sou · GRB349d1 · 2004-01-01 00:00:00 — Några viktiga uppgifter för centrumet kan vara att hålla kontakt med adoptionsfältet för att fånga upp forskningsbehov, hålla sig à jour med internationell forskning, stimulera och koordinera forskning och besluta om och genomföra olika forskningsprojekt. Centrumet kan vidare ansvara för registrering och systematisering av forskningsresultat, ansvara för att nya resultat görs tillgängliga för adoptionsfältet och fungera som kunskapsbank för kommunernas adoptionsanknutna verksamhet. Centrumet bör, för att få dignitet och legitimitet, knytas till en vetenskaplig miljö där tvär- vetenskaplig forskning och kunskapsutveckling kan ske och där en dialog med klinisk verksamhet möjliggörs. Det är viktigt att adopterade själva får komma till tals, dels vid prioritering av forskningsprojekt dels i forskningen, så att adopterades situation inte enbart beskrivs av adoptivföräldrar och professionella. Vi ger exempel på befintliga verksamheter som skulle kunna inrymma ett forsknings- och . Adoptionskostnadsbidrag – åldersgräns m.m.(kap. 13) Vi föreslår att åldersgränsen för adoptionskostnadsbidraget inte skall höjas. Vi föreslår att regeringen i annan ordning överväger om det alltjämt är motiverat att adoptionskostnadsbidrag utgår vid enskild adoption. lämnas ett statligt bidrag vid adoption av utländska barn. Bidraget uppgår f.n. till per adoptivbarn och betalas ut när adoptionen är genomförd. Bidrag lämnas endast för barn som inte fyllt när adoptivföräldrarna fick det i sin vård. I vårt uppdrag ingår att pröva om åldersgränsen för bidraget skall höjas. De flesta adoptioner av barn äldre än är enskilda adoptioner. Vid enskilda adoptioner är kostnadsbilden, mot bakgrund av de situationer som kan vara aktuella, rimligtvis en helt annan än vid adoption genom en auktoriserad sammanslutning. Med anledning härav bedömer vi att det inte finns anledning att höja åldersgränsen. De få adoptioner av barn äldre än , som förmedlas genom auktoriserade sammanslutningar, motiverar inte ett annat ställningstagande. Mot bakgrund av att enskilda adoptioner numera endast får ske om det finns särskilda skäl, är det rimligt att anta att kostnaderna för dessa adoptioner vanligtvis är lägre än vid adoption genom en auktoriserad sammanslutning. Vi föreslår att regeringen överväger om det alltjämt är motiverat att adoptionskostnadsbidrag utgår vid enskild adoption. Övriga frågor (kap. 14) De adopterades intresseorganisationer utgör ett viktigt komple- ment till den verksamhet som samhället ansvarar för. Organisa- tionerna bedrivs huvudsakligen helt ideellt. Vi föreslår att dessa organisationer skall kunna beviljas statsbidrag för sin verksamhet. En sammanslutning som förmedlat en adoption skall också, mot en skälig avgift, bistå den adopterade i samband med sökandet av sitt ursprung. skall inom ramen för sin stöd- och hjälpverksamhet bistå med det stöd som behövs för att kunna hantera de känslor som kan väckas i samband med att en adopterad söker sitt ursprung. Barnets rättigheter behöver stärkas vid de adoptioner som avser ett känt barn. Vi föreslår att regeringen ser över de brister som finns vid denna typ av adoption. Olika åldersgränser i lagen (1962:381) om allmän försäkring och lagen (1978:410) om rätt till ledighet för vård av barn m.m. innebär bl.a. att de eller den som adopterar ett äldre barn kan ha rätt till föräldrapenning men inte rätt till ledighet från arbetet. att regeringen ser över frågan om samordning mellan nämnda lagars åldersgränser skall göras fullt ut. Konsekvenser (kap. 15) Våra förslag kommer att kräva nya resurser. Vi beräknar att förslagen kommer att generera i nivåhöjningar och i engångsanslag. Vi lämnar förslag på tänkbar finansiering. Introduction and description (Chapters 1–4) In Chapter 2 we describe the work on intercountry adoption and the process in an adoption of this kind in . In there is a central authority, (), which inter alia has the task of authorising associations and exercising supervision over them. In at present there are six authorised associations. In relation to its population is a major receiving state, with approximately 1,000 intercountry adoptions per annum and with approximately 43,000 intercountry adoptees in total in the country. In Chapter 3 we describe adoption work in the ten largest countries of origin with which has cooperation on adoption. In recent years these countries have mediated approximately of the children who have come to through an authorised association. The countries depicted are , , , , , South , South , , and . has ratified both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (The Hague Convention). The conventions are described briefly in Chapter 4, where the concept of the best interest of the child is also taken up. Our assessment is that it is important that both conventions are instruments in work on questions of intercountry adoption: Costs and aid work in connection with intercountry adoption (Chap.5) has to adopt a position vis à vis what it is ethically defensible for us to accept in terms of costs and aid work in connection with intercountry adoption. We propose that the authorised associations should specify details of adoption costs in the foreign country, and that the adoption authority should conduct a feasibility assessment of these costs. The trend must be towards only actual costs connected with the adoption of a child forming the basis for the adoption fee. The associations aid work must be clearly demarcated from their adoption work, and must not compromise the integrity of the adoption work. The government proposes to take the initiative in expanding cooperation at government level between different receiving states in order to bring about a common ethical stance on costs and aid work in connection with intercountry adoption, in Swedish development cooperation prioritise the development of indigenous alternatives to orphanages, so that children initially may grow up in good conditions in a family in their country of origin, and study more closely the programme of the . In order to reduce the risk of children becoming a commodity in the context of adoption, we propose more and clearer conditions of authorisation (see Chap.6). Article 32 of The Hague Convention states: 1.No one shall derive improper financial or other gain from an activity related to an intercountry adoption. 2.Only costs and expenses, including reasonable professional fees of persons involved in the adoption, may be charged or paid. The directors, administrators and employees of bodies involved in an adoption shall not receive remuneration which is unreasonably high in relation to services rendered. There is a recommendation added to the regulation which implies briefly the following. Receiving states are encouraged to support efforts in countries of origin to improve national child protection services, including programmes for the prevention of abandonment. However, this support should not be offered or sought in a which compromises the integrity of the intercountry adoption process, or creates a dependency on income deriving from intercountry adoption. In addition, decisions concerning the placement of children for intercountry adoption should not be influenced by levels of payment or contribution. These should have no bearing on the possibility of a child being made available, nor on the age, health or any characteristic of the child to be adopted. attitude to The Hague Convention Since 1997 The Hague Convention has been incorporated into Swedish law. For us it is self evident that must follow the intentions of the convention even in relation to those countries that are not parties to the convention. This also applies to those recommendations adopted unanimously at the meeting of the Special Commission in 2000. The text of the convention, with its associated recommendations, is not always clear, and allows room for interpretation, e.g. as regards costs and expenses. It is up to to adopt a position on how it considers the convention should be interpreted. As regards adoption, it is first and foremost the best interests of the child that should be taken into consideration, which means that insofar as the childs best interests are compared with e.g. adults longing for a child, then it must always be what is best for the child that is decisive. This conflict can arise at two different levels, on the one hand in an individual case, on the other at an overarching level. There are already regulations in law dealing with the individual case. At the more overarching level e.g. when it is a matter of attitudes to financial matters in connection with inter- country adoption, no regulation exists in principle apart from The Hague Convention. Here it is a matter of having a position on intercountry adoption which really does place childrens best interests foremost, and which agrees with Swedish values in general. It is important that the state take a clear responsibility and does not hand this over to authorised associations and prospective adopters, who have their own interests to look after. It is also important that tries to bring about cooperation with other receiving states in order to promote a sound development of intercountry adoption work. Intercountry adoption – a help in the short term For the individual child intercountry adoption can be the best solution. As a general solution of the difficult situation of vulnerable children, intercountry adoption is merely a short-term help, which does not solve the underlying global problems causing children to be abandoned. In order to improve the conditions for vulnerable children in the long term, what is required above all are actions promoting a broad improvement in welfare in the countries of origin, and the receiving states should be contributing to a development of this kind through broad measures. The aim must be that children are able to grow up in their biological family or in another family in their country of origin. As it is not realistic to believe that all children can have that opportunity, not even in the future, work on improving childrens conditions must be pursued with both long term and short-term measures. If a receiving state such as is to conduct intercountry adoption work and at the same time be credible in its measures for improving the conditions of vulnerable children, the centre of gravity of the aid measures for children must be help of the kind that in the long term improves social and economic conditions in the countries of origin. This can be considered as reducing the risks of children being abandoned. Intercountry adoption – an ethical dilemma There are many childless adults in the world who long for children. There are also many children in the world without families. Many adults want a small healthy child if possible. As there are more childless adults than small healthy children available for adoption, a situation of competition arises in which there is a risk that whoever pays most will get the – from an adult perspective – most attractive children, i.e. small healthy children. Different countries have different cultures for contributing aid for different ends. Some countries have greater openness or tolerance towards paying large sums in order to be able to adopt children. These countries willingness to pay and ability to pay in practice creates the norm for the sums it is possible to demand in order for a child to be made available for adoption. It is quite understandable that the countries of origin receive contributions towards their social work, and that they choose contacts for cooperation who are prepared to contribute large sums to them. It is also understandable that childless adults are prepared to make great financial sacrifices in order to acquire a longed-for child. As long as there are more adults who want to adopt than suitable children available for