"Emma no longer has any legitimacy"

From Jurnalul National
July 28, 2006

Criticized by her colleagues -- "Emma no longer has any legitimacy"

The adoptions of Romanian children has managed to heat up relationships of the Liberal Party parliamentarians. They responded with harsh rebuffs to Baroness Nicholson, whom they accuse of managing to force the hand of the Romanian government to close adoptions.

The support which Emma Nicholson enjoyed several years ago, when as rapporteur for Romania at Strasbourg she pounded her fists on the table of the authorities from Bucharest and demanded the stoppage of international adoptions, has become a memory. The same colleagues who helped her in her efforts have now turned their backs on her accusing her of misinforming them with regard to the situation of institutionalized children in Romania. This change of opinion on the part of the Europarliamentarians was evidenced by a petition put before the European Legislature and initiated by several Liberal Party deputies, with Claire Gibault and Jean-Marie Cavada leading the way. In the text of the declaration the reopening of adoptions for foreign families who were affected by the stoppage of international adoptions due to the demand of the Baroness. The document was adopted by the plenary session as an official declaration of the European institution at the beginning of July. It enjoyed the support of 408 European parliamentarians.

"THE WAR OF REBUFFS"

From then on the Declaration of those 408 parliamentarians became the subject of the fight between Baroness Nicholson and the signers of the declaration, as well as in the Romanian press. In her reply to Ralu Filip, editorialist at Jurnalul National, she draws his attention to the fact that he doesn't take into account the fact that her colleagues were misinformed. In consequence, Jurnalul National contacted the European deputies at whom Mrs. Nicholson's finger was pointed and managed to obtain a statement from Claire Gibault, European deputy and one of the co-authors of the Declaration in the European Parliament.

Claire Gibault stated, "I consider Baroness Emma Nicholson to have lost her influence in the European Parliament and that she unloads her suppressed ideas on others as much as she can. She no longer has any legitimacy and in her 'injured vanity' she grasps hold of everything she can. Asked about the comments and declarations made by the Baroness in rebuffs addressed to Jurnalul Nationalin which she accused the authors of disinformation, Gibault explained that the signers of theDeclaration do not want to put pressure on the Romanian government. Gibault told us, "The one whoput pressure on the Romanian authorities was Emma Nicholson who several years ago misinformed the European Commission. Contrary to what she said, we are well informed. I give you the example of my colleague Jean Marie Cavada who several years ago, as a journalist for French television, produced many programs and investigations regarding the situation of institutionalized children in Romania. Furthermore, we are in contact with non-governmental organizations who work in the area of child protection in Romania who give us information and statistics."

COMPLAINTS

With regards to the harsh position of Emma Nicholson regarding the re-opening of international adoptions, Claire Gibault emphasized that in fact she herself (Gibault) has received complaints even from Romanians. The European deputy was firm in explaining that no only she herself but her colleagues as well understand the situation regarding Romanian children very well. "I also am the mother of two adopted children. And Mr. Cavada was orphaned at age 2 and has lived with fiv efamilies. Therefore, we are militant for adoptions."

MOSCOVICI IS AMONG THE 408 SIGNERS

In spite of the declarations made by Emma Nicholson, who accused her colleagues of being misinformed, the fact is that the even the current EU rapporteur for Romania, Frenchman Pierre Moscovici, is among the signers of the declaration. This sheds a completely different light on the affirmations of Emma Nicholson.

A SIGNAL FROM STRASBOURG

The involvement of Moscovici in this declaration, thwarts the harsh rebuffs of Mrs. Nicholson because the rapporteur knows the situation in Romania much better, giving a much great legitimacy to the actions of these 408 deputies. In other words, it can be remarked that, despite the"inheritance" left to him by the previous rapporteur, Moscovici has had a much more neutral position with regards to adoptions from Romania. By signing the petition, which later became an official declaration of the entire European legislature, the rapporteur for Romania confirmed the dual position of European officials regarding the re-opening of international adoptions. While the"voice" of the Baroness remains just as harsh the petition signed by the 408 Eurodeputies demonstrates a position 180 degrees different compared to recent years. French Europarliamentarian, Claire Gibault, maintains, "I know very well what Romanian children go through. They are the victims of this moratorium regarding international adoptions and especially those who have already established bonds of attachment with their future parents." The European deputies' petition concludes, "In this sense we are asking the Romanian authorities to take into consideration the opinion of the European Parliament and as a consequence to reopen without delay the cases that remained on hold when international adoptions were stopped...and to authorize internationa ladoptions when it is indeed in the best interest of the child."

SR359 - Call for Romania to open International Adoptions

From a fellow person attempting to reopen adoption:

I too just heard from my Senator James Inhofe that resolution SR359 passed last night. THANK YOU ALL so much for your involvement! Apparently Frist's office was hounded to the point where they felt compelled to get this done! The timing is fantastic, not only because the Senate recesses next week and who knows after that when it would have been brought to the floor, if ever, but also because Basescu and the RO gov't probably feel like the US Senate timed this intentionally with Basescu's visit! Of course, we can tell people that of course this was our plan all along! Anyway, let's hope this makes some impact.

Resolution passes!! SR 359

The Senate Resolution passed unanimously late yesterday - 7/27/06.

