ROBERT Mangham has a straightforward message to get through: that international adoption should be in the best interest of the child.
Mangham is the head of Save the Children UK, part of the international children's charity which operates in 70 countries including Bulgaria.
He was a participant in a round table discussion, held at the end of April, on the factual situation regarding adoption in Bulgaria.
Mangham told The Echo: "There are many children in institutions at the moment who would be better off in international adoptions, provided parents are properly regulated, monitored, and checked out, but it is a quite exceptional circumstance because there is a transition stage from an institutional system to a more community-based preventative approach".
It should be about the interests of the child, and not about a huge amount of money being involved in every adoption, he emphasised.
Fani Videnova, the head of the section of the Ministry of Justice dealing with Bulgarian citizenship and adoption, said that it was a myth that international adoptions took place with the sole purpose of harvesting organs.
The welfare of children adopted by foreigners and moved to their countries continued to be subject to scrutiny by the relevant authorities when they got there, she said.
There had been some failures, where children ended up having left an institution in Bulgaria, only to find themselves in a similar institution in a foreign country, she said,adding that Videnova said the number of international adoptions in Bulgaria did not exceed domestic ones.
Mangham said foreign agencies were using the internet to market children for adoption. On one such site, he had seen Bulgarian orphans up for adoption described as "dark-skinned with big brown eyes" as if they were a product being hyped.
To add to the impression that they were a commodity for sale, the site said the children were not drug-dependent, because their parents could not afford drugs.
The "product price" was between $23 000 and $24 000, with a breakdown of costs being provided. This breakdown included a $2000 "donation" to the institution from which the child came.
Under the heading "miscellaneous" there was a warning that prices were subject to change.
Mangham said such practices provided stimulated corruption.
"Why there should be any profit in it if it is in the best interest of the child to go for adoption internationally?
"We could talk about covering costs like air fares and administration but when you have budget lines with 'miscellaneous', with $3500 contributions to institutions around the country, this is corruption," he said.
Mangham said that taking into account records that there had been 1119 children adopted internationally, and multiplying this by $24 000, "we are talking about an industry worth $30 million a year".
"When those figures are involved you start to easily lose sight of the best interest of the child. It is an invitation to corruption, and people who are making profits out of the process can be influential, and are blocking moves to make it more transparent."
Mangham said there were myths surrounding international adoptions.
Foreign would-be parents coming to this country truly believed they would be rescuing orphans from the institutions of Bulgaria.
"They truly believe that without their intervention their children are all destined to a future of poverty and misery.
"The myth exists in the fact that hardly any of the children are true orphans. Nearly all of the children who go for international adoption have at least one living parent. The fact is that poverty lies at the root of why many families of Bulgaria consider the option of putting up their child for adoption."
He said that what was necessary was for the Government to recognise that it had certain responsibilities, and to try to offer such families support to overcome their social and economic difficulties.
Only after such steps had been explored, and had failed, should adoption be considered as a child protection measure.
But, Mangham said, the first option should be to place the child with a relative so that it retained its family ties.
If this failed, national adoption was the next best step, because it was preferable to the child being removed from the country, and would allow it to retain its language and cultural roots.
"If all those measures are not possible for various reasons, international adoption has its place as a child protection measure.
Mangham said statistics showed that proper procedures had not been followed.
In 2002 there were 1119 children who were adopted internationally, and of these, 1004 were of Roma ethnicity.
"This figure is huge for a country of the size of Bulgaria," he said, adding that only a fraction of this figure should be expected.
"Adoption is now seen as a child protection measure," Mangham said, adding that until now it was considered something different.
If a family had difficulties because of poverty, but were thinking of placing their child in an institution, then they had access to social support, he said. But if they were thinking of considering their child for international adoption they were considered somehow different and had no access to social services.
With adoption being recognised as a child protection measure, the two things were brought together.
"We are looking at the same issue, which is poverty," he said. "Adoption should not be the only option for a child. Adoption has its place, but it should be a part of a wider procedure."
There were "a hundred" approaches that could be made to assist a family with its problems that would allow the family to retain their child.
One such example was in Rousse, where Save the Children was co-operating in a joint project with the Government on preventing children going into institutional care in the mother and baby home institution.
These were the same institutions from which infants are sent for international adoption. "It is looking at the same issues and under these projects social workers from the child protection department from the municipality level in Rousse go out and visit families who are experiencing economic social problems," he said.
"Whatever the circumstances, at the end of the day, it makes it difficult for the family to meet its basic food requirement and basically exist as a proper family unit."
Many families had in the past considered placing their child in the mother and baby institution either temporarily or for quite long periods, or asking that their child be internationally adopted.
The parents could be put in touch with an organisation assisting people with alcohol problems. A disabled child's family is provided with an opportunity to work during the days while the children are accommodated at a day care centre.
"These are alternative ways to adoption and if all of them turn out unsuccessful, then the only sensible outcome would be international adoption," Mangham said.
There was an external review of the project in Rousse by the State Agency for Child Protection and an outside technical consultant who assessed the programme.
In a report in December, they concluded that the project had reduced the number of children who were full time in residential care by more than 30 per cent. This worked out to about 40 children who did not end up full time in institutional care. Forty children does not sound a lot considering the 31 Mother and Baby Institutions across the country. Rough calculations showed that 1200 children across the country could be helped in a short space of time, if this approach was applied.
"We have been promoting this approach for some time, and it is the only way forward, because for Bulgaria now to get into the EU, the preconditions for accession in 2007 have been changed," he said.
A clause specifically states that Bulgaria must reduce the number of children in institutions. Mangham said it was quite possible for Bulgaria to do this.
"No one expects institutions to rapidly empty of children between now and 2007," he said, while adding that the process of offering families assistance in dealing with social and economic difficulties was quite feasible.
"What we are looking for between now and 2007 is for this approach to be applied nationally. Once it is applied nationally, it is not an approach that would go into a U-Turn or into reverse after 2007," Mangham said.
It made economic sense, and it made sense to invest social capital in youth, he said. "Where is the logic in every year sending over 1 000 of Bulgaria's youngest generation to a foreign country when you have a decreasing birth rate anyway?"
Mangham is the head of Save the Children UK, part of the international children's charity which operates in 70 countries including Bulgaria.
He was a participant in a round table discussion, held at the end of April, on the factual situation regarding adoption in Bulgaria.
Mangham told The Echo: "There are many children in institutions at the moment who would be better off in international adoptions, provided parents are properly regulated, monitored, and checked out, but it is a quite exceptional circumstance because there is a transition stage from an institutional system to a more community-based preventative approach".
It should be about the interests of the child, and not about a huge amount of money being involved in every adoption, he emphasised.
Fani Videnova, the head of the section of the Ministry of Justice dealing with Bulgarian citizenