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