Relating to the passage of Declaration 23

Dear MEPs,

Relating to the passage of Declaration 23, we thought you would be interested in a translation of the following interview with MEP Nicholson published in Gandul, which is below. Two quotes by MEP Nicholson include:

“…the document which was signed by them does not represent the point of view of the European Parliament.”

“But, I repeat that this petition has absolutely no value from an official point of view.”

Other relevant news:

In the days preceding passage of Dec 23, Nicholson and Gomes stated that all outstanding 1,000+ cases in question suddenly were either adopted or in long-term foster care. They argued that long-term foster care was, in essence, permanent family placement.

However, in recent days throughout Romania, contrary to Nicholson and Gomes’s claims of permanence and stability from fostering, the government has for the first time begun to ask all foster parents to sign a statement accepting that the fostering is not permanent and that they can not adopt children in their care. This has significant implications, as it will dissuade those families with a true, permanent interest in adoption, and it will send an emotionally disturbing message to the children -- that their status is not stable, that the family they live with will be taken from them.

Sincerely,

Charities Concerned with Children in Romania

EP Adopts Pro-International Adoption Declaration

The document was developed following the initiative of MEPs Claire Gibaultand Jean-Marie Cavada.

According to the document, the pipe-line cases are children who have been adopted by European families but due to legal wrangling have not yet been allowed to join them.

The document reads that the moratorium imposed by the Romanian authorities has "brutally interrupted the processing of thousands of adoption requests" and considering that "children concerned by these requests have already have established relationships with their future adoptive families, this moratorium has, in effect, left them abandoned for the second time."

The Romanian authorities adopted a moratorium on international adoptions inJune 2001 with retroactive effect from December 1, 2000, including a law on the protection of children which is very restrictive as far as international adoptions are concerned.

Gibault and Cavada decided to complete this document because of the lack of reaction of the Bucharest authorities to the resolution of the EP.

In its resolution adopted on December 15th, 2005 for the progress of Romania's accession process, the EP urged the Romanian government to "address the adoption cases in progress when the moratorium was announced in June 2001."

Gibault, herself a mother through adoption, said that it was "very satisfying and also a great relief" that the EP has legitimized their initiative which sends a powerful signal to Romanian authorities.

Baroness Emma Nicholson, former rapporteur of the EP for Romania, pointed out that there are inaccuracies in the document, explaining that the international adoptions created a black market in Romania, on which children were being trafficked.

Copyright C 2004-2006 Bucharest Daily News

My comments on the Jane Nicholson article and Brian Douglas' comments thereon

Comments are from my source in Romania, A...............

Jane Nicholson is to be commended for her efforts. However I do not believe that the suffering of the children nor the international concern will come to an end until ALL those children without permanent families are adopted into permanent families, either in Romania or abroad. There is just no way internal adoptions are keeping up with abandonments, let alone the 100,000+ (or 30,000, or 50,000) who still need permanent families. And here is where Brian Douglas errs again. Until all those children, plus those abandoned yearly, are adopted into permanent families (no matter where those families may reside), the matters of international concern and suffering children will continue. And Romania's current ill-conceived, abusive, and draconian legislation which was promoted, lobbied for (by the other well-financed Nicholson), and ultimately adopted due to the other Nicholson's bullying, is to blame.

Billion of EU Aid can help Romania's Children

By Jane Nicholson

Mr. Brian Douglas in his letter to the editor makes several observations relating to my interview in Curental and the Financial Times advertisement. As he correctly states, no NGO paid any money towards the advertisement (which was a fraction of his estimated cost). 31 of the 33 NGOs and all of the sponsors who paid the cost of the advertisement have no involvement with international adoptions. It is common for charity sponsors to give anonymously, so we see no reason to break this confidentiality which due to rumours have have no basis in truth.

First, we are grateful to the Romanian government on many accounts, the excellent relationships we have with many government ministries and local officials, and for their donation of land for FARA's specialist centre for children with disabilities. We also have admiration for what Romania has achieved as a country in the last 15 years in many different areas, including infrastructure, commerce, education, politics and social reform.

However, I fully disagree with Mr. Douglas's assertion that it is right for any country to permanently rely on foreign donors to fund its own child care services. Social welfare is a primary obligation of all governments, as it is in the EU, which Romania should be joining in six months time. This includes the provision of assistance to helpless children, of which abandoned and disabled children are some of the most vulnerable. Over the last 16 years, FARA (a Romanian registered charity) has built up an organization of experienced Romanian professionals who have changed the lives of many vulnerable children, a large number of whom come from some of the poorest families in the country. Our commitment is for the long term, as is that of our donors who have contributed 94% of the funding from Great Britain.

However, much more needs to be done. There is an urgent need to provide specialist care for children with disabilities, both from natural families and those within institutions. Our new project is in line with EU strategy and has the full backing of the National Authority for Child Protection.

Mr. Douglas correctly says that there is now foster care available inRomania; however, this is severely restricted due to lack of government funding and FARA in common with other NGOs are having to take in additional children with little contribution from the state.

