Full text in Romanian: Romania Libera

“The law of the European Union, imposes as the basic law of all adoptions from EU Member States – the United Nations Convention, and ” vehemently” excludes the Hague Convention, even though it has been ratified by all EU Member States.

Free Romania studied the two Conventions before addressing the officials of the European Commission, the difference is huge, the two being absolutely “incompatible” from two essential elements:

a) The United Nations Convention excludes the “international adoption” variant, being almost impossible to approve adoptions even outside the Member State where the child lives. Article 21: (b) States recognize that international adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child care, if the child cannot be placed in an adoptive family or foster care (Foster) or cannot be cared for in any appropriate way in the country of origin of the child; The best interests of the child are thus defined. According to this article, Sorina’s adoption is illegal, the girl can never be taken from the family of foster parents.

b) The Hague Convention is for the child’s interest in having a family, a guide adopted in 2013 about “Cooperation on cross-border adoption / introduction:” The Convention recognises that growing up in a family is of paramount importance and is essential for the happiness and healthy development of the child. – The Hague Convention is practically in line with Article 21 (b) mentioned above, not permitted by the United Nations Convention and, as will be revealed below, confirmed by a wikileaks cable.

a)  The United Nations Convention  defines intermediation with the payment of adoption agencies as trafficking in children. “Protocol signed and ratified by resolution A / RES / 54/263 of 25 May 2000 with effect on 18 January 2002: Article 2: (a)“Sale of children” means any act or operation by which a child is transferred by any person or group of persons to another in exchange for remuneration or any other benefit.”

B)   The Hague Convention is completely the opposed : Payment of to private bodies, article 32: (2) Only costs and expenses, including reasonable professional fees of the persons involved in adoption, may be charged or paid
(3) The directors, administrators and employees of the bodies involved in an adoption shall not receive remuneration which is unreasonably high in relation to the services provided

Romania has defrauded the European Commission, ignoring the possible consequences and giving the coup in the Ciolos Government (2015-2016) 

Background: A huge scandal in the European Parliament but also in the European Commission was triggered, in 2004, after it was found that the  (compulsory) community law for Romania, was “the United Nations Convention accidentally deleted, and replaced by the” American “:” The Hague Convention!”, the United Nations Convention being repealed,  the Hague Convention being deleted. 

In 2012, a second time this happened with the support and participation of the same people, Margarete Tuite, European coordinator for children’s rights, who
in 2013, in a “humiliating” interview, admitted that she was the one who deleted the United Nations Convention but immediately repaired the mistake.

Video Here

The Cable published by Wikileaks between the State Department and the European Commission, June 4, 2010, confirming the United Nations Convention.

here in the original wikileaks version

“Dear Mr. Secretary of State,

Thank you for your letter of 4 May 2004 on the issue of intercountry adoptions from Romania.

I would like to clarify that the European Commission is not against intercountry adoption as such. However, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child foresees that inter-country adoption may be considered only if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin. This “last resort” provision is consonant with the provision in the UN convention that refers to the “desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.”

All Member States of the EU have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and therefore should respect the above-mentioned principles. Therefore the Commission considers that the moratorium on intercountry adoptions is necessary as long as no legislation is in force that fully complies with this convention, and as long as no administrative capacity exists to implement this legislation.

It is shown in the letter sent by the Commissioner for Enlargement, Gunter Verheugen, on June 4, 2004.

He further states that: Our primordial focus must be on getting the system of childcare in Romania right so that we get tot he usual situation in the Member States of the EU where international adoptions are the exception. Therefore, the EU has supported Romania in its efforts to improve the quality of public care for children. This meant that large residential establishments were closed down and replaced with a selection of child protection alternatives ranging from smaller homes and foster care to day-care centres. Of course there remains work to be done, but Romania surely has come a long way in resolving the issue of children in public care. 

12 September 2019

A special Cabinet meeting at State House, Nairobi chaired by President Uhuru Kenyatta and attended by Deputy President William Ruto also directed the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection to formulate a new policy document to regulate the adoption of children by foreign nationals in Kenya/PSCU
NAIROBI, Kenya Sep 12 – The Cabinet has announced an immediate ban on adoption of children by foreign nationals.

A special Cabinet meeting at State House, Nairobi chaired by President Uhuru Kenyatta and attended by Deputy President William Ruto also directed the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection to formulate a new policy document to regulate the adoption of children by foreign nationals in Kenya.

The meeting also directed the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection to streamline operations of the Child Welfare Society of Kenya and those of children homes in the country.

On infrastructure, the Cabinet approved Kshs 6.9 billion for the development of an Inland Container Depot, Railway Marshalling Yard, Logistics Zone and Public Utility Area as well as other core enabling infrastructure to support the development of the Naivasha Special Economic Zone and the impending completion of Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) phase 2A.

The Cabinet also approved the hosting of the upcoming Nairobi Summit of the 25th International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD 25).

The summit that will be held from 12th to 14th November 2019 is expected to attract over 6,000 delegates from 179 countries. The summit is set to project a positive image and solidify the country’s position as an ideal conference and aviation hub, a move that will boost Kenya’s tourism sector.

Google translation

The court wants to bring seven civil servants to court because they are allegedly involved in a large-scale fraud with Congolese adopted children. That reports Het Nieuwsblad.
14 September 2019

With eight, they are the suspects of large-scale adoption fraud with Congolese ‘orphans’ who the federal public prosecutor wants to drag for a criminal court. According to the newspaper, in addition to pivotal figure Julienne Mpemba – for many years at the head of the orphanage in Kinshasa – it would be about seven people who were or were employed by the French Community.

All eight, according to a reliable source, received a letter from the federal public prosecutor in the last few days stating that they are officially suspected of being involved in Congolese adoption fraud. Specifically, they are accused of having looked the other way when it came to light that for years they were cheating with birth dates and pictures of children who, moreover, turned out to be no orphans at all.

The pivotal figure was Julienne Mpemba, a Walloon Congolese lawyer who participated in the European parliamentary elections for the PS in 2014. It is said she has coordinated the child trafficking. All eight will soon appear before the council chamber, which decides whether or not they have to appear before a criminal court.

Source: Libelle
The Romanian Somna (21) was less than 3 years old when she was adopted. In the Spoorloos program, she goes to search her biological mother together with presenter Derek Bolt.

The 21-year-old Somna was a toddler of almost 3 years old when she was adopted from Romania by her Dutch parents Hans and Ritam.

Happy childhood
Somna had a fantastic childhood in the Netherlands. Her adoptive parents did many nice things with her and her brother. Yet her behaviour changed as she grew older. She found it increasingly difficult to attach herself to her Dutch parents because she had little faith in people.

Divorce
Somna mainly opposed her adoptive mother Ritam and it went from bad to worse. A divorce followed, the children continued to live with their father. The situation got completely out of hand and both Somna and her brother were placed out of the house.

Looking
Fortunately, Somna can now get along well with her parents. She does admit to wanting to meet her biological mother in Romania, so she calls in the help of presenter Derek Bolt.

Without permission
During the search for her biological mother, it becomes clear that she was given away without permission. Her mother did not want to give Somna up for adoption. The family has been looking for the little girl for a long time.

Loving reunification
Ana Bot, the mother of Somna, is still devastated by this and thinks it is fantastic that Somna now wants to visit her mother. “I am very happy,” says Ana. Not much later mother and daughter meet. Somna’s father is also present. In short: a beautiful, loving reunification.

Full of emotion
Viewers are deeply impressed and say they cannot keep it dry. “What a story, so full of emotion. How is it possible that a child is simply given away without the parents knowing? Heavy heart”, a viewer writes on Twitter.

Sandra@75_Sandra

What a sadness #spoorloos

22:09 – 16 sep. 2019

Wedderplase@Wedderplase

What a story, so full emotions. How is it possible that a child is given away without her parents knowing.

Heavy heart #spoorloos #Somna

22:07 – 16 sep. 2019

Saskia Schuuring @saskiatijgertje

Pfffff heavy story about Somna, no wonder that the child completely panicked when she was taken away by her adoptive parents, she knew she had a mama and papa, she was in fact kidnapped. How very sad #spoorloos

22:07 – 16 sep. 2019

Sebastiaan@sj_dk

Call me weak,  but I am not keeping it dry with such a story. #spoorloos

22:06 – 16 sep. 2019

Roelie Post@roelie_post

I am in tears. #Spoorloos. I was at that childrens’ home in, I think, 2000. A real babyshop. #adoptie #kinderhandel

23:08 – 16 sep. 2019

renaehs.no@RenaeHsNo

I want to find like Somna my bio parents, brothers and sisters back… #spoorloos #antiadoptie Straks NPO2 #nieuwlicht #stopinternationaleadoptie #humantrafficking #illegaladoption

22:10 – 16 sep. 2019

Vivek Narayanan CHENNAI, NOVEMBER 24, 2019

David Nielsen meeting his mother Dhanalakshmi at her house in Chennai. Photo: Special Arrangement

David Nielsen meeting his mother Dhanalakshmi at her house in Chennai. Photo: Special Arrangement

Dogged, transcontinental quest ends in sweet reunion.
A cup of mother’s sweet kesari and hot coffee is joy. For David Kildendal Nielsen, it was special. He was reunited with his biological mother at her house in Manali, Chennai, on Saturday after a staggering 40 years.

Mr. Nielsen, who lives in Denmark and was originally named Shantakumar, was born on January 25, 1978, to Dhanalakshmi and Kaliamoorthy of Washermanpet. After her husband deserted her, Ms. Dhanalakshmi and her two children — Mr. Nielsen and his brother Manuel Rajan — took refuge at a charitable home in Pallavaram in November that year.

Loses contact
However, Ms. Dhanalakshmi was asked to vacate after a year, as the orphanage claimed her presence was making other children homesick. She would then visit her children often. But one day they were gone. The management told her that they were sent abroad so that they could lead a better life. She did not know that they had been given in adoption. After some months, her husband returned, and the couple had a third child.

“This time Dhanalakshmi did not allow him to hand over the child to anyone. But the husband went missing again,” said Anjali Pawar from Netherlands-based NGO Against Child Trafficking, who along with her colleague Arun Dohle helped Mr. Nielsen trace his mother.

It was only in February 2013 that Mr. Nielsen came across documents and found he had a brother named Manuel Rajan, who was also given in adoption in Denmark.

“He traced him and took a DNA test, which confirmed they were siblings,” Ms. Pawar said.

Overcome by a desire to find his biological parents, he launched a search in Chennai. Articles about him in the media caught the eye of the wife and daughter of the pastor at the Pallavaram orphanage and they sent him a picture of Ms. Dhanalakshmi.

Armed with the old picture, Mr. Nielsen kept looking. He put up posters, hoping that his mother would see them.

TV programme helps
The breakthrough came when Ms. Dhanalakshmi’s relatives saw a television programme on Mr. Nielsen’s quest a few weeks ago, and contacted him. Soon, mother and son spoke on a video call.

“When I met her on Saturday, she hugged me. My joy knew no bounds. The only problem was the language barrier,” said Mr. Nielsen. He presented her an album with his photographs from childhood. “I wanted her to know about every stage of my life,” he said.

Mr. Nielsen is sure that Ms. Dhanalakshmi is his mother, although a DNA test is being done to confirm it.

Source:  AFP
November 25, 2019

Demonstrations in the streets of Port-au-Prince in March 2019, demanding the removal of Haitian President Jovenel Moise (AFP Photo/Valerie Baeriswyl)

The country’s only international adoption agency has so far stopped bringing in new adopters.

