Hague Convention On Intercountry Adoption Research Articles

Transnational Adoption: A Curse or a Blessing? The Psychosocial Impact of Malpractices in Transnational Adoption on Adoptees

For decades, transnational adoption has been applied as a valuable measure for children in need of a family home, and for families to fulfill their child wish. The Hague Adoption convention (1993) was established to legally safeguard these processes. However, over the years, denouncements of illegal adoptions and malpractices arose. Notwithstanding, a lack of research giving overview of these malpractices and the consequences thereof remains. This contribution explores the experiences of adoptees in Flanders (Belgium) who experienced malpractices before, during and after their transnational adoption procedure. The research questions addressed are: “What malpractices do adoptees encounter?”, “How do adoptees experience malpractices in their adoption procedure?”, and “What needs do adoptees have?”. A self-assessment questionnaire, holding into account respondents’ own judgment, perception, experiences, and interpretation, was completed by 64 adoptees, and analyzed using both SPSS statistical software and Microsoft Excel. Furthermore, in-depth interviews with a heterogeneous group of 12 adoptees were conducted and thematically analyzed. Our findings contribute to descriptions of occurring malpractices, and finetune existing literature concerning the psychosocial impact of malpractices according to adoptees themselves. Findings illustrate intertwined consequences of more general, trauma related, identity development, and relationship issues. Although occurred malpractices cannot be undone, the adoptees having experienced malpractices highlight their needs and further necessary attention for the prevention of malpractices. Adequate attention and support for transnational adoption and those involved is discussed.

FEATURES OF THE STUDY OF MOTIVATIONAL AND RESOURCE COMPONENT OF SUBSTITUTE FORMS OF PARENTHOOD IN SWITZERLAND

The problem of creating substitute forms of parenthood has not historically lost its relevance, but in times of war it is especially important, as the number of children deprived of parental care has significantly increased. The following questions are relevant: what factors contribute to the effectiveness of the reception? How to create the most favorable conditions for the development of children of different ages? What forms of substitute parenting are the most effective? How to determine the readiness of surrogate parents to create a family? The search for answers to these and many other questions was carried out by such scientists as: O. Bezpalko, S. Arkhipova, A. Kapska, O. Karpenko, I. Zvereva, N. Zaveriko; the problems of orphans were studied by V. Oslon, N. Tolstykh, A. Prikhozhan, V. Mukhina, J. Rajkus, R. Hughes, L. Volynets, the problems of foster families – G. Bevz, N. Maksimova, I. Pesha, J. Petrochko. But despite the thorough development of these issues, today there are extremely frequent cases of return of adolescent children from foster families and there is a problem of reluctance to create substitute forms of parenthood with adolescent children. Analyzing the functioning of the forms of substitute parenthood in the Swiss Confederation, it can be noted that there are almost no cases of return of children from substitute forms of parenthood and there is experience of successful creation of substitute forms of parenthood with adolescent children, and there are certain differences in the training of foster parents. Therefore, we consider it expedient to study the process of formation of the motivational and resource component of substitute parenthood in order to determine the positive experience of their functioning and its possible implementation in the native state. This article examines the peculiarities of studying the motivational and resource component of substitute forms of parenthood in the Swiss Confederation. It is noted that the issue of adoption of children by Swiss citizens in Switzerland is dealt with by special agencies approved by the federal government. Their list includes: Bureau genevois d’adoption (Geneva), Chaba Adozioni (Locarno), Chaba Adozioni, Fondation Enfants-Espoir, Mani per l’infanzia, PACH, Stiftung Ouvre tes mains / SOS Adoption. The article describes in detail the procedure for obtaining a certificate of conformity, which is an important step for creating a substitute form of parenthood. The study of the motivational and resource component of substitute parenthood in Switzerland involves a thorough check of the applicants’ suitability, including their health status (the Hague Adoption Convention (HAÜ), the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB) and the Federal Code). It is concluded that the thoroughness of each step on the way to creating a substitute form of parenthood is a prerequisite for its successful functioning.

Moving Children through Private International Law: Institutions and the Enactment of Ethics

This article examines how the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) plays a central role in justifying the institution of legal adoption. The Hague Adoption Convention has often been regarded as a response to the challenges that the “global situation” brings to adoption practice. Based on private international law, the agreement contains protocols and norms to ensure the protection of the child in intercountry adoption. In the article, I propose that the Hague Convention can be understood as a “transparency device”; a complex assemblage working in pursuit of global “good governance.” The device, however, also operates as justification within the institutional domain, allowing adoption agencies to make distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate adoptions. Idemonstrate how the logic of transparency disguises as much as it promises to reveal. While the doctrine's aim is to validate adoptability and combat trafficking, it also helps to mainstream Euro-American adoption knowledge to other parts of the world.