What Mr. Douglas overlooked was the final point in our FT statement: our finger was not pointed directly at Romania's pocket, but at the expected EUR 30 billion of EU aid. Our hope is that some small part of this package is targeted to relieve the suffering of these children, and to finally ending this source of international concern that has gone on far too long.

Jane Nicholson is Chairman, FARA Foundation Romania & UK.

Copyright C 2004-2006 Bucharest Daily News

Some Points on the EU's Declaration

1) They are not 1st term MEPs and there were others who sponsored this Declaration besides Cavada and Gibault.

2) The lack of response they are referring to in the Declaration is the Romanian government's ignoring the amendment the EU passed unanimously on December 15th.

3) Since 407 Parliamentarians signed, across all parties and nationalities, including the majority of Nicholson's own party, it's hardly a "lobby group". The editor should check their notes. Given that they printed the issue and page information, it's inexcusable.

THE EU IS READY TO ASK FOR THE RENEWING OF THE EXPORT OF CHILDREN FROM

Ziua newspaper Friday July 7, 2006

Prime Minister Tariceanu's international colleagues, Liberal Euro Deputies Claire Gibault and Jean-Marie Cavada, have prepared a petition which could delay Romania's integration into the EU. These two Euro parliamentarians have managed to gather 407 signatures for an initiative in which they ask Romania to abandon the moratorium of Oct. 2001, regarding international adoptions. If this petition is approved, the EU will find itself on the side of the USA which has pressured Romania to lift the moratorium.

Romania risks an unfavorable report on the part of the European Commission this fall which could put in peril Romania's adherence to the European Union on Jan. 1, 2007. The two Euro deputies ask that the Romanian authorities take another look at the refusals to allow 1,000 families to adopt who were caught in the moratorium of Oct. 2001.

The 407 signatures are sufficient that this petition will benefit from a special procedure. In the plenary session of the European Parliament which will be held Sept. 4-7, 2006, this petition will be officially announced by the president of the European legislature, Joseph Borell, after which it will be published in the official record of the EU. The next step after this will be the sending of this declaration to the European Commission, the European Council and the Romanian Government in Bucharest.

With this petition on the table, the European Commission must make a decision whether or not to include it in the monitoring report for Romania. This is a decisive report regarding the adherence of Romania to the European Union in Jan. 2007.

In 2001, Romania found herself between a rock and a hard place regarding the reglementation of international adoptions. The United States has exercised permanent pressure for the continuing of international adoptions while the European Union represented by Baroness Emma Nicholson solicited the stoppage of international adoptions. Following pressure from the European Union, Romania instituted a moratorium on international adoptions in 2001. However, more than 1,000 cases for adoption in which the adoption process had already begun, remained unresolved.

The petition initiated by Liberal Deputies Gibault and Cavada, solicits the reopening of the adoption process for these more than 1,000 cases which remained unresolved. The petition states that the moratorium "brutally interrupted the adoption process of these 1,000 cases" and that "the children involved in these adoption situations have already established bonds with their future adoptive families and the moratorium left them abandoned for a second time". Gibault affirmed that, "It is a great relief that Euro Parliamentarians agreed with our initiative and this initiative sends a powerful signal to the Romanian authorities and to the enlargement commission of the EU. We dedicate this success to the Romanian children who are suffering in their wait for a new family and who have now received a ray of hope."

Numbers of Euro Deputies, however, oppose this petition. They say that to review the decisions regarding these 1,092 children Romania would need to change the legislation and reopen the files for international adoption. Portuguese Socialist Ana Gomes is afraid that this will reopen the trafficking of children which took place before the moratorium.

The French newspaper Le Monde in its Tuesday edition indicated that the Romanian authorities accepted all requests for adoption (1,003) introduced before the entering into force of the moratorium and that they rejected all that were made after that. According to them, these requests concern 1,092 children with which some families have been in contact, a condition which is illegal. The 1,092 files were examined on the basis of the new law which makes international adoptions the last resort, after attempts to reintegrate the child into the biological family, in foster care, or national adoption. Ollie Rehn, the European Commissioner for enlargement declared that he was satisfied saying, "All the files were examined and the families individually informed about the results."

Euro-deputy Gomes said, "A baby costs between 12,000 and 20,000 euros on the unofficial adoption market." She declared that she amazed that non-governmental organizations which were very little known could finance a page in the British newspaper the Financial Times. It is known that a page costs approximately 120,000 euros and this page was used to demand the controlled opening of international adoptions.

BARONESS NICHOLSON IS PRO-ROMANIA

The Financial Times published a letter signed by Baroness Emma Nicholson, former rapporteur for Romania, in which she replied to the announcement which appeared in that newspaper under the title "The Hidden Crisis in the Child Protection System in Romania".

Nicholson wrote, "This advertisement supports the reintroduction of international adoptions in Romania. It was paid for by a group of 33 non-governmental organizations. Some of these have a powerful financial interest in this extremely profitable business of international adoptions." Emma Nicholson affirmed that Romania forbid international adoptions in 2001 "because they represented the diabolical commercialization of children in which adoptive parents were dragged along by adoption agencies without scruples. The children were selected illegally on the basis of photo presentations and videos, while social services were evaded. The pro adoption lobby has continued to spread false information concerning the number of abandoned children in Romania."

407 signatures for pipe-line adoption cases declaration

Amazing News!!!!!!

