A Missionary's Response to Exportation vs. Adoption

Mr. Douglas:

The real situation "on the ground" here in Romania is far different than what you or Mrs. Nicholson think.

"Baroness Nicholson has worked for many years now to protect the human rights of children in grave danger, not only in Romania but, in many countries of the world and has had to fight hard to achieve protection for vulnerable babies and children. This is a plain fact and can never be denied."

While she may have worked hard, her efforts here in Romania have been misguided, based on inaccurate information, and the legislation which resulted from her lobbying pressure flies in the face of credible scientific research regarding the development of children.

"She has made a real effort, despite what has now become hostile personal attacks on her to put child safeguards into place."

Again, she has made an effort, but the so-called "safeguards" have led to the abuse of scores of thousands of children without permanent families by denying them the opportunity, via her "model" legislation approved by Romania, to be adopted by loving families even if those families happen to live outside the borders of Romania. While we're on the subject of hostile attacks, what more apt description could be made of her remarks regarding adoptive and potential adoptive families than "hostile personal attacks". Her words (documented in interviews and published statements) were that adoptive and potential adoptive families from outside Romania were that they are linked to "terrorists", are "members of organized crime networks", " child traffickers", "organ sellers", "mobsters preying on children", "buyers of children", "exploiters of children" etc. Sounds pretty hostile to me.

"The ban on international adoptions was not meant to penalize families abroad who wanted to adopt children from Romania at all, but was to protect the children being adopted, as there were no real safeguards to do this at the time."

But it did just that, even if it was unintentional. If that was an unintentional mistake, then fix it and open up international adoptions with the proper controls. This is necessary because there aren't enough internal adoptions to cover the number of children without permanent families. Then why not allow the 1,100+ registered cases to go through since those "safeguards" seem to be in place now. Furthermore, I fail to see how banning international adoptions is any kind of child protection measure since it has condemned a large majority of the children without permanent families to the lack of a loving permanent family. Nor do I see how that is a "safeguard" to the system. There is no logical connection between the two.

"Why do more EU ministers not take up the subject and try to find a solution themselves? It seems easy to criticize an EU college but not so easy as to step into her shoes or offer to help in this difficult area."

They are trying, but Nicholson hangs the Damocletian sword of problems entering the EU over Romania's head every time someone proposes the sane, civilized, logical solution of opening international adoptions so that the tens of thousands of children without permanent families can have one.

". . . as an adult [he -- Amar] can go forward in life, gain employment and live a life millions ofIraqi children can only dream of having."

Substitute "Romanian" for Iraqi and you will see the need and motivation for opening up international adoptions. Remember, you made the statement, not merely the pro-international adoption folks.

"Your reportage also claims that if you ask people in the Bucharest streets if they should be put up for adoption by foreign parents that they would invariably answer yes."

Unfortunately, that's one question Nicholson forgot to ask.

"Here you should have asked a few more questions. One would be, do you think the children should be monitored after international adoption and if so who should do this?"

Of course this is a good question. So why not make that provision and allow international adoptions.

Or perhaps "What are your views on child safety in cases of international adoptions."

Of course this is a good question. So why not make that provision and allow international adoptions.

"If I look at the other side of the case then clearly there is still a massive problem in Romania with abandoned children. Maternity wards are full of them as are children's hospitals but again this cannot be blamed on Baroness Nicholson."

Much of this can indeed be blamed on Nicholson since it is her "model" legislation which has resulted in horrendous bureaucracy for accomplishing internal adoptions (I am speaking from present personal experience). Additionally, if international adoptions were open, another 1,100+ children would be with their forever families. Furthermore, thousands of other children would have been adopted by loving families living outside the physical borders of Romania (including some Romanian citizens living outside of the physical borders of Romania).

"The problem here lies in the plain fact that in 2006 millions live below the line of subsistence and in terrible conditions mainly in rural areas and this combined with a lack of real education on birth control and affordability in many cases to, means many abandon their child not through lack of love but lack of means to support their child."

What you say has merit. Perhaps Nicholson, with her substantial millions, could sustain them. Or better yet, fix the social programs. But banning international adoptions has nothing to do with the lack of sufficient funds or programs to address the issues you raise above! In fact, banning international adoptions and making internal adoptions so difficult has not significantly reduced the number of children without permanent families once again proving the lack of a connection. So open up international adoptions so these children can have a forever family.

"I can even add that if a proper program was put into place then many of the would be international families who wish to adopt a child might like to give real support to a Romanian family so the family can keep their child at home."

A good idea. And it's already being done on a wide scale. But I know of at least two NGOs here in Romania who are trying to help birth-mothers keep their babies and the government is trying to close them down.

Furthermore, the president, the prime-minister, and the foreign minister have said on numerous occasions, "we can take care of our own." "give it the maternal love only a Mother can give"

Are you saying that only birth-mothers can give true, authentic maternal love? As an adoptee myself, I can assure you that you are greatly mistaken. My birth-mother made the most loving decision she could in her situation -- she gave me up for adoption to my dear loving mother -- never realizing at the time that she [my birthmother] would die four years later. I've always said that I've been blessed with double motherly love. Yes indeed. An adoptive mother can give the same maternal love that a birth-mother can.

"International adoption costs a great deal of money for the adopting family and here I am not only speaking of the adoption fees and travel to the foreign country with the child, but also the lifetime of fees to bring up and care for that child including daily needs, education, holidays, clothing and other natural needs of every child."

One cannot put a price on the value of a permanent loving family. And until there are NO children without permanent families, international adoption should be open.

