Suffer the Children: The Exploitation of America’s Most Vulnerable

by Mirah Riben / November 23rd, 2009

“Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest—tost to me,”
And we will send you ours?
The Littlest Casualties

Worldwide, there are approximately 143 million “orphans” based on figures that include children with only one living parent, approximately 90% of them (Oreskovi and Maskew, 2009). Approximately 2.6% of these children are housed in orphanages (Ibid).

Within the United States half a million children are wards of the state in foster care system, despite the well documented risks, impermanence and cost. Of these, an estimated 129,000 no longer have any chance of reunification with their families and could be adopted.
What is in their best interest? Is redistributing them to far—off cultures and expecting these children—many who may have learning disabilities and other emotional, attachment and physical challenges—to learn new languages in addition to being separated from family and community they likely remember?
Do domestic and international adoption policies put the best interests of these most vulnerable children first and foremost, or are they being used as pawns in a multibillion dollar industry designed to meet the demand for younger and healthier infants?
The number of American children in foster care who are eligible to be adopted is startling in view of the fact that an estimated 10 million American couples who “would likely attempt to adopt an infant domestically if they felt they had a realistic opportunity to do so,” according to a poll by the National Council for Adoption (Within, 2007).
An August, 2008 survey of the National Center for Health Statistics estimated that nearly 600,000 women are seeking to adopt. Even using this more conservative figure it is incomprehensible that the children in temporary care are being by-and-large left behind.
Children adopted from foster care used to be called “hard-to-place” which evolved to the more sensitive and politically correct “Special Needs” children. American adopters, however, still prefer international adoption (or domestic infant adoption, albeit in short supply since birth control became widely available, abortion rights were upheld, and increased acceptance of single mothers, even providing for expectant mothers to continue high school.

International adoption is preferred over adoption from foster care for three main reasons:
1 The desire for younger children from outside the country.
2 The belief that internationally adopted children are less “damaged” despite reports of attachment difficulties of children coming form orphanages, fetal alcohol syndrome and other health issues, many of which are not revealed accurately and thoroughly by international adoption agencies here and abroad.
3 Alleviation of the fear of an original parent (by birth) wanting contact, returning at any point, or worst of all attempting to overturn the adoption because of coercion—subtle or overt—including the lack of the birthfather signing a release of parental rights. However, these concerns would only apply to the small number of infant adoptions. The parents of children coming from state social services have had their parental rights terminated.

These fears, myths and misconceptions, coupled with the glamorization of rescuing orphans, are perpetrated by an adoption industry that generates an estimated 6.3 billion annually worldwide and 23 billion domestically.

Adoption Entrepreneurs
The reversal of supply and demand created a need for adoption profiteers to put a new positive spin on marketing. As opposed to the focus being on helping “wayward” girls of the 50’s 60’s and 70s ridding themselves of the shame of their indiscretions, today, adoption is encouraged as a way to rescue children from orphanages in impoverished parts of the world. This has resulted in international adoption by Americans nearly doubling during the 1990s, reaching twenty thousand annually and approximately 250,000 children in the last thirty years making the U.S. the number one receiving country.

Globally, over a quarter million children have been redistributed by adoption in the past three decades.

Yet, one by one countries, which had been prime suppliers, have begun to investigate and validate the claims of corruption and child trafficking that is rampant in nations in political turmoil and developing countries with low per capita annual incomes.

These investigations resulted in Vietnam, Romania, Guatemala disallowing the international adoption of their children at least until more restrictions can be enacted to prevent widespread corruption, Russia increased restrictions in an attempt to reduce the alarming number of Russian children murdered by their American adopters, and others sent back, abused or institutionalized.

The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, an international agreement between participating countries requires their member nations adhere to two primary goals: to protect the best interest of children, as laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are considered with each intercountry adoption, and to prevent abduction, exploitation, sale, or trafficking of children.

These restrictions have limited the supply of babies and in turn the incomes of adoption profiteers who now rely on international adoption to make up for the loss of domestic adoptions. Many American adoption agencies have closed as a result of the reduction in numbers of adoptions and the cost and difficulty complying with Hague requirements and becoming accredited.

The concerns of these entrepreneurs are represented by The National Council for Adoption (NCFA), lobbyists paid to represent the interests of adoption agency owners and employees in affecting U.S. adoption polices favorable to the encouragement of adoption and to assist in creating marketing programs aimed at mothers in crisis to increase adoptions.

The international equivalent of the NCFA is the Joint Council on International Children Services. In addition, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI), lobbies congress to effect incentives such as tax benefits and payments states to increase family separations. The CCA also sponsors National Adoption Day and Angels in Adoption program to honor those who adopt and help facilitate adoptions.

Adoption attorneys, are represented by The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (AAAA) and Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program (CAP) and the Center for Adoption Policy. ACT for Adoption, based in Rye, NY, is a coalition of adoption profiteers mobilized in late 2008 “to communicate with the White House, Members of Congress, government agencies and the press to educate and advocate for legislation, policies and administrative procedures supportive of adoption.”

ACT for Adoption is sponsored by the Center for Adoption Policy, and the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School intentionally both of whom intentionally grossly overestimate numbers of orphans, repeatedly quoting the figure of 143,000, well known to be extremely overinflated as 88.7% of children in orphanages worldwide are not orphans and not eligible for adoption (UNAIDS.2004).

Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Bartholet of ACT and CAP, applauded Madonna’s second adoption and, speaking at the 2009 Adoption Policy Conference, “International Adoption, the United States, and the Reality of the Hague System” stated that heritage is over-rated.

To counter these facts, ACT creates newspeak such as their newly coined term “unparented children” and applaud the adoption of children of living parents while recognizing that International adoption “has come under fire recently from UNICEF” because corruption and baby selling. They also use language such as a need to eliminate “barriers that hinder children from realizing their basic right of a family and ways they might act to eliminate them” without any consideration of a child’s foremost basic right to have his family receive the resources they need to remain intact or reunify.

Pawns of Pretense
Pro-adoption lobbying is not difficult in a nation that does not prioritize family preservation and instead vilifies mothers because of age, marital or financial status, would cast a legislator as a villainous scrooge. Legislators are particularly eager to support adoption promotions and incentive programs which are proposed as helping children languishing in foster care to find “forever families”

Susan Jackson, a family advocate and member of CPS Watch observed: “No one dares risk being politically incorrect, even to save hundreds of thousands of children who are sentenced to a life of disassociation and despair in multiple foster homes, and then, if they are ‘lucky,’ into an adoptive home, never to see their parents or siblings again (TCB 2007).”
And so the U.S. enacted state incentives to move children quickly into “permanence.” in 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and states quickly enacted legislation modifying child welfare procedures to conform to ASFA’s guidelines and qualify for federal funding. The new procedures place a premium on removing children from their homes—often because of poverty and lack of resources such as adequate child-care. Well-documented maltreatment of children in foster homes is then used to utilize AFSA bonuses to states to accelerate substantially the time frame for severing their original parents’ constitutional right to parent without due process.

“The federal government offers a perverse incentive to states when they think that a family is having problems: Take children away and we’ll pick up a large share of the tab” observes Richard Wexler (2006) commenting on the rush for removals. “[The money is unlimited; the federal government helps pay for every eligible child thrown into foster care, no matter how many are taken. But if a state wants to use safe, proven alternatives to foster care, the state often must pay almost all of the bill itself.”

Through waivers, states may spend Federal funds in alternative manners, since 1996, just 17 States have implemented 25 child welfare waiver programs including: assisted guardianship/kinship care; services for caregivers with substance use disorders; and adoption. A barrier to implementation of these programs is that while Federal title IV-E payments help States pay foster parents and adopters of special needs children, these funds cannot normally be used to pay subsidies to extended family members who provide legal guardians. According to the National Family Preservation Network, “[E]very dollar invested in keeping families together saves $2-$3 on placement services.”

In addition to state incentives to increase family separations and adoptions, the U.S. Federal government, prompted by pro-adoption profiteers and their lobbyists, enacted Adoption Tax Benefit legislation in starting in 1996 “to encourage further the adoption of special needs children.”

The “special needs” wording in the original legislation was the foot in the door need. A summary of the data from the U.S. Treasury Department to determine who most benefits from the credit, however, reveals:
1 The vast majority of adoption tax credit recipients completed private or foreign adoptions rather than adoptions from foster care. The tax credit disproportionately supports higher-income families.
2 The tax credit primarily supports the adoption of younger children.
Nearly 90% of those receiving the credit have incomes above $100,000 benefitting only one in four adopting from U.S. foster care, but nearly all who adopted children from other countries were supported by the tax credit.

From 1999 to 2005, the vast majority of adoption tax credit recipients adopted infants or younger children via private domestic or international adoptions, doing nothing to reduce the number of children in foster care, despite that being the alleged intent of the tax incentive.
In 2004 just 18 percent of children supported by the tax credit and 17 percent of the funds so allocated, assisted children from foster care. In 2005, nearly 90 percent of filers with, and 71 percent of all families adopted children under age five.

Only about 10 percent of higher-income families adopted from foster care, and very few adopted older children.

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, whose goal is to promote ethical adoption polices and legal reforms, reported (1999), “The federal government, for example, offers financial incentives in the form of tax credits to families who privately adopt infants (and who are often affluent), yet does not offer the same support to those families who adopt children in foster care (and who usually have the greatest need for such support). Is it ethical that intermediaries and those least in need benefit the most from these tax credits?”

“Today’s reality,” comments Joe Kroll, executive director of the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) “is that the original intent of the adoption tax credit legislation has been turned upside down. Those who most need support to adopt (lower-income families who are adopting children from foster care) are receiving the least benefit, and those for whom the financial outlay is not a barrier to adoption benefit the most.” Elizabeth Samuels (2005) likewise found that “federal tax benefits for adopters generally provide greater benefits to families involved in more expensive healthy newborn and international adoptions, although the benefits are promoted as a means to increase adoptions of children out of foster care.”
And, as with state incentives, these funds are allocated to adopters but are not available to assist families in crisis who are instead stigmatized if they need and or accept government financial assistance. Nor are tax credits available for extended family who care for a related child.

