Report of the meeting of the Committee on Welfare, Public Health, Family, Poverty Reduction and Equal Opportunities
Mrs. Perdaens has the floor.
Minister, on January 7, we read in the press that the investigation into irregularities in intercountry adoption will gain momentum this year. Perhaps let us go back in time for a moment: in 2023, it was your predecessor, Minister Crevits, who called for reports to be filed regarding suspected irregularities in intercountry adoption. Since then, 241 reports have been received from 31 countries, and 168 people have responded to the request to initiate an investigation.
Most reports concerned adoptions from Belgium, Ethiopia, South Korea, and Rwanda. The Flemish Centre for Adoption (VCA), together with the International Social Service (ISS), is screening potential partners to conduct investigations into the individual files in the aforementioned countries of origin. It concerns only a few countries. Previously, 31 countries were mentioned, but it is limited to a list of just four. An investigator has been found for Belgium, and the screening for India, Ethiopia, and Rwanda is reportedly almost complete. At least, that is what the press tells us.
The investigations were expected to gain momentum this year. The subject of the investigations is, of course, very sensitive, both for the adopted child and the families involved. From a distance, it consists of files, reports, and investigations, and does not seem personal, but it certainly is. The necessary caution and thoroughness are required here. We read in the press that a number of the reporters feel insufficiently involved, that they feel they are not receiving enough support, and that there is also a lack of information following their report. That is why we are putting this back on the committee's agenda today. We would like to ask you exactly what the situation is regarding the support and the investigations, as you know that our group is following this closely. Consequently, I have a few questions for you.
In what way is support provided to the adopted children involved and the families during this process? Is it the case that both the adopted children and the families receive support during this process—I am thinking of adoptive families as well as the biological families? Is there any differentiation in the follow-up and guidance of these individuals during the ongoing investigation, depending on whether the child is still a minor or an adult, and who the reporting party is?
Did the whistleblowers get an idea of the ultimate goal of the investigation? What could it mean for them in the end? For it is, of course, a matter of conducting an investigation into the malpractices that occurred and what effect they might have on policy, but this concerns incredibly sensitive matters such as where someone comes from, where their roots lie, and how they left. For a whistleblower, therefore, that ultimate goal can be something completely different than for the government.
How will the investigation proceed, and were the whistleblowers given insight into the process so that they know what to prepare for?
In the event that a whistleblower decides during the investigation that they no longer wish to be kept informed, what impact would this have on the investigation? Thank you in advance for your answers.
Mrs. Wouters has the floor.
Minister, colleagues, since 2023, following a call by the then Minister of Welfare, 241 people have reported possible irregularities in their adoption files to the Flemish Centre for Adoption. These involve files from 31 countries, including countries where it has long been known that adoptions have not always followed correct procedures. Of this group, 168 individuals explicitly requested a more in-depth investigation.
Despite the seriousness of these signals and the significant human impact, effective investigations will not begin until 2026. This means that people who have often already been struggling with fundamental questions about their origins and identity for a lifetime will once again have to wait years for clarity. Moreover, those involved and advocacy groups are expressing sharp criticism regarding the lack of transparency, expertise, and active follow-up by the Flemish government concerning illegal adoptions.
How do you justify the fact that more than two years elapse between the call to adoptees and the effective start of individual investigations? Do you consider this lead time acceptable, given that it concerns serious offenses and not merely administrative files? Do you acknowledge that this delay gives the impression of a catch-up effort that is once again being handled too slowly and too cautiously, while earlier signals regarding illegal adoptions have been ignored for years?
Why do testimonies indicate that reporting parties are hardly proactively informed about the status of their case? Why is the duty to provide information apparently limited here to the strictly necessary, while it concerns cases with a severe emotional and psychological impact?
What substantive expertise is currently available within the administration and the Flemish Centre for Adoption regarding illegal and unethical adoption practices? Do you consider this expertise sufficient, or do you acknowledge—or share—the concern that Flanders has allowed a knowledge gap to develop in this area for years?
Minister, you state that foreign partners to conduct the investigations are carefully screened. How is it ensured that this screening does not lead to further delays, when more than enough time has already been lost? Based on which criteria will reliable partners be selected?
Regarding aftercare, reference is made to the presence of an aftercare worker whom the reporter can call upon throughout the entire process. Do you acknowledge that this is completely insufficient for people struggling with severe trauma, identity issues, depression, or suicidal thoughts?
Why has no structural, specialized, and long-term psychological care provision been developed for this specific target group to date? What initiatives are you still taking to guarantee effective aftercare that meets the needs of the victims?
Minister Gennez has the floor.
Minister Caroline Gennez
Intercountry adoption is a topic that rightly comes up frequently in parliament. Adoptees are seeking answers about their first parents and their adoption journey, but adoptive parents also want to know whether an adoption was conducted correctly. Those stories often cut to the bone, colleagues. Just recently, we read the story about the children who were abducted from India—I can't really put it any other way—by the former adoption agency De Vreugdezaaiers. Unfortunately, that is not an isolated story.