"I wonder therefore how many international families who wish to adopt a child from Romania and have the child's best interests at heart, would instead support a poor families child here in Romania by improving their home to decent hygienic and safe standards, paying for the child's needs on an ongoing basis so that the natural Romanian Mother and Father could bring up their loved child themselves and the child could grow up with his/her brothers and sisters in the natural Romanian home environment. They would in fact become the child's sponsor and would become the family's special friends, plus would be able to visit regular and build a long lasting special relationship with the child and the whole family. This could have far reaching community effects to, as perhaps the foreign family may want to invest in business in the Romanian families area, and / or to improve living standards in new community ventures."

This is already being done on a wide scale. But another reality here is that this is a nice idea but open to abuses too many to mention. Neither does it solve the problem of the 100,000+ (or 30,000 for that matter) children that RIGHT NOW have no permanent family.

"Of course this solution would not be acceptable to many, as they only want to adopt a child believing that only they can offer the Romanian child the love it lacks in state care."

It is scientifically proven that they can offer the Romanian child the love it lacks in state care!

"I am not suggesting they cannot offer this love but the child's interest must be put first and in doing so I wonder how they would feel about sponsoring a child in Romania so that it could stay with and receive the love of its natural Mother!"

This is fine, but it does not address the fact of tens of thousands of children without permanent families right now. And the child's best interest is to be in a loving permanent family -- something denied to tens of thousands of Romanian children due to the oppressive, abusive, draconian legislation now in force in Romania.

"Perhaps some of the EU MEPs you speak of in your report today should look at this angle I speak of and not sit on the fence and criticize Baroness Nicholson for her efforts . . ."

She isn't being criticized for her efforts per se but rather for her misguided efforts (the current legislation being one example).

"but get involved themselves in searching for real solutions."

One real solution at the moment for tens of thousands of children is international adoption. These MEP's are open to this -- Nicholson (and at her insistence Romania) is not.

"I clearly see there will be and are cases in Romania like in every other country were a child's natural parents or parent will not want their child for a particular reason, perhaps born out of a separate relationship while married, perhaps born to a teenager who's parents don't accept to name[sic -- strange grammar here -- POH] but a couple of cases that spring to mind. In these cases one must look differently and positively to the child's interests first and foremost."

Exactly. And this is exactly what international adoption into a permanent loving family provides -- the scientifically proven fact that a child's best interest is served by being in a loving permanent family. So open up international adoptions because that is in the best interests oftens of thousands of children in Romania who have no permanent family.

"If the child cannot be adopted internally in Romania for whatever reason then the answer is not to leave the child as an unknown number in maternity Hospitals or Children's Hospital wards as appears to be the case at present in Romania."

Thank you for admitting something that some seem to be trying to hide.

"These children must be offered for international adoption but not yet as Romania needs to develop achild care protection system with international countries so that follow up visits by authorities can be made to verify the child's safety and progress and full inter country cooperation must take place on this."

These safeguards are already in place or Nicholson would not have called it "model legislation for all of Europe" and "up to European standards". I've read the law (in Romanian and English -- I'd challenge you to do the same in both languages). I've read the methodological norms and regulations (in Romanian and English -- I'd challenge you to do the same in both languages). What you ask for is in the law already, because it must be there for biological grandparents living outside the borders of Romania.

"Until this is done the Ban on international adoptions must stay in place."

It's already done (see above). Therefore, lift the ban.

"and I add the fault of this ban being in place so long is not that of Baroness Nicholson, but that of the Romanian Government for not in all these past years developing an international child protection plan to address the safety needs of internationally adopted kids."

Thank you for refuting Nicholson's claims that the ban was put in place because of the guile of adoptive parents and potentially adoptive parents (who were terrorists, Mafioso, child traffickers, etc. -- perhaps what you're really saying is that the major problem was a few [note that word] corrupt Romanians -- so why ban INTERNATIONAL adoptions and make 1,100+ children plus all the others without permanent families suffer.)

"The ban was put in place to protect the child's interests "

That's a misnomer if I ever saw/heard one. Now how can that be when the best interests of the child are served by having him in a loving family -- a situation now denied to tens of thousands of Romanian children due to the current legislation (and made extremely difficult even for internal adoptions due to the current legislation!)

" . . .and if a real protection plan can be implemented to safeguard every child adopted then the adoptions of children to other countries I feel would resume again with support of everyone. Mistakes will be made and when they happen they are tragic but we must all do our best to avoid them re-occurring and the international ban though hard on the many, many good Christian loving families who want to give a real chance to a Romanian child must stay in place for now until there are real child safeguards to stop the terrible trade in child trafficking not only from Romania but Eastern Europe as a whole."

Such safeguards are in place in the current Romanian law and in the norms. So lift the ban! Will you, Mr. Douglas, work hard to get the ban lifted now that the safeguards you mentioned are in place? (I doubt Nicholson will be in favor.)

"My heart goes out to all of the genuine people trying to adopt a Romanian child who must be overcome with emotion and grief at the adoption ban in Romania, but this ban was put in place not to stop you from adopting a child"

But that's what it did; and it resulted in the denial of a loving family to tens of thousands of Romanian children without permanent families.

"rather than to stop children being abused by the few criminal gangs that portray themselves as adopters and abuse the system that was meant to bring only good for the child."

So why literally throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater?? Fix the problem. Don't ban international adoptions.

"The Ban I feel can only be lifted when there are proper safeguards for children in place"

See the current law and my comments in the above paragraphs!

"and in my view Baroness Nicholson was correct in asking for the adoption ban and must not be blamed for the fact it has been in place for so long"

She is to be blamed (along with the government for accepting such misguided advice) since it is she who encouraged the ban, called it "model" legislation, and seemingly insists on its permanence.

"as it is the job of the Romanian authorities at Government level to resolve this issue so that adoptions on an international basis can take place again when the children's human rights are clearly provided for in law."

They exist in the current law. Furthermore it is the current law which in other places has resulted in the denial of the basic human right of tens of thousands of Romanian children to a permanent family. It's a bad law. It needs to be changed. And it needs to be changed now!

A
Timisoara

"I was not exported, I was adopted"

Bucharest Daily News - 3/10/06

Juliana, 16, U.S.: "Romania's internal child care problems are for anyone a difficult subject to approach, understand and try to resolve and Baroness Nicholson very bravely took up the challenge, whilst others decided to look the other way and has made a real effort, despite what has now become hostile personal attacks on her to put child safeguards into place. The ban on international adoptions was not meant to penalize families abroad who wanted to adopt children from Romania at all, but was to protect the children being adopted, as there were no real safeguards to do this at the time," said Mr. Brian Douglas on March 10.

You are wrong Mr. Douglas. The ban on international adoption does not hurt families; it hurts the children who are left in horrible places, like the place I grew up in. It hurts my friends, who I left behind when I was lucky enough to be adopted. I, Mr. Douglas, was adopted under the law that you say didn't protect children. I think it did. It protected me. My parents did not buy me. I have all my body parts, and I am not a slave to anyone. I have been back to Romania several times and know more about my culture now than I ever learned in the orphanage. The last law may have needed to be fixed, but it did not need to be thrown away with no chance for all my friends to find their forever families. I have seen in newspapers where the Baroness has said that I and others were "exported." I was never exported. I was adopted, and I now have a chance of living a good life. Something I would never have had if I had stayed in Romania."

"I believe the EC will support international adoptions"

"I believe the EC will support international adoptions"
Denisa Maruntoiu

British MEP Charles Tannock, a member of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, believes the ban on international adoptions imposed in Romania is a mistake and hopes that Romania will take a sovereign decision to change its law and stop denying children the right to a loving family.

Following the recent articles on international adoptions published in Bucharest Daily News, several MEPs notified us that Baroness Emma Nicholson's radical anti-international adoption outlook is not shared by all the members of the EP. Please give us more details about the majority's position, as you know it, on the international adoptions issue.

The European Parliament has realized that, despite improvements in the child welfare system in Romania, the problem of child abandonment continues, and the needs are simply greater than Romania can take care of alone with its budgetary constraints. Our immediate concern is the situation of the approximately 1,000 children (sometimes called "pipeline cases") whose international adoptions were pending when the new law forbidding international adoptions came into effect on January 1, 2005. These children could have homes with caring and loving families who have proven their good faith by waiting long periods, in some cases more than 3 years, to adopt these children.

What possible interest could Romania or the EU have in keeping these children out of those loving homes by applying the new law retrospectively to their cases that pre-date the new law?

There have been many hints made by Romanian officials that these children are no longer available for adoption, but many of them are apparently being declared "non-adoptable" so that their cases can be reviewed all over again under the new law. Also, we have heard of instances of pressure being applied on Romanian foster parents or prospective adoptive parents to adopt these children, rather than others, presumably in order to make the problem of the pending cases disappear. This is cruel and unjust, not only to the pending cases, but also to the thousands of other abandoned children who need adoptive families.

Do you know how many members of the European Parliament are in favor of international adoptions and which are the pro-international adoptions arguments used by this faction in order to contest the "against" ideology?

I cannot speak for the other 731 members of the European Parliament. I can say, though, that the amendment to the European Parliament's latest report on Romania's progress toward accession to the EU, that stated that Romania should review the pending cases with the goal of allowing international adoptions, was approved, as far as I could see, by virtually a unanimous show-of-hands during the vote last December. The plenary was as close to full during that vote as it has ever been, in my experience. The arguments for international adoption can be summed up as outlined in a very recent letter from a number of senior MEPs to Prime Minister Tariceanu, which I co-signed and states as follows: "the EP from party groups representing a wide range of political views and affiliations, have now called upon the Romanian Government to move as quickly as possible to give these hundreds of children, whose international adoptions were pending before the new adoption law came into effect, the loving homes that are already waiting for them in many EU and non-EU member states. (...) The Parliament urges the Romanian Government not to apply the Law on the Legal Status of Adoption retrospectively to cases registered before the law came into effect, cases in which very often the child has developed a relationship with the prospective parents. (...) This issue has been an irritant in Romania's EU accession process for too long. It need not be. We all want Romania to be part of the Union; hopefully on January 1, 2007. There is no question about our conviction that Romania will fulfill the political commitments made in the Accession Treaty. But now is the time to act in the best interests of the children. Now is the time to allow their adoptions to go forward and to unite them with the families that will give them the love and support that they need."

Do you believe Romania should completely lift the ban on international adoptions or do you think Romania should only allow the pending cases to be resolved?

It is becoming clear to me that the ban on international adoptions was a mistake, given the great need in Romania of thousands of abandoned children. Now, though, that ban is the law in Romania. I hope Romania will take a sovereign decision to change its law, but that is Romania's choice. Right now, my immediate concern is that these pending cases be approved for adoption.

In your opinion, why does Nicholson appear to be so hostile to the idea of foreign prospective parents giving Romanian abandoned youngsters a family?

I cannot comment on that, other than to say that it is a mystery to me and a cause of frustration to many of her colleagues.

Has Nicholson ever presented the European Parliament concrete evidence of cases in which adopted children were abused or trafficked?

Baroness Nicholson has never, to my knowledge, presented any evidence of this whatsoever to the European Parliament.

Nicholson often said that the European Commission shares her view on international adoptions, meaning the EC considers the ban on international adoptions to be a necessary and positive measure. But if the majority within the EP has a different outlook then Nicholson, why doesn't the EC reconsider its position as well?

I have the sense that the EC is now reconsidering its position. Contacts between MEPs and the Commission are on-going and the Commission is normally sensitive to the democratically elected representatives of the people of Europe. We believe that the Commission, although it is a slower and less publicly visible institution than the Parliament, will support international adoptions for the pending cases.

Do you think that by resuming the international adoption process (or at least the pending cases) Romania would jeopardize its EU accession?

Definitely not. The clear meaning of the amendment in the European Parliament report is that Romania should allow the pending international adoptions to go forward as a signal of its progress and readiness for EU accession. The European Parliament gave its assent to Romanian accession and an undertaking was made by Commissioner Rehn that Parliament's views will be taken carefully into consideration in the run-up to accession currently foreseen for January 1, 2007 unless the safeguard clause is applied.

If the majority within the EP does not agree with Nicholson's opinion, why is it that the Romanian authorities, the public, and the media consider her to be "the voice" of the EP when it comes to international adoptions?

Baroness Nicholson has been active on this issue for years, and it takes a while for it to sink in that she is no longer dominating this issue, and that the European Parliament has made an informed decision to reject her view.

Would Romania violate international conventions by allowing the pending cases to be resumed?

It is the view of experts that there are no relevant international conventions that forbid international adoption. Those charged with interpreting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - not to mention the Hague Convention on International Adoption, which sets out rules for international adoption under the assumption that international adoption can be the best solution for children who cannot find permanent, family-based solutions in their own country, have clearly and repeatedly stated that there is no international convention which forbids international adoption.

Wouldn't it be possible for illegal maneuvers involving children to be resumed if Romania would allow international adoption process to continue?

Corruption is always possible in any country, but there is no reason why Romania, with proper legislation and enforcement procedures, cannot have a legitimate, legal and transparent procedure for processing both domestic and international adoptions.

Let's remember what we're talking about when the subject is international adoption - we're talking about children who need a permanent, family-based solution in order to grow and thrive in order to reach their full potential and adoptive families who want to provide it. Trying cynically to allege that other interests are involved in anything but a miniscule minority of cases not only does not square with the facts, but also does an injustice to the interests of abandoned children in finding families to raise and love them.

Do you think that the cases of abused adopted children represent a sufficient reason for international adoptions to be considered treacherous?

The vast majority of international adoptions from Romania have given children caring and loving family homes. There is no evidence that cases of abuse are more frequent in domestic or international adoption cases than they are in their natural biological families. Indeed adopting families are subject to rigorous screening procedures to prevent such things happening whereas no one rightly screens a biological parent before having a child.

What do you think Romania should do in order to end the dispute over the international adoption issue without harming any of the parts involved?

Romania should transparently and speedily review the pending international adoption cases with the goal of allowing international adoptions in these special cases. If Romania rejects a pending case, it should be able to demonstrate, openly and transparently and separately for each individual case, that the adoption would not be in the best interest of the child. That much is owed to the children and the adoptive parents who have been waiting so long to be united.

Moscovici: I truly hope the adoption issue will be solved in the coming months

Bucharest Daily News
March 14, 2006

Moscovici: I truly hope the adoption issue will be solved in the coming months
Denisa Maruntoiu

Moscovici, the vice president of the European Parliament, believes that Romania will solve its problems concerning international adoptions.

The vice president of the European Parliament (EP), who is also the EP rapporteur on Romania, Pierre Moscovici, believes that the EU lawmakers' vote in December on his report on Romania's progress towards EU accession clearly underlines that the members of the EP support the resumption of international adoptions, especially in the cases of the "pipeline" children. What's more, Moscovici labels the vote as marking a turning point in the position of the EP, which until recently appeared to be a genuine supporter of the former rapporteur on Romania and leader of the most forceful anti-international adoption campaign, Baroness Emma Nicholson.

"Having taken over Emma Nicholson's role as the EU Parliament rapporteur on Romania, I hold her contribution in high respect and place myself in the continuity of her work, even though our approaches and sensitivities differ. We notably differ on the issue of international adoptions of Romanian children. While Mrs. Nicholson was the force behind the 2001 moratorium on such procedures, and remains a defender of this ban, I believe the situation is a more complex one that must be considered in its multiple aspects and treated carefully. Indeed, the moratorium has put many prospective adopted parents, as well as the children with whom they had begun to form family ties, in a situation of cruel emotional distress. I understand the arguments and objectives underpinning a ban on international adoptions - notably the aim of preventing child trafficking; just as I know that it is not the role of the EU Parliament to press the Romanian government to change its legislation, upon which it has complete sovereignty. However, in my assessment of Romania's state of preparedness to EU accession, the welfare of its orphans has come up as one of the issues requiring attention and reform. It is of prime importance that the interest of the child be the foremost consideration, both in the management of orphanages and the treatment of adoption requests. It is in this perspective that my last report, on behalf of the EU Parliament, strongly encourages the resolution of the "pipeline cases" created by the 2001 moratorium. I believe that these cases should be considered individually and with care, so as to allow inter-country adoptions where they are deemed appropriate, and keeping in mind the international legal framework - notably the UN Convention for the rights of the child. Article 23 of my report, which deals with this issue, was the object of much discussion, both in the Foreign Affairs Committee and during the plenary session of the Parliament. Indeed, it marks a turning point in the position of the EU parliament on this matter; and testifies that many MEPs are sensitive to the pain faced by the families involved and view favorably the possibility of international adoptions in those special cases. Their stance is, of course, borne out of compassion and concern for the children involved above all; and certainly not an interested maneuver. I remain in close contact and excellent relations with the Romanian president and government; and I truly hope that this issue can be resolved in the coming months."