407 signatures for pipe-line adoption cases declaration

Oana Dan

More than 407 MEPs have signed a written declaration urging the Romanian government to end the plight of more than 1,000 Romanian orphans, following the initiative of MEPs Claire Gibault and Jean-Marie Cavada. These children have been adopted by European families but due to legal wrangling have not yet been allowed to join them, reads the document prepared by the two.

The declaration underlines that the moratorium imposed by the Romanian authorities has "brutally interrupted the processing of thousands of adoption requests" and considering that "children concerned by these requests have already have established relationships with their future adoptive families, this moratorium has, in effect, left them abandoned for the second time."

The Romanian authorities adopted a moratorium on international adoptions in June 2001 with retroactive effect from December 1, 2000, including a law on the protection of children which is very restrictive towards international adoptions. Gibault and Cavada decided to complete this document because of the lack of reaction of the Bucharest authorities to the resolution of the European Parliament.

The European Parliament in its resolution on the progress of Romania's accession process, adopted on December 15, 2005, urged the Romanian government "to address the adoption cases in progress when the moratorium was announced in June 2001."

Gibault, herself a mother through adoption, said that it was "very satisfying and also a great relief" that the EP has legitimized their initiative which sends a powerful signal to Romanian authorities.

Resolution to the EU

Update on Resolution to open Romanian Adoptions.

The battle for signatures continues. We are now at 390, I know that we have at least 10 MEPs signing tomorrow, and 50+ faxes have been sent tonight to those whom we believe may still sign by noon tomorrow - the cut-off time for signatures. If a miracle occurs and we get 490 we will have 2/3 of Parliament. So, please, pray for a miracle. We've already had a minor one earlier this evening - one of Nicholson's allies came over to our side and signed - Allessandro Battilocchio of Italy. It's been rumored the Italian parents threatened to use him as a soccer ball in their World Cup match on Sunday unless he repented and signed...We also now have 65 signatures of the 93 ALDE MEPs - Nicholson's political party.

To give you an idea of what we've been up against, and why this Declaration is so key, Lisa Ragsale found the following information on 'www.childhelplineinternational.org'

"Since 1999, a total of 214 Written Declarations were presented to the EU Parliament. Of these only 11 were successfully adopted. Of the eleven, none were on children’s issues."

As Eliot mentioned, Tannock and Gibault stood up in Parliament today and requested that MEPs sign Declaration 23. Immediately Nicholson and Gomes rushed to a computer and sent the email below to MEPs. Tannock then wrote a response which also appears below. This is the 4th email Nicholson/Gomes have sent to the MEPs in the last 2 weeks and the 4th our allies have responded to.

I will send another update tomorrow when we have a final tally of signatures and details of the press conference and press release. Although thsi Declaration is not legally binding, it sends a strong message to both the EU Commissioners and the Romanian government. It will be wise for them to heed it. More information tomorrow, including next steps....

Thanks so much for your continued support and efforts and prayers.

From MEP Tannock in response to Nicholson/Gomes email below
Dear Baroness Nicholson and Colleagues

The "destruction of Romanian families" is absurd. I have never heard that "long term fostering" is a "family" -by definition fostering is subject to being stopped at any stage when a better more caring permanent situation becomes available. Foster parents unlike adopting parents are generally being paid for their services and are less likely to bond as genuine adopting parents with the children. There are actually allegations that some of these children were deliberately placed by the Romanian child protection services in fostering at considerable expense and at very short notice to avoid them being permanently adopted abroad and to show the outside world that all was well with Romanian orphans and abandoned children.
Personally I am delighted WD 23 has achieved a majority of MEP support today and I thank as coauthor all colleagues who signed. This resolution is a binding resolution of the European Parliament but is not legally binding on Romania, only indicative that the EP believes the Romanian government should be more flexible and compassionate in its approach. I now call on the Romanian government and the Commission to pay heed to our wishes.

best wishes

Dr. Charles Tannock MEP

London Region
Vice President Human Rights Subcommittee of EP
Deputy Coordinator Foreign Affairs Committee for EPP-ED Group
UK Conservative Foreign Affairs Spokesman


Office of Dr. Charles Tannock MEP
European Parliament
ASP 14 E 101
Rue Wiertz
B-1047 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +32 2 28 45870
Fax: +32 2 28 49870
http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/ym/Compose?To=charles.tannock@europarl.europa.eu
http://www.charlestannock.com/

EXPORTERS OF CHILDREN WANT TO GIVE LESSONS ON MORALITY

EXPORTERS OF CHILDREN WANT TO GIVE LESSONS ON MORALITY
By: Gabi Golea

The Romanian authorities have declared that more than 1,300 internationally adopted children have disappeared. As proof, they invoked certain presuppositions. The ace up their sleeve in this media war concerning international adoptions is really a jolly joker but what has come out, is something like a bluff. We are not for the opening of international adoptions. Since there are more than 2,000 families in Romania who want to adopt, and only 900 children who are adoptable, we think that there-opening of the exportation of minors is an immoral act. In this war, a war of financial motives or EU approval, we don't align ourselves with either camp. The one thing we fight for is the truth. This should be the work of any journalist.