Exportation of American Children
While Americans are adopting allegedly unwanted orphans from impoverished orphanages, in larger number than those of any other country, plans are underway to increase the adoption of our own children who are fostered and institutionalized in small orphanages called group homes… by exporting them.
Placing American born children out of the country is nothing new.

Quietly, approximately19 states including Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, and Arkansas allow “home state finalization” for the outgoing international adoption of U.S. children. The U.S. State Department indicates that seventeen American adoption agencies have been accredited or temporarily accredited under the new Hague rules for outgoing adoptions. Some, American based adoption agencies such as Vida Adoptions.org and Illien Adoptions.org, have included exportation of children as rates of international adoptions into the U.S. have dropped post Hague.

The process has been called “reverse commute adoptions” by attorney Michael Goldstein and his social worker wife, Joy, founders of Forever Families Through Adoption (FFTA), who claim to have placed some 65 American born babies for adoptions out of the U.S. between 1997 to 2007.

Some of Goldstein’s adoptions have been high profile cases such as two American babies adopted by British Foreign Secretary David Milliband and his wife.

Additional international demand for U.S. born children is currently being created by same sex couples in Europe who see America as the perfect source in as much as it is currently the only country which allows––in at least some states––for adoption by same sex couples. But these type of adoptions and those conducted by FFTAs are just the tip of the iceberg.

The Donaldson Adoption Institute estimates the current number of children exported from the U.S. for adoption at 500 a year (Smolowe, 1994) while Thomas DiFilipo, president of the Joint Council on International Children’s Services in Virginia puts the number of American children exported for adoption at “[a]pproximately 800” a year going to “Canada, Mexico and France,” adding that Irish families who wish to adopt privately from the U.S. are also free to do so (Palmer 2008). In 2008 189 American children were adopted by Canadians, second only to China.

Intercountry adoption has traditionally been divided into sending and receiving countries with the senders being nations under political and social unrest or entrenched in widespread poverty making incomprehensible the out of country placement of children born in America—an industrialized stable nation with millions vying to adopt and taking children from all over the world.

The redistribution of children is frowned upon by NGOs such as Save the Children. Sarah Jacobs, Save the Children’s Africa specialist, working on issues of child protection, hunger, health and education asserts that “children are much better looked after, even if they’ve lost their parents, within their home communities.” Dominic Nutt, spokesperson for Save the Children UK concurs (CNN, 2009) on opposing Madonna’s Malawian adoption: “children in poverty should be best looked after by their own people in their own environment.”

Likewise, Roelie Post (2008), of the European Commission, who has an intimate knowledge of the exportation of Romanian children and defines herself as neither pro- not anti-adoption, asks: “is inter-country adoption a child protection measure, or do children have rights in their own country and is inter-country adoption the ultimate breach of such rights?”

Proponents of the redistribution of children in and out of the U.S. have a clear financial stake in adoptions and have persuaded well-meaning organizations and politicians that the need to perpetuate all of these adoptions is noble. They claim that nations such the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Great Britain—all of which have adopted American children—have less issue with adopting non-white children than do Americans, pointing to reports that indicate African American children are over represented in national foster care, have to wait a long time for permanent placements, and leave institutional care at an older age. During the time adoption and reunification are being weighed and options sought, non-white infants remain foster care, often in several families or homes, notes those in the Netherlands and elsewhere eager to obtain such children.

The Dutch Minister of Justice, Hirsch Ballin, is quite mindful of American adoption trends and polices and has argued that Americans are less inclined to adopt children over the age of five—as are the majority of adoptable children in U.S. foster care. And thus would be suitable for Dutch adoption. Additionally, a recent Dutch petition pointed out that foster families in the U.S. often have as many as six l children at a time, breaching the principles of the Hague Adoption Treaty. Conversely, the pursuit of younger babies than are available to be adopted domestically is what drives U.S. citizens to prefer to adopt internationally.

Once again children in foster care—America’s most vulnerable—are being used to support the adopting infants who have never been in state care. Goldstein, in fact, claims that most of the children he places out of the country, like those adopted by the Milibands are “healthy white Caucasians” (The Rye Chronicle, 2007). Additionally, the The Texas Cradle places 10 to 20 percent of American children with wealthy Mexicans who seek white children.

Conclusion

Babies are being kidnapped, stolen or coerced from their mothers and trafficked to meet the demand (Smolin, 2007) while older children, and children with disabilities are left behind and are like a lost leader in advertising­ to push the sale of the higher priced goods––younger and presumably healthier babies.

How large a community should it take to share the responsibility of children in need? With adoption in the hands of entrepreneurs in a “free market,” which is more often than not a fair market, who is advocating for the interests of these voiceless victims? Is passing them around ever in their best interest? Is it as some opponents say, cultural genocide to sever children form family, extended kinship or is it preferable to remaining in institutions or foster care within their own culture?

How do we justify using our most needy children as “fronts” to promote adoptions that do nothing to help the children in the most need here and abroad? “The most vulnerable children are not the group most in demand for international adoption. Demand is focused on quite a small group of under three-year olds, where the number of potential parents far exceeds the supply of children,” according to Riitta Högbacka, University of Helsinki, Finland (2006).

When reviewing the pros and cons, it is imperative to consider the financial motivation of those weighing in as “experts” on what is best for children. Adoption practitioners including, but not limited to, attorneys? Lobbyists? Professional marketers? None of these actors have any specific education or training in child care of social services and their income is derived directly or indirectly from non-relatives placement of children. Save the Children, on the other hand, spends 92% on services and just 4% on fundraising and another 4% on management and all other expenditures.

ACT for Adoption is right on target when they state that children being dislocated from their families “have no seat at the policy table, and no voice.” Their claim, however, that their pro-adoption position speaks for or represents the children whose custody is being transferred assumes that children want advocates who support adoption over helping their families overcome non-endangering problems and remain intact.

Many pro-adoption organizations as Donaldson (which recently partnered with LifeCare to encourage employer benefits in support of adoption) and Ehica want to see adoptions, including international continue, as long as they are ethical. However other than agreeing that child trafficking needs to be curbed, there are few guidelines for what is ethical and what is not, rendering the word as meaningless and subjective as the word nice. Ignoring and exploiting our treatment of our tiniest and most at-risk victims—our foster children—is neither nice nor ethical.

Additional information from Brian Douglas.
I would like to point out that the ACT for Adoption NGO has nothing to do with and has no association whatsoever with ACT – Stichting Against Child Trafficking that is based in Nijmegen, The Netherlands - website www.againstchildtrafficking.org

Sarah Ferguson - Chris Rogers Turkish fiasco backfires.

As reported by Emily Nash in the UK Daily Mirror newspaper on 20.11.2009 (see previous blog article) The Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson and Chris Rogers of ITV, plus another documentary producer, have all been served with legal papers by Scotland Yard yesterday.

The British Police acted on behalf of the Turkish Ankara authorities in this matter thus bringing the three a step closer to standing trial in Turkey for flagrantly breaking international law on the rights of the child and Turkish laws that ban trespassing on government property and secret filming.

The case is based around a visit made in the summer of 2008 by both Chris Rogers of ITV who is well known for his filming of children against their rights in other Eastern European Countries, especially Romania and The Dutchess of York Sarah Ferguson who accompanied him on this visit to Turkey – A country which is working hard towards joining the European Union.

Clearly Chris Rogers and Sarah Ferguson should have applied for official permission to visit Turkish state institutions, which almost certainly would have been given if they had stated good intentions as the Country is open to official requests of most kinds, especially in childcare, as it has for some time been revising its childcare system along the well praised Romanian model. They chose not to do this as knew they would have to obey the Turkish laws if they had gained official permission, plus would have had to adhere to the laws on the rights of the child too.

The intention was to film in secret with undercover cameras and to achieve this Rogers posed as an aid worker with a fake ID and Ferguson in a dark wig and headscarf bluffed their way into the orphanages they wanted to visit.

Children were filmed against without their official permission and dubious statements made by various people that do not add up to reality. One example; children were fed lying down, which can lead to terrible infections in the back of the mouth. There have been reports (but they do not say who from) that the pain from these ulcerating infections is so intense that some of the children in Saray have ripped off their ears in an attempt to escape it. The reportage also states that two genuine aid workers and a member of staff ushered us into a large, sparsely decorated room. Again no mention of whom the aid workers were, the organization they represented or the name of the staff member or his/her official position within the orphanage. On visiting the Zeytinburnu rehabilitation center it is stated that children with and without disabilities live under one roof – none had families.

Such statements are wildly misleading if are not backed up by official proof. Did Rogers or Ferguson see the orphanage register to verify this or any of the children’s case records; I think not!

Also one might ask why they did not visit Turkey some years ago before its moves towards European Union entry talks, rather than after the start of these proceedings that will see huge changes in Turkey once it becomes a full EU member and huge advantages for the EU too, as the country is a thriving and historical country with a rich culture to add to Europe.

There is a pattern in the Rogers documentaries over several years as also he arrived in Romania at the time of EU application by the country and made several well know and disgusting films that have been condemned by both the Romanian authorities as untrue and by Romanian citizens too, not to mention condemned by myself too.

In 2006 Rogers made a film ‘Babies for sale’ which was a complete travesty of the truth of events in the case of the poor Romanian citizens filmed at Hoghilag village.