European Parliamentarians Change the Course of International Adoptions in Romania

European parliamentarians change the course of international adoptions in Romania Denisa Maruntoiu

In spite of the general belief among Romanians that the European Union fully supports the law banning international adoptions, Bucharest Daily News found out a significant number of EU lawmakers fight a tough battle to persuade both the European Commission and the Romanian government that such adoptions are a viable alternative for orphaned children.

Among those fighting the battle is the EP's rapporteur on Romania, Pierre Moscovici.

Still, their voices remain unheard in Romania.

Why there's only one voice speaking on the subject on behalf of the entire European Union, no one knows.But some of the MEPs accuse Baroness Emma Nicholson, the driving force behind the ban, of carrying a personal crusade against international adoptions, following the experience she had with an Iraqi boy she took care of for years.

If one would stop every meter on the most crowded street in Bucharest to ask random people if they think Romanian orphans should be up for adoption by foreign parents, the answer they would invariably receive would be "Yes," "Why not?" and "They should be that lucky!"

If one would ask people who work in child protection services, journalists and politicians why Romanian orphans cannot be adopted by foreign families according to the new law, the answers would basically be: "Because the European Union doesn't support it," "Because it leads to child trafficking and abuses" or "because there are plenty of local families who want to adopt our own orphans."

What neither ordinary Romanians nor professionals in the field seem to be aware is that a wind of change is blowing in Brussels.

A lot of the European parliamentarians have changed their views on the matter and are actually lobbying both the European Commission and the Romanian government hoping they will change the present interdictions.This aspect was revealed to the Bucharest Daily News through abundant feedback from European lawmakers who, following the publishing in our newspaper of a series of articles ("The orphans of our discontent") covering the international adoption issue in early February, contacted our newsroom to point out that a large majority of the EU lawmakers are in favor of international adoptions and not against, as perceived in Romania. Hence, Bucharest Daily News decided to contact as many MEPs as possible to find out which is the majority's position and its arguments concerning the controversial issue of international adoptions. To our surprise, it suddenly became tough to find a European Parliamentarian who would speak against international adoptions.

Most European Parliamentarians changed their minds in December 2005

"Having taken over Emma Nicholson's role as the EU Parliament rapporteur on Romania, I hold her contribution in high respect and place myself in the continuity of her work, even though our approaches and sensitivities differ. We notably differ on the issue of international adoptions of Romanian children," says Vice President of the European Parliament Pierre Moscovici.

Moscovici's position on international adoptions is likely to come as a surprise to many, as never before had a European official publicly declared in Romania an opinion in opposition to that shared by Nicholson.

And the bolt from the blue might be even greater for the large majority of the Romanian public who, for many years, has believed that Nicholson's radical anti-international adoption outlook is shared by all members of the European Parliament: six other MEPs have informed us that the intense anti-international adoption campaign guided by Nicholson led to the misconception that Nicholson's view is in fact the official view of the EP as a whole.

"The vote on the resolution on the extent of Romania's readiness for accession to the EU, on December 15, 2005 shows an increased awareness of a lot of MEPs on the issue of international adoptions in Romania. For instance, during the vote on this resolution, the amendments by Baroness Nicholson that dealt with child protection and adoption were all rejected, which proves that a majority of MEPs don't agree with her on this subject," says French MEP Claire Gibault.

During the ballot on Moscovici's report, the MEPs voted in favor of the oral amendment that urges Romania to act "with the goal of allowing inter-country adoptions to take place, where justified and appropriate, in those special cases."

"The amendment to the EP's latest report on Romania's progress that stated Romania should review the pending cases with the goal of allowing international adoptions was approved, as far as I could see, by virtually a unanimous show-of-hands during the vote last December. The plenary was as close to full during that vote as it has ever been, in my experience," says British MEP Charles Tannock, a member of the Group of the European People's Party (EPP).

In addition, Belgian MEP Frederique Ries, one of Nicholson's colleagues within the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), says that the only report the EP ever voted on with regards to the issue ("Improving the law and cooperation between member states on the adoption of minors," 1996), clearly states that "we (the EP) do not discourage international adoptions but promote them as an instrument of international solidarity."The issue of international adoptions, and more specifically, "pipeline cases," which refer to the 1,110 families around the world that were in the process of adopting children when the prohibitive legislation came into effect, rapidly became the controversial point of the EP's debate in December.

"But the real fight took place in the liberal group where I and others had to fight till the end Nicholson's own version, which justifies the ban in Romania. Just to give you an indication, she said that Romania's legislation is now in line with those of EU member states! The argument is false, as other member states do not ban international adoptions," says Ries.

According to Gibault and another French MEP, Jean Marie Cavada, even if the official position of the EP while Nicholson was rapporteur for Romania was indeed that international adoptions should be banned, "most of the EP members have now (December, 2005) found out what reality is, and consequently changed their minds." The same aspect was maintained by Moscovici, who told Bucharest Daily News that the vote of his report "marks a turning point in the position of the EP on this matter."

Of 10,000 abandoned children, only 1,300 adopted internally

According to the EU lawmakers that granted us interviews, the change of attitude, although almost unnoticed in Romania, is the outcome of both a thorough analysis of the arguments in favor of the adoptions and the lack of factual evidence concerning Nicholson's fierce censure.