adoption, an adoption market will exist in which financial means have the greatest importance. The concept of trafficking in children means to most people that adults buy children in order to exploit them in some improper . Even if, in the adoption context, the intention is to provide a child with a family, there is an obvious risk that children become pawns in a financial game, driven by adults longing for children and difficult financial and social problems in the countries of origin. A financial game of this kind must be characterised as a kind of trafficking in children. The fact that, in certain circumstances, intercountry adoptions can be classified under the term trafficking in children is expressed in The Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the of Children, Child prostitution and Child pornography. When prospective parents have to pay more for the adoption than what the actual costs amount to, the child tends to become a commodity. Even if what is paid over and above the actual costs is used in a good cause, a contribution of this kind must never be a condition for a child being available for adoption. As fast as the costs of adoption are forced up in the competition between different receiving states, there is also a risk that in the childrens countries of origin a dependency is created on the income deriving from intercountry adoption work. When it is a question of large sums being paid over and above compensation for the actual costs, it may be that it is financially more advantageous to mediate children for intercountry adoption than for national adoption or placement in homes. In such cases intercountry adoptions can prevent positive local development, which is unacceptable. There is also a risk that intercountry adoptions contribute to the retention of structures with an archaic view of women and a view of illegitimate children and children with handicaps which cannot accept. A development of this kind can under no circumstances be accepted. It is of the greatest importance that anyone with any connection to intercountry adoptions strives for high ethical standards in adoption work. Intercountry adoption must be placed in a wider context than has been the case, where it has primarily been seen as an alternative way of forming a family. We consider it essential that adopts a position on which rules of the game we can accept, and on how may act in order to reduce the risks of trafficking in children in connection with intercountry adoption. Running orphanages from which adopted children come, and administration in connection with intercountry adoption implies, of course, considerable costs for the countries of origin. It is there- fore only reasonable that the prospective adopters compensate the countries of origin for actual costs incurred in the adoption of the individual child, or an estimated average cost per child. What must be questioned is whether the prospective adopters should be forced to pay for the general welfare development of the countries of origin. In our opinion it is unreasonable from the viewpoint of Swedish adopters that they out of their own pocket, have to finance a development of welfare in another country. In this way the children risk becoming commodities, and there is a risk that the countries of origin become dependent on incomes from intercountry adoption work, something that is unacceptable. Combining the ultimate goal of the associations aid work – which should be that children should be cared for by their biological parents, extended family or in any case by a family in the same country – with the ultimate goal of adoption work – to mediate children for adoption in – in our view involves clear difficulties. A conflict of aims would always be present in the work. is it possible to ignore the fact that aid work is a condition for the associations to appear as attractive collaborative partners as regards adoption. The associations impression is that associations/countries with a large-scale aid programme often receive considerably more children for adoption than those with a smaller scale operation. This last fact ties in to what has been said earlier about costs and the trade in children, with the difference that here it is the associations and not the individual parents who through aid work are paying to make children available for adoption. In that a large proportion of the aid projects are financed with funds from SIDA (), the Swedish state also shares in paying so that adults in will have the opportunity of having a family. In our opinion it is of the greatest importance that considers how we can contribute to improved living standards for vulnerable women and children without compromising the integrity of the adoption work. Proposals of the inquiry on costs and aid work A first step in order to get to grips with the problems described is for the adoption authority, in connection with decisions about authorisation for a particular country, to assess whether it is suitable for cooperation to be started or to continue e.g. as regards the cost picture. In order to be able to make an assessment of this kind, it is necessary for the Swedish association to present a detailed statement of accounts of all foreign costs. It is important that the costs are judged to be reasonable in relation to the cost levels in the country of origin. The trend should be towards a gradual reduction in that part of the cost relating to things other than actual costs of the adoption (calculated as an average). If the association cannot provide sufficient relevant and detailed accounts, the authority should state how their accounting could be improved. If the association for various reasons cannot follow the authoritys guidance, this may mean that the intermediation contacts in question will be regarded as unsuitable for cooperation. In the recommendation to The Hague Convention it is stressed that aid to countries of origin must