Report of the meeting of the Committee on Welfare, Public Health, Family, Poverty Reduction and Equal Opportunities
Report
And now we are starting the 'Vaneeckhout Commission'.
Mr. Vaneeckhout has the floor.
Thank you, Chair. I was afraid I would have to hear this, but you are right. I will not make the introductions unnecessarily long, so things can proceed more smoothly. And thank you for rearranging the schedule.
Minister, we have often discussed the future of transnational adoption over the past few months, but we are of course aware that, as Flanders and as Belgium, we still have to deal with the not always clean past surrounding transnational adoption. It is in this light that Minister Crevits launched a call at the end of 2023 allowing all adoptees who suspected irregularities to report them to the Flemish Centre for Adoption (VCA). 241 people responded to this invitation. The VCA was tasked with investigating these reports.
In recent weeks, some investigative journalism appeared in Apache indicating that the VCA's investigations do not always appear to be conducted with full independence. The adoption field in Flanders is historically a small world, with many people who know each other and a risk of cliques. In many cases, the VCA staff tasked with investigating the reports know the responsible individuals at the adoption agencies accused of irregularities, such as the former director of an officially recognized adoption agency who allegedly actively participated in illegally smuggling newborns across the border. I say all this in the conditional tense, but it is of course something that can be problematic both in terms of content and experience, and we see that in that article as well.
One of the people who responded to Minister Crevits’ call phrased it as follows: “When I see the attitude of the VCA staff, I get the impression that everyone is shielding Adoptiehuis. The VCA was supposed to verify all those adoptions in the 1990s, which they never actually did. Afterwards, the people responsible were given even more important positions in Flemish adoption organizations. It would be a double admission of guilt if they were to allow my adoption to be labeled as problematic or illegal.” This story specifically concerned a young Flemish mother who secretly went to France in the late 1990s to give birth, after which her daughter was smuggled back to Belgium for adoption. But there are just as many stories about transnational adoption.
The VCA indeed has a dual role: they are the client for the research, but since 1989, as an agency, they have also been ultimately responsible for the adoptions. To objectify the matter, the VCA sought independent experts to advise them on the investigation into the historical abuses. But – and this is surely the ultimate warning signal for this question – three of these academics have already withdrawn because they lacked sufficient confidence in the methodology. After all, they would primarily have to oversee the investigations of International Social Service (ISS), the international organization designated by the VCA to conduct the international fieldwork. The academics would be allowed to take a non-binding look at it, but not to communicate about it further. The choice of ISS proved not to be without controversy. The international adoption field remains a small world, too. For instance, ISS was involved in dubious adoption stories originating from South Korea, among others.
We are asking our questions with a view to the proper substantive conduct of those investigations, as well as for a sense of recognition and appreciation, and to seeing the victims of problematic adoptions, who surely must also be treated properly throughout that investigation.
How do you view the articles that appeared on Apache?
Do you acknowledge that the VCA might not be the most ideal partner for investigating past malpractices?
How are you responding to the withdrawal of the invited academics? Who is now overseeing the input from ISS?
What exactly is the role of the ISS?
How will you guarantee that the investigation into the historical abuses is conducted as thoroughly and objectively as possible?
How will you ensure that the hint of cliqueiness does not cast a shadow over the results of the investigation?
Minister Gennez has the floor.
Minister Caroline Gennez
First and foremost: adoption is always a highly sensitive topic. Up until now, we have all been able to conduct a serene debate on this, and have already cleared historic hurdles in the sense that we will indeed phase out intercountry adoption. Up until now, we have always discussed the issue with nuance and serenity.
Adoption carries an exceptionally high level of societal sensitivity. This operates on various levels that sometimes reinforce each other. It concerns different target groups, with diverse perspectives, experiences, and emotional loads. In that regard, I find it difficult to focus solely on media attention, but in response to your specific questions, I wish to clearly outline the process we have followed so far, precisely because of that complex history and those different perspectives.
The new adoption decree we are currently working on to phase out intercountry adoption goes hand in hand with a joint preliminary process with foster care, and maps out what Flanders can do to provide better aftercare. That is the entire process, and naturally, that aftercare also includes research into what has historically happened.
