See Transcript Netwer and Book Hoksbergen, page 464

4

As an adoptee, I live with holes in my heart that can never be healed. The risk that I have been trafficked is horrific. I am happy that Denmark is closing international adoption.

On Facebook I read the following message:

"Today may be my birthday. This day brings me sadness and reminds me of my lack of foundation, but today I want to celebrate myself despite my sadness, because this year I fill up'.

The fact that it is not possible to adopt from abroad for the time being is not the same as abolition, says Lene Myong, who believes that one must take a fundamental stand against transnational adoption as a phenomenon.

Now it's over with adoptions from abroad - at least for a while. The last international adoption center in Denmark, Danish International Adoption (DIA), announced on Tuesday last week that they are turning the key. It comes after the organization has been notified that the last five countries they mediate adoptions from will be suspended for a period of time. On 14 December last year, the Board of Appeal suspended adoptions from South Africa because it was suspected that the adoptions were not taking place according to the rules.

Lene Myong is a professor at the University of Stavanger, has researched transnational adoption and is herself adopted. She believes that there should be a political confrontation with adoption from abroad.

The recently closed adoption agency Danish International Adoption bent the rules to avoid breaking the convention and ended up separating two siblings. "An assault", assess experts

A pair of siblings only had each other, now they have to grow up in separate countries with a thousand kilometers between them.  

The separation could possibly have been avoided. For many months, Danwatch has investigated what has been going on behind the walls of Denmark's only adoption agency, Danish International Adoption (DIA), which recently closed after several problematic cases. 

Today we can now reveal how, within the last few years, DIA has delayed an adoption, so that the two siblings today have to live a life separately. 

An internal DIA email correspondence in Danwatch's possession shows that the DIA did not work to find a solution to keep the children together after they were informed that the children were to be separated.

By Vivian J. Salles Vieira Pinto

Introduction

The right to know is the core of the right to identity of adoptees, as it allows them to pursue their own biological information. The identity of one`s biological parent – a simple, straightforward information for many – is a significant missing piece in adoptees’ history. Questions such as: who are my biological parents? Where did I come from? Why was I put up for adoption? What is my family's medical history? These inquiries, though seemingly commonplace, underscore the profound impact of the right to know on adoptees' self-identity. While the legal definition of the right to know is still a matter of debate, this right seems to function as a mechanism for exercising the right to one's own identity. By exercising the right to know, the adoptee should be able to collect pertinent data to construct their own identity, which can be significantly compromised in adoption scenarios. The right to identity is a comprehensive and all-encompassing right that ensures individuals have the right to exist and enjoy their rights within society, including the right to have a name and surname, nationality, gender, and date of birth.

Unravelling the complexities, this blog post aims to shed light on the intricate interplay between the right to know of adoptees and the right to privacy of biological families in adoption scenarios, particularly concerning the role of the Australian Contact Veto Provision (CVP) in this context. In this regard, the Australian CVP in New South Wales is especially noteworthy. It is one of the few jurisdictions that enforce legislative measures to prevent adoptees from contacting their birth parents. This type of provision was also previously enacted in Tennessee and subsequently repealed in 2022, rendering it ineffectual due to its shortcomings. In 2001, Ireland attempted to implement a CVP in the Draft scheme of a bill on adoption information and post-adoption contact, which was later removed.

The right to know

Adopting children from other countries to Denmark is over. On 16 January, Danish International Adoption (DIA) announced a complete cessation of their mediation of international adoption, including from South Africa. This decision, based on a series of critical errors in the organization's work, marks a turning point in the national adoption discourse. The debate in recent years has been characterized by self-examination of historical errors in the adoption system. Remarkably, this debate has missed an important voice – namely the countries that give up children for adoption.

The massive failure that has been in the area of ​​adoption in the past must be fully acknowledged, and Denmark should comply with the UN's recommendation for impartial investigations into all illegal international adoptions.

At the same time, the previous failures have made the debate unvarying. In recent years, many have taken notice of the post-colonial structures that characterize the area, and critics view the system of transnational adoptions as a continuation of these structures.

Others grapple with the question of whether international adoption deprives the child of its cultural identity.

The inequality that forms the basis of the international adoption system, as well as the question of cultural identity, is important to keep in mind, but it is paramount that we recognize the regional and social contexts that affect the individual country, and to nuance the debate should perspectives from the countries concerned are included.

Just a week ago, Denmark's only adoption agency had to turn the key. But the skeletons continue to tumble out of the closet.

Over the course of several months, Danwatch has dug into the workflows of Denmark's only adoption agency, Danish International Adoption (DIA). They can now uncover how the organization has deliberately bent the rules for adopting sibling pairs.

An internal email correspondence that Danwatch has come into possession of shows that DIA did not try to find a solution that could keep a pair of siblings together.

In the email correspondence, an employee from DIA writes several times to a colleague from an African country that they must wait to proceed with the adoption of one child to Denmark until the other child has been adopted to France.

According to international conventions, the act is illegal, as you, as an adoption agent, must do everything you can to avoid separating siblings.

Dozens of national and European NGOs have sent an open letter to the European Commission, saying that Romanian legislation only "formally" reflects European directives regarding the protection of children who have been victims of sexual crimes. The NGOs are demanding that the infringement procedure be activated.

The letter from the 35 NGOs is addressed to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the Vice President for Democracy and Demography, Dubravka Suica, the Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, and the Commissioner for Equality, Helena Dali.

The Center for Advocacy and Human Rights, which is among the signatories, says that the situation of children who are victims of sexual crimes "has not significantly improved after the adoption of EU legislation, despite constant international pressure." It argues that national legislation "formally reflects European directives, but is largely unenforceable," and "is formulated in unclear terms, which allows for the perpetuation of practices that lead to the re-victimization of children," according to Digi24.

The letter calls on the Commission to analyze the compliance of Romanian legislation with the EU Directive on victims' rights and the Directive on combating human trafficking and to initiate a dialogue with Romanian authorities to improve the country’s adoption of these directives.

The NGOs also signal the following situations that "impede children victims of sexual crimes' access to justice and indicate inadequate transposition" of European directives: the victim child is questioned in the presence of the defendant; the child’s interview is not video recorded; the child has to participate in repeated interviews; the child is questioned without access to legal representation; the child's identity is not adequately protected throughout the process; the duration of criminal procedures in cases involving a victim child is unreasonable; the victim children's legal aid lawyers change during the criminal proceedings; forced early marriages are not investigated and sanctioned as a form of exploitation.

An apology to the experimental children has been followed by compensation from the Danish state.

In 2020, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen gave an official apology on behalf of Denmark to the so-called "experimental children" for the first time.

And now the apology is being followed up with 250,000 kroner to each of the six living Greenlanders.

This is stated by the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Elderly in Denmark.

The compensation comes after the six people filed a lawsuit against the Danish state, as they believed that the move to Denmark in 1951 was a violation of, among other things, their right to private and family life.

The Directorate for Children, Youth and Families believes that if adoptions are not temporarily stopped, the Norwegian authorities must step in and take more control.

MUST CLEAN UP: Minister for Children and Families Kjersti Toppe has taken on the task of cleaning up Norwegian adoption practices. 

The Directorate for Children, Youth and Families (Bufdir), which is the professional authority in the adoption field, believes that there is a real risk that illegal adoptions may occur. They have therefore recently recommended to the minister a  temporary halt in all adoptions . 

If the minister does not follow Bufdir's recommendation, Bufdir proposes three alternative measures. 

Among other things, they will check documents in each individual case. They also propose that an adoption should only be carried out after direct cooperation between the countries' state administrations. And that requirements for soundness and legal certainty are clarified to a greater extent than today.