The following problem has been given to journalists: "The Romanian Office for Adoptions announced that more than 1,300 Romanian children adopted internationally between 1997 and 2005 have disappeared. The proof: the Romanian government no longer has any news about them." Being more receptive than our other colleagues in this guild regarding the subject of "missing children", we have tried to follow up on some of the adoptees around the world. As with any disappearance, the first step which needs to be made, after the registration of the complaint, is to verify it. In the case indicated by the Romanian Office for Adoptions, the verification is made on the basis of the legislation which was in force in the indicated time period. Of these 1,300 children, 1,153 were adopted between 1997 and 2001, while 175 were adopted between 2001 and 2003. The largest number of these missing children is in the United States (491 of which 382 were adopted before 2001). There are 175 missing from Italy and 151 from Greece. There are two distinct categories involved in this situation: those which pre-date October 2001 and are based on the Emergency Ordinance Nr. 25 from June 9, 1997, and those which post-date October 2001 (175 cases).

In the first case, article 23 paragraph 2 from Emergency Ordinance Nr. 25/June 9, 1997, indicates the following: "The Romanian adoption committee or as the case may be the commission for child protection in the domicile of the adopter have the obligation to follow the development of the child for at least 2 years after the adoption is finalized. The public services specializing in child protection or the private organizations who were involved in the adoption of the child are obligated to present periodic reports in the condition established by governmental decision." Who then has the obligation to send these post-adoption reports? The obligation rests on the foreign foundations who intermediated these international adoptions.

These NGO's were authorized by the Romanian Authorities and in conformity with governmental decision Nr. 245/June 2, 1997. They were required to "annex an agreement to present the Romanian Adoption Committee with the names of families or persons with whom the NGO had signed a contract agreeing to follow up on the child with a qualified person for a period of two years after the arrival of the child on the foreign territory." (Article 5 paragraph 2 letter G)

The agreement which had to be signed by the NGO's indicated that if it was not kept, the NGO would risk the removal of their authorization to intermediate adoptions in Romania in the future. In spite of all these procedural technicalities for which the Romanian authorities are ultimately responsible, the reports were indeed sent. For two years, just as the law said, they were sent; but not up until 2006 as those from the Romania Adoption Office want.

CHAOS AT THE RAC/ORA

The reports arrived either directly at the Romanian Adoption Committee (at that time located on Nicolae Balcescu Blvd.) or at the foreign NGO's affiliate in Romania with whom they partnered. As of2002, the formerly accredited Romanian NGO's who did adoptions were disbanded or they completely changed their activities. The reports wandered off.......

A representative of the Helios Foundation in Bucharest told us that in the more than 100 international adoption cases which they mediated, there was not one case in which the reports were not filed. "It was an obligation assumed by the foreign foundations that they would send reports every 5 months. However, I know of no stipulation in the law which indicates any kind of sanction for not doing this," said one worker at the foundation. When asked to comment about the fact that the Romanian Adoption Office has 1,300 cases of children who have disappeared, the agency worker replied, "I believe that the Romania Adoption Office/Committee has super lousy record keeping skills. And at that time (around 2001), everything over there in their offices was topsy-turvey. We sent the reports to the Romanian Adoption Committee and after a while they would call us and ask us to send them again."

The Bambi Foundation from Turnu-Severin, mediated about 30 adoptions for the U.S. In the year 2000, these cost about $5,000. Those from the Bambi Foundation insist that the post-adoption reports were sent. "If we wouldn't have received them, we would have made a big fuss with our partner organization in the states," said a source within the leadership of the foundation.

The other situation (after October 2001) involved children adopted under the moratorium. On October 8, 2001, via Emergency Ordinance Nr. 121 international adoptions were suspended for a period of 12 months. Theoretically, this was so that they would never be re-opened again. Practically, the ordinance left the last door open for the milk man to milk this fat cow.

However, beginning October 2001, the NGO's (both Romanian and foreign) were excluded from mediating the adoptions. All adoptions were sent by the government to the courts via a total of 12 memorandums. There were 1,115 requests that made it to the courts of which 1,005 were approved. At that time, the authorities declared these cases as "exceptional humanitarian cases". Later, they were called "exceptional situations". We call them a mockery. Eight of these children went to Andorra, 4 to Venezuela and 1 to Slovakia. Of these 1,005 "humanitarian cases", the Romanian Adoption Office maintains that 175 are missing.

THE SITUATION IN AMERICA

Of the children adopted under the moratorium, 384 went to the United States. In the view of the Romanian authorities, the situation of the children adopted by the Americans is the most dramatic. They have the most missing children (491). The country has not ratified the Hague Convention regarding the protection of the child and cooperation on the issues surrounding international adoption. Thus, the American authorities are not obligated to cooperate with the Romanian authorities in this matter. Romania knew this and allowed the adoptions anyway in good faith. We tried to find some of these children and in doing so heard the American side of the issue.