Within all these reforms, we naturally pay primary attention to the perspective of those involved, not least that of the adopted person themselves.
Structural research into historical abuses—at the macro level, that is—is conducted at the federal level. Flanders is involved in this through the VCA. They provide full access to the archives. Moreover, from Flanders, we have ensured that not only abuses in intercountry adoption but also in domestic adoption are included in the scope of the federal investigation.
Then there are the individual investigations. That is something we do specifically in Flanders and that actually does not exist anywhere else. Your specific questions mainly concern that. The decision to allow adoptees to report if they suspect irregularities in their adoption file was a decision made by my predecessor in the previous Flemish Government. I considered that a good decision. There were reasons for it, too. Many adoptees, adoptive parents, and first parents had questions. I recall that the immediate trigger was abuses in Ethiopia. My colleague Crevits said at the time: “Go ahead and report it.”
But of course, there are many more countries where problematic adoptions have occurred, and there is the domestic sphere. That is why the scope is now very broad. The investigations must be set up with great caution, for the reasons you gave. The adoption world is a small world, both here and internationally. Naturally, you also need a government that acknowledges its own historical responsibility. I am glad that the Flemish government is such a government. In that sense, that hurdle has also been cleared. There are, of course, many perspectives, namely the adoptive parents, the first parents, and the adopted person themselves. All those stakeholders are asking for a government that takes responsibility.
In addition to the limited number of players, there is another difficulty. Historically, you are dealing with states—to put it mildly—that are very reluctant to share information or where no information is available anymore. Some of those states are only willing to share information with other governments anyway, so not with organization x, y, or z. If information exists at all, and if certain countries of origin are willing to share information, it is only with services representing our government. Contacts with embassies are also necessary. That is also at the federal level, but we work with them from the VCA. We also see that, to this day, adoptees seeking information themselves are being exploited through unorganized channels. Here too, we try to filter out exorbitant prices and all kinds of commercial practices that sometimes drive people to their wits' end in their search.
For numerous reasons, the government therefore chose during the previous legislative period to take charge and responsibility for the conduct of individual investigations itself. This approach, involving a central authority, is also common internationally. I acknowledge that adoptees may rightly be critical of this, for while it is true that the government plays a role in the investigation into malpractice, that same government may have been involved in the adoptions themselves. You know that the VCA has been responsible for adoptions since 2005, but among the people who have come forward with an individual file, many were adopted before 2005.
How does such an individual investigation proceed? The VCA does not conduct investigations itself. This is important, also to refute the insinuation made by the VCA as judge and party.
What does the VCA do? They appoint the investigators. The appointment of these investigators is always within the framework of a public contract. The VCA itself does not select which files are investigated. Nor is there any direction from the VCA regarding what needs to be checked. It is the whistleblowers themselves who determine what they want investigated and which documents are submitted to the investigator, who operates independently. They are masters of their own files. For each file in the investigation, a standardized report is produced and delivered directly to the whistleblowers by the investigators. For each country of origin, an independent, professional partner is appointed on-site to conduct the investigation. Even there, colleague Vaneeckhout, it is not easy to find that reliable and independent partner, but we do our utmost to ensure both speed in the investigations and obtaining reliable information.
In the past, it was also decided to engage an additional review panel. That panel would review the assessment reports and pay extra attention to potential bias when a local ISS partner also participated in the screening procedure. We observed there that the frameworks to which the government is bound, such as privacy regulations and public procurement rules regarding the appointment of research partners, have not always been able to facilitate good cooperation.
We must ensure that this trust is complete. We rely on individual researchers, who are masters of their own individual files, and partners who are as reliable as possible, with a government that facilitates without directly intervening in that research.
I consider the independent positioning regarding the research partners important, just like many of the people quoted in Apache. The field of work surrounding intercountry adoption is, as mentioned, small, but the challenge lies in the search for reliable partners with sufficient field knowledge and as little historical involvement with adoptions as possible. In any case, the essential condition is always that the research partners must never have been involved with the individual files in the past. That seems quite self-evident to me.