Even the guide who showed Rogers around admitted that no one ever agreed to sell Rogers a baby! What appeared on UK television though was a cleverly overdubbed version that showed hands being shook in a so-called sale of a baby. What really happened is that Rogers promised one of the poor villagers if 10.000 USD was enough to repair her home; all quite different from the well amended film version and hands were shook as is customary in Romanian when Rogers left!

This was a clear abuse of the rights of some of the poorest people in Europe today and far from the caring person Rogers makes himself out to be for the well-being of others.
Also in 2006 the Financial times published an aggressive advertisement signed by 33 NGO charities led by spokesman Robin Nydes that showed a strong favour in the resumption of International adoptions, which Romanian had rightly banned after it had found that children were being trafficked abroad for up to 30.000 euro per child under the guise of international adoptions. Rogers attended an EC conference in the same year hosted by the largest names in favour of inter-country adoptions, including Francois de Combret and Jean Marie Cavada. Rogers also is seen in photographs with Nydes on the FRODO website.

All of this was very relevant and Chris Rogers must have known this as it was a crucial time for Romania in its progress towards EU accession.

It also must be appreciated that in the late 1990s even before EU progress talks had started that Romanian had started to reform its childcare system and it was also clear that in order to do this two important factors must come into play.

1 The closure of large old style orphanages.
2.There must be a ban on inter Country adoptions so that other more reliable and more beneficial forms of childcare can be put into place and this could not be done whilst the huge sums of cash were being waived in favour of International adoptions.

Romania then banned international adoptions and a huge group of well organized lobbyist from the UK, USA, France, Italy, Spain and Israel have since that day, with the support of many NGOs that were involved in the trade in children masked as International adoptions pressured Romania to re open its markets in children again. WATCH VIDEO

Now in 2009 and in fact for several past years Romania has had no need of inter country adoptions as its reforms in childcare have seen the closure of the old orphanages and return of the vast majority of children home to parents or relatives, plus the setting up of foster care and small family group homes for children in need of care as there are in all counties today.

Turkey has decided to also adapt this well proven Romanian model for its own childcare reforms and as is a country with good relations with Romania as well as being geographically close, and is also good as Romania is an EU member state. Turkey like Romania will take a few years to redevelop its childcare system and this is valid point that neither Sarah Ferguson nor Chris Rogers have taken into account, plus it must be said that the filming of children in poor conditions does not actually help these children at all.

Proof of this comes again from the Romania case as in the 1990s NGOs flocked to the country and actually prolonged the agony of many a child as they never at any time appealed for the closure of these orphanages. The did the exact opposite and kept them open, made repairs, painted walls, gave second hand items, made friends with orphanage staff and some NGOs were actually appalled when children were moved back home as they lost contact, but failed to realize that the child had gone back to where it belongs with the love of its parents. In these cases the NGOs concerned thought only of their interests and not of the child’s.

The amount of film footage shown of Romanian orphanages didn’t end the children’s plight in effect even with the support of NGOs as they kept the orphanages open. It was the Romanian Government and the support of the European Union that brought the reforms that really benefited the children and will continue to do so as other areas of childcare are addressed in the future years.

Undercover filming that does not convey the truth will never help children in orphanages, nor will NGOs that support keeping orphanages open as breeding grounds for inter country adoptions, so that children without mercy can be trafficked for huge sums of money by agencies and the corrupt ones who facilitate false medical certificates and false identities for these children who have their rights flagrantly ignored by those who make out they are there to help them.

Nowadays the horrors an abuse of inter country adoptions around the World are well know and more and more Countries are closing their doors as they realize that inter country adoptions are not in the best interest of the child. For more information please open link. http://againstchildtrafficking.org

Turkey now is rightly fighting for its children’s rights as both Sarah Ferguson and Chris Rogers will now know after having their legal papers served by the Police that may see them face extradition and a trail in Turkey.

See also another article on Chris Rogers in link below.
DEFAMATION OF A NATON BY CHRIS ROGERS

Brian Douglas. (Director RCHF.)

Sarah Ferguson - Dutchess of York facing Turkish Orphan charge

Exclusive by Emily Nash

The Duchess of York was served with legal papers by Scotland Yard yesterday, bringing her a step closer to standing trial in Turkey.
She is accused of breaking laws that ban secret filming and trespassing on government property in the country.
British police acted on behalf of the authorities in Ankara when serving the documents on Sarah Ferguson, 50, whose daughters are fifth and sixth in line to the throne.
The undercover film the duchess helped to make exposed appalling conditions in Turkish orphanages.
Yesterday cameraman Chris Rogers and an ITV documentary producer were also served with legal papers. It is understood they request statements from all three on their activities in Turkey which could form the basis for an extradition request.
The producer is on another undercover job and ITV would not give his name to protect his identity. A Home Office spokesman said: “It is not our usual policy to comment on cases.
“However, the Home Office can confirm it has received a formal request for legal assistance concerning Sarah, Duchess of York. It has been referred to the Metropolitan Police to progress.”
The Met said: “A request for international legal assistance has been received. The legality of the request has been agreed and the Metropolitan Police Service has been asked to progress the request. A letter is being sent to three individuals in order to organize for the collection of the information sought by the Turkish authorities.”
Fergie went to Turkey last year with younger daughter Princess Eugenie, 19, to probe the treatment of mentally and physically disabled children in orphanages.
The duchess wore a dark wig and headscarf and posed as an aid worker to get into the Saray rehabilitation centre near Ankara.
The TV exposé, filmed by Rogers, showed emaciated children tied to cots by their hands and ankles and left in soiled clothes. It sparked a furious diplomatic row. The Turkish government launched an investigation into “violations” of its tough privacy laws and ban on undercover filming.
Anyone convicted of breaching “rights to privacy of communications” by filming in secret could face up to four-and-a-half years in jail.
The country’s family affairs minister Nimet Cubukcu said: “Sarah Ferguson is trying to launch a smear campaign opposing Turkey’s EU membership.”
The country fears bad publicity on human rights abuses could block its acceptance by Europe.
Last night a spokesman for Fergie, who dropped plans to write a forward for Rogers book on the orphanage story, said: “The duchess will be co-operating fully to ensure the quick resolution of this issue.”
Princess Eugenie is not believed to be under investigation.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/2009/11/20/fergie-duchess-of-york-facing-turkish-orphan-charges-115875-21835454/

Romania should withstand pressure to lift ban on international adoptions

RUPERT WOLFE MURRAY
Today @ 15:34 CET EUOBSERVER / COMMENT -

Ever since Romania prohibited internationaladoptions in 2001 it has been pressurized by the leaders of France,Italy, Israel, Spain and the US to lift the ban. Behind thesepoliticians are private adoption agencies, adoptive parents and othersinterested in getting children for whatever reason."The financial incentives involved in international adoptions corrupthealth, welfare and legal services" When Hillary Clinton met the Romanian Foreign Minister earlier thisyear she handed him a letter which said "We urge you to reform current law in Romania...including a re-evaluation of your decision to remove international adoption as an important permanency option".

Romania should continue to stand firm in the face of this intense lobby for international adoption, a lobby which talks about tens ofthousands of Romanian orphans languishing in grim institutions. But the EU-funded reform of Romania's child welfare system resulted in the closure of almost all the notorious children's homes, introduced foster care and a range of family-based alternatives. The EU also insisted that Romania stop international adoptions as it had established a free market in children. But now the EU and Council of Europe (COE) are joining the lobby to convince Romania to lift its ban on international adoptions.

The European Commission's justice unit and the COE are organising aconference in Strasbourg at the end of November with some of the mostactive members of the international adoptions lobby. Conferenceorganizer Patrizia de Luca admitted that one of the aims of the conference is "to convince Romania that inter-country adoptions can beauthorized in a certain way".
The conference "Challenges in Adoption Procedures in Europe" was initiated by French MEP Jean Marie Cavada and investment bankerFrancois de Combret. These lobbyists talk of the "free movement ofchildren" within the EU, as if children are like capital, goods and services.

The aim of the conference is to develop a "European AdoptionPolicy" so that parents from one member state can adopt from any othermember state.Considering that the event will be packed with pro-adoption lobbyists,it is likely the conference will recommend the commission develops a"European Adoption Policy".
This would mean that families in Italy, France and Spain, where there are huge waiting lists of adoptive parents, can access a fresh supply of children from Romania. But the truth is that there are very few orphaned children in Romania,where children in care are placed in the extended family, foster orfamily type homes. In addition, there is a waiting list of Romanian families who want to adopt.

The Romanian adoption system developed in 1997, in compliance with the Hague Adoption Convention, showed that the financial incentives involved in international adoptions (up to 30,000 euro a child) corrupted health, welfare and legal services andpoor single mothers were routinely persuaded to "abandon" theirchildren in maternity hospitals. In other words, the demand forchildren creates the supply and corrupts local social services.

Roelie Post is a commission official now seconded to the NGO ‘AgainstChild Trafficking.’ For many years she worked on the Romanian reformand documented her experiences in a book called 'Romania, For ExportOnly - the untold story of the Romanian 'orphans'.
She says, "thetrade in adoptions are mediated by private adoption agencies inexchange for large sums of money. The EU demanded Romanian become likeother EU member states by taking care of its own children, but nowthey seem to want all EU Member States to become like Romania wasbefore 2001 - when children were made available for the internationaladoption market.
The EU now supports the same lobby groups that they withstood for many years.
"Rupert Wolfe Murray is a documentary filmmaker based in Romania and a supporter of Against Child Trafficking

Website http://againstchildtrafficking.org

Increase in head lice amongst Dutch children.

A survey carried out by the Dutch National Head Lice Support Center has revealed an alarming 100% increase in the past 15 years. The online survey filled out by parent’s shows that some 25.5% of children have head lice within the last year as compared to 11% of children in 1993. Clearly this causes embarrassment and worry to many Dutch children, their parents and other family members alike as few understand about head lice and most believe they come from children who are not well cared for, but this is not the truth as anyone can become infected with head lice not matter what the families status and this important fact needs to be appreciated first and foremost.

Stichting RCHF is a Dutch registered non profit NGO working in childcare with some of the poorest children and families in Europe today in Romania and as a Dutch NGO we feel it correct to display the real facts about head lice so that any stigma can be removed for any Dutch child, their parents or relatives thus enabling them and the local authorities including school authorities to address the alarming increase in head lice in Dutch schools today.

We also hope that the information below helps remove the improper stigma attached to this problem for children and families throughout Europe as well.

Head lice are often thought to have come from animals or household pets but this is not true as they are a human pest and not an animal one.

Head lice do not come from the poorest of children or their families as often head lice are found on the heads of well groomed children from well off families and they actually we know prefer clean heads.

The truth is that because of the stigma attached in head lice cases with even sometimes family members reluctant to speak about the problem and so many places for head lice to spread it has become almost impossible to find out were they actually come from, but we do know they are far commoner than people think and that they have been around for thousands of years. They can in effect come from anyone anywhere!

Another misunderstanding is about the mode of infection from one person to another of head lice. Most think they fly from one head to another but this is untrue as head lice are crawling animals that spread by head to head contact both direct and indirect as in the case of children who share hairbrushes, combs, hats, jackets, scarves etc and often transfer can be from one piece of clothing to another on clothes hung next to each other on a coat stand for instance. In these cases the head lice simply crawls onto the other hat, coat or scarf and a new person becomes infected. Children who sleep in the same bed can also pass the infection from one to the other without knowing.

Also one must appreciate that our human bodies every day looses dozens of hairs which are replaced by new ones growing and this also takes place when coming and brushing our hair and as well and when washing it. This is important to be aware of as when we loose hair it can by natural means fall onto a chair we are sat on, a bed we sleep in or onto a carpet that children often play in at ground level with their toys or a bus or car seat we are sat in. Head lice lay eggs called “nits” and they do this on human hairs and the eggs take around 10 days to hatch into lice and so here is another known mode of passing the lice infection from one person to another too.

Head lice are in effect a parasite insect and require blood to live on and spread easily and can infect anyone regardless of personal hygiene.

They cause irritation and an infected person often scratches their head, plus even on inspection of the scalp by parents often head lice are mistaken for dandruff, so it is vital that a visit is made the family doctors in all cases of irritation of the head by any person, so that a full examination can discover the cause and prescribe the correct treatment. One must also remember that this is nothing uncommon as head lice are found in humans all over the World. Children are often the targets of head lice and they are often cross infections from child to child in both pre schools and schools.

To treat head lice first and foremost a visit to the family doctor by all persons who think they may be infected is vital. There is no need to be embarrassed as the doctor understands the problem and knows the stigma attached to head lice, plus is as with all patients obliged to adhere to the laws of confidentiality too.

If you or any family member is infected he will prescribe a lice-killing medicine-shampoo to wash your hair in and you must not wash your hair in a normal shampoo for several days after the treatment. After washing the hair with the treatments shampoo one must change all clothing for clean dry clothes.

This treatment with the medical shampoo may mean several washes over several days and in all cases it is advisable to comb the hair too into a sink so that all dead hair and any dead lice or eggs fall out of the scalp and can be washed away down the sink after which you must wash you hands and dry them on a fresh clean towel. The family doctor may also provide you with a special comb named a nit comb to use when washing the hair too.

The comb also after use must be checked and washed completely to make certain no eggs or lice are within its spines.

Within the home it is vital to wash in a washing machine all bedclothes were an infected person has slept and all clothing warn by the infected persons including hats, scarves and coats. After this Vacuum clean all carpets and covers on chairs etc as well and clean the bathroom and kitchen surfaces to remove any hairs that may be in those places too.

One of the best ways of prevention is by education and in all cases the stigma attached to head lice must be removed, plus in this process we must teach not to share combs and brushes or personal items of clothing like hats and scarves etc.

Schools need to address the way in which children hang their coats and hats to avoid cross infection and lockers and coat hooks need to be placed apart rather than side by side, plus for children who sleep in pre schools there needs to a regular system of clean bedding and play costumes should be washed regularly too, plus school desks and chairs disinfected.

The most important thing to remember if your child becomes infected with head lice is to visit you family doctor without waiting and not to be embarrassed about the problem as head lice are not cause by a lack of home cleanliness.

Author Brian Douglas (Director RCHF.)

Romanian Office for Adoptions must not look to discriminate in childcare.

A memorandum asking for changes to Legislation 273/2004 forwarded to the Romanian Government by The Romanian Office for Adoptions calling for the re opening of International Adoptions was rejected by Prime Minister Emil Boc as it did not comply with current international legislation.

The basis of the memorandum article was that ORA claims that children in care who are over 6 years of age, Roma children, and children with grave medical problems, plus children who are in care, who are many in number from the same family are groups that are hard to find Romanian Families to adopt.

On these groups ORA seriously needs to re think its strategy as Romania placed a ban on international adoptions because they proved to be a unregulated business in children that amounted to a battle between many Charity NGOs masked as adoption agencies who’s main interest was not in the welfare of the child but in the profit gained from what amounted to the sale of each child to a foreign parent for huge sums of cash (at least 30.000 euro per child). In these times when International adoption was allowed within Romania children were many times regarded as orphans when they had in fact biological Parents who lost all their rights to ever have their child back home again on the thinnest of grounds and often because they were poor families.

Poverty I will add is no reason to have a child adopted to a foreign Country as many poor families give exceptional care to their children even when living in difficult circumstances.

Romania has full children’s rights written into its laws and in recent years since the inter-country adoption ban has been able to address the needs of thousands of children who were in institutional care, most have been re integrated back home with their families and a range of social backup has been developed to help the poorest of families, foster care has developed as both short and long term care, small group homes for older children who could not for various reasons go home have and still are supporting children and national adoption has been such a success that there are twice as many families within Romania wishing to adopt than children actually available for adoption as admitted by ORA.

With the above information it is clear therefore that Romania has no need of re opening International again, that are still unregulated and still lacks transparency, plus safety for the child and even the Hague Convention has proved to fail in this respect so many times.

Many Countries have in recent years tightened up on these kinds of adoptions to because of the huge scale of corruption and lack of morality within the Inter Country adoption services and their agents.

Furthermore the idea for instance of sending child with grave medical problems to be adopted by a foreign family proves that the current leadership of ORA has not learnt anything from the many children in the 90s who were adopted by foreign families and who were unable to cope with the child they received, often meaning the child being renounced back into care in the foreign Country.

On the other I ask if what ORA is really stating is that Romania only wants to care for its children who are in good health, not of a Roma ethnicity, and are under 6 years of age only?

It is also facts that in the 90s few older children were adopted internationally as all foreign couples prefer a young child and a healthy one too which again shows the lack of reality in the ORA memorandum.

These children are all Romanian citizens and have the rights that every Romanian child has written in law and that includes protection without any discrimination for every child no matter what age, what color, creed, or how many are in a family and ORA needs to as a matter of urgency address these rights for these groups of children that they have stated in their memorandum, rather than simply renounce them and ask permission to change the Countries well placed law on legislation 273/2004 that would place these unfortunate children for export.

The reality is that the ORA failed memorandum was a well masked move to re open inter country adoptions within a the Country again and bow to the unjust pressure of the US congress and US senators, plus the likes of Jean Marie Cavada the French MEP and many inter-country adoption agencies including Amici dei Bambini and SERA who all have lost out on quotas of children to export since Romania applied its ban and reformed its own childcare system for which it has been well praised by many foreign Counties, the EU and the USA too!

It is time for Mr Paniat the head of the Romanian office for Adoptions and his team to stand firm, offer alternative services that really protects these Romanian children’s rights as set in Romanian and international law.

The rights of the child must come above all other interests and this applies to all Romanian children.



Brian Douglas (Director RCHF.)


See also http://againstchildtrafficking.org

Romanian Orphans, ready for export to the EU

Source: Jurnalul National of 20 October 2009 – translated article
European Commission and Romanian Office for Adoptions quietly force to reopen international adoptions

- REPORTING FROM BRUSSELS - Romanian Office for Adoptions prepares since almost 3 months to modify law 273 of 2004, the law that stopped the trafficking of children from Romania to other countries, under the guise of international adoptions.
ORA officials have not acted on their own, but with the support of interest groups in the U.S., Italy, France and other countries.
By Mircea Opris20/10/2009

These groups were used by a Directorate of the European Commission, which will hold a conference for the reopening of international adoptions from Romania, on 31 November and 1 December in Strasbourg.

The European Commission requires changing of the law, imposed by itself as a condition of our entry in the EU. Jurnalul National was able to look into the corridors of these international operations, with the help of a source inside the European Commission, whose identity we will protect for understandable reasons.

ROMANIANS WAITED FOR THE RESIGNATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
The Romanian Office for Adoptions paved the way for amendments to the law prohibiting international adoptions since the summer, when they organised two conferences, both held in Timisoara. The first took place in early September and referred to the rights of the adopted child. Here were assembled all the directors of the child protection directorates in the country for a central database for the adoption process, data about the number of adoptable children and of adoptions in process.
A second conference was also held in Timisoara, away from the eyes of the EU mission in Bucharest.

In the period 27-30 September 2009, UNICEF Romania and the National Authority for Child Protection (ANPDC) organised the National Conference which opens the series of events dedicated to celebrating the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Attending were representatives ANPDC, DGASPC sites, UN agencies in Romania and other government institutions and NGOs.

Here, Romanian and international institutions, together with NGOs involved in adoptions have finalized, in order to promote later, by legislation the Integrated National Action Plan on Preventing and Combating Violence against children.
Coordinators were Ileana Savu, Secretary of State at the ANPDC, and Edmond McLoughney, UNICEF Representative in Romania.

With only one day before the predictable failure of the Boc 2 Government, ORA proposes, through a Memorandum sent to the Government, to reopen international adoptions. The document prepared by ORA shows that during the four years of implementation of Law 273/2004, concerning the legal status of adoption, it was found that there are some categories of children who are "hard to adopt" because the regulatory framework in force does not identify appropriate solutions with a permanent character. The initiators of the document state that such a measure should be taken, having regard to provide equal opportunities for all children separated from their natural families, who can not be reintegrated and can not be adopted in Romania.

The role of "soldier of sacrifice" was for Secretary of State of the Romanian Office for Adoptions, Bogdan Panait, who said the reopening of international adoption will be done only in cooperation with accredited authorities of the respective States, in order to avoid corruption.
He fails to convince why this memorandum was submitted to the government at a time when Romania has no government.
"I submitted the memorandum Monday morning before the vote of the motion (the fall of the government - sic). I do not know what will happen to it. I am in a hurry, it's one thing we wanted to submit for political debate and decision, and I think that this Government could discuss this Memorandum, "said Bogdan Panait. Clearly, ORA took advantage of political turmoil in Bucharest to demand a change of the law, to negotiate it with the next government to be appointed.

Approval of this Memorandum means practically the amendment of Law 273 on the rules of adoption. Some of negotiations with representatives of U.S. and EU countries, interested in adoptions from Romania could be possible to adopt the memorandum and adoption law. "When I came here, I had a discussion with the Prime Minister (Emil Boc - Sic). Of course, there were many complaints from families and international fury, but the discussion was to value and change the law.
Sure, he was not clear if it was about international adoption. I have taken up this mission. The modification was made. The law is ready for 99 percent, in the coming weeks it will be subjected to public debate and will be posted on the website. But from the context in which we made the changes to the law, I have concluded - and because of international protocols - that we can go ahead with the idea and start procedures for international adoption.
Sure, this is not a decision which I can make. And that’s why I made this Memorandum, a memorandum which is very neutral. It is up to the Government to decide to what extent it is the political moment, we have statistics, I mentioned the commitment of Romania in the field and the decision will be entirely to the government," said Bogdan Panait a few days ago.

Interestingly, in early September, in an exclusive interview to Jurnalul National, the same Secretary of State said that "As long as I am the director of ORA, if the government will ask me to find a solution to the international adoptions, for the moment at least, such thing is excluded".
Once more it will create the image that again we will trade, traffic and other dealings with children. In three or four years perhaps, but it is the responsibility the Romanian State must bear." Powered by internal and external pressure or not, Bogdan Panait had no patience for three or four years and urged the reopening of international adoptions as soon as possible.

SLAP FROM THE GOVERNMENT
Subtle movement to amend the Law 273, which became a mandatory condition of Romania’s accession to the EU, was dismantled by the Government that gave its last breath.
On October 16, the Romanian Executive announced officially that it does not support the memorandum initiated by the Romanian Office for Adoptions, which proposes reopening the international adoptions. The Memorandum represents the point of view of the institution and is not endorsed by the Emil Boc Cabinet Emil, still in office. The Government had no discussion about this Memorandum and therefore has not taken any decision on this document.
Prime Minister still in office, Emil Boc, believes that current legislation in the field of international adoptions is in accordance with international law and European standards.
The same view was exposed by former PSD Foreign Minister, Cristian Diaconescu.

ADOPTION MAFIA WORKS THROUGH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The European Commission and the Council of Europe have prepared the international conference "Challenges of the procedures for adoption in Europe", which originally was to be held on 26 and 27 November in Strasbourg. Beyond discussions of principle, the ultimate aim of the conference is to develop a joint recommendation that Romania should follow the Bulgarian model, which is to reopen international adoptions. Those of the European Commission and NGOs who oppose this idea immediately came into conflict with the organizers.

The website announcing the conference and where one could register was suspended and amended several times, and those interested to participate could not register.
Subsequently, only NGOs approved by the organizers were informed by e-mail, and not at the official site of the conference, that the dates had changed and the conference would be held between November 30 and December 1. The worst thing is that the team of the European Commission in charge of organizing the conference is not legally allowed to do so.

Specifically, the Directorate General for Justice, Freedom and Security of the European Commission, the unit E2 - Civil Justice, headed by the Finnish Salla Saastamoinen organises the conference. The coordinator of the organizational team is the Italian Patrizia De Luca, working in that directorate.
According to the organigram of the European Commission, the Rights of the Child are part of the D1 of Directorate D of the European Commission, led by the Romanian Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea.
Sources in the EC Directorate D told National Journal that this structure has no involvement in organizing the conference in Strasbourg, although it is the only unit that has competence in children's rights in the European Commission.
The same source says that Directorate E2 violates the official regulations of the EU, more precisely the European Union anti-corruption policy, which states that a Directorate can not organize actions on issues that do not fall within their powers, conform the Communication on Anti-Corruption Policy, number 317 of 2003, addressed to the European Council and the European Parliament.

HOW TO SUBSTITUTE THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The organizational team E2 of the Directorate of Justice has hired a private firm that bought an Internet domain,http://www.adoptionprocedure.net/, announcing the upcoming conference. Normally, the conference should have been officially announced on the Internet pages of the European Commission and the Council of Europe.
Subsequently, the team only had contact with organizations and charity NGOs who are in favour of reopening international adoptions and ignore all others and international media interested in this subject. Many last-minute changes were only announced on the website of the conference at the last minute, or not announced at all.

Jurnalul National managed exclusively to unveil the secrecy around this so important conference, even at the European Commission in Brussels, from a source working in the Directorate of Justice caught offside, ie unit E2. This source claims that postponing the conference has nothing to do with the submission of the Government memorandum of ORA in Bucharest, but that the new government which will be installed until the conference, November 30, could give a favorable opinion of the proposed change of Romanian Office for Adoptions.

To the conference no nongovernmental organization from Romania or from another country that is hostile to reopen international adoptions was invited, the ultimate goal of the meeting in Strasbourg.

"We invited to the conference those organizations that have a closer connection (they coincide with those that oversaw international adoptions in Romania until 2004 and continued lobbying for the reopening them – Sic.) and we can not invite everyone who registered or the press because the conference hall has only 150 seats.
The website does not work all the time, because it is under construction, because the conference agenda and guest list is not yet complete.
From Romania only three guests will participate from State institutions. One of them, Bogdan Panait, director of ORA. I do not remember the name of the other two. We pay to participate, just travel and accommodation, for participants approved by us, with whom we worked, a total of 10 NGOs. Among them the Nordic Adoption, an umbrella association of 15 adoption agencies, very important in northern Europe and other organizations from France, and SERA, SERA whose leadership has moved to Geneva, International Social Service, and Amici dei Bambini in Italy.

So, from Romania will come only three guests from the State and Edmond McLoughney, UNICEF representative in Romania, who will speak on behalf of Romania, told us the source of the European Commission. Interestingly, the last topic of the conference will be "Towards a European policy on adoption ", where the case and experiences of Romania and Bulgaria will be analyzed, and Frenchman Jean-Marie Cavada, Member of the European Parliament and a close associate of French pro-adoption lobby in Romania, will talk about a common adoption policy, because other countries have opened adoptions, only Romania has not done this, though is part of the European Union.

We will have a Hungarian adoptive parent who lives in Britain, who will speak about the problems he had when he adopted a child in Hungary. This conference is a sequel, a follow-up to the conference in 2006, when it was tried also to make Romania to understand how necessary it is to reopen international adoptions, as well as other EU countries. We will not solve the problem immediately, but the conference has to convince Romania that international adoption can be resumed, like in other EU countries, such as for example Bulgaria, which has responded positively to this request for international adoptions.

The fact that Romania has a law against international adoption is the fault of former European rapporteur for Romania, Baroness Emma Nicholson, who said that international adoption means trafficking in children. She used his influence to halt all adoptions and make the entry of Romania into the EU to stop adoptions. Now we try to convince Romania to re-open adoptions, like other countries in Europe,” our source in Brussels told us



CE ŞI ORA FORŢEAZĂ PE ASCUNS REDESCHIDEREA ADOPŢIILOR INTERNAŢIONALE

Orfanii români, pregătiţi de export în UE

CORESPONDENŢĂ DE LA BRUXELLES. Oficiul Român pentru Adopţii pregăteşte de aproape 3 luni schimbarea legii 273 din 2004, legea care a oprit traficul de copii din România către alte ţări, sub masca adopţiilor internaţionale. Oficialii ORA nu au acţionat de capul lor, ci cu susţinerea unor grupuri de interese din SUA, Italia, Franţa şi alte ţări.

de Mircea Opris20/10/2009 Jurnalul National.

Aceste grupuri s-au folosit de un directorat al Comisiei Europene, care va organiza o conferinţă pentru redeschiderea adopţiilor internaţionale din România, între 31 noiembrie şi 1 decembrie, la Strasbourg. Comisia Europeană cere schimbarea legii impuse chiar de către ea, drept condiţie a admiterii noastre în UE. Jurnalul Naţional a reuşit să descopere culisele acestei operaţiuni internaţionale, chiar cu ajutorul unei surse din interiorul Comisiei Europene, a cărei identitate o vom proteja din raţiuni uşor de înţeles.