The adoption agency DIA no longer takes in adopters from year-end. (© (c) DR)
BY EMIL SØNDERGÅRD INGVORSEN
PM. 7.10

There are major financial problems for Danish International Adoption (DIA), and things are only likely to get worse next year.

Therefore, the DIA, the country’s only international adoption agency, has decided that as of the turn of the year, new entrants will no longer be admitted.

DIA
DIA is an independent, self-owned institution accredited by the Ministry of Social Affairs. DIA was created through a merger in January 2015 by the two intermediary organizations AC Børnehjelp and DanAdopt.

They mediate adoptions from Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Colombia, the Philippines, India, China, Madagascar, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, the Czech Republic and Vietnam.

Source: DIA.

It writes the organization on its website.

– The background is the lack of financial certainty that the DIA can bring the cases of new adopters to an end. The Board of Directors can therefore no longer assume the responsibility of bringing in new adopters, according to a news signed by Lars Ellegaard, Chairman of the Board.

The economic problems are due to the fact that the number of international adoptions in Denmark has dropped drastically over the past ten years and significantly fewer are approved for adoption.

Predicts major deficits
It also led the DIA in March to inform its families in the adoption program that they were in money trouble and that the process could become more expensive and longer.

Now they have made the decision that they will not be able to financially take in more adopters.

– When we choose to stop accepting new applicants, this is one and only because, as the Board of Directors, we do not think it would be right to initiate an adoption process that we do not have a legitimate expectation to implement, reads the letter from the DIA Chairman of the Board, who writes further:

– And as the economic outlook looks after 2020, we can foresee a larger deficit. That is why we unfortunately had to make the decision to stop registering new applicants.

The organization had 200 active cases by the end of 2018.

Source:  committeeinvestigatingintercountryadoption.nl

Come clean and prevent problems in the future

(By Henri Kruithof)

In April of this year, Minister Sander Dekker (Legal Protection) set up the Committee Investigating Intercountry Adoption in the past. According to the institutional decision, that committee must, among other things, investigate the existence of abuses in intercountry adoption and the role of the Netherlands government and intermediary parties in those abuses.

What was the reason for setting up the committee?

“During an internal archive investigation at the Ministry of Justice and Security, following a request under the Freedom of Information Act, things had come to light that raised the question:” Is this correct? ” When the minister was confronted with this question, he immediately decided that a completely independent investigation should be carried out. He thought it would be good to come clean, “says committee chairman. Tjibbe H.J. Joustra.

“When the minister asked me to lead this investigation, he indicated that the investigation really had to be independent. I myself had never been concerned with adoption and that is good for two reasons. To be independent it is good not to have been involved in the past. But on top of that, I like to tackle things that I know little about. ”

“So first it was important to find two more members for the committee, each of whom could provide input from their own perspective. I am happy that I have found Beatrice de Graaf and Bert-Jan Houtzagers willing to take a seat on the committee. Professor de Graaf is a gifted historian with extensive experience in archive research. After a long career as the State Advocate, Houtzagers is now a state council at the Council of State. ”

The committee will look at the system of intercountry adoption, not at each individual case. This does not mean that individual cases will not be dealt with.

Joustra: “We will certainly analyze individual cases of international adoption, if only to serve as an illustration of our findings from the study. But we will not offer a solution for every individual adoptioncase. ”

The committee chairman understands that for many people who have been adopted, this can be a disappointment because they have often been looking for their past for a long time. “I therefore want our report to provide tools for individuals to continue their lives. We will certainly include recommendations to the government to provide a solution for people who are struggling with their adoption history. It is an emotional subject with very different views. So we know that we have a critical audience and we are already noticing that. ”

The committee was commissioned by the minister to conduct research in at least the period 1967-1998. In 1998 the so-called Hague Adoption Convention on intercountry adoption for the Netherlands came into effect. “However, we will not limit ourselves to that period,” says Joustra. “It is true that the Convention changed and improved the situation, but that does not mean that there were no more abuses afterwards. We will therefore not stop at 1998. ”

And then the three of you sit around a table and you have to start. What are you doing then?

“Yes, what do you do,” says Joustra. “We have started archive research. Beatrice de Graaf has put forward an excellent team of researchers who deliver good, penetrating and fast work. They do research in various archives of ministries and organizations, newspapers and so on. We also study background literature. What has been written about this issue in the past? And we look at the legal framework. Which legislation applied in the course of time. The knowledge and experience of Bert-Jan Houtzagers is very useful here. In this way we try to build an image of theory and practice. ”

“We will then test that image in practice. Researchers make visits to at least two countries out of five that are in our task (Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka). They have already been to Sri Lanka and are going to Colombia soon. Archive management is complicated in those countries. But in Sri Lanka the people they spoke with were very open to the researchers, so that gives hope. ”

“Although our research primarily concerns the role and involvement of the government and the intermediary bodies, you cannot conduct that research without talking to those directly involved. So we talk with adopted parents themselves, with adoptive parents, but we will also speak with biological parents in the countries of origin, in order to form a picture that is as complete as possible. ”

“It is striking that in the past there has been a lot of attention for this issue in both the press and the House of Representatives. I did not have that sharp. In recent months I have had the impression of an extremely complex issue and very sensitive matter, with those involved sometimes very fiercely opposed. ”

And at a certain point you must write a report.

“Yes. After describing the situation as it emerged from all these investigations and discussions, we must draw conclusions and make recommendations for the future. Of course I can’t anticipate that, but there are things to note about what happened in the past, “says Joustra with a sense of understatement.

“We have to be careful that we don’t judge the past with today’s glasses. Today’s system of standards cannot just be the benchmark. It was a different period in which different standards applied. Many of the adoptions were made out of noble intentions. It was sincerely thought that it was in the best interest of the children that they would have a better future here than in the countries where they were born. But on the other hand, that cannot be an excuse for all the abuses that have been undeniable. There are universal standards that are of all times, we have to face that.”

When will you be satisfied when the report appears?

“The most important thing is that we contribute to a solution for those who have problems as a result of their adoption. I hope our report can help prevent future problems. And underlyingly, I hope the research will be recognized. That one will say: this is indeed the way it has been “.

Ten years ago, 22 December 2009, Dutch newspaper Trouw published the very first interview with Against Child Trafficking (ACT).

Set up in 2008 by Roelie Post and Arun Dohle, at the behest of the European Commission, we claimed that intercountry adoption was a legalized form of child trafficking and that we wished it to be over in five years.

ACT rapidly became the heart of knowledge of the adoption system. Combining Roelie’s knowledge with the policy-making and Arun’s experience in field research, we proofed unbeatably.

Wherever things went wrong, ACT was around: Romania, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Malawi, Congo, Uganda, South Africa, Serbia, Montenegro… We networked, connected the dots, informed the media, and the authorities. It did not make us popular with those involved in the adoption industry, but so be it.

Just four years later, in 2013, the Danish newspaper Politiken published another interview with the title “Deathly Spiral: Adoption agencies are threatened with death“.

And now, end 2019, both the Dutch and the Danish government don’t know how to continue the current intercountry adoption system. Policy evaluations, new scenarios, discussions in Parliament. And then there are the adoptees. Organized and with a loud voice they request justice and support in finding back their roots/family.

The powers that be are stepping out of the dark during this process. The adoption agencies and their allies, adoptive parents. But most of all, the international forces from organizations like International Social Services. This NGO set up after WW I to enable migration to the US, has been heavily involved in setting up the current system, and now again enters the adoption arena. Both in Denmark and The Netherlands.

But also at EU level. Last year ACT’s  Arun Dohle and European Commission whistle-blower Roelie Post were speakers at the European Parliament Intergroup on Integrity, Transparency, Corruption and Organised Crime, hosted by MEPs Ana Gomes and Dennis de Jong: Documentary film screening and debating THE TRAFFICKERS, the Dark Side of Adoption. The room was full of MEPs, their assistants, and many adoptees from all over the EU. And, the Director of International Social Services’ Headquarters in Geneva – Mia Dambach who even tried to shorten Arun Dohle’s speech. Without success though.

One needs to know, that also during the Romania time, when the EU requested Romania to stop the export of children, ISS/DCI/Unicef – in the person of Nigel Cantwell – stood diametrically opposed to the EU’s view on children’s rights.

The two positions can be summarized as:

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child v. The Hague Adoption Convention,
or
EU v. US

ACT will continue to promote the full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. To be clear, we consider the battle fought and won. The UNCRC can not be replaced with the Hague Adoption Convention. We made that abundantly clear.
Mission Accomplished.

For more details and understanding, watch the below video. Merry Christmas!

Last year ACT wrote to the Dutch Minister of Justice to inform him about the serious conflict of interest that the FIOM-ISS has regarding the roots-searches of adoptees.

Note about FIOM/ISS
15 November 2019

The Ministry of Justice considers the involvement of the FIOM in the planning of the funding for organisations which execute searches for adoptees for their families in the sending countries.

This non-exhaustive note points towards a number of conflicts of interest and other concerns.

According to the Ministry, FIOM and ISS should not be seen as one, but

• The FIOM and ISS merged in 1999.[1] Thus they cannot be at all considered to be separate.

ISS has a long history and deep involvement in intercountry adoptions.

In India for example, the ISS correspondent was ICSW who advised, since 1972, the Indian court in each individual case.[2] That means that in many of the wrongful adoptions ISS was involved as a ‘clearing house’.

In Colombia, the ISS correspondent is ICBF through which every adoption passed, and since the Hague Convention also is the central authority. ICBF/ISS was thus involved in every wrongful adoption in Colombia.

In Bangladesh, ISS was involved in setting up the adoption system. It was ISS advising the President in Bangladesh in 1972 on the adoption law. They also mediated a few adoptions themselves from Bangladesh.[3]

Moreover, ISS Netherlands was represented on the board of the state-subsidised BIA, together with representatives of the ministry of justice. [4]

Mr. Ruud Deibel was Director of the FIOM, as well as of the Board of SIA, then he worked for the Ministry of CRM and as BIA was set up he was member of the Board of BIA.[5]

The below article reconfirms this.

Source: Leidsch Dagblad | 1973 | 25 april 1973 | pagina 7

Summarising, these examples show a clear conflict of interest in involving the FIOM/ISS in anything that concerns roots searches.

Any involvement of FIOM/ISS with intercountry adoption post-adoption services and/or roots-searches would be inappropriate.

[1] See: http://issnetherlands.nl/over/achtergrond-iss/ accessed 15.11.2019

[2] Rule 316-B: “ when a foreigner makes an application for being appointed as the guardian of the person of property of a minor, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall address a letter to the Secretary of the Indian Council of Social Welfare, informing him of the presentation of the application and the date fixed for the hearing thereof. He shall also inform him that any representation which the Indian Council of Social Welfare may make in the matter would be considered by the Court before passing the order on the application”

[3] Book: „ Picking up the pieces“ Mustafa Chowdhury, 2015

[4] Justitiele Verkenning; nummer 4/1979; Adoptie van buitenlandse kinderen page 12 „.. Om deze reden wordt in mei 1975 een centraal bureau opgericht, het Bureau Interlandelijke Adoptie, afgekort `BIA’, die de bemiddelingsactiviteiten van de op dat moment bestaande verenigingen overnam. In het bestuur van het BIA zijn de verschillende ouderverenigingen vertegenwoordigd, evenals het Ministerie van Justitie, de Raden voor de Kinderbescherming, en de Stichting International Social Service, afdeling Nederland. Het BIA wordt door het Ministerie van Justitie gesubsidieerd.

[5] Page 74, footnote, Kinderen die niet konden bliven, Rene Hoksbergen, reads as follows:“…Zie Verslag 1971 en Deibel, 1991. Ruud Deibel was aanvankeliijk directeur van de FIOM en lid van het bestuur van de SIA, later werkzaam bij het ministerie van CRM en vanaf de oprichting van het BIA tot an zijn overlijden op 12 februari 1997, lid van het BIA bestuur….“

Arun Dohle

In 1973 I was adopted from India to Germany, like many of you who may read this. My views on adoption were bottom-line quite positive, just as my view on organisations involved in this, like International Social Service (ISS). Little did I know…

In 1999 I got my first access to the Internet and started searching. The Internet provided the first chance to get some information. Still little did I know…

Today we are faced with the fact that the governments of the receiving countries are funding ISS for various services. One important aspect is that ISS receives funding to assist adoptees with roots searches. They are considered the expert on whom the governments in the receiving countries rely.

In the coming weeks we will share bits and pieces about the involvement of ISS in intercountry adoptions, including their direct or indirect complicity in the trafficking of children for adoption.

I fully understand that this may be hard to believe. I could not imagine myself for many years. I thought ISS is the expert organisation who ensures ethical and legal adoptions, understands adoptees’ and children´s needs, as well as their rights.
Little did I know that ISS is not on our side.

After two decades of researching and digging into the underbelly of intercountry adoptions, I know more today. Yet it is still just a little.

However whatever little I know, I will share.

I will start with explaining how exactly ISS was involved in my own adoption, and how they failed me. This may well be exemplary for many adoptions from India, and in particular for most adoptions from Maharashtra.

Due to various adoption scandals in India adoptions had been regulated. It was the Indian correspondent of ISS, the International Council of Social Welfare (ICSW) who advised, since 1972, the Indian Courts in each and every adoption case. They served as ‘clearing house’.[1]

In my case that meant that ICSW, the Indian correspondent of ISS, advised the Indian Court that my adoption was in my best interest.

The below letter, which I got during my search, states clearly that they did not check if the obligatory relinquishment document, also called surrender document, was on file.

When, after 7 years litigation, in 2010 I finally got access to my adoption file, a relinquishment document appeared not to be on file with the orphanage.

My mother never consented to an intercountry adoption, or to changing my name and identity.  I was adopted without consent of my mother.

In my adoption no agency was involved. My adoptive parents were on a visit in India, and did not really know how to get things done. So, who did they ask for advice? The experts: ISS.

ISS was also somewhat involved in my adoption at the German side, because they gave my adoptive parents advice on how to do the legal part.

Being involved in an adoption where there is no consent of the mother is bad enough. It is something which cannot be changed anymore, and which we adoptees in the end just have to accept.

But what did this missing “surrender deed” mean for my search? It meant that it was next to impossible to find the address and full details of my mother. This is the same for many adoptees from India.

In 2002, when I started searching, I didn´t understand anything much.  I only knew that ISS was assisting adoptees with searches. So I registered and paid ISS to work on my search case.

I never got feedback on what exactly was done. Or if something had been done at all. I only was told how difficult things were etc.

So first ISS allowed the erasure of my original identity, without a surrender deed of my mother, and then essentially put me down in my own search.

In the next chapter I will explain how ISS was involved in outright trafficking of children from India.

Stay tuned!

PART 2

[1] Rule 316‐B: “ when a foreigner makes an application for being appointed as the guardian of the person of property of a minor, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall address a letter to the Secretary of the Indian Council of Social Welfare, informing him of the presentation of the application and the date fixed for the hearing thereof. He shall also inform him that any representation which the Indian Council of Social Welfare may make in the matter would be considered by the Court before passing the order on the application”

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Commissie Joustra weigerde de @2eKamertweets een interim rapport.

In plaats daarvan werd een artikel gepubliceerd op de website. Geschreven door oud VVD spindoctor Henri Kruithof #adoptie #kinderhandel
https://t.co/xGmvy2y7wj

— Roelie Post (@roelie_post) February 22, 2020

ACT’s founder and child-rights expert of ACT from 2009 till 2014 noted that the news item was written, in interview form, by a certain Henri Kruithof. She ‘googled’ and found that Mr. Kruithof longtime was the spin-doctor of the governing political party VVD.

A spin-doctor with more power than a Member of Parliament…

We got more curious since last week a second article was put on the Committee’s website.
Not signed by Kruithof, but it ‘smelled’ his hand.

ACT wrote to the Commission’s Secretariat to inquire if this was also written by Mr. Kruithof.

Reply, yes it was written by the same author.
The Secretariat, as requested, added the name to the article.

See these before and after screenshots:

ACT then wrote to the Commission’s secretariat to inquire about the relationship between the Joustra Commission. Was this a contractual relationship?

Reply: No more questions. No more statements.

Arun Dohle

Part I  International Social Service, little did I know

Little did I know, but bit by bit I got to know more:

Around 2002/2003 child trafficking for intercountry adoption got uncovered in Andhra Pradesh (India). One of the human rights defenders involved in this entered into a direct online dialogue with a group of (prospective} adoptive parents. She wanted to build a bridge and to show what really happens on the ground in contrast to what is being told by adoption agencies. I was part of that e-group too.

She uploaded the charge sheet drawn up by the police against some Indian ‘orphanages’. For example the charge sheet against Tender Loving Care Home (TLCH).

Charge Sheet TLCH

The orphanage was run by Sister Theresa Maria Katticaren from the Dutch JMJ Congregation.

Sister Theresa and others were in 2003 convicted for conspiring to procure children for intercountry adoption, to falsify relinquishment documents, and to ask for huge money.
And to not offer the children first for domestic adoption.
Child trafficking, in other words.

I quickly figured out that the German branch of International Social Service mediated at least 15 children from there.