not compromise the integrity of the adoption work. Our understanding is that aid work carried on by authorized associations must be unconditional. If it really is to be regarded as unconditional, the work cannot be linked to a mediating contact. There must not be the least suspicion that Swedish aid is provided on the condition that children are being mediated for adoption in . For work on intercountry adoptions to be kept as pure as possible, the associations cannot be allowed to carry on aid work for an organisation from which children are provided for adoption, or for a person helping the association in its adoption work. This should be evident from the conditions of authorisation in the law (1997:192) on intercountry adoption intermediation. Conducting aid work in a country from which the association mediates children for adoption should not be a problem, on condition that the aid work can be kept strictly separate from the adoption work both financially and personally. The association must not be allowed to have a representative (or contact person) in the foreign country who both helps prospective adopters and administers aid work, as this constitutes a great risk for confusing the associations completely separate operations of adoption intermediation and aid work. As, in relation to its size, is a major receiving state, it will clearly contribute to the development of welfare in the countries of origin in order in this way to improve the conditions of vulnerable children and women. In our understanding it is important for aid activity to have long-term goals and to keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity. In our view it would be desirable if the Swedish government in its development cooperation were also to prioritise clearly that local alternatives replacing orphanages are developed, so that children are first provided with the opportunity of growing up in good circumstances in a family in their country of origin. Receiving states can aid countries of origin via programme of the within without risking compromising the integrity of adoption work. We consider that the government should look at this programme more closely. The consequence of demanding an open accounting procedure for costs, of not accepting on principle any other than actual costs within the framework of the adoption fee, and of striving for no direct link between adoption and aid work, may be that fewer foreign children will be available for adoption in than is presently the case. As a result of this, the work of the Swedish authorised associations may decline. Those children who would have been mediated for adoption in will instead be adopted by families in other countries when there is no shortage of prospective adopters. should, in our opinion, lead the way as a nation in reducing the risks of trafficking in children in connection with intercountry adoption. If wishes to contribute to reducing the risks of a traffic in children in connection with intercountry adoption, the Swedish government and the adoption authority, as well as taking a position on what attitude itself should adopt on costs and aid work in connection with international adoption, should actively work in international circles to draw attention to these questions, and to encourage the major receiving states jointly to take up these questions with authorities and associations in the childrens countries of origin. It is our hope that a Swedish position on the matter may stimulate other receiving states to adopt positions as to what costs are ethically defensible in connection with intercountry adoption, and on how aid work can be pursued in a that does not compromise the integrity of the adoption work. It is important that shows clearly that the best interests of the children have priority in connection with intercountry adoption. One stage in this process is for receiving states to aid countries of origin unconditionally in their welfare development, so that the countries of origin to a greater extent have the opportunity of caring for their children within the country. Authorisation and supervision (Chap.6) We propose more and clearer conditions of authorisation, above all regarding circumstances in the foreign country. From the law on intercountry adoption intermediation it should also be evident that the association has an obligation to mediate for applicants who have consent, an obligation to provide information and documentation, and an obligation in each instance to be able to reimburse all sums paid and to possess the means to wind up the association. From the same law it must be clear that the adoption authority has the right to obtain information, right of access to the associations offices and the right to demand redress. The authority should be given increased resources in order to exercise supervision. Authorisation should in our opinion be granted in two stages, in which the prerequisites for even acting as an intermediary of intercountry adoptions should be tested first. Thereafter one should test whether the conditions in each individual country are such that cooperation is judged to be suitable. Authorisation for working with intercountry adoption intermediation in should only be granted to associations having as their primary aim mediating adoptions. If an association also on work other than intercountry adoption inter- mediation, the other work must not compromise the integrity of the adoption work. The risks of an association working with both adoption intermediation and aid work are discussed in the previous section. Authorisation may moreover only be granted if it is obvious that the association will mediate adoptions in a competent and discerning , without thought of gain, and with the best interests of the child as its primary goal. For authorisation it is, what is more, necessary that the association has a board, auditors and statutes implying that it is an open organisation.