ROMÂNII AU AŞTEPTAT CĂDEREA GUVERNULUIOficiul Român pentru Adopţii a pregătit terenul pentru modificarea legii care interzice adopţiile internaţionale, încă din vară, când au pregătit două conferinţe, ambele ţinute la Timişoara. Prima a avut loc la începutul lunii septembrie şi se referea la drepturile copilului adoptat. Aici au fost adunaţi toţi directorii direcţiilor de protecţie a copilului din ţară pentru a centraliza date despre geutăţile în procesul de adopţie, date privind numărul copiilor adoptabili şi al adopţiilor în derulare. O a doua conferinţă a avut loc tot la Timişoara, departe de ochii misiunii UE din Bucureşti.În perioada 27-30 septembrie 2009, ANPDC şi Reprezentanţa UNICEF în România au organizat Conferinţa Naţională care deschide seria de evenimente prilejuite de celebrarea a 20 de ani de la adoptarea Convenţiei cu privire la Drepturile Copilului. La eveniment au participat reprezentanţi ai ANPDC, DGASPC-urilor, ai Agenţiilor ONU în România, precum şi ai altor instituţii guvernamentale şi non-guvernamentale. Aici, instituţiile româneşti şi internaţionale, împreună cu ONG-urile implicate în adopţii, au definitivat, cu scopul de a promova ulterior, ca act normativ, Planul Naţional de Acţiune Integrată privind prevenirea şi combaterea violenţei asupra copilului. Coordonatorii au fost Ileana Savu, Secretar de Stat în cadrul ANPDC, şi Edmond McLoughney, Reprezentant UNICEF în România.Cu doar o zi înainte de previzibila cădere a Guvernului Boc 2, ORA propune, printr-un memorandum trimis la Guvern, redeschiderea adopţiilor internaţionale. Documentul iniţiat de ORA arată că pe parcursul celor patru ani de implementare a Legii 273/2004, privind regimul juridic al adopţiei, s-a constatat că există în continuare câteva categorii de copii "greu adoptabili" pentru care cadrul normativ în vigoare nu permite identificarea unor soluţii de îngrijire adecvate cu caracter permanent. Iniţiatorii documentului afirmă că o astfel de măsură ar trebui luată având în vedere acordarea de şanse egale tuturor copiilor separaţi de familiile lor naturale, care nu pot fi reintegraţi şi nici nu sunt adoptaţi în România.

Rolul "soldatului de sacrificiu" i-a revenit secretarului de stat de la Oficiul Român pentru Adopţii, Bogdan Panait, care a declarat că redeschiderea adopţiei internaţionale se va face doar în colaborare cu autorităţi acreditate din statele respective, pentru a fi evitată corupţia. Acesta nu reuşeşte să convingă însă de ce acest memorandum a fost înaintat guvernului chiar în momentul în care România nu are un guvern. "Am trimis memorandumul luni dimineaţă, înainte de votarea moţiunii (de cădere a guvernului - n.r.). Nu ştiu care este soarta lui.

Ne grăbim, e un lucru pe care noi am vrut să-l supunem dezbaterii şi unei decizii politice, şi eu cred că orice cabinet care vine poate să ia în discuţie acest memorandum", a declarat Bogdan Panait. În mod evident, ORA a profitat de brambureala politică de la Bucureşti pentru a cere schimbarea legii, la negociere cu viitorul guvern desemnat. Aprobarea acestui memorandum înseamnă practic modificarea Legii 273 privind regimul adopţiei. O parte din negocierile cu reprezentanţi ai SUA şi ai unor ţări din UE, interesate de adopţii din România ar putea face posibilă adoptarea memorandumului şi adoptarea legii. "Când am venit aici, am avut o discuţie cu premierul (Emil Boc - n.r.). Desigur, au fost foarte multe sesizări din partea familiilor şi forurilor internaţionale, iar discuţia a fost pe valoarea şi modificarea legii.
Sigur, nu s-a precizat dacă e vorba şi de adopţia internaţională. Eu mi-am îndeplinit această misiune. Modificarea este făcută. Legea este finalizată în proporţie de 99 la sută, săptămânile următoare va fi supusă dezbaterii publice şi va fi postată pe site. Dar, în contextul în care noi am făcut modificările pe lege, am ajuns la concluzia - şi datorită unor protocoale internaţionale - că putem să mergem şi pe ideea de a începe demersurile pentru adopţia internaţională. Sigur, nu este o decizie pe care s-o iau eu. Şi atunci, am făcut acest memorandum, care este un memorandum foarte neutru. Decizia este a Guvernului, în ce măsură este momentul politic, noi am dat date statistice, am menţionat angajamentele României în domeniu şi decizia va fi în totalitate a Guvernului", a declarat acum câteva zile Bogdan Panait.

Interesant este că, la începutul lunii septembrie, într-un interviu în exclusivitate pentru Jurnalul Naţional, acelaşi secretar de stat la ORA declara că "atât timp cât eu voi fi la ORA, în momentul în care guvernul îmi va cere să găsesc o soluţie pentru adopţia internaţională, pentru acest moment, este exclus. Din nou se va creea imaginea că iarăşi facem comerţ, trafic şi alte lucruri cu copiii. Peste trei sau patru ani poate, dar asta este o responsabilitate pe care trebuie să şi-o asume statul român". Împins de presiuni interne şi externe sau nu, Bogdan Panait nu a mai avut răbdare trei sau patru ani şi a cerut redeschiderea adopţiilor internaţionale cât mai urgent.

BOBÂRNAC DE LA GUVERN
Mişcarea subtilă de modificare a Legii 273, devenită una dintre condiţiile obligatorii ale acceptării României în UE, a fost demontată de Guvernul care îşi dădea ultima suflare. La 16 octombrie, Executivul de la Bucureşti a anunţat oficial că nu susţine memorandumul iniţiat de Oficiul Român pentru Adopţii, în care se propune redeschiderea adopţiilor internaţionale. Memorandumul reprezintă un punct de vedere al acestei institutii şi nu este însuşit de Cabinetul Emil Boc, încă în exerciţiu. Guvernul nu a avut nici o dezbatere referitoare la acest Memorandum şi, prin urmare, nu a luat nici o decizie cu privire la acest document. Primul-ministru încă în exerciţiu, Emil Boc, consideră că actuala legislaţie în domeniul adopţiilor internaţionale este în conformitate cu legislaţia internaţională şi cu standardele europene. Acelaşi punct de vedere a fost expus şi de către fostul ministru de Externe PSD, Cristian Diaconescu.Aceste grupuri s-au folosit de un directorat al Comisiei Europene, care va organiza o conferinţă pentru redeschiderea adopţiilor internaţionale din România, între 31 noiembrie şi 1 decembrie, la Strasbourg. Comisia Europeană cere schimbarea legii impuse chiar de către ea, drept condiţie a admiterii noastre în UE. Jurnalul Naţional a reuşit să descopere culisele acestei operaţiuni internaţionale, chiar cu ajutorul unei surse din interiorul Comisiei Europene, a cărei identitate o vom proteja din raţiuni uşor de înţeles.

ROMÂNII AU AŞTEPTAT CĂDEREA GUVERNULUI
Oficiul Român pentru Adopţii a pregătit terenul pentru modificarea legii care interzice adopţiile internaţionale, încă din vară, când au pregătit două conferinţe, ambele ţinute la Timişoara. Prima a avut loc la începutul lunii septembrie şi se referea la drepturile copilului adoptat. Aici au fost adunaţi toţi directorii direcţiilor de protecţie a copilului din ţară pentru a centraliza date despre geutăţile în procesul de adopţie, date privind numărul copiilor adoptabili şi al adopţiilor în derulare.
O a doua conferinţă a avut loc tot la Timişoara, departe de ochii misiunii UE din Bucureşti.

În perioada 27-30 septembrie 2009, ANPDC şi Reprezentanţa UNICEF în România au organizat Conferinţa Naţională care deschide seria de evenimente prilejuite de celebrarea a 20 de ani de la adoptarea Convenţiei cu privire la Drepturile Copilului. La eveniment au participat reprezentanţi ai ANPDC, DGASPC-urilor, ai Agenţiilor ONU în România, precum şi ai altor instituţii guvernamentale şi non-guvernamentale.

Aici, instituţiile româneşti şi internaţionale, împreună cu ONG-urile implicate în adopţii, au definitivat, cu scopul de a promova ulterior, ca act normativ, Planul Naţional de Acţiune Integrată privind prevenirea şi combaterea violenţei asupra copilului.
Coordonatorii au fost Ileana Savu, Secretar de Stat în cadrul ANPDC, şi Edmond McLoughney, Reprezentant UNICEF în România.

Cu doar o zi înainte de previzibila cădere a Guvernului Boc 2, ORA propune, printr-un memorandum trimis la Guvern, redeschiderea adopţiilor internaţionale. Documentul iniţiat de ORA arată că pe parcursul celor patru ani de implementare a Legii 273/2004, privind regimul juridic al adopţiei, s-a constatat că există în continuare câteva categorii de copii "greu adoptabili" pentru care cadrul normativ în vigoare nu permite identificarea unor soluţii de îngrijire adecvate cu caracter permanent. Iniţiatorii documentului afirmă că o astfel de măsură ar trebui luată având în vedere acordarea de şanse egale tuturor copiilor separaţi de familiile lor naturale, care nu pot fi reintegraţi şi nici nu sunt adoptaţi în România.

