"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.