8 September 2015
ACT’s contribution to the European State of the Union – Children’s Rights in the European Union
A long story short: the European Union replaced the UN Convention with the Hague Adoption Convention. Why? To re-open intercountry adoptions from Romania.
First thing they did in 2005: killing the professional career of their civil servant Roelie Post! Killing the institutional memory on children’s rights.
Must read: Broken by the Adoption Mafia
From there on, the “Adoption Lobby” was fully in charge!
Now, right now, they – the European Commission – are killing Roelie completely. Professionally and personally/financially. More about that will be posted soon.
Children’s Rights in the EU:
Article 24 of the European Charter on Fundamental Rights is based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Not – on the Hague Adoption Convention.
As known, the Hague Adoption Convention is conflicting with the UNCRC, as it makes intercountry adoption a child protection measure.
Which it is not, and should not be.
The European Commission, the EU’s Executive, took an oath to respect the EU Fundamental Rights (see at the end of posting).
Yet, they made a radical u-turn that has huge consequences for children. A slowly but steady expansion of a market in children.
Quotes from academic article The EU and International Adoption from Romania by Ingi Iusmen (2013):
“This radical U-turn on ICA emerged incrementally at the Parliament level as members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) took a public pro-ICA stance at the EU level after 2007.”
“The issue of ICA was also debated within a broader European context, for instance via the conference ‘Challenges in Adoption Procedures in Europe’ (2009) where the European Commission (DG Justice, Freedom and Security (JLS)) presented the findings of a study22 on the state of play of international adoptions in the 27 EU Member States.”
The conference provided a means for the Commission (DG JLS) to persuade Member States of the need to facilitate international adoption inside the Union and hence to force Romania to lift the ban on ICA maintained by its current legislation, as the Commission official responsible for the organization of the conference, Patrizia de Luca, put it (De Luca, 2009).
“The Commission endorsed an explicit pro-ICA position by providing its own interpretation of international instruments on children’s rights and international adoption. For instance, by discarding Article 21 CRC and its principle of subsidiarity in relation to ICA due to ‘uncertain interpretations’, the Commission embraced a preference for ICA by interpreting the Hague Convention as prioritizing ICA over foster care and other forms of in-country care alternatives (Brulard and Dumont, 2009; De Luca, 2009: 2).”
“However, it is shown that the EU’s embrace of a pro-ICA policy after 2007 does not constitute a response to the problems faced by child protection in Romania. On the contrary, the EU’s plea for the liberalization of ICA from Romania is the outcome of a combination of endogenous factors, such as the EU’s own embrace of a children’s rights policy and its biased interpretation of key international instruments on ICA and child rights, and exogenous factors, such as adoption lobbies, which succeeded in getting their grievances onto the agenda of EU institutions.”
You can read the full academic article online:
The EU and International Adoption from Romania by Ingi Iusmen
For more information:
Romania for Export Only – The Untold Story of the Romanian “Orphans”
FORMAL OATH TO RESPECT THE EU CHARTER ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
pursuant to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
I solemnly undertake:
I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.
I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligation arising therefrom, and in particular the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after I have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits.