Last week, a study showed that the adoption of children from India between 1973 and 2002 was often without the consent of the biological parents. What does this mean to you?
Monika Pfaffinger: I am very concerned. Since I have been dealing with the topic for a long time, these study results are unfortunately no surprise. But the extent and regularity of the violations of the law, which the investigations of the individual files in particular have revealed, are shocking. This is all the more so because it is not only the practices in Switzerland that are riddled with such irregularities. The concept of irregularity is important to me.
About the person
Expert in family law
The legal scholar Monika Pfaffinger heads the expert group on international adoptions on behalf of the federal government. She has specialized in family and adoption law, among other things, and is a private lecturer at the University of Basel.
Why?
The legal framework that applied in the 1970s to the 1990s was different from today. The study on India found that the law was already being violated at the time. But there may now be aspects that are only illegal today. There were also practices that violated moral and ethical principles. In addition, the spectrum of actions worthy of criticism is very broad. All of this is covered by the term irregularity proposed by the expert group on international adoption.
As a result of the reporting on the study on India, an adoptive father got in touch. He has often been to India and is shocked by the conditions faced by children affected by poverty there. He referred to their extremely precarious living conditions and the possibility of leading a life in Switzerland through adoption. What do you say about that?
In the expert group, we talked for a long time about this narrative of a possibly better life. We came to the conclusion that the end does not justify the means. We must be able to guarantee in all cases that the children who are taken in here are not affected by child trafficking.
The adoptive father in question also said that the study results had given him sleepless nights. Although the authors prove that the authorities failed, their findings have aroused great fears in him that he himself had made a mistake. What advice do you have for families who are struggling with such tormenting questions?
I recommend that they seek support in this dispute. This was also addressed at the press conference. The state should guarantee and provide the necessary resources.
When asked the relevant question, however, the cantonal representatives appeared helpless. They were referred to the affected organizations or immediately given the floor.
The affected organization "Back to the Roots" has built up a great deal of expertise in the area of tracing origins and supporting adopted children. However, it specializes in Sri Lanka and is mandated and financially equipped for this purpose. This is not enough. There are also responsible bodies in the cantons that can help with questions about international adoptions. However, I cannot judge how well prepared they are for this. Addressing the dark past must now be done as a priority, in a coordinated and timely manner.
How can it be ensured that illegal adoptions never happen again?
The expert group has only two options. Either Switzerland ends the practice of international adoptions or it needs far-reaching and comprehensive reforms. Until the appropriate measures are in place, a moratorium could come into effect. This is a well-known instrument. Only those adoption procedures that are very advanced could be completed. All others would be stopped.
What reforms do you consider essential?
There needs to be a well-founded selection of states with which Switzerland will cooperate in international adoptions in the future. There must be a relationship of trust with them and reliable evidence that everything is done in accordance with the rules. One possibility is that all countries of origin have signed the Hague Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This would already lead to a reduction in the number of possible cooperation states. In addition, the current law must be adapted in various areas - for example, the recognition of adoptions made abroad. Institutional responsibility must also be reconsidered. A central office at the federal level would make sense given the small number of international adoptions. Another issue is how financial flows can be better controlled and regulated.
How much security does the Hague Adoption Convention, which came into force in Switzerland in 2003, provide?
We don't know that for sure.