Review of the International Adoption Bill 2018 introduced for Korea’s Ratification of the Hague Adoption Convention

In order to ratify the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (“Convention”) concluded on May 29, 1993 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, some Members of the National Assembly of Korea introduced on December 5, 2018 the International Adoption Bill (“Bill”) and the Act on Special Cases Concerning Adoption (“Special Adoption Act”) (Amendment) Bill. The author welcomes such proposals since they are steps necessary for Korea’s ratification of the Convention. Hoping to contribute to the International Adoption Act (“IAA”), the author makes some comments on the Bill. First, since the IAA is to be an act implementing the Convention, the Bill should serve the purpose of an implementing act, and in particular not be inconsistent with the Convention. For example, while the Convention (Article 27) provides for conversion of an adoption granted in another Contracting State, the Bill does not accurately reflect this. In addition, the Bill only distinguishes inbound adoption from outbound adoption, but does not distinguish adoptions to which the Convention applies from those to which the Convention does not apply. Since this causes confusion and is a mistake regarding the effect of adoption, the IAA should distinguish them. Second, while the current Special Adoption Act deals with ‘adoption of children in need of protection in Korea’ and ‘outbound adoption of children in need of protection’, the IAA, for it purports to apply to children in general, whether in need of protection or not, and regulate both inbound and outbound adoptions, touches upon the Act on Private International Law (“KPILA”), lex generalis applying to legal relationships with foreign element. Accordingly, the Bill should not conflict with rules for the choice of law, i.e. , private international law in the narrowest sense, or legal principles of recognition of foreign judgments, that is including both recognition of foreign judgments in Korea and that of Korean judgments elsewhere. Furthermore, the Bill must comprehend in relationship with other Contracting States the consequences on such rules Korea’s ratification of the Convention may entail. However, the Bill reveals various problems due to the lack of awareness of these legal circumstances. The author thus urges that the National Assembly should further consider amendments to the Bill in view of the author’s comments herein. The passage of the discussion is as follows: first, private international law doctrines applicable to international adoption in general (Chapter Ⅱ); second, changes to be brought by Korea’s ratification of the Convention (Chapter Ⅲ); third, missions the IAA should accomplish (Chapter Ⅳ); fourth, overview and overall assessment of the Bill (Chapter Ⅴ); fifth, review of individual provisions of the Bill (Chapter Ⅵ); and sixth, concluding remarks (Chapter Ⅶ). However, since Chapters Ⅱ to Ⅴ have already been dealt with in an article by the author, they are briefly dealt with and the focus will be on Chapter Ⅵ. In Chapter VI, the author also suggests amendments to the wording of some provisions.

Review of the Bill of the International Adoption Act of 2016 prepared for Korea’s Ratification of the Hague Adoption Convention

The Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, (“Convention”) adopted in 1993 under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law is a very important convention on international adoption. Although Korea has signed the Convention on May 24, 2013, it has not yet ratified the Convention, which is very shameful. As a means to ratify the Convention, some members of the National Assembly of Korea has submitted a bill of the International Adoption Act (“Bill” and “IAA”, respectively) and a bill amending the current Special Adoption Act. The author welcomes such actions since they are necessary steps needed for Korea’s ratification of the Convention. Hoping to contribute to writing a perfect legislation, the author would like to provide a few comments on the Bill. More concretely, the author discusses the issues in the following order: First, private international law doctrines applicable to international adoption in general, which include doctrines on international jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (PartⅡ). Knowledge of these doctrines are indispensable in preparing the Bill, since they constitute the legal ‘Gegebenheit’ (circumstances) for legislation on international adoption. Second, the changes to be brought by Korea’s ratification of the Convention (PartⅢ). Third, the tasks which the IAA should achieve (PartⅣ). Fourth, the overview and the fundamental issues of the Bill (PartⅤ). Fifth, the review of individual provisions of the Bill (PartⅥ). Sixth, concluding remarks (PartⅦ). The current Special Adoption Act mainly deals with outbound adoption of Korean “Children in Need of Protection”. However, since the IAA purports to regulate inbound and outbound adoptions of children in general as well as Korean Children in Need of Protection, the area where it may be in touch with the Korean Private International Law Act (“KPILA”) is much broader. Accordingly, we should first understand the private international law doctrines on applicable law, the recognition of Korean judgments in foreign countries and the recognition of foreign judgments in Korea. In addition, we should understand clearly what kind of changes will be brought by Korea’s ratification of the Convention. Under Article 43 of the KPILA, adoption and its dissolution shall be governed by the adoptive parent’s national law at the time of the adoption. The current Special Adoption Act regulating outbound adoptions of the “Children in Need of Protection” may include, by way of exceptions to the general private international law rules, some so-called “internationally mandatory rules” designed to protect Korean children under Article 7 of the KPILA. However, such exceptions should be kept to a minimum. Unlike the Special Adoption Act, the IAA purports to regulate international adoption of children in general and therefore should not include a wide range of exceptions. Since the law applicable to international adoption may be very diverse, inserting detailed rules on the conditions and effect of adoptions in the IAA will inevitably cause conflicts with the KPILA, and thus, is not desirable. It appears that most of the errors and mistakes of the Bill are attributable to the drafters’ lack of knowledge of the private international law. We also need to review carefully the consistency between the Bill and the Convention. In sum, the author strongly urges that the National Assembly should substantially revise the Bill after carefully considering the author’s comments herein.

국제입양에 관한 헤이그 협약에 비추어 본 국제입양 관련법의 개선방안

국제입양에서 아동보호 및 협력에 관한 협약은 1993년 5월 국제사법에 관한 헤이그 회의 제17차 회의에서 채택된 협약으로서, 우리나라는 2013년 5월 24일에 동 협약에 서명을 하였지만 아직 비준하지 않고 있다. 본고에서는 이미 협약이 서명된 우리나라의 입장에서 향후 협약의 시행에 대비하여, 협약의 내용에 비추어 국내의 국제입양 관련 규정의 문제점이나 개선 또는 보완되어야 할 내용을 검토하였다.BR 국제입양과 관련한 우리나라의 입법은 입양특례법에서 요보호아동에 대한 입양특례를 규정하는 형식을 취하고 있기 때문에 동법의 목적인 ‘요보호아동의 입양을 촉진하기 위한 입양절차의 특례’를 주로 규정함으로써 국제입양대상 아동의 절차적 보호에 매우 미흡하므로, 국외로 입양되는 아동의 수가 아직도 많은 우리나라의 입장에서는 해외로 입양되는 아동들이 적어도 헤이그 협약에서 요구하는 수준의 절차적 보호를 받을 수 있도록 현행 입양특례법, 민법, 아동복지법 등 관련 법률을 정비하는 것은 시급한 과제이다. 다문화 가정의 숫자가 증가하고 있는 것과 관련하여 해외로부터 아동을 입양하는 문제와 국내 외국인의 미혼모 출산 등으로 인한 입양에 대해서도 입법적 대비가 필요하므로, 향후 국제입양의 규율대상 아동을 규정함에 있어서는 국내에서 해외로 입양되는 아동뿐만 아니라 해외에서 국내로 입양되는 아동들까지도 입양아동이 건전한 가정에서 양육되는 것을 보장하기 위한 국제입양절차가 법에 규정되어야 할 것이다.

Shame, ontological insecurity and intercountry adoption

Romania and South Korea were once among the top sending countries for adoptive American families. In recent years, though, both have adopted significant restrictions on intercountry adoption. What leads countries to introduce such severe restrictions? This article argues that shame plays a significant, yet underappreciated, motivating factor for leading governments to change their laws on intercountry adoption. Political leaders seize on nationalist rhetoric to argue that intercountry adoption is shameful. The article explores the interaction between intercountry adoption and shame through brief case studies on Romania and South Korea. Finally, it examines the role of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) in ameliorating these feelings.

论跨国收养中被收养儿童的“同意”—以1993年《海牙儿童收养公约》为视角

论跨国收养中被收养儿童的“同意”—以1993年《海牙儿童收养公约》为视角

The Role of the State in International Adoption Cases No Longer Serves the Best Interests of Adoptable Children, but Instead Functions as a Tool to Discourage Those Wishing to Adopt

The guiding principles of international adoptions as stated by The Hague Adoption Convention of 1993 are consent, best interest of the child and recognition. Adoption is a legal and social process through which a child becomes a part of a new family. It is intended to provide the child with permanence and security and is a life long process that requires commitment, patience and skill. My approach to the topic is to address the total concept of adoption, the parties involved and the salient issues to determine why the state regulates international adoption, and if the state regulation is constituting more problems than good. Relevant case laws and literatures will be consulted in this paper.

Brief Note: Intercountry adoptions and domestic home study practices: SAFE and the Hague Adoption Convention

Brief Note: Intercountry adoptions and domestic home study practices: SAFE and the Hague Adoption Convention

U.S. Takes Domestic Measures to Implement Hague Adoption Convention

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.