The European Parliament has realized that, despite improvements in the child welfare system in Romania, the problem of child abandonment continues, and the needs are simply greater than Romania can take care of alone amid its budgetary constraints.

A contributing factor to the change in attitude was a UNICEF survey on the situation of child abandonment in Romania, published in January 2005, which reported that about 10,000 children were abandoned in 2004.

"Child abandonment in 2003 and 2004 was no different from that occurring 10, 20, or 30 years ago," the survey also stated.

Indeed, the stream of abandonment seems very high compared to the annual number of domestic adoptions which has not exceeded 1,300 in any of the last five years, according to the statistics of the National Authority for Child Rights Protection.

"In Romania, international adoption can serve the best interest of the child. Foster families, even if they are well trained, remain temporary measures and therefore can't totally fulfill the affective needs of the children. As not enough Romanian parents currently have the means or the desire to adopt a child, international adoption remains the best solution to provide abandoned children with the permanent protection they deserve," says Gibault, who labels international adoptions not as a trade of children, but as the best way for an abandoned child to find a mom and a dad.

"Inter-country adoptions lead to cultural mixing, open-minded behaviors and tolerance. Therefore the ban on international adoption should be lifted," adds Cavada. Although the global issue of international adoption is of profound concern, the EU lawmakers' top priority is to work out at least the pending cases, on the grounds that at least the 1,100 pipeline children could have homes with caring and loving families who have proven their commitment to the children, waiting long periods, in some cases more than four years, to adopt them.

"In cases that started prior to the new law the Government should allow the adoption to go through as soon as possible, even before the final assessment of the Commission is given in April. The fact that adoptive parents haven't given up and keep fighting for their children for so long is the best proof of the love and care those children deserve," points out Portuguese MEP Paulo Casaca, a member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PSE).

No proof of Nicholson's traffic and abuse allegations

In her report into the Romanian adoption system, published in May 2001, Nicholson cited "persistent abandonment of children, child abuse and neglect" and "child trafficking." She also said that dozens of Romanian children were adopted abroad against their will by families that did not take proper care of them. However, both Gibault and Casaca point out that Nicholson has never presented the EP tangible evidence of such cases.

"Nicholson keeps talking about the existence of 'constant evidence,' but she has never presented any. All she can say when she is put under pressure is 'But everyone is talking about it!' We do not deny that there were some cases of abuse or trafficking, but it concerned a very small minority of children. Baroness Nicholson wants to make us believe that all international adoptions lead to abuse, but as long as she does not bring us concrete evidence of that, she will not convince us," says Gibault.

Casaca has a similar viewpoint, emphasizing that Nicholson makes a number of serious undocumented accusations regarding inter-country adoption, equating it to human exportation and trafficking violations.

"Nicholson is not the EP and her views on inter-country adoption, on Romania or on the world are not, fortunately, the views shared by me and by most of my colleagues," adds Casaca.

But the accusations brought against Nicholson do not stop here, as Gibault says that Nicholson's fierce criticism of inter-country adoption is in fact the result of a personal negative experience.

"Nicholson adopted an Iraqi child after the first Gulf war. But a rift developed between her and her child and now they don't have contact anymore, according to the Daily Telegraph. But just because she experienced an adoption failure does not mean that she has to carry on a personal crusade against international adoptions, thus preventing Romanian children from finding a family," recounts Gibault.


'Sometimes I wish I had not been saved' (The Daily Telegraph; 05/03/2004)

"He was one of the most poignant symbols of the brutality of Saddam Hussein. Amar Kanim, then 10, suffered terrible burns after the dictator ordered his tanks and guns to fire on his own people at the tail-end of the first Gulf war.

Discovered close to death by Lady Nicholson in an Iranian hospital, he became the focus of a national appeal after he was brought to Britain.

Since then he has made a remarkable physical recovery thanks to 26 major operations and the charity named after him, the Amar Foundation, has raised more than £8 million to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people.

But what looked like being a happy ending has since turned sour after a rift developed between him and the woman who saved his life.

Now 23, unemployed and homeless, Amar claims he has been abandoned by Lady Nicholson, the former Tory and Liberal Democrat MP. Lady Nicholson, now an MEP for a constituency in the South East, denied she had abandoned Amar and said he had left her.

But he said yesterday: "Sometimes I wish that I had never been saved. I have no family over here and I am a long way from my own culture and now I feel like I have been abandoned."

Emma said that she would be my mother for ever. Then she turns around when I am an adult and says she doesn't want anything to do with me. You don't do that to your own child.

"If you save someone's life and you bring them to another culture away from their family then you have a responsibility for them. I am very grateful that she saved my life but I feel like I have been used. Now that I am older I feel I am past my sell-by date. (...)"

The adoptions ban is not the best solution to prevent abuses

Although the MEPs consent that in many cases previous to 2001 parents from abroad simply bought Romanian babies, thus encouraging the corruption in the adoption system, they do not consider the ban to be the most appropriate solution for preventing illegal maneuvers.

"If the Romanian authorities lead this fight resolutely, and we are sure they do, corruption shouldn't stand in the way of a proper working of international adoption anymore. Moreover, when the Romanian authorities resume international adoptions, they will have to enforce rigorous procedures to prevent those illegal practices from recurring," says Cavada.

As for the cases in which Romanian orphans have been abused by adoptive parents, Tannocks underlines that there is no evidence that abuses are more frequent in domestic or international adoption cases than they are in their natural biological families.

"Trying cynically to allege that other interests are involved in anything but a miniscule minority of cases not only does not square with the facts, but also does an injustice to the interests of abandoned children in finding families to raise and love them," he points out.