Linda Robak and her husband adopted a 2 year old girl in 2001. She said, "The adoptive children and their parents visit Romania. I personally brought my daughter to Romania two years after the adoption and we met her biological family and we also visited with her god-parents." She also said that the post-adoption reports were made and sent every six months for two years after the adoption was finalized and she and her daughter arrived in the U.S. She paid $500 for each report. Linda further said, "The reports were sent to the foundations which did the adoptions. The foundations were responsible for the translation of the reports and for getting them to the Romanian authorities. But when international adoptions were interrupted, and the agencies disbanded, there was no way that those agencies (Romanian or American) could give the reports to the Romanian authorities. Not only that, but many agencies no longer existed after international adoptions were blocked. This mean that adoptive parents needed to find Romanian translators on their own, something which is more than a little difficult in most states in America. Only then could they send the reports to Romania. Others probably thought that with the stoppage of international adoptions, the reports were no longer necessary."

I asked Linda how she explained the panic which was created by the Romanian authorities when they declared that 1,300 children had disappeared. She replied, "It needs to be mentioned that in 2004 and 2005 when these accusations were made, American parents called the Romanian Embassy inWashington, D.C. to find out if they were on the list of 'missing reports'. Some discovered that the post-adoption reports which were sent were considered missing or lost; and this in spite of the fact that they had receipts. They had signed receipts received back from the U.S. Postal Service or Federal Express, as well as from the Romanian government or the directors of the foundations who had signed for the reports when they arrived in Romania. In 2004, they sent copies of all these reports to the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest so that they could be given directly into the hands of the Romanian state secretary for adoptions. In 2005, the parents again sent the 'missing reports'; but this time they sent them to both the Romanian Embassy in Washington, D.C. and to the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest. The absence of these reports is primarily due to the failures of the Romanian government. This resulted from their failure, after the moratorium was enacted, to put in place a system which would facilitate the sending and receiving of these documents. As far as I know, no instructions inthis regard were sent to agencies or foundations. It is certain that adoptive parents did not receive any instructions. Almost all of the reports were completed and sent and are probably to be found at the old central government offices which were involved in this kind of thing and/or with the old NGO's in Romania. The problem is not really about how to locate these children, but rather, the problem is how to locate the files."

LOOK WHO'S TALKING

The point men in this match for international adoptions are Theodora Bertzi, State Secretary at the Romanian Office for Adoptions and Bogdan Panait, State Secretary for the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child. In the past these two had played on opposite teams. Theodora Bertzi, a former parliamentarian from the Liberal Party was in the leadership at the Authority for the Protection of the Child and Adoption in the peak period of child exportation. In 2002, she functioned as the director of adoption monitoring, while in 2003, she was General Director at National Child Protection Authority. At that time, according to governmental decision Nr.1315 from Dec. 7, 2000, National Child Protection Authority evaluated the activities of NGO's involved with adoptions. In the cases where there were irregularities, their adoption activities could be suspended or their authorization withdrawn. More about these procedures could be gotten from Democratic Party Member Bogdan Panait, who occupied the position of comptroller at National Child Protection Authority from 2001 to 2002, and General Secretary at NCPA between 1998 and 2001. He has been an employee in the child protection field since 1994.

With this much experience, he should have information concerning the 102 NGO's who were accredited as of Feb. 2001, to intermediate adoptions. One of these foundations was the Golden Snowball Foundation. Another was the Association for our Children which, according to documents from CPS Timis, was involved with international adoptions in that county. What do these two NGO's have in common besides the fact that their area of activity is now defunct? What they have in common is Bogdan Panait. According to his resume, "from April 2002, until the present he has been program coordinator for the Association For our Children. His declared annual income from this foundation is 8,500 euros ($10,500). He is also a consultant with the Golden Snowball association for which he receives an annual salary of 3,300 euros ($4,100). He is also a consultant with "word learning" with an annual salary of 770 euros ($1,000). It is a fact that in 2000, the peak of this lucrative business when 3,035 Romanian children were adopted internationally, his ex-wife was a member of the Romanian Adoption Committee.

Since 1992, every December the Romania embassy in Washington, D.C. organizes a "Winter Party" for children adopted from Romania. On their website, www.roembus.org you can find many pictures of this event which show many of these adopted children. Furthermore, every two years, adoptive families from the U.S. who have adopted Romania children hold a reunion. Last year the reunion took place between July 14 and 17 in Burlington, VT. The Romanian ambassador, Sorin Ducaru, participated in the event. If the Romanian authorities wish to make post adoption reports on these children, they are invited to the next meeting. The Romanians have demonstrated the ability to wait. Why did they wait more than a year to reveal the fact that they knew about the disappearance of more than 1,300 children? Why did they keep quiet so long? Because others kept silent. In this verbal war, the children are nothing more than the subject of a sentence.

Our Pipeline Case Son

Our story may be just one of many, but it is our story and it is Ioji’s story…we believe it is time to get it out there. This is actually the story of Ioji’s childhood. For those of you who don’t know us, we are parents of a Romanian adoption pipeline case. Our Romanian son’s name is Ioji. We have had a relationship with him since he was 5…he is 11 now. Ioji’s birth mom abandoned him when he was born. His birth father died when he was 11 days old. He grew up first in the leaganal and was then placed in the state orphanage in Ludus. He has suffered from malnutrition and abuse (both physical and emotional).