In that sense, the adoption pause is a good thing, colleagues, and it remains a good thing that my predecessor announced the investigation into malpractice in adoption files and that we are now rolling it out. That is a call that was widely shared, also thanks to the various interest groups of adoptees, the Adoptie Support Centre, and other stakeholders.
This has resulted in quite a few reports. To date, the VCA is indeed dealing with 241 files from 31 countries. Since 2024, applicants have been followed up and invited for an interview. We choose—and I think this is a good thing—to proceed cautiously and to work with reliable and competent partners in the countries involved who know the local context very well. I believe this is a matter where we must proceed carefully.
How does such a process unfold when someone makes a report? During a personal meeting with the VCA, every whistleblower receives a clear explanation of the procedure and the objectives of the investigation. The objective of this assignment is to offer an individual investigation to all whistleblowers with suspicions of malpractice in their own adoption file. The results of this investigation are delivered to the whistleblower in a report and explained during a meeting with the investigator and the VCA. In the personal meeting preceding the investigation, it is explicitly stated that neither the VCA nor the investigator can offer guarantees regarding concrete answers or desired results. The further course of the investigation is explained during this meeting and subsequently confirmed in a feedback email. Additionally, since December 2025, the webpage regarding the investigation on the Opgroeien website has been updated, describing the procedure and the explanation for investigating possible malpractice.
Since these are individual investigations, each reporting party retains control over their own process. If a reporting party decides to discontinue the investigation, that individual investigation is immediately concluded and terminated, without impact on other ongoing investigations.
The mandate of the VCA consists of setting up and coordinating the investigation, including expanding the network, selecting and screening investigation partners, and supervising those partners. The VCA explicitly does not conduct the investigations itself, but is responsible for appointing independent investigators with the required expertise. For the selection of these local partners, the VCA collaborates with the renowned International Social Service in Geneva, an international organization dedicated to the protection of children and their families worldwide. It is, of course, crucial that the selected partners are reliable and competent.
The importance of care for all those involved in this process is paramount. Therefore, the Adoption Support Centre provides care and guidance throughout the entire process for those who need it. Families with minor or adult adoptees, adult adoptees, and birth parents alike can turn to the centre for support. If necessary, colleagues, referrals are made to more specialized guidance. I believe that is the right approach, as it can indeed sometimes involve severe trauma or identity issues. It is true that those involved in adoption, and certainly when malpractice is involved, often require long-term and intensive, more specialized therapeutic support.
We certainly acknowledge the need for care for those involved in misconduct within adoptions. We wish to refine this further, and I am also prepared to investigate, together with the government partners, how we can focus more on mediation and aftercare within the adoption landscape, and less on mediation 'as such', given the fact that victims indeed indicate that they are not always satisfied with the care provided.
Finally, we are approaching this investigation into possible malpractice in adoption files with the utmost seriousness. It touches upon fundamental questions of identity and can have far-reaching consequences. Therefore, we have handled this with great care.
The past two years were necessary to gain insight into the nature and extent of the reports, to build a relevant international network, to identify professional research partners in various countries, and to develop a screening instrument. This instrument ensures that only researchers with the necessary expertise and professionalism can be appointed. The screening criteria were developed with input from both Belgian and international adoptees with lived experience. The manual will soon be available on the updated research webpage.
There is absolute recognition of the urgency felt by many reporters, but I am careful not to act hastily in this sensitive and complex matter. The researchers are almost ready to begin work. Naturally, all reporters will be informed about the procedure and the current status during a personal meeting, and they will be notified as soon as new information becomes available. Investigations are being set up in about twenty countries. Some time is still needed. Incidentally, individuals can still come forward, and we naturally call upon all those involved to do so if they wish.
Mrs. Perdaens has the floor.
Minister, thank you for the answers.
I believe that clear communication and a realistic understanding of the ultimate outcome are absolutely in the interest of the whistleblowers. I am very pleased that it was handled so thoroughly. Regarding communication with the whistleblowers: what is the ultimate goal in the other direction? Minister Crevits initiated this investigation, among other reasons, to determine what went wrong and to draw conclusions. Is consideration being given within the investigation and in the structure of the investigation regarding the actions taken, for example, to a criminal aspect when it could be traced back to specific organizations, or to whether people behind those organizations can still be held accountable for the events that occurred? Is that an element being included in the investigations? If so, I would like to hear about it.
Could you provide an update on the status of finding investigation partners for the other countries of origin from which various reports were received? You just mentioned that there are twenty countries for which investigations are being conducted. It has already been reported in the press that an investigator has been assigned for four countries, or that the screening is nearly completed. This raises the question for me: if you indicate twenty countries now, what about the other eleven countries? If no investigation will be conducted into those reports, what happens to the reporters? I can imagine considerations are involved. But I can imagine even more that it would be very difficult for the individuals in question to accept if they are told that no investigation will be conducted into their report. I would like to hear from you exactly what happens to the reports from the eleven countries that have not yet been included for an investigation.