The new Romanian law on adoptions not only has sparked protests among the families whose adoption cases were in the pipeline, but also influenced the Helsinki Commission to accuse Romania in mid-September 2005, of trading its children for EU membership. On the other hand, the Romanian government explained that the new adoption laws were developed along with a group of experts from the European Commission, based on the U.N. Convention for child rights, the Hague Convention for Child Protection and European practices in the field.

The MEPs disagree, pointing out that the U.N. Convention establishes the principle of subsidiarity for international adoption, specifying that such adoption "may be considered as an alternative means of child care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot, in any suitable manner, be cared for in the child's country of origin."

In addition, the Hague Convention, adopted four years after the U.N. Convention and also ratified by Romania, also confirms in its preamble the principle of subsidiarity for international adoption.

"It is the view of experts that there are no relevant international conventions that forbid international adoption. The Hague Convention sets out rules for international adoption under the assumption that it can be the best solution for children who cannot find permanent, family-based solutions in their own country," says Tannock.

His position is reinforced by Casaca, who believes that the virtual elimination of international adoption as an option for child protection in Romania is particularly surprising since countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Spain have the highest rates of international adoption in the world. "And they all have signed, acceded or ratified the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of inter-country adoption," adds Casaca.

Another serious issue tackled by those pleading for the resumption of international adoptions is related to the fact that the new legislation was applied retroactively, thus leading to the blocking of the pending adoptions requests.

"The EP called for a solution to be found for those pipeline cases - to which the Romanian government responded by announcing the establishment of a 'committee of experts,' to look into the pipeline cases. In practice they didn't look into the cases to find the best for the child and the adopting family, to see if there is an emotional bond, if the child knows his adopting family or if they've met and maintained contact," argues Casaca.

The Romanian law was obviously set because of EU pressures

The issues concerning the new adoption legislation have stirred yet another storm, which links Romania's decision to enforce a restrictive law on adoptions to the European Commission's stance on the subject. Thus, several voices within the EP state the European commissioners have pressured Romania into imposing both the ban and the new law, without having a clue about the real situation of Romania's abandoned babies.

"It is not my wish to question a Romanian law, but what I profoundly regret is that it was obviously taken because of EU pressure. Yes, there have been unscrupulous agencies, yes, there have been abuses, but do you forbid all marriages because some men beat their wives, because some of them are marriages of convenience?" says Ries, referring to Nicholson's repeated assertion that the EC shares her anti-international adoption view.

According to Ries, the EC seems to have made Nicholson's creed its own, despite the fact that a ban was never imposed on other new members (Poland, Hungary), which clearly angers the members of the Bureau of the Hague Convention.

"What appalls me is that the principal obstacle to the protection of the child seems to be found in Brussels, not in Romania," stresses Ries, adding that dozens of MEPs are currently trying to bring the EC, which is "largely biased" on the issue, to re-consider its position. On the other hand, Gibault believes that the EC shares Nicholson's view on international adoptions because she managed to convince the commissioners with arguments she was never able to prove.

"In a press release from November 2005, the EC states that 'there are 1355 Romanian families registered to adopt one of the 393 children available for adoption. Thus there is little scope, if any, for international adoptions. However, according to Romania's National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption, in August 2004 there were 81,233 children in care, but only 393 children are officially available for adoption! The gulf between these figures should lead the European Commission to question the capacity of this data to reflect the reality," says Gibault, underlining the fact that the EC should take the change of outlook of the European Parliament as a sign that "it's time to stop ignoring reality."

Nevertheless, some EU lawmakers are quite optimistic that the EC could reconsider its position and publicly express support for inter-country adoptions. "We believe that the EC, although it is a slower and less publicly visible institution than the Parliament, will support international adoptions for the pending cases. Contacts between MEPs and the Commissioners are ongoing and the EC is normally sensitive to the democratically elected representatives of the people of Europe," says Tannock.

Olli Rehn sticks by the adoptions ban for Romania

But the EU lawmakers' expectations regarding a possible turning point in the EC's attitude might be a little too optimistic, as European Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn, questioned by Bucharest Daily News, not only defended the law banning the inter-country adoptions, but basically dashed any hopes of the parents still waiting for the 1,100 children stuck in the middle.

"This rather strict measure must be understood within the context of former abusive practices relating to international adoptions in Romania. The new law does not foresee any special cases which would be open for international adoptions. After a first analysis it seems clear that the new legislation applies to all cases. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that any of the requests will be accepted," says Rehn.

However, Rehn declined to answer a very important question that was the basis for all the anxiety surrounding the international adoption issue: Would Romania jeopardize its EU accession, scheduled for January 2007, by resuming international adoptions?

On the other hand, the MEPs give assurances that Romania's EU accession process will not be endangered if the government reestablishes international adoptions. What's more, such a measure, they say, would be regarded as a step forward.

"After the fall of Ceausescu, the Romanian authorities had to face a very difficult situation in the field of child welfare. By resuming the international adoptions, Romania would make a great step forward and if it acts resolutely in the best interest of its children, Romania will have our support," says Gibault.

According to both Tannock and Casaca, the clear meaning of the EP's amendment is that Romania should allow the pending international adoptions to go forward as a signal of its progress and readiness for EU accession. "The EP gave its assent to Romanian accession and an undertaking was made by Commissioner Rehn that Parliament's views will be taken carefully into consideration in the run-up to accession currently foreseen for January 1, 2007 unless the safeguard clause is applied," underlines Tannock.