For the first few years after we met Ioji we were under the impression that adoption was impossible. In 2001 we established a foundation, Livada Orphan Care - Fundatia LOC (www.livada.com), to serve orphans in Romania and are in the country several times a year. We would get permission to take Ioji out of the orphanage for a few days at time. We became very bonded to him and he to us…he calls us Mom and Dad and he calls our daughters, his sisters. In 2003 we learned and were encouraged by Romanians who understood the system to go for adoption as an exception under the law. Ioji was 8 years old at that time. We traveled to Bucharest and were told that an exception would be made. About 5 days later, it was announced that the law had changed and exceptions were banned. We were all crushed.

When Ioji was 9, his birth mother, whom he had never heard from or seen in his life, showed up at the orphanage on a weekend…a caregiver handed him over to her…no questions asked. Realizing the horrible error, the orphanage officials contacted our foundation in Romania and asked us to help them find Ioji…we heard about it by email and were horrified as you can imagine. It took 2 days to track him down. His mother is a street person with no actual address. They found Ioji in a village, filthy and scared. His birth mother had heard that some Americans were interested in Ioji and she didn’t want to miss out on “the money”. Evidently she had another son, older than Ioji, that was adopted to a family in America years before. His name was also Ioji. She didn’t get any money for the first son and didn’t want to miss out this time. Some of the people in the village told our director, Bruce Thomas whom some of you know, that it was good thing that he showed up when he did as the birth mother’s plan if she couldn’t get some money for Ioji from us, was to sell him in a neighboring county to pedophiles.

While Ioji was at the orphanage in Ludus, we did all we could to supply him with a few of the creature comforts of life…new clothes, shoes, toiletries, a picture album, etc…only to learn that each time these items were taken from him including the picture album…we later found the picture album in the possession of one of the workers…all of the pictures we put in were gone.

Ioji at age nine still couldn’t read and no one seemed to care. When we went to the orphanage in July 2004 with my parents to visit Ioji, the orphanage officials were irritated that we had permission to take him out again…who knows why…so they sent him out to us in girls clothes (picture attached) just to humiliate him. The end of that visit was the hardest ever for all of us…we all knew that when Ioji went back he would be physically beaten just for being out with us. On the morning of his return, Ioji told us adamantly that he would not take anything back to Ludus with him “not my toothbrush, not my socks…just put me in the girls clothes and take me back...don’t even gel my hair”. So that’s what we did…there were 7 people in the van as we approached the orphanage including Ioji…we were all in tears, man, woman, young or old…..that day we decided that we would do whatever it took to get Ioji out of the hell hole orphanage…and we did. In October of that year we arranged for him to move into a nice group home run by another private foundation….3 months after the move we asked Ioji what he liked best about the new place. He said, “Well I get food and they don’t beat me…but when can I come home to live with you?”

Ioji also begged us to protect him from his birth mother…he knew that she had been planning to sell him. We told him he could trust the director of the group home he was in to protect him…little did we know what the future would hold.

Every person on this mailing list has been involved in the horrendous fight for the pipeline cases. For us, it is so personal. With everything our foundation does for the orphans of Romania, we can never let go of Ioji. We don’t have the option to “give up”. He is a part of our family and this is his childhood. Somehow we will be united with him as a family…what we are really fighting for right now is time. Let me explain…

Last year we petitioned the local Child Protection Services to allow us to bring Ioji to the U.S. to go to school and get the therapies that he needs (he has many learning and emotional issues including chronic bed-wetting) that cannot be properly treated in Romania. The authorities felt our request was too unusual but allowed us to bring him to the U.S. for 3 weeks for testing so we could document for them what Ioji’s issues are and what treatment is needed…that 3 weeks took place over Christmas last year (2005). It was an amazing 3 weeks… just watching this little boy, who is 11 but acts and looks more like about 8, come to life in our family. He was so cooperative with all of the testing we had done. We even got him $1,300 worth of dental work…he never complained once. The day before he left, we asked him what he would like to do before his return. He told us he would like to sleep in our bed between my husband and me…that was all.

The test results clearly outlined many physical, learning and emotional difficulties which the specialists told us were due mainly to starvation, malnutrition and abuse at a young age. They all said that since he is 11 and still hasn’t gone through puberty yet, there is much that can be done to give him a real future if we can get the therapy going now particularly within our family environment.

So we bring Ioji back to Romania, right on time, and move ahead with the documents so we can hopefully get him back to America for treatment quickly. What happens from there is just a nightmare. First because of Bruce Thomas’ testimony to the EU in Brussels, the local CPS people are upset that they were exposed and decided to take this out on our foundation and in particular, Ioji and the Wallaces. Also, in the meantime, Bertzi, had put out the word to all CPS offices to make all the pending cases go away and reintegrate the children with their biological parents regardless of anything else. So to our horror, CPS tracked down Ioji’s birth mother and gave her paperwork to have rights to Ioji…so far she has missed two court dates. My understanding is that she has one more chance to show up and then the paperwork must be redone….but bottom-line, this is Ioji’s worst nightmare…that his birth mother could have any control over him. We are told that since she has no residence and is a street person, Ioji would not have to go with her but that she would have to sign off on any major decision (whatever that means) concerning Ioji. We keep asking when Ioji gets a say in what happens to him…I believe that at age 11 he does have some say. We all know that his birth mother is just desperate for a source of income and we are very open to helping her except that at this point any help we would give her could possibly be misunderstood.

