the general registration purpose that such certificates most often serve.
That in several adoption cases there is consent from biological mother (Certificate of Child Transfer). In several of the adoption cases that the National Board of Appeal has reviewed, there is a document in which the biological mother transfers responsibility for the child to the orphanage. It is not specifically stated in the document that the biological mother agrees with the adoption. It appears that the orphanage takes over all future responsibility for the child and the child's upbringing, and that the biological mother will not later claim the child. In virtually all adoption cases the National Board of Appeal has reviewed, it appears from the adoption judgments that a transfer document has been included in the lawsuits (even though this document does not specifically appear in DanAdopt's case), and that this has been perceived by the court as the biological mother has waived on the child. It is therefore presumed that
Sri Lanka
The review of general cases from DIA on the dissemination from Sri Lanka in the 1980s shows that AC Child Welfare's contact person for a period cooperated with persons who, according to the contact person, acted unethically and would only provide children and documents after the contact person had confirmed that they would receive extra payment.
The information indicates that the contact person for a period of time transported children to Denmark in collaboration with women who pretended to be biological mothers.
Finally, the information indicates that the financial incentive associated with the contact person's agreement with AC Børnehjælp to place five children per month involved cooperation with dubious actors as well as safety and health risks for the children.
The information from AC Børnehjælp's contact person, which indicates that illegalities have been part of the dissemination to Denmark, is not to be found in the Danish authorities' general cases.
Land of Men
It appears that TdH acted several times in violation of the accreditation terms and the Danish rules and procedures:
Assisted with adoption mediation from Sri Lanka, before the organization in 1979 was allowed to cooperate with countries other than South Korea and Bangladesh
Misinformed their foreign partner that TdH had a matching competence, which the organization did not have according to the Danish rules
The information has been obtained via the National Archives and appears from general cases about the international adoption agency from the Ministry of Justice with underlying adoption authorities and the Adoption Board in the period 1969-1983
Brought children into proposals for applicants who were either not approved to adopt, had been refused approval or did not have an approval that included the specific child
Expressed that the organization would notify the authorities abroad that the applicants had passed away if they could not or would not adopt the child that TdH could bring in proposals
Assisted concrete family in trying to be approved to adopt an unborn child, despite the Ministry of Justice's refusal to the applicants to be able to complete the adoption Cared for children who were brought home to Denmark by one adoptive family, to another adoptive family in Denmark
Placed a child with an adoptive family outside the established adoption system, and then helped to send the child back to the country of origin without the knowledge of the Danish authorities
Helped large children and younger adults from abroad to Denmark, and placed them in the care of Danish families outside the established adoption system.
The National Board of Appeal has not become aware of information that TdH should have been involved in illegal behavior in the form of buying and selling children or fraud with information about the release basis in the individual adoptions.
However, the general cases contain information that indicates that TdH's dissemination work in the 1970s was characterized by a significant degree of autonomy, which the Danish authorities had difficulty controlling.
.