The network was as follows. An Indian translator in Germany, Ms. Suri, had adopted from Sister Theresa and then helped others to adopt from there too. She did the whole mediation, but formally – as the use of an adoption agency is obligatory – the paperwork went through the German branch of ISS.

A little later, I figured out that there were still children in the pipeline.  ISS Germany had not formally pulled out of these adoptions. Neither had the Dutch agency Wereldkinderen (N.I.C.W.O), who also mediated from this ‘orphanage’.

I had long discussions with the director of ISS Germany. It took more than a year of talking before they pulled out of these adoptions.

One my first search cases was that of a German adoptee, Anisha.
The documentary speaks for itself: Anisha was stolen….
As does the reaction of ISS: outright denial.

We are still in contact with Fatima, the mother, and help her when needed.

By Roelie Post (guest blogger)

When in 2011/2012 the filming of Stolen Children – Intercountry Adoptions from India was ongoing on ACT’s office in Brussels, I got drawn into the details of the German/Indian trafficking case.

Arun was talking in German with the journalist, explaining to her the involvement of the German branch of International Social Services. Internationale Sozialdienst Deutscher Zweig, he called it.

Wait, where did I see that name before?

A quick look into my archives brought me to a Petition Kreuz 1999 handed in in 1999 at the European Parliament by a German citizen, a certain Gunther Kreutz.

In short, the Petitioner asked the European Parliament to allocate 5 million euros per direct agreement to the Romanian NGO Parenti si Copii (Parents and Children). That NGO was the Romanian counterpart of the German branch of ISS. The 5 million euro was meant to provide urgent humanitarian aid for the children in Romanian residential care.

It was the first time on the Romania job that I had to go to the European Parliament’s Petition Committee. My boss and I explained the Children Programme and the way it worked. There would be a tender procedure and no direct agreement. We also explained how the European Commission was dealing with the huge crises in child protection. Several Members of the European Parliament asked us questions. It was all very emotional, passionate.

In June 2001 Letter June 2001 that the Petition had received a lot of interest, that it still would be kept open, and that the Petition Committee had taken the unusual step to thank the European Commission for their endless engagement to improve the situation of the Romanian children.

So far, so good. As an official of the European Commission, it is always tricky to find your file in the attention of the European Parliament. They can make your life difficult. But hey, we were thanked!

Only later I realised that Mr. Kreutz’ Petition was an attempt to get points for adoptions – the Romanian 1997 law had created a point-system, the number of adoptable children was dependent on points which adoption agencies could get for delivering humanitarian aid, or by giving money.

If the European Commission would have given the 5 million to Parenti si Copii, then this adoption agency would have gotten a large share of Romania’s ‘adoptable’ children. Once we realised this, measures were taken to ensure that no EU funding would go to adoption agencies. We realised there needed, in general, to be a firewall between child protection and intercountry adoption agencies. Otherwise, it would be like the fox guarding the henhouse…

Fast forward.

Extract from my book Romania for Export Only, the untold story of the Romanian ‘orphans’

Tuesday, 25 February 2004

Going through the correspondence I had to reply to, I saw German families were now writing to Commissioner Verheugen. Never before had we received mail from Germans. Before 2001 Germans had adopted only a handful of children from Romania. According to Teodorescu’s 2002 report Germany had obtained one exception to the moratorium and five families were registered as prospective adopters.
Now over twenty German families had been told there was a child available for them and they had been called to Romania first week of the year. They had paid 8,000 euros as advance, half of the final costs. After they came back from Romania in January, they received a letter from their German adoption agency saying no more adoptions were allowed, no more exceptions. The adopters were told to write to Commissioner Verheugen. Pressure on Verheugen?

Going through the letters I found out that the German agencies were indeed trying to break the moratorium. They had proposed children to German families during the moratorium!

The German branch of ISS had stopped its adoption activities from Romania. I don’t know exactly why. Two small German adoption agencies took over their adoption work with Parenti si Copii: the agencies Zukunft fur Kinder and Children and Parents (CAP).

Interesting detail: the chair of CAP was Gunther Kreutz, his wife Marika his deputy.

With their letter campaign, the German agencies now wanted to convince German Commissioner Gunter Verheugen of the need to get adoptions re-opened. Prospective adoptive parents were also asked to write letters in order to put pressure.

And to coordinate with Mrs. Harvalia…
Mrs. Oana Harvalia, owner of the adoption agency Parenti si Copii.

Anyways, having analysed the matter, my bosses told me to draft a letter. The Romanian authorities needed to be informed about this. Link to full letter Annex Ref GestDem 2020 0500 (2)

The adoptions did not proceed. The new Romanian law voted in June 2004, would no longer allow adoptions by unrelated foreigners. The shop closed.
But the story wasn’t over.

Many years later I realised the powers at work. My many talks with Arun helped me to understand the German system.
Intrigued by the fact that a German citizen who hands in a Petition at the European Parliament, knowing apparently all procedures, Arun called the family Kreutz some years ago. Marika Kreutz told him that someone in the Cabinet of Martin Schulz had told her how to do it. No, she and her husband did not know Martin Schulz herself. Which is a bit hard to believe. They live in the same town, where Martin Schulz was mayor, and are members of the same political party…

We also found out that Oana Harvalia got married to a German politician: Gunter Krichbaum.
Gunther Krichbaum is the chair of the Committee on European Union Affairs of the German Bundestag since 2007

Mr. Krichbaum is close buddies with Günther Oettinger, who was the German European Commissioner for Human Resources when I got fired and ended up with debts.

In February 2016, in accordance with the Whistle-blower Guidelines, I handed in my whistleblower letter at the Cabinet of the President of the European Parliament: Martin Schulz

More will follow on the European House of Cards… or should I say House of Horror?

Stay tuned

David Crary, Ap National Writer Updated 2:40 pm CDT, Wednesday, May 6, 2020

NEW YORK (AP) — The number of foreign children adopted by U.S. parents fell by more than one-quarter last year, extending a 15-year decline, according to State Department figures released Wednesday.

