When Flanders banned international adoption last week, the message was clear: the best interests of the child come first. But for thousands of adoptees, aftercare remains inadequate. VUB student Ignace Ismayilov knows what he is writing about: as a child, he was illegally removed from his biological parents, after which the system legally whitewashed that abduction. What remains when the product has been delivered and the guarantee period expires?
A few months ago, Flemish Minister Caroline Gennez supported Groen's proposal to ban transnational adoption in Flanders. The best interests of the child must take precedence, she stated. Last week, that proposal was effectively implemented, but for thousands of adoptees, aftercare remains inadequate.
Support in Belgium stops as soon as the adoption is finalised: everything before that is arranged down to the last detail, but afterwards, it remains remarkably quiet. As an internationally adopted person, I received no structural guidance whatsoever regarding identity development, loss, or trauma. No psychologist with knowledge of adoption trauma. No support when I found my family after years of searching. The system guides adults' choice to adopt but often leaves the adopted person alone with the consequences.
However, the Law of 24 April 2003 explicitly states that adoption can only take place 'in the best interests of the child' and that prospective adoptive parents must be informed about the importance of aftercare. But there is a gap between 'providing information about aftercare' and a right to aftercare. Support ends as soon as the procedure is complete, and all burdens fall on the child.