In your answer to my written question of October 16, you mentioned an information session that would take place once a cooperation agreement had been reached with a selected investigation partner. There was one for Belgium in early January. Who does this concern? What does the further course of action for the investigation in Belgium look like then? Has that information session already taken place? If not all reporters with a report from Belgium were present, how were they informed so that everyone has the same information—as much information as possible—that they need?
What is the current status of the federal task force? What further actions are they taking? How do these align with the Flemish research, or how does one fit into the other?
The investigation partner for Belgium has been appointed by the VCA and ISS. Will they then only work on Flemish cases? Or will there also be cooperation here with the investigations into Walloon adoptions and with the Walloon Central Authority? How do those investigations relate to each other?
Mrs. Wouters has the floor.
Minister, thank you for your many answers. That aftercare is incredibly important. A child who is removed from their environment, from their context, and placed in a completely different culture—we really must not underestimate that. I also find it positive that you want to focus extra attention on this.
The plan to review the rules surrounding intercountry adoption dates back to 2019, following a whole series of testimonies regarding serious abuses. An expert panel was appointed, which delivered a final report with numerous recommendations. In 2023, there was a justified adoption freeze by former Minister Crevits, which you have also extended since 2025. Subsequently, a decree was approved in the Flemish Parliament, albeit not by our parliamentary group, but there is still no implementing decree to give effect to that decree. In the meantime, a number of new cases involving people who received a suitability judgment were initiated last summer. Ongoing cases are being processed while not all countries of origin have been screened yet. And where do we stand now? It is early 2026, and we are actually not much further along. Hardly any steps have been taken in this matter over the past few years. We always receive the same answers: the investigations and screenings are underway. I understand the criticism from those involved regarding the Flemish Government's working methods, because it all takes far too long.
Just a quick note regarding the criticism they are raising: Minister, do you acknowledge that there is a shocking lack of knowledge and expertise concerning this entire issue? How are you going to tackle this? Will the parties involved be more involved? Does the interest group also have a voice? Will they be involved in this entire dossier, in the entire process?
Minister Gennez has the floor.
Minister Caroline Gennez
Thank you, colleagues. Collaborating with the other levels? Yes. I have an appointment with my Walloon colleague soon, this month I think, to discuss that.
Regarding the investigators and the rollout: the search was first conducted in those countries for which the VCA has received the most reports. These are Belgium, India, Ethiopia, South Korea, and Rwanda. Someone has indeed already been appointed for Belgium. The screening in India, Ethiopia, and Rwanda is virtually complete. For the remaining countries, the ambition is to screen and appoint the other investigators in 2026. As soon as a specific investigator is selected, all involved reporters will be notified and given another opportunity to decide whether to proceed with the investigation of their individual case or to stop. I naturally believe it is good that people are given the opportunity to decide, as it always concerns individual information.
The interest groups will be invited in any case, colleague Wouters. We remain in dialogue with them. The investigation is always conducted individually. A whistleblower receives that information directly and alone, unless criminal offenses are involved. In that case, we naturally forward it to the Public Prosecutor's Office. We have already made agreements with the Ministry of Justice to that effect. In that sense, I believe we cover the entire process. The fact that we might not be able to do this as quickly as desired is sometimes frustrating in politics, certainly in such human and sometimes tragic cases, but I consider caution to be very important here, as well as the selection of the right investigators and the right services to work with. That does require some prudence. But work is continuing, also within the VCA. We want to be able to effectively appoint more investigators as soon as possible.
Mrs. Perdaens has the floor.
Thank you, Minister.
You have not answered that detail, 20 versus 31 countries. But I will inquire about that in writing during the follow-up.
Colleagues, I think that we are handling matters differently today than yesterday, and that is a good thing. That we might handle them in yet another way tomorrow, and that we dare to recalibrate, is also a very good thing, I think. But the working method of the past, the approach to matters, naturally has an impact today. For it is affected families and children who today need support, information, and feedback. I am fully convinced, Minister, that this is being done with great care and with the necessary time and attention. After all, this concerns people and not files, and that is a point of attention that we really must not lose sight of.
Mrs. Wouters has the floor.
Thank you, Minister.
I certainly do not wish to insinuate that every adoption in the past was problematic, as there are indeed some very beautiful stories. However, today it must be honestly stated that there is no guarantee whatsoever that intercountry adoption proceeds in a correct and ethical manner. As long as the government cannot provide that certainty, it fails in its core task, which is protecting our children. For our party, the best interests and safety of the child must always take precedence, always. This leaves no room for doubt or half measures. A system that cannot be monitored to the point of water cannot be continued.
Minister, finally take your responsibility and put an end to intercountry adoption. This requires great political courage, but children's rights are not experiments and must never depend on trust in a failing system.
– Freya Perdaens acts as chairperson.
The requests for explanation have been dealt with.