Sharp drops in adoptions from China and Ethiopia more than offset increases from Ukraine, Liberia and elsewhere.

In the 2019 budget year, there were 2,971 adoptions from abroad, compared with 4,059 in 2018 and a high of 22,884 in 2004. The number has dropped every year since then, even as American families continue to account for roughly half of all international adoptions worldwide.

China, as has been the case for several years, accounted for the most children adopted by American parents. But the total of 819 was down from 1,475 in 2018 and far below a peak of 7,903 in 2005.

The State Department has attributed the steady decrease in adoptions from China to an improved Chinese economy and expansion of domestic adoption, as well as laws restricting activities by foreign adoption agencies and other nongovernmental organizations.

There were only 11 adoptions from Ethiopia last year, compared with 177 in 2018 and a high of 313 in 2017, when the African country was No. 2 on the list. Ethiopia imposed a ban on foreign adoptions in 2018, citing concerns about the well-being of adopted children and improprieties by adoption agencies.

After China, the most adoptions last year were 298 from Ukraine, an increase of 50 from 2018. There were 244 adoptions from Colombia, 241 from India, and 166 from South Korea.

Adoptions from Liberia rose from 30 to 51.

For a fifth straight year, there were no adoptions from Russia, which once accounted for hundreds of U.S. adoptions annually but imposed a ban that fully took effect in 2014. The ban served as retaliation for a U.S. law targeting alleged Russian human-rights violators.

According to the new report, 56 children were adopted from the United States to nine foreign countries, including 24 to Canada and 17 to the Netherlands.

From: ACT <info@againstchildtrafficking.org>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 at 14:41
Subject: Open letter
To: <ec-president-vdl@ec.europa.eu>

Dear President Von der Leyen,

I know that your Cabinet is treating the case of whistle-blower Roelie Post, and the child rights issue that goes with it, as a closed chapter. It is not.

Hereby I ask you to review the situation and to find a fair solution for all involved. And that includes the NGO Against Child Trafficking (ACT), which was set up at the behest of Secretary-General Catherine Day in order to temporarily second Mrs. Post there. There was no way to provide protection, Mrs. Post and I were told over and over again, when we raised concern about safety. I won’t enter into the details, which are known with your Cabinet, the Secretary-General and DG HR.

I would like to bring the following to your attention.

The reason Mrs. Post got into trouble was because of her involvement as Task Manager in the review of child rights in Romania. The European Commission, as guardian of the treaty, ruled that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was binding and that the Hague Adoption Convention was not part of the acquis communautaire. Hence intercountry adoption was barred as child protection measure and could, if all, only be the extreme exception.

Since Romania closed its business in children, Commissioner Verheugen was concerned that now the adoption agencies would move to other countries. And they did.

ACT monitored and reported about it. In 2009 we brought out the report ‘Fruits of Ethiopia’, which was in hindsight the beginning of the end of intercountry adoption from that country.

In 2010 Mrs. Post, on ARD Report from Brussels, predicted that the next hot spot would be Congo.  In 2016, during the filming of “The Traffickers”, Mrs. Post indeed could direct the filmmakers to Congo. The “Traffickers” exposed how children were taken against the will of their parents to Italy, through mediation of the EU financed agency Amici dei Bambini.

Congo, like Romania, had in the meantime put a moratorium on adoptions. The resistance of the adoption agencies was huge. This time, unlike in Romania, the EU stood at the side of the adoption lobby and pushed to get the children ‘freed’. Through access to document requests at EU-level, as well as in EU Member States, this became painfully clear.

In the meantime, there is a criminal case filed in Belgium against 14 stakeholders (including civil servants). The case started because the Congolese Dieu  Merci Kitambo filed a complaint about the illegal adoption of three children of his relatives. Mr. Kitambo had been misled by the Belgian side that the children would go on a holiday camp within the DRC, instead they were sent to Belgium.

Beginning of March the trial started. That day Mr. Kitambo received a death threat. This was made public by a Belgian journalist. I contacted the journalist and advised him to write to the EU Delegation in Kinshasa. I also wrote myself to the EU Ambassador, who himself kept me informed of the follow-up. I was informed that the Ambassador had signed the resettlement grant for the relocation of Mr. Kitambo for six months.

In light of the above it is unexplainable that the EU protects foreign citizens, but not their own staff and/or the organisation set up to fight child trafficking on behalf of the EU.

Mrs. Post has relocated. I have relocated. For reasons of security.

The financial implications, as well as non-financial, are huge. Combined now with the corona crisis, we are hitting an all-time low.

Please let us know urgently how you will use your discretionary powers to protect us appropriately and repair the damage done.

Yours sincerely,

Arun Dohle

www.againstchildtrafficking.org

May 18, 2020

The adoption of the now 28-year-old Dilani Butink from Sri Lanka was not a matter of a child in need. “It was just business,” said the woman’s lawyer in a civil case that was brought to blame the State and the Kind en Toekomst (Child and Future) adoption agency for the adoption fraud.

Butink’s Dutch adoptive parents traveled to Sri Lanka in 1992 to adopt a girl. This adoption unexpectedly fell through and after a week, Butink, then one or two days old, was suddenly offered to the couple.

Years later, the woman discovered that the paperwork was not in order. Experts have found that the signature on her birth certificate is from a different person than the signature on the relinquishment document.

The hospital where she was born according to the information provided to her did not have Butink in the birth register. “The image that arises is not that of a child in need. But that of looking for a baby for the adoptive parents. That is business,” argued the woman’s lawyer at the court in The Hague.

According to the lawyer, the adoptive parents are not to blame, because they should have assumed that the mediation was sufficiently controlled by the State. Despite several attempts, Butink has not yet been able to find her biological parents.