Rolul "soldatului de sacrificiu" i-a revenit secretarului de stat de la Oficiul Român pentru Adopţii, Bogdan Panait, care a declarat că redeschiderea adopţiei internaţionale se va face doar în colaborare cu autorităţi acreditate din statele respective, pentru a fi evitată corupţia. Acesta nu reuşeşte să convingă însă de ce acest memorandum a fost înaintat guvernului chiar în momentul în care România nu are un guvern. "Am trimis memorandumul luni dimineaţă, înainte de votarea moţiunii (de cădere a guvernului - n.r.). Nu ştiu care este soarta lui. Ne grăbim, e un lucru pe care noi am vrut să-l supunem dezbaterii şi unei decizii politice, şi eu cred că orice cabinet care vine poate să ia în discuţie acest memorandum", a declarat Bogdan Panait. În mod evident, ORA a profitat de brambureala politică de la Bucureşti pentru a cere schimbarea legii, la negociere cu viitorul guvern desemnat. Aprobarea acestui memorandum înseamnă practic modificarea Legii 273 privind regimul adopţiei.
O parte din negocierile cu reprezentanţi ai SUA şi ai unor ţări din UE, interesate de adopţii din România ar putea face posibilă adoptarea memorandumului şi adoptarea legii. "Când am venit aici, am avut o discuţie cu premierul (Emil Boc - n.r.). Desigur, au fost foarte multe sesizări din partea familiilor şi forurilor internaţionale, iar discuţia a fost pe valoarea şi modificarea legii. Sigur, nu s-a precizat dacă e vorba şi de adopţia internaţională. Eu mi-am îndeplinit această misiune. Modificarea este făcută. Legea este finalizată în proporţie de 99 la sută, săptămânile următoare va fi supusă dezbaterii publice şi va fi postată pe site. Dar, în contextul în care noi am făcut modificările pe lege, am ajuns la concluzia - şi datorită unor protocoale internaţionale - că putem să mergem şi pe ideea de a începe demersurile pentru adopţia internaţională. Sigur, nu este o decizie pe care s-o iau eu. Şi atunci, am făcut acest memorandum, care este un memorandum foarte neutru. Decizia este a Guvernului, în ce măsură este momentul politic, noi am dat date statistice, am menţionat angajamentele României în domeniu şi decizia va fi în totalitate a Guvernului", a declarat acum câteva zile Bogdan Panait. Interesant este că, la începutul lunii septembrie, într-un interviu în exclusivitate pentru Jurnalul Naţional, acelaşi secretar de stat la ORA declara că "atât timp cât eu voi fi la ORA, în momentul în care guvernul îmi va cere să găsesc o soluţie pentru adopţia internaţională, pentru acest moment, este exclus. Din nou se va creea imaginea că iarăşi facem comerţ, trafic şi alte lucruri cu copiii. Peste trei sau patru ani poate, dar asta este o responsabilitate pe care trebuie să şi-o asume statul român". Împins de presiuni interne şi externe sau nu, Bogdan Panait nu a mai avut răbdare trei sau patru ani şi a cerut redeschiderea adopţiilor internaţionale cât mai urgent.

BOBÂRNAC DE LA GUVERN
Mişcarea subtilă de modificare a Legii 273, devenită una dintre condiţiile obligatorii ale acceptării României în UE, a fost demontată de Guvernul care îşi dădea ultima suflare.

La 16 octombrie, Executivul de la Bucureşti a anunţat oficial că nu susţine memorandumul iniţiat de Oficiul Român pentru Adopţii, în care se propune redeschiderea adopţiilor internaţionale. Memorandumul reprezintă un punct de vedere al acestei institutii şi nu este însuşit de Cabinetul Emil Boc, încă în exerciţiu. Guvernul nu a avut nici o dezbatere referitoare la acest Memorandum şi, prin urmare, nu a luat nici o decizie cu privire la acest document. Primul-ministru încă în exerciţiu, Emil Boc, consideră că actuala legislaţie în domeniul adopţiilor internaţionale este în conformitate cu legislaţia internaţională şi cu standardele europene. Acelaşi punct de vedere a fost expus şi de către fostul ministru de Externe PSD, Cristian Diaconescu.

MAFIA ADOPŢIILOR LUCREAZĂ PRIN COMISIA EUROPEANĂ
Comisia Europeană şi Consiliul Europei au pregătit, la rândul lor, conferinţa internaţională "Provocări ale procedurilor de adopţie în Europa", care iniţial trebuia să aibă loc la 26 şi 27 noiembrie la Strasbourg. Dincolo de discuţiile de principiu, scopul final al conferinţei este acela de a elabora o recomandare comună prin care România să urmeze modelul Bulgariei, adică să redeschidă adopţiile internaţionale. Acei membri ai Comisiei Europene şi ONG-urile care se opun acestei idei au intrat imediat în conflict cu organizatorii. Pagina de Internet care anunţa conferinţa şi pe care se puteau face înscrierile a fost suspendată şi modificată de mai multe ori, iar cei interesaţi să participe nu s-au putut înscrie.
Ulterior, doar ONG-urile agreate de către organizatori au fost informate, prin e-mail şi nu pe site-ul oficial al conferinţei, că datele s-au schimbat şi conferinţa va avea loc între 30 noiembrie şi 1 decembrie.

Cel mai grav lucru este că echipa din cadrul Comisiei Europene care se ocupă de organizarea acestei conferinţe nu are legal voie să facă acest lucru.
Concret, de organizare se ocupă Directoratul General pentru Justiţie, Libertate şi Securitate al Comisiei Europene, prin unitatea E2 - Justiţie civilă, aflat sub conducerea finlandezei Salla Saastamoinen. Coordonatorul echipei de organizare este italianca Patrizia De Luca, angajată a acestui directorat.
Conform organigramei Comisiei Europene, Drepturile Copilului se află în unitatea D1 a Directoratului D al Comisiei Europene, condus de românul Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea. Surse din directoratul D al CE au declarat pentru Jurnalul Naţional că această structură nu are nici o implicare în organizarea conferinţei de la Strasbourg, deşi este singura unitate care are competenţe în materie de drepturile copilului în cadrul Comisiei Europene. Aceleaşi surse afirmă că cei din directoratul E2 încalcă regulamentele oficiale ale UE, mai exact politica anticorupţie a Uniunii Europene, care prevede că nici un directorat nu poate organiza acţiuni pe teme care nu îi intră în atribuţii, conform Comunicatului de politică anticorupţie al Comisiei Europene numărul 317 din 2003, adresat Consiliului Europei şi Parlamentului European.

Cum să te substitui Comisiei EuropeneGrupul de lucru E2 din Directoratul de Justiţie a angajat o firmă privată care a cumpărat un domeniu de Internet, www.adoptionprocedure.net, prin care anunţă viitoarea conferinţă.
În mod normal, conferinţa ar fi trebuit anunţată oficial pe paginile de Internet ale Comisiei Europene şi a Consiliului Europei.
Ulterior, echipa ia legătura doar cu organismele şi ONG-urile care sunt în favoarea redeschiderii adopţiei internaţionale şi le ignoră pe toate celelalte, precum şi presa internaţională interesată de acest subiect. Numeroasele schimbări de ultim moment nu se anunţă pe pagina de Internet a conferinţei decât în ultima clipă sau nu se anunţă deloc.

Jurnalul Naţional a reuşit, în exclusivitate, să dezlege secretomania asupra acestei conferinţe şi importanţa ei, chiar la sediul Comisiei Europene din Bruxelles, de la o sursă care lucrează în cadrul Directoratului de Justiţiei prins în ofsaid, adică unitatea E2. Sursa susţine că amânarea conferinţei nu are nimic în comun cu depunerea memorandumului ORA spre aprobarea Guvernului de la Bucureşti, dar că noul guvern, care se va instala până la data conferinţei, 30 noiembrie, ar putea da aviz favorabil schimbărilor propuse de Oficiul Român pentru Adopţii.
La conferinţă nu a fost invitată nici o organizaţie nonguvernamentală din România sau din altă ţară care să fie ostilă redeschiderii adopţiilor internaţionale, scopul final al întâlnirii de la Strasbourg.

"Noi am invitat la conferinţă acele organizaţii cu care avem o legătură mai strânsă (ele coincide cu cele care se ocupau în România de adopţii internaţionale până în 2004 şi care continuă lobby-ul pentru redeschiderea acestora - n.r.) şi nu putem invita pe toţi cei care s-au înscris şi nici presa deoarece sala în care se ţine conferinţa nu are decât 150 de locuri. Pagina de Internet nu merge tot timpul, pentru că e în lucru, pentru că agenda conferinţei şi lista invitaţilor nu este încă finalizată.
Din România nu vor participa decât trei invitaţi din partea instituţiilor de stat. Unul dintre ei este Bogdan Panait, directorul ORA. Nu îmi amintesc numele celorlalţi doi. Noi plătim participarea, drumul şi cazarea doar pentru participanţii agreaţi de noi, cu care am mai lucrat, un număr de 10 ONG-uri. Printre ele Nordic Adoption, o umbrelă pentru 15 asociaţii de adopţii, foarte importanţi în nordul Europei şi alte organizaţii din Franţa, precum SERA, dar şi conducerea SERA care s-a mutat la Geneva, International Social Service, iar din Italia Amici dei Bambini... Din România vor veni doar cei trei invitaţi din partea statului şi Edmond McLoughney, reprezentant UNICEF în România, care va vorbi în numele României", ne-a declarat sursa din cadrul Comisiei Europene.
Interesant este că ultimul subiect al conferinţei va fi "Spre o Politică Europeană a Adopţiilor", unde se vor analiza cazuri şi experienţe din România şi Bulgaria, iar francezul Jean-Marie Cavada, membru al Parlamentului European şi un apropiat al lobby-ului francez pro-adopţie din România, va vorbi despre o politică comună a adopţiilor, pentru că alte ţări au deshis adopţiile, doar România nu face acest lucru deşi este parte a Uniunii Europene. "
Vom avea şi un părinte adoptiv maghiar, care trăieşte în Marea Britanie, care va vorbi despre problemele pe care le-a avut când a adoptat un copil din Ungaria.
Această conferinţă este o urmare, un follow-up la conferinţa din anul 2006, când am încercat din nou să facem România să înţeleagă cât de necesar este să redeschidă adopţiile internaţionale la fel ca şi alte ţări din UE.
Nu vom rezolva problema imediat, dar la conferinţa aceasta trebuie să convingem România că adopţia internaţională poate fi reluată, aşa ca în alte ţări UE, cum ar fi de exemplu Bulgaria, care a răspuns pozitiv la această cerere pentru adopţii internaţionale. Faptul că România are o lege împotriva adopţiei internaţionale este vina fostului raportor european pentru România, baroneasa Emma Nicholson, care spunea că adopţia internaţională înseamnă trafic de copii. Ea şi-a folosit toată influenţa pentru a stopa adopţiile şi a condiţionat intrarea României în UE de stoparea adopţiilor. Acum încercăm să convingem România să redeschidă adopţiile, aşa cum fac alte ţări din Europa", ne-a mai declarat sursa de la Bruxelles.

