In a recent development from Seoul, South Korea, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Korea has unveiled a report that holds the government accountable for promoting foreign adoptions characterized by significant fraud and mismanagement. This adoption program, active during the 1970s and 1980s under military rule, largely aimed to cut welfare expenditures and was operated by private agencies that frequently fabricated children’s origins and backgrounds.
The findings are the result of a comprehensive investigation, nearly three years in duration, which scrutinized the grievances of 367 adoptees based in Europe, the United States, and Australia. This probe represents the most detailed study of South Korea’s foreign adoption practices to date. The commission confirmed human rights violations in 56 cases, with plans to assess more before its mandate concludes in late May.
Nevertheless, the report faced criticism for its cautious tone, as some adoptees and a commission investigator felt investigative constraints hindered the commission’s ability to fully reveal governmental complicity. Investigator Sang Hoon Lee criticized the delay in evaluating 42 additional cases, attributing it to insufficient documentation needed to establish the problematic nature of these adoptions. Both Lee and commission chairperson Sun Young Park refrained from detailing the specific documents in question.
Many adopted individuals were documented by agencies as abandoned orphans, even when relatives could have been easily located. This practice often makes reconnecting with biological families nearly impossible. Statistics provided reveal that less than 20% of the 15,000 adoptees seeking assistance from South Korea since 2012 have successfully located their relatives.
Lee accused the commission of misunderstanding the systemic issues within the adoption process, potentially excluding numerous cases from adequate review. “Yesterday’s decision is disappointing and half-hearted,” remarked Lee.
Upon analyzing the records and interviewing affected parties, the commission concluded that South Korean authorities historically viewed overseas adoptions as a cost-effective alternative to implementing a robust social welfare system. The investigation uncovered that policies were designed to swiftly transfer child custody to foreign adopters, leading to vast numbers of children being sent abroad.
The report highlights that private agencies, under pressure to send more children overseas, bypassed necessary parental consent, falsified records, and even tampered with children’s identities. These agencies faced little government oversight, and the state failed to regulate adoptive parent screening or prevent inflated charges to foreign adopters.
Earlier journalistic investigations have parallelly depicted how the South Korean government, Western nations, and adoption agencies collaborated to supply roughly 200,000 Korean children to international parents, despite mounting evidence of unethical procurement methods. In response, military regimes enacted special laws favoring foreign adoptions while diminishing judicial oversight, empowering agencies to overlook proper child relinquishment.
The commission stated that the state ignored its responsibility to safeguard adoptees’ human rights, as outlined by constitutional and international human rights frameworks. By promoting foreign adoptions, which required no investment, the government neglected to bolster social support for underprivileged children.
When queried about the report’s concentration on the state’s negligence versus its direct hand in creating a risky system, Lee emphasized the need for further scrutiny into the government’s role, considering the commission’s limited scope. A more detailed evaluation would necessitate examining adoptions to the United States, the leading destination for Korean adoptees, though most complaints came from adoptees in Europe.
The commission has called for an official governmental apology and recommended strategies to address the misrepresentation discovered in adoptees’ papers. They also urged a probe into citizenship disparities among U.S. adoptees, with initiatives to support those who lack citizenship, speculated to be substantial in number.
The South Korean government has not previously assumed direct responsibility for past adoption-related issues. The Ministry of Health and Welfare, alongside adoption agencies, has yet to comment on the recent report.
During a press briefing, adoptee Yooree Kim, sent to France as a child without consent from her biological family, urged the commission to amplify its recommendations. She proposed expanded DNA testing to facilitate reunions, a formal cessation of foreign adoptions, and compensation for those misled by illicit practices without the burden of legal proceedings.
With seven decades of such practices, South Korea has fostered what’s considered the largest global diaspora of adoptees. Legislative reforms since 2011, mandating that foreign adoptions pass through family courts, have significantly reduced the number of children placed abroad, with only 79 cases recorded in 2023.