Now, regarding the questions about ISS. We have discussed this before. ISS does not investigate individual cases. However, they do screen candidate investigators for every country of origin where suspicions of malpractice have been reported. These can be organizations, but also professionals with a background in child protection, adoption, or the broader field of children's and women's rights. ISS screens these candidates based on their expertise and approach. The screening criteria were determined in advance and coordinated with adoptees who have also reported individual cases. After the screening, the VCA decides, based on the ISS report, which investigator is appointed for a specific country of origin. Until further notice, I believe this is the case for three countries.
The choice of ISS, on the other hand, is the result of a public tender. In addition to the ISS candidacy, the VCA received one other candidacy. That was the candidacy of Child Identity Protection (CHIP), a relatively young organization. Substantively, their dossier was also solid, but CHIP requested a much higher price for the same service. There were only two candidates. We therefore chose the one that could provide a comparable service most effectively in terms of price.
We see that today, colleague Vaneeckhout, we have received 250 reports from individual candidates. A limited number of these reports concern adoptions from after 2005, namely fifteen. The other 235 are from before the establishment of the VCA. If those involved have doubts or concerns regarding the approach to their own investigation, I urge them to report this, not only to the VCA, but also to the Opgroeipunt of Opgroeien, which is independent.
Naturally, colleague Vaneeckhout, we see a lot of emotion in articles of that kind. Some perceive distrust in the government that played a role in adoption. Others say that they do need a government that takes action and assumes responsibility. We are therefore truly seeking a balance and a good middle ground here, so that alongside mapping out the structural abuses of the past—in which we, from Flanders, are fully cooperating with the federal investigation—we can conduct our individual investigations in Flanders with care, with the VCA always assisting in the coordination or direction. Here, too, we want independence to be guaranteed, both to obtain information and to be able to judge with all wisdom, especially to provide the individual victims or adoptees and their context with the correct information.
We regret that some researchers have dropped out. However, it is absolutely important to remain correct in stating that if people were asked, for privacy reasons, to share the information with the individual submitters involved in the first instance, nothing prevents them from sharing, in the second instance, all information that can be made public while respecting privacy. That is also permitted.
So, I think we are working here in a complex context with a great deal of care. We also hear from many people who say that they have been helped on their way in a very respectful, correct, and proper manner. We also see a number of other people who would prefer to take a more proactive approach themselves. But I think we are trying to bring clarity to individual cases here in a good way. We do this with respect for the privacy and rights of all involved.
Mr. Vaneeckhout has the floor.
Thank you, Minister, for the answer.
Just to be clear: I do indeed want to maintain serenity regarding this. I have done so over the past few months and have no intention of changing that now.
It is, of course, important that we acknowledge that this concerns people who, even in the initial phase, have at least suspicions that they have been deceived by the government, or that things did not proceed as they should have in a process that was being monitored by the government at the time. It is therefore important that we do everything we can to strike that difficult balance. I understand the balance you are seeking and that the services are seeking. I also understand that, in this context, it is logical for the government itself to assume a central or coordinating role.
The question is, of course, at the organizational level, whether the VCA is best placed. Based on their expertise, you would naturally say immediately that it is. But based on history, you would say that perhaps another government body would have been better designated for this, such as another department within Opgroeien, an ad-hoc department established to do so.
You have the discussion about the VCA organization, but you also have the discussion about the role of individual employees. I think that is where it becomes even more complex. I don't have any names, so naturally I don't want to... I am not speaking about one individual person here. But if there are people who, over the past thirty or forty years, have played roles in their professional careers at Adoptiehuis or other adoption partners in the field – even when it was still a federal responsibility – who ended up at the VCA at some point, and who are now, twenty or thirty years later, becoming jointly responsible for coordinating that research, then that really needs to be given attention. It may be that this is not the case. If so, I would like to hear that as well. That is a follow-up question. For those watching: I see someone from the cabinet shaking their head. If that is the case, I think that really needs to be given attention.