In the meantime, we speak to Ioji (with an interpreter…his English is not too good but he’s working on it) just about every other week by phone. He always asks how many more months he must wait. We have told him that at this point we have been told no to all of our requests but that we love him and we will never give up. We’ve explained that we will continue to make visits until someone in the government gets a clue. The other day Ioji told us “It seems like the only kids the people in the (Romanian) government know how to take care of are their own…they really don’t care about us (orphans) at all”.

A year or so ago, at the suggestion of a US Embassy official who believed that Bertzi was going to consider the merits of each case based upon whether the child was bonded to the family (through frequent and prolonged contact), we sent Bertzi a personalized letter with the history and 10 pages of photos chronicling our journey and long-term relationship with Ioji believing that she might give our case consideration. We sent the letter with return receipt. Our letter was never acknowledged or answered.

So right now, this isn’t even an issue of finalizing the adoption…our desire is to get the Romanian government to allow Ioji to come to the U.S. to receive the therapy and help he needs and to do it quickly. No one in Romania is going to domestically adopt an 11 year old boy with issues…and so as the debate regarding adoption continues, we are looking for someone in this world that will give us permission to make a life long difference for Ioji. If there is anyone out there who can help us, we would so appreciate it.

The photos attached are of Ioji in the outfit referred to above and then in a family photo taken at Christmas. Lynne



Lynne L. Wallace, CPCU
President
MATSEN Insurance Brokers
1-800-967-6543 ext 222

1,300 CHILDREN DISAPPEARED FOLLOWING THEIR INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION BETWEEN 1997 AND 2005

It has been proven that many parents had sent in their reports in the past and the Romanians just "couldn't find them". The adoptions agencies here in the USA rechecked with all their families and contacts in Romania to ensure there was no problem.

1,300 CHILDREN DISAPPEARED FOLLOWING THEIR INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION BETWEEN 1997 AND 2005
By: Adina Stefan

The head of the Romanian Office for Adoption, Theodora Bertzi, announced that more than 1,300 Romanian children adopted by families abroad between 1997 and 2005, have disappeared without a trace and that the Romanian government has absolutely no information with regard to these children. The reason for this situation is that the private organizations which performed their activities in the area of international adoptions have trampled on the conventions they signed with the Romanian government and they have not sent even one post adoption report. As a consequence, there is nothing known about 1,153 children adopted between 1997 and 2001, and 175 adopted between 2001 and 2003 under the emergency ordinances (international adoptions being forbidden from Romania after 2001). The countries which have the most cases in this situation are U.S.A. (491) Italy (175) and Greece (151).

" THE CHILDREN ARE O.K.", BUT.....

The head of the Romanian office for Adoptions also made reference to post adoption reports from abroad which were inexact. For example, a post adoption report from Switzerland which was received indicated that the children were O.K. But the ROA learned that one of these children is no longer staying at the address mentioned. The child is supposed to be adopted by a different family. The child is now in the Swiss Child Protection System. It was also mentioned, that a child adopted by a family from Spain had ended up in the hospital after he was beaten by his adoptive parents. This situation occurred after the child had been previously beaten numerous times. However, the reports did not indicate any of this.

Positive reports were also sent in the case of the boy adopted by an American citizen William Peckenpaugh, who sexually abused the child for many years. The evaluation of this adoptive father had been done at least 8 times by the American authorities. The post adoption reports did not indicate any need for the intervention of American authorities. This situation was discovered after William Peckenpaugh returned a video camera to an electronics store. It was discovered in the camera's memory that he had recorded his deeds. He was later condemned to 30 years in prison.

THE ROA DEMANDS THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES FROM ABROAD

Theodora Bertzi announced that in May that the ROA had contacted the central authorities in the countries where private intermediary organizations were working with regards to international adoptions. She told them that these organizations have not respected the agreements which they had signed with the Romania government which required them to verify the situation of each child. She asked them to verify each case and also to recheck all the favorable reports which were inexact. Although some of these countries have begun to send information, the head of the ROA declared that in cases where things are not so good, the Romanian authorities cannot intervene to help these Romanian children because they have become citizens of their adoptive country, thus they fall under the legislation of those countries.

These declarations were made by the head of ROA because of the powerful lobbing pressure which was put on the Romanian government in order to re-open international adoptions of children from Romania.

Thirty three NGO's published a full page ad on June 12, in the Financial Times, which cost them 65,200 British pounds (approx. $120,000). This ad defamed the child protection system in Romania and demanded the re-opening of international adoptions. Baroness Emma Nicholson, along with the heads of ROA and NAPRC (Bertzi and Panait) replied to this ad with firm arguments. In a letter to the Financial Times, Mrs. Nicholson said, "Romania has forbidden international adoptions since 2001, because international adoptions lead to the trafficking of children: adoptive parents were seducted by adoption agencies who had no scruples." She said that the re-opening of international adoptions would be "madness". Panait and Bertzi also demanded that Romania be allowed to apply their current laws. They emphasized that "the corrupting effect" of international adoptions made by various NGO's who did their extremely profitable business of international adoptions of children by foreigners, also had an effect on the public life of Romania.