The woman lives with many questions. “Who do I have my nose from, who do I have my eyes from? That sounds very simple, but it is very important to me,” Butink sketches. She states that her good relationship with her adoptive parents does not detract from the case.

To reinforce the story, it was told about how some adoptions in the country went at that time. For example, there were Sri Lankan mediators who were barely checked and made a lot of money by linking babies to adoptive parents. A photo of babies lying on the floor in their own feces has been shown. “Kind en Toekomst has never complied with the obligation to do good research.”

State invokes limitation
The State’s lawyer invokes the limitation period, which is twenty years. Butink should have held the State responsible in 2012. If the judge does not accept this, the lawyer states that “the actions of the authorities in Sri Lanka do not lead to any liability of the Dutch State”. At that time, for example, there was “no duty of care of the State” for Butink.

Kind en Toekomst also states that many adoptions went well. The lawyer says on behalf of the organization that a “one-sided image” is put down. The role of Child and Future would have been limited in the adoption of the woman.

The director added in a personal note that hearing the story of Butink hurt her very much and that she had started mediating adoptions with the best of intentions.

Women were lured to ‘baby farms’
In a broadcast of Zembla in 2017, it was revealed that poor women were lured on a large scale against so-called ‘baby farms’ and became pregnant for a fee. After the delivery, the child was taken away or the mother was told that her baby had died, but in reality the child was sold.

There is currently an investigation into illegal adoptions of foreign children by Dutch people. The possible involvement of Dutch government officials is also being considered. The investigation focuses on adoptions from Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Kind en Toekomst announced in October last year to stop acting as a mediation organization this year because “this is less and less needed”.

They are called Marie M., Jean-Noël R., Lise F. or Florent T. *. They were born in Mali about thirty years ago. All of them then became French, adopted through the Paris-based association Le Rayon de soleil de l’Enfant Alien. But under what conditions ? Thirty years after their adoption, this Monday, June 8, they are nine to file a complaint at the tribunal de grande instance of Paris against the French organization and their former correspondent in Mali, Danielle Boudault, for “Scam, concealment of fraud and breach of trust”.

“This case is dramatic. There are still people who have had their identities stolen, children who have been lied to all their lives, and people who are quiet today. The purpose of this complaint is to hold everyone accountable for their responsibilities. The state too, because there has been action at all levels “, said Noémie Saidi-Cottier, one of the complainants’ two lawyers. ” This is not an isolated case, adds Joseph Breham, the second lawyer. Here it is Mali, but other countries are probably affected. This is this association, but there are probably others. We are not on an epiphenomenon, but on something that affects a certain number of French women. “

In this 38-page complaint, containing more than 100 documents, the two French lawyers, members of the Alliance of Lawyers for Human Rights (AADH), detail the main operating mode of the Rayon de soleil and the “Stratagems” implemented to allow “Circumvention of the law” in order to have Malian children adopted in France who, under local law, should not have been.

Read also South Africa faces the challenge of abandoned babies
It all started in 1989, in Bamako. Le Rayon de soleil, through a French aid worker named Danielle Boudault, begins to collect Malian children before sending them to France for adoption. To convince biological parents to let their children go to France, Mme Boudault “Insisted on the temporary nature of the proposed adoption and ensured that the child would return to live in Mali once he reaches the age of 18”. Thirty years later, the children have grown up and none have returned to live in the country. Because to these adoptees as to their French parents, the association would always have had a very different discourse: that of a permanent abandonment on the part of the biological parents.

Actions “tolerated or even facilitated”
Once grown up, some have seen their search for origins turn into a nightmare, noting flagrant contradictions in their records, such as two different names for their biological mother or false birth certificates. Others have learned that their siblings have been broken up by The Sunray, separated into different adoptive families. In one file, consent to the adoption of the biological parents is absent. In another, it is assumed that the child has been rejuvenated by the French organization to promote its adoption.

The charges are serious. Today, nine of the 324 children adopted through Rayon de soleil in Mali between 1989 and 2001 are asking the public prosecutor to open a preliminary investigation for acts committed between 1989 and 1996. The world had met Mme Boudault in January. Faced with accusations made against her by some of the complainants, she replied: “You listen to what you want, I tell you that I have never been in traffic. “ As for Sylvie Cyprien, the current president of the association, who also received The world in January, she argued: “I don’t think a possible challenge is necessary at all. I don’t think there was a fault. ” According to her, the Malian families had indeed been informed by the association that by sending their children to France, the links with them would be definitively broken.

Through their legal action, the nine complainants of Malian origin also seek to denounce the “Shortcomings” of the Mission de l ‘adoption internationale (MAI), the body of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs responsible for monitoring international adoption organizations. So we read in the complaint that ” vsRegarding the complainants, it seems certain that the MAI did not fulfill its mission towards them. […] For years, she had allowed legally prohibited adoptions to thrive. […] Ultimately, if wrongdoing has been committed by the respondents, it has been tolerated or even facilitated by MAI ”.

In the 2000s, the alleged fraudulent acts of the Ray of the Sun had already been denounced by the press in the Central African Republic and Peru. But the association would never have been worried by the French justice and, even today, it benefits from the approval of the Quai d’Orsay to proceed to adoptions in six countries (Bulgaria, Chile, China, South Korea , India and Haiti).

* The first names have been changed.

From Paris to Bamako via Luxembourg, Ségou and Brittany: for one year, The world, in partnership with TV5 Monde, investigated the abusive adoption practices perpetrated in Mali by Le Rayon de soleil de l’Enfant Alien. Lack of control on the part of the authorities, breaches of French justice, deficiencies in the Malian administration … Exclusive testimonies to be found in two long-term investigations published in The world from Tuesday 9 and Wednesday 10 June (dated 10 and 11 June), and to be found live in the newspaper Afrique de TV5 World on June 8 and 9, at 8:30 p.m. GMT, as well as a replay on the TV5 Monde website.

Morgane Le Cam and Kaourou Magassa