I think it is very important now, Minister, during this interim phase, that you examine whether adjustments need to be made, but also that you indicate the following very clearly: if people feel that something is not being handled as it should be, there is a place they can turn to that is not the VCA. You just mentioned the Opgroeien reporting point yourself. Perhaps this should also be communicated more actively to people who have filed a report: if things are not going according to your expectations or as you had assessed, there is a place you can go to report this that has nothing to do with the VCA or ISS.
Otherwise, it will end with everything going to the Flemish Ombudsman, and in my opinion, that is not a preferable scenario. Then we are one step further down the line. I think it would be better for us as a government to proactively indicate that there are potential risks involved, both in the facts and perhaps in the perception. We must therefore provide an option to deviate slightly from the VCA guidelines.
Mrs. Perdaens has the floor.
Minister, as you indicated yourself, the number of people involved in adoptions forms a small circle. The chance that people will run into each other again is almost unavoidable. It is a very good thing that this investigation is taking place now. It must be done very thoroughly. It is important for everyone involved. It removes questions from those involved. It can offer reassurance. I can imagine that there are quite a few questions to which the answer is reassuring, and that the very fact that you do not know is what causes that anxiety.
It is important that we safeguard that nuance and serenity, as the colleague mentioned, just as we do the caution with which these investigations are conducted. We are dealing with personal stories, with very sensitive stories, in which people are understandably concerned about their case file, regardless of where they are in the story—whether you are adopted, a prospective parent, or a biological parent. I can certainly imagine that you are worried about how things turned out.
During the conduct of those investigations, we must be careful to avoid secondary victimization if the investigations are carried out carelessly or if people feel that something is not being fully investigated. In that sense, I wonder how people who ask questions are treated, either because of such articles or as a result of them. People who therefore ask questions about the role of the VCA: in what way are their concerns allayed?
Mrs. Wouters has the floor.
Minister, the Apache investigation published last week is particularly disturbing. Not only because illegal practices from the past are being exposed once again, but above all because serious questions are raised about the way Flanders is handling these files today. Those questions are justified, Minister. I also find your response to the articles somewhat meager. Especially when I think of the adoptees involved, who might be listening right now, Minister. They have lost their trust.
We all know that the VCA has quite a few core tasks. They do work with partners, but ultimately they are always the ones with final responsibility. It is indeed true that it is a case of 'it's a small world'.
We can also deduce this from their 2025 annual report. I will give one example. In the spring of 2024, the VCA will launch a support team to finalize the process for the eighty prospective adoptive parents who had previously entered into a mediation agreement with an international adoption agency. That support team has a function similar to that of the former international adoption agencies. That team is composed of – listen carefully, colleagues – the employees of the former international adoption agencies. So, essentially, everything remained the same. The only difference was that the child was given a different name.
The people who were jointly responsible for the illegal files from the past now work for the VCA. I could give a few more examples from the annual report about which I have serious questions. But unfortunately, I don't have time here.
Minister, today is not just about historical mistakes. This is about the credibility of current policy. When adoptees indicate that they no longer have confidence in the research organized by the Flemish government, you cannot dismiss this as mere perception. That is an alarm signal.
Therefore, I ask very clearly: are you willing to have the handling of the 250 reports reviewed so that adoptees can regain confidence in the investigation? And if that confidence can no longer be restored within the current structure, are you willing to entrust the entire investigation to an independent body that is completely separate from the historical adoption sector? And then I have one more important question: will you finally conduct a thorough review of the functioning of the VCA?
Mrs. Van Havere has the floor.
Thank you, colleagues. I would like to briefly underscore the following once again. Minister, you started by emphasizing the sensitivity and complexity, and with Vooruit we wish to reaffirm that. I hear this from most colleagues here as well: this dossier requires nuance and a serene debate. Those listening have a message for this serenity. They have a message for a minister who calmly explains how things are progressing, what has happened, and what has been undertaken, precisely to make a distinction between, on the one hand, the investigation team into the malpractice – how that came about – and, on the other hand, who is very open and transparent regarding the tendering process, and where it unfolded a little differently than we had hoped.