Despite EP's calls, PM Tariceanu chooses to remain silent

As a consequence, after the vote on Moscovici's report in December, Ries, Tannock, Gibault, and another four EU lawmakers wrote a letter to Romanian Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu to inform him of the position taken by the EP with respect to international adoptions, urging the government to "move as quickly as possible to give the children whose international adoptions were pending before the new adoption law came into effect the loving homes that are already waiting for them in many EU and non-EU member states."

In addition, the letter called on the authorities not to apply the law on adoption retrospectively to cases registered before the law came into effect, cases in which relationships between the children and prospective parents often had already been formed.

"This issue has been an irritant in Romania's EU accession process for too long. It need not be. We all want Romania to be part of the Union; hopefully on January 1, 2007. There is no question about our conviction that Romania will fulfill the political commitments made in the Accession Treaty. But now is the time to act in the best interests of the children," stated the signers of the letter.

The letter was sent on December 22, but the authors of the letter haven't received a response yet. Seeking to find out the reasons for which the prime minister did not answer the EU officials' letter, we contacted the government's spokeswoman, Oana Marinescu, asking her to inform us if the prime minister had received the letter and requesting an interview concerning the issues pointed out in the letter.

In reply, we were informed that the government can neither confirm, nor deny if Tariceanu had received the letter. However, Tariceanu's statements in December indicate that he considers the new legislation banning the inter-country adoptions to be a positive measure.

"I feel obliged to repeat that Romanian law since January 1, 2005, cannot be changed because it is perfectly suited to European requirements, with a view to the superior interest of the child," Tariceanu backed the legislation in December 2005.

His stance seems to be twin to that of Nicholson, but the MEPs have an explanation for the unwavering position of the government.

"The baroness has been active on this issue for years, and it takes a while for it to sink in that she is no longer dominating this issue, and that the European Parliament has made an informed decision to reject her view," says Tannock.

NGOs: Adoption ban, a result of fears Romania would lose EU funds

UNICEF's position on inter-country adoption appears to reinforce the idea that such adoptions are indeed an alternative for the children who are not wanted by Romanian families or cannot be re-integrated in their biological families.

"Inter-country adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution," reports UNICEF.

In addition, the organization points out that having recognized that uncontrolled international adoptions might put the children at risk, many countries around the world have ratified the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption, which is designed to put into action the principles regarding inter-country adoption which are contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

"These principles include ensuring that adoption is authorized only by competent authorities, that inter-country adoption enjoys the same safeguards and standards which apply in national adoptions, and that inter-country adoption does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it," says UNICEF. The same idea is embraced by the Solidarity for Abandoned Children in Romania (SERA), an NGO that fights for the rights and welfare of the abandoned and discriminated children.

"If the authorities would create a correct and coherent system of the international adoption procedures, then Europe would accept it. But as the European officials cannot tell us what to do because it would mean they would interfere in Romania's internal policies, the authorities do not have the courage to create such a system without their suggestions," says SERA Romania's President Bogdan Simion.

In addition, according to Simion, the new law on adoptions is based on incorrect principles as instead of encouraging the adoptions, it has only destroyed an alternative.

"The new legislation on adoptions did not have the desired result, and that is to increase the number of national adoptions. According to the Romanian Office for Adoptions, only 79 children have been domestically adopted in accordance with the new law in 2005," explains Simion, who maintains that inter-country adoptions should function as a rescue valve at least until the number of domestic adoptions increases.

One more quandary concerning inter-country adoptions was identified by the French Association of Adoptive Families of Children Born in Romania (AFAENER), which says that one of the reasons that the government banned inter-country adoptions was that Romania was afraid that the EU would stop granting the country the earmarked funds for the restructuring of the child protection system. In addition, the NGOs stresses that Romania's fear was the result of Nicholson exerting "very strong pressures in the name of Europe".

"The use of European funds is not intended to exert control. Furthermore, European aid was not supposed to interfere even indirectly with the process of international adoption," underlines the French association.

In spite of the NGO's worries, the lack of communication on the government's part, and Rehn's support for the adoption ban, the EP's rapporteur for Romania seems to be confident that the local authorities will change their position as soon as possible.

"Many MEPs are sensitive to the pain faced by the families involved and view favorably the possibility of international adoptions in those special cases. Their stance is, of course, born out of compassion and concern for the children involved above all; and certainly not an interested maneuver. I remain in close contact and excellent relations with the Romanian president and government; and I truly hope that this issue can be resolved in the coming months," says Moscovici.

Box:
In order to ensure a balance approach, Bucharest Daily News has also tried to find out the government's stance concerning international adoptions, Nicholson's opinions and arguments, as well as the views of all the MEPs whose e-mail addresses were published on the EP's official web page.

* Hence, since February 17 we have contacted: Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu's office, MEP Emma Nicholson's office and the National Authority for Child Rights Protection.
* They have all received numerous phone calls, e-mails and faxes with lists of questions concerning the international adoption issue in Romania.
* We have also solicited Nicholson's help in order to obtain the contact information of some EP members that share her vision, informing her that we would also like to forward them several questions with respect to the inter-country adoption issue.
* We have clearly stated that the deadline for our story was February 28 and we have kindly asked all the above to answer our calls before the specified date. However, by March 8 no answer had come from any of them.

We believe that both points of view should be thoroughly debated in Romania for the best solution to be found. We assure all European officials interested in making public their view on the matter of inter-country adoption that Bucharest Daily News is willing and interested to present their viewpoints as well, and we encourage them, no matter their stance, to write to us at info@daily-news.ro

Box:
In subsequent issues of Bucharest Daily News you will have the opportunity to read the full interviews granted to us by the EP's rapporteur on Romania, Pierre Moscovici, French MEP Claire Gibault, Belgian MEP Frederique Ries, and British MEP Charles Tannock.