Research on illegal intercountry adoption awarded with Edmond Hustinxprijs
Intercountry adoption often appears to be the ultimate humanitarian deed —offering parentless children the chance for a better life in a safe and loving home. However, the reality is more complex. Dr. Elvira Loibl, assistant professor at the Department of Criminal Law at Maastricht University’s Law Faculty, uncovered significant weaknesses in the Dutch intercountry adoption system. Her research played a pivotal role in the decision to suspend all intercountry adoptions in the Netherlands as of May 2024. In recognition of her work and its far-reaching impact, the Edmond Hustinx Foundation awarded her this year’s prestigious prize.
It was ten years ago that Loibl encountered the topic of illegal intercountry adoption. “It was a coincidence, actually. I knew I wanted to pursue a criminological study for my PhD, and while exploring potential topics, I read about illegal intercountry adoptions,” she starts off. “When I was working on my dissertation, I never imagined my research would have so much impact. In the same month my dissertation took place, the Joustra Commission was established.” Another coincidence that led to a chain of events that reshaped the intercountry adoption system in the Netherlands.
Joustra Commission
In 2019, the Dutch government felt the pressure of adoptees that knew or had strong reasons to believe that they had been illegally adopted. They urged the government to look into past intercountry adoptions. As a reaction, Sander Dekker, then-minister for legal protection set up the Joustra Commission (in Dutch: de Commissie-Joustra). “The mandate of the Joustra Commission was to investigate adoptions from five countries between 1969 and 1998. It revealed systemic abuses and concluded that the Dutch state had knowledge thereof,” Loibl explains. “My dissertation, published in 2019, focused on the period after 1998, following the ratification of the Hague Convention. Even then, my research found that the system remained fraught with weaknesses, which continued to encourage and facilitate illegal practices.”
The Joustra Commission report was published in 2021, also referring to Loibl’s work on intercountry adoptions. “It recommended to either abolish the system all together or to reform”, Loibl continues. “So, in that sense, I think my PhD contributed to where we stand now.”
Illegal Intercountry Adoption
When the process of adopting a child form another country violates the laws or regulations of one or both countries involved, it’s called illegal intercountry adoption. This can include forging documents, bypassing necessary legal procedures, or adopting children who were not legally available for adoption. Often these children are kidnapped from the streets or bought from poor families and then offered to adoption agencies.
Weaknesses and dilemmas
One of the weaknesses in the previous system was that adoption agencies were reliant on the number of adoptions that they placed. “Because they didn’t receive any subsidies from the government, they had to finance their business by placing a particular number of children”, Loibl explains. “The financial pressure continued to increase when the number of adoptions began to decline in 2004. This strain became one of the system’s major vulnerabilities, creating an incentive for adoption agencies to continue transferring children from sending countries, even in the face of clear signs of systemic irregularities in the international adoption process.” Another motivation for the adoption agencies was their ideology. “Saving children was their raison d’être. The reason they exist,” Loibl goes on. “Once the minister recognized this issue, he dissolved the adoption agencies, believing they were at the root of the problem.” That’s when the ‘publiekrechtelijk adoptiesysteem’ was introduced: a system in which the government is responsible for placing children for intercountry adoption in the Netherlands.
Another weakness that Loibl identified in her work was the blind trust that adoption stakeholders in the receiving countries often have in sending countries that have ratified the Hague Convention. Loibl: “This Convention was adopted in 1993 and has set the standards for ethical and sustainable international adoptions which respect the rights of children and their birth parents. However, the convention is no more than a set of principles and procedures, which are only as good as their implementation. In reality, many sending countries lack the resources to establish an adoption system free from abuse. Despite this, stakeholders in receiving countries often regard the treaty as a solid safeguard against illegal and unethical adoption practices, insisting they must trust the integrity of foreign systems and the accuracy of the information provided about the children—even when evidence of abuse becomes undeniable.
When attempting to reform the intercountry adoption system to reduce the risk of abuses, the Dutch government faced several dilemmas. "One dilemma, for example, arose from the Subsidiarity Principle, a fundamental concept laid down in the Hague Convention and the Convention of the Rights of the child. Under the new system, the minister aimed to continue adoptions only from countries that fully respect this principle. However, at the same time, it was believed that it is children from sending states that have not effectively implemented this principle are often those most in need of intercountry adoption.
Subsidiarity Principal
The Subsidiarity Principle stipulates that intercountry adoption should only be considered when it is not possible to provide a child with a suitable and permanent solution within their own country. The principle aims to ensure that intercountry adoption is a last resort, used only when domestic options are inadequate, and the adoption is in the best interest of the child.
No reparations
So, where do we stand now? As of May 2024, Minister Weerwind has banned intercountry adoption, but the victims are still left with numerous unanswered questions and no reparations. Following the Joustra Commission's report, Weerwind apologized and established an expertise centre intended to assist adoptees with inquiries about their origins. However, this centre does not have the task assist adoptees in finding back their biological families. Loibl explains: “Some adoptees have even initiated legal proceedings against the Dutch state seeking damages and reparations. One case went all the way to the Hoge Raad, where the adoptees ultimately lost. One argument was that the Dutch government had not violated any laws in place at the time. So, on the one hand, you have a minister offering apologies; on the other hand, the Dutch state is doing everything possible to avoid paying reparations.
Work with victims
Currently, Loibl is busy with research on the aftermath of illegal intercountry adoptions. “I aim to uncover the obstacles that impede the process of reconciliation,” she explains. “Why is it so challenging to address and rectify the harm inflicted on adoptees? What actions are necessary, and how can they be implemented?” The prize money from the Edmond Hustinx prize will support her follow-up research, which is centred on understanding and addressing the victims' needs. “My goal is to focus on the victims, their needs, and how to respond effectively to the harm inflicted upon them,” Loibl says.
Photo: Philip Driessen
Also read
-
Paula Roldán Barraza will join METRO as a PhD researcher. She will be based both at SBE and at LAW and will be supervised by Iwan Bos (SBE), Niels Philipsen (METRO) and Kalpana Tyagi (IGIR).
-
Professor Andrea Ott successfully applied for a a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence on Crises and Emergencies in EU Integration (EmergEU) in July 2024. In the upcoming three years, the centre will explore crises and emergencies in EU integration.
-
PhD thesis written by Francesco Maletto
This research examined whether the legal framework currently governing this kind of marine pollution is adequate and effective in addressing the issue.