See also...
· "Don't punish the children"
· The Romanian battlefield for children
· Italians finally give back stolen Romania children
· High Level external pressure
· Romania for Export Only
· Search a Child, Pay Cash - The Adoption Lobby

WHY THE CALL TO TRAFFIC CHILDREN AGAIN MR PANAIT?

I have received news that ORA proposes to re open Inter Country Adoptions again supposedly for certain cases from Romania and must question this proposal as it is well acknowledged that this form of adoption is no more than child trafficking. Romania as you well know suffered badly in the 90s from the Inter Country Adoption phenomenon that saw an untold number of children many with biological parents who were never consulted adopted abroad by the large interests that play a part in the trade and profitable business of Inter Country Adoptions.

Since the ban on these dubious kinds of adoptions that do not place the interest of the child first under any circumstances and do not offer the child any form of protection not even under the Hague agreement, which as failed to protect so many children which is also a well known and indisputable fact Romania has been able to develop other forms of care for children in need of state care as there are in all Countries.

This includes foster care both short and long term that is a viable option to many a child especially the older child and proves there is no need to have these children placed for Inter Country Adoption again as in the 90s.

Further more it is a fact that at present there are more Romanians wishing to adopt a child than children available by your own offices statistics, thus no need to re open this trade in children again that saw thousands of children adopted abroad in the 90s without them ever being consulted.

Romania may be in a financial crisis, but so is all of Europe and furthermore the 30.000 euro per head gained for each child transported and sold abroad under the guise of Inter Country Adoptions will not resolve the economy but will deprive children of their rights to grow up in their birth Country and will remove the possibility for biological parents to ever have a chance to have their child back again.

Children with disabilities are in the main unadoptable in any Country as all want a healthy child and there are other options for these children in the modern Romania today like special group care homes that can with the correct funding and properly trained staff care for these children.

It is also a fact that many a disabled child can with success be reintegrated back home as is the case in many European Countries with a full package of social support.

It is well known that the US has applied a great deal of pressure on Romania to trade its children again and it will be seen by the whole of Europe as a weak Romania that gives in to this unjust pressure that disregards the needs of Romanian children and their rights.

Of course it is now well known about the trade in children by the large adoption lobby and was recently documented by German Television channel WDR.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=suche+kind+zahle+bar&search_type=&aq=f

Brian Douglas. (Director RCHF.)

Italians finally give back stolen Romania children

The Italian internal minister has finally decided that the 3 Romanian children who were seized illegally by the over zealous Italian social services department 2 years ago can be released and can be free to go home to Romania.

The Italian internal ministry department of immigration and civil liberties recently made this decision after a long diplomatic battle by Romanian diplomats to secure the release of the 3 children who were illegally taken into foreign care and under an illegal Italian court order and placed illegally in Italian state care with a family in Rimini, under the outrageous scheme of Alexandra Mussolini, who cries for the re opening of inter Country adoptions from Romania for Italian parents who will become like the children scapegoats for the huge adoption agencies that put profits before the interest and rights of the child.

All 3 children were taken on the thinnest of excuses as were well cared for by their Mother in Italy, had a good school record as explained by the school teachers and were not involved in any crime, not were they a problem to the Italian authorities.

The children Richard, Melody and Maria will now be cared for by the Romanian consulate in Italy whilst repatriation procedures are made, after which they will return home to their own Country and family.

The lives of these youngsters has been traumatized badly by the Italian authorities who took these young children in an attempt to show that it had untold rights. Thankfully the Romanian pressure has proved again that the Country does look after its children and will not allow the likes of Ms Mussolini to flout international law and approve the stealing of children by the Italian tribunals.

US call on Romania to traffic its children again.

The US Congress it is now known gave an official letter to The Romanian Foreign Minister when he was on a working visit to the US in May calling for the re opening of Inter Country adoptions from Romania.
The fact that this official letter given to The Romanian Foreign Minister by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was signed by signatories who are they declare members of a NGO who name themselves as The Congressional Coalition on Adoption, shows that even today at the highest level in the US there is acceptance in the trade of children masked as inter Country adoptions.

The US has over 129.000 US children who are adoptable within its own care system and in many states social services are stretched to the limits with even emergency new cases of children needing urgent support not able to be dealt with because of a huge backlog of social services cases within the system.
The amounts of children growing up in families or with single parents who consume narcotics in the US is staggering as is the amount of minors under 18 years old who consume narcotics of all kinds. In short the US has huge social problems like many EU Countries and it would be in the best interests of the child if the US resolved its own childcare failings before looking to a Country like Romania that has been praised for its efforts and reforms in this domain in the last 9 years.

Taking a closer look at the US Congress letter to the Romanian foreign Minister shows the lack of correct information stating that Romania has 86.000 children in care today and this was placed within this letter as the US would like the availability of a huge number of children for adoption within the US from Romania.

Let me make it quite plain that there are not 86.000 Romanian children in need of adoption, in fact there are few Romanian children in need of adoption and these can and must be resolved via national adoption within the Country.

The actual figure of 86.000 children in the Romania case is completely untrue as there is not even this amount of children within the whole Romanian child protection system today.

Romania placed ban on Inter Country Adoptions in 2001 and law 234 of 2004 for two main reasons. Firstly it was discovered that many children had been adopted internationally via agencies to not only the US but, other Countries as well like France, Italy, Israel, and the UK and their rights had not been placed above all other interests as the US congress knows but will never admit because of its conflict of interests in this situation. Many of the US senators back or are friends with the large US inter Country adoption agencies that make huge funds out of what amounts to trafficking of children.

The Hague convention has time and time again over the past 15 years not only with Romanian children but, with children adopted internationally from many Countries failed to protect the child’s best interest. This was again proved without doubt recently in 2 cases of illegal adoptions of Romanian children in Italy despite the fact they had relatives to go home to and despite the fact that in one of the cases over 6 months ago the Romanian authorities had started repatriation procedures which the Italians under Mussolini completely ignored.

Inter Country adoption agencies have in the past shown only one interest and that was to make a huge profit out of what amounts to the sale of children. The child never has its rights consulted or taken into account and in many. In many cases the child has never met the Adoptive parents before in its life. The agencies charge up to 30.000 USD and more for this service and in the last decade there have been many parents who adopted a child from Romania before the ban on foreign adoptions was placed and have found out that they were literally lied to in the face by these agencies who claimed the children were well and had no problems. The reality after receiving the child/children was that in many cases they suffered from illness including mental retardation, psychological problems, learning difficulties and this was exasperated by the fact they could not adapt to the new foreign surroundings they were placed in without any consultation or counseling that this would happen, plus many of the children knew they had relatives back home in Romania that would have taken them as Romanian families are very close.

This was known to be the case in 1.500 cases as far back as 1999! Home studies or parents who wanted to adopt a child were done flippantly by agencies that clearly did not want to loose another huge cash payout for a Romanian child. In all the child got no support and had no rights, it was just purchased and bundled off to a family it never knew and did not understand and this amounts to child trafficking and an absolute abuse of children’s rights.

The second reason that Romania placed a ban in 2001 on Inter Country adoptions was so that it could develop its own childcare reforms that had suffered for many years under communism and after in the early to mid 1990’s.

Within these Romanian reforms The European Commission, AS CAN BE READ IN THE BOOK ‘Romania - For Export Only’ of Mrs Roelie Post, between 1999 – 2006, plus a full strategy of reforms that gave direct benefits to the child were put in place. Children’s rights became a vital part of Romanian law despite huge lobbying from the US to re open Inter Country Adoptions. Romania rightly resisted and thousands of children were re integrated back home from old style orphanages to their parents or relatives, foster care became available both short and long term and has helped many a child even today, plus for the small amount of children who like in all Countries cant be home for one reason or another there were developed new modern small family type group homes. This shows that Romania suddenly did not need to export its children and this is what upset the agencies many in the US who have friends in Congress as they lost their huge financial gains as Romania put its children first.

Also one must appreciate that it was quite impossible to develop national adoption within the Country; whilst there were huge financial gains for agencies in inter Country foreign adoptions as old style orphanages simply put the children to an agency it collaborated with in the old days. Therefore the development of a national adoption strategy, which is not easy, could also not be undertaken with success until the foreign adoptions were banned. National adoption of course takes time but in the end for the few children needing adoption is far better than foreign adoption as there is no huge cash gain for any agency as Romanian Authorities have a state Office of Adoptions, plus in national adoption a child does not loose its sense of belonging, nor its culture, language and can carry on its education, plus often can keep local friends, plus can when of age if should be the case look for its birthparents within its own Country.

Romania has come forward in leaps and bounds in the domain of child care in the last 10 years and the Country must now again resist with vigor the unjust pressures of the US senators so that the Romanian children can still retain their full rights. Further development of childcare is needed as in all Countries and this is needed in minority care and in cases of poverty at present in Romania, but the answer is not to whisk the children away to foreign families via Inter Country adoption agencies. Addressing the problems with well-planned programs to raise standards for the poorest is the way forward, plus education on childcare within families that have not had the opportunity to access this subject is important too.

Inter Country adoption agencies have in the past shown only one interest and that was to make a huge profit out of what amounts to the sale of children. The child never has its rights consulted or taken into account IN MANY cases.


Brian Douglas. ( Director RCHF.)