Verklaring samenwerkende vergunninghouders n.a.v. het verschijnen van het RSJ advies op woensdag 2 november 2016
De vergunninghouders interlandelijke adoptie hebben op woensdag 2 november 2016 om 8:18 uur het 100 pagina tellende advies van de RSJ aan de Minister van Veiligheid en Justitie ontvangen.
Dat advies is openbaar en dient als input voor de beleidsontwikkeling van het Ministerie van V&J. De vergunninghouders zullen inhoudelijk reageren maar hebben tijd nodig om het advies zorgvuldig te lezen, te beoordelen en hun reactie aan de Minister te overhandigen.
Voor de vergunninghouders staat centraal dat de belangen van het kind gediend zijn met adoptie en dat op zorgvuldige en onderbouwde wijze invulling kan worden gegeven aan internationale en nationale wet- en regelgeving omtrent adoptie.
Wereldwijd groeien nog steeds veel te veel kinderen op zonder ouders. Volgens het Verdrag van de Rechten van het Kind en het Haags Adoptieverdrag is het een fundamenteel recht van kinderen om de kans te krijgen op te groeien in een gezin met wie het een permanente juridische band heeft. Nederland is partij in deze verdragen waarin dit standpunt is vastgelegd vanuit het belang van het kind*.
Het aantal ouders dat open staat of kan staan voor de opname van een geadopteerd kind neemt steeds verder af terwijl het aantal kinderen dat op moet groeien in gezinsvervangende situaties alleen maar toeneemt. Plaatsing van kinderen in een permanente gezinsvervangende situatie terwijl er mogelijkheden voor interlandelijke adoptie zijn, is in strijd met het Verdrag van de Rechten van het Kind en met het Haags Adoptieverdrag.
Namens de samenwerkende vergunninghouders (Vereniging Wereldkinderen, Stichting Kind en Toekomst, de Nederlandse Adoptie Stichting, Meiling en Adoptiestichting A New Way)
Sanne Buursink – de Graaf
Voorzitter 2015-2016
_____________________________
* In de Guide to Good Practice van het Verdrag is in hoofdstuk 2.1.1. de subsidiariteit van kinderen beschreven. Hierbij is een hiërarchie in beschermende maatregelen opgenomen, waarbij ook de tijdsduur is meegenomen voordat er een maatregel voor een kind is genomen. Dit hoofdstuk is als bijlage bij deze verklaring opgenomen.
2.1.1 Subsidiarity
46. The principle of subsidiarity is highlighted in the Preamble to the Convention and in
Article 4 b). Article 4 b) provides that:
?An adoption within the scope of the Convention shall take place only if the competent authorities of the State of origin [.] have determined, after possibilities for placement of the child within the State of origin have been given due consideration, that an intercountry adoption is in the child?s best interests?.
47. ?Subsidiarity? means that States Party to the Convention recognise that a child should
be raised by his or her birth family or extended family whenever possible. If that is not
possible or practicable, other forms of permanent family care in the country of origin should
be considered. Only after due consideration has been given to national solutions should
intercountry adoption be considered, and then only if it is in the child?s best interests.24
Intercountry adoption serves the child?s best interests if it provides a loving permanent family
for the child in need of a home. Intercountry adoption is one of a range of care options which
may be open to children in need of a family.25
48. The subsidiarity principle is central to the success of the Convention. It implies that
efforts should be made to assist families in remaining intact or in being reunited, or to ensure
that a child has the opportunity to be adopted or cared for nationally. It implies also that
intercountry adoption procedures should be set within an integrated child protection and care
system, which maintains these priorities. However, States should also ensure that efforts to
achieve this goal do not unintentionally harm children by delaying unduly a permanent
solution through intercountry adoption. States should guarantee permanency planning in the
shortest possible time for each child deprived of his / her parents. Policies should work to
promote family preservation and national solutions, rather than to hinder intercountry
adoption.
49. This Guide encourages incorporating intercountry adoption within a comprehensive
child and family welfare policy. Important steps toward this goal include coherent legislation,
complementary procedures and co-ordinated competences. Such a policy would ultimately
incorporate support to families in difficult situations, prevention of separation of children from
their family, reintegration of children in care into their family of origin, kinship care, national
adoption and more temporary measures such as foster and residential care. Matching for
both national and intercountry adoption should be a professional, multi-disciplinary and
qualitative decision taken in the shortest possible time on a case-by-case basis, after careful
study of the situation of the child and the potential families, and with care being taken that the
procedure does not unnecessarily harm the child through its methods of implementation.
Such decisions would include systematic implementation of the subsidiarity principle, as
appropriate.
50. The Convention refers to ?possibilities? for placement of a child in the State of origin.
It does not require that all possibilities be exhausted. This would be unrealistic; it would place
an unnecessary burden on authorities; and it may delay indefinitely the possibility of finding a
permanent home abroad for a child.
51. The principle of subsidiarity should be interpreted in the light of the principle of the
best interests of the child. For example:
24 See, for example, the responses of Chile, Ecuador, Estonia, India, Latvia, Lithuania, Peru and South Africa to question No
4(b) of the 2005 Questionnaire on the Practical Operation of the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. The Questionnaire and the responses are available on the
website of the Hague Conference at: < www.hcch.net > under ?Intercountry Adoption Section? and ?Special Commissions?
(hereinafter ?2005 Questionnaire?).
25 Statement of Unicef?s position on intercountry adoption at Annex 10 of this Guide and at < www.hcch.net > under
?Intercountry Adoption Section? and ?Related documents and links?.
? It is true that maintaining a child in his or her family of origin is important, but it is not more important than protecting a child from harm or abuse.
? Permanent care by an extended family member may be preferable, but not if the carers are wrongly motivated, unsuitable, or unable to meet the needs (including the medical needs) of the particular child.
? National adoption or other permanent family care is generally preferable, but if there is a lack of suitable national adoptive families or carers, it is, as a general rule, not preferable to keep children waiting in institutions when the possibility exists of a suitable permanent family placement abroad.26
? Finding a home for a child in the country of origin is a positive step, but a temporary home in the country of origin in most cases is not preferable to a permanent home elsewhere.
? Institutionalisation as an option for permanent care, while appropriate in special circumstances, is not as a general rule in the best interests of the child.
52. It is noted that in-family adoptions (adoptions by a relative) come within the scope of
the Convention (see Chapter 8.6.4 of this Guide). The question may arise as to where the
child?s best interests lie when the choice is between a permanent home in the State of origin
and a permanent home abroad with a family member. Assuming that the two families in
question are equally suitable to adopt the child, in most cases the child?s interests may be
best served by growing up with the biologically-related family abroad. This example
illustrates that it is not subsidiarity itself which is the overriding principle of this Convention,
but the child.s best interests.
53. It is sometimes said that the correct interpretation of .subsidiarity. is that intercountry
adoption should be seen as ?a last resort?. This is not the aim of the Convention. National
solutions for children such as remaining permanently in an institution, or having many
temporary foster homes, cannot, in the majority of cases, be considered as preferred
solutions ahead of intercountry adoption. In this context, institutionalisation is considered as
?a last resort?.27
26 One State of origin indicated at the 2005 Special Commission that due to a lack of national solutions for its large number of
abandoned and orphaned children, and children of destitute parents, intercountry adoption was the best solution for such
children at that time.
27 See Unicef statement, supra, note 25