I think it is good that we continue doing things this way, and that we do not suddenly adjust and change everything because of a media article, but rather that we give people confidence and say that we will step up when necessary, but that at this moment, in full transparency, we see how things are unfolding. It is unfolding as it is right now. We also have an example from Ethiopia where a case is being referred to the public prosecutor's office. That is a good thing; the system is functioning. And that is what matters.
In the meantime, steps have also been taken regarding intercountry adoption. I do indeed think that we are learning lessons, that we are moving forward. Of course, it remains very emotional for everyone involved. People are searching for truth, for recognition. We must be able to provide that, if necessary.
Minister Gennez has the floor.
Minister Caroline Gennez
Thank you, colleagues, also for the nuance.
I am somewhat concerned about the insinuations directed at the VCA, given that there have already been two audits, including one by Audit Flanders. Both have revealed that the VCA acts correctly and in accordance with all procedures, and that individual files are handled with the utmost care. And once again, colleagues, they are not investigators. They facilitate independent investigations by partners, who are appointed based on their expertise—to date, in three countries: Belgium itself, Ethiopia, and India. However, the scope of this naturally extends to many more countries, and we must not call into question the credibility of those assignments. Of course, there are people who feel emotionally unheard, but there are also many adoptees who do feel that their cases have been handled correctly.
The VCA is an involved party as a service – not with individual people but as a service – in fifteen cases that have been reported individually since 2005. The 235 others are in any case from before the time of the VCA. We do indeed have one service within Flanders that has expertise in the field of intercountry adoption, and they coordinate.
That being said, I am sensitive to potential criticism that one cannot be both judge and party at the same time. We are looking for a way for people who feel they have not been treated properly, or that their privacy is not sufficiently protected, to immediately turn to an independent party—not the VCA, but Opgroeipunt. In the past, two cases have already been reported and investigated by Opgroeipunt. Those, too, remained without consequence.
We work here with the utmost care and caution, respecting the privacy of those involved—mostly adoptees, but also parents, adoptive parents, first parents, and so on. We sometimes have to reconstruct information that is decades old, dealing with government bodies that are not always reliable and that do not share information with non-governmental organizations. Therefore, we seek the best possible method of working here, and we are absolutely transparent in everything, regarding every individual file and the parties involved. Structurally, historical abuses must be thoroughly investigated. Naturally, we will cooperate in this in every possible way.
I consider it particularly important, colleagues, that we have all agreed across the board here to phase out intercountry adoption – again, with great care – and that our focus in the future can shift even more towards the aftercare of all those involved.
Mr. Vaneeckhout has the floor.
Thank you, Minister, for the answer. You have, of course, not fully clarified that there are no employees involved in the VCA who have historically played a role in adoption files. I can see it in your employee, but I do not know if you wouldn't just simply...
Minister Caroline Gennez
There are no employees who were historically involved in the files currently involved in the follow-up. That is what has been confirmed to me, and I have no reason to doubt it.
Thank you for that confirmation. I prefer it verbally rather than having to refer to it myself. I think that is important.
I fully support – and I think this has become clear over the past few months – the debate surrounding nuance and serenity. But that, of course, should not prevent us from saying that people who have already suffered trauma over the past twenty years due to the actions of the government, whether formerly federal or currently Flemish, and who wish to have this investigated, have every right to ask questions about how things work and how we are making adjustments.
I am pleased, Minister, that you continue to look for ways to potentially make adjustments. To me, Opgroeipunt may well need additional communication—public, whether targeted or broader—to people who have filed reports. If they have questions, they can go there to a place where they will not encounter people who have played a different role in the adoption field in the past. That might also provide some reassurance and give that criticism a place.
We must also point out that well-founded matters are being monitored. We all know, of course, that it is simply very difficult to place every trauma exactly where it occurred retroactively at an individual level. But we must at least demonstrate that the quality of government services, meanwhile, twenty years later, is significantly higher than it was twenty years ago. That is not the sentiment currently held by a group of adopted children and other stakeholders. Thank you.
The request for explanation has been dealt with.