Statement AVGG following report committee Joustra

Statement Adoption Association Gereformeerde Gezindte (AVGG) in response to the report of the Joustra Committee. [1]

On February 8, 2021, the Commission Investigation into Intercountry Adoption handed over the report with the results of its investigation to the Minister for Legal Protection. The committee has investigated the actual course of affairs regarding intercountry adoptions and the role and responsibility of the Dutch government in this regard. Commissioned by the committee, Statistics Netherlands has conducted research into the living situation, well-being and search behavior of intercountry adoptees. This covers the period 1967-1998, before the introduction of the Hague Adoption Convention. During the execution of the original investigation assignment, the Committee, in consultation with the Minister, expanded the investigation into known abuses outside this period and outside these five investigated countries of origin.

The adoption community is deeply shocked by those adoptions where abuses occurred in the 1970s-1990s. Recognition is appropriate here for the suffering inflicted on those involved, the adoptees and their biological family. Our association also thinks of the adoptive parents, who entered into a procedure in good faith, which later turned out to be based on lies. They see the pain their children struggle with. We realize that questions can arise about God's providence, doubts about God's way of which adoptees and their parents were previously firmly convinced. Could not then arise the complaint from the book of Job: Shall God pervert justice, and the Almighty pervert justice? (Job 8:3)

The AVGG was founded in 1979, in the middle of the period under investigation. (Former) members of our association have also had to deal with abuses. Although the AVGG has not mediated in adoptions and has not committed any culpable acts, the association has not always reacted as alertly and empathetically. If anyone was hurt in doing so, even if it was done in ignorance, we hereby apologize.

We support the following recommendations made by the committee and adopted by the minister:

Recognition of proven wrongdoing by the government

Establishment of a national center of expertise, support and pooling of knowledge on identity questions, searches, psychosocial help and legal support

However, the AVGG cannot support the recommendation to suspend intercountry adoption. We consider this recommendation to be harmful to the future of children who will miss the opportunity to grow up in a family context. Since the publication of the report, we understand that the Commission has not examined files from after 1998, even though the licensees were willing to allow access to them.

The Committee based its opinion on parliamentary debates, interviews with government employees, media reports and fact-finding missions in the countries of origin, with widely differing outcomes.

The Commission cites as a potential weakness in the system the principle of trust as part of the Hague Adoption Convention and a concrete number of countries where doubts arose. The Netherlands no longer receives adopted children from those countries, nor from the research countries from the period prior to the Hague Convention. The Netherlands therefore applies: “when in doubt, do not overtake”.

With regard to the countries of origin with which the Netherlands still cooperates, the AVGG considers it too simplistic to lump all countries of origin together. The suspension measure is too fast, too rigorous, which is harmful to children who are at risk of becoming institutionalized. We are disturbed that when the report was presented, no attention was paid to the downside of the recommendation and suspension measure: children are left out in the cold. Growing up in a home is also structural neglect, an extremely harmful form of child abuse. Any child that grows up in a home instead of with the parents is also an abuse. [2]

In addition, neither the report, nor the recommendations, nor the measures have been tested in our parliament, or against peer review by the scientific adoption community. Nevertheless, the measure was introduced immediately by the Minister, albeit with the caveat that procedures may still be completed from the approval in principle.

The bottom line is that the Commission points to a risk of abuse, but does not put its finger on concrete examples of proven abuses in current adoption practice, while it had access to all files.

In addition to damaging the current adoption system, this also causes attention to be diverted from the outcomes of the original research assignment: what exactly happened in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, who was responsible for it, and who will they be held accountable for this?

We notice that the debate focuses on the suspension measure, while acknowledgment of the suffering suffered, rightly so, would have received full attention if the committee had limited itself to its original assignment. It would have been much better if it had investigated current practice in a follow-up study and should have taken more time and exercised more care.

With regard to adoptive parents, the Committee has indicated that pressure is exerted by adoptive parents on the system. Adoptive parents do indeed have a desire to have children. The principle of adoption is that children recover through the love and guidance they receive in an adoptive family, so: to be wanted. The Biblical command to love your neighbor as yourself also plays a significant role for our members. The most important task for adoptive parents is also to raise children for the Lord. However: adoptive parents do not want to fulfill their desire to have children through abuses. We always want to be able to explain to our children why they are with us, with deep respect for the biological family and the background and origin of the child. Given the background of the adopted children today, the vast majority of which concern special needs adoptions and/or adoptions of older children, and where countries are closed in case of any doubt, it is impossible to talk about supply and demand, market forces, a waterbed effect and such offensive terms. On behalf of all (prospective) adoptive parents: stop hurting our children in this way! This unnecessarily insults them.[3]

We think that a very important voice in this is the voice of the group of adult adoptees in the Netherlands. The Committee commissioned a survey on this specifically among this group by Statistics Netherlands, with the result that 70% of them agree with the statement “intercountry adoption must always remain possible” (page 55 of Appendix H, also referred to by the Mr. Joustra during the presentation).

Nederland neemt deel aan het Haags Verdrag, een internationaal verdrag, waar de Minister door zijn opschortingsbesluit afstand van neemt, op ondemocratische wijze. Dat maakt ons land onbetrouwbaar in de ogen van onze HAV-partnerlanden. Wij behoren volgens de afspraken van het Verdrag eerst misstanden met het permanent bureau van het HAV te bespreken. En wij zijn het moreel verplicht aan alle kinderen die alleen opgroeien, om te kijken hoe we onszelf verder kunnen verbeteren, in plaats van kinderen in de kou te laten staan.

Finally: The AVGG is based on God's Word, the source of comfort and light. We don't always understand the ways God goes with us. This undoubtedly applies to our adoptees and their parents who have had to deal with abuses. This also applies to (prospective) adoptive parents who are looking forward to (another) adoption child and do not know how to proceed. What now? Who does not know this quote by Martin Luther: 'Though I know not the way that God goeth with me, I know my Guide.' We wish you and all of you heartily with the words of Psalm 62:9 'Trust in Him at all times, O ye people! Pour out your heart before Him; God is our Refuge.'

Below is the full report and statement-related articles:

Report Committee Investigation into Intercountry Adoption

QenA's suspension of intercountry adoption

Nuances in the report of the Joustra Committee

Article It is always worse for a child in a home

That adoption report unnecessarily insults – NRC

[1] We have used with permission the text of the statement of the National Association of Adoptive Parents (LAVA)

[2] Marinus IJzendoorn – Professor of Pedagogical Sciences at Erasmus University – in Trouw of 11 February 2018 https://www.trouw.nl/opinie/voor-een-kind-is-het-leven-in-een-tehuis- always-worse-than-adoption~b2b67a67/

[3] https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/02/11/dat-adoption-report-schoffeert-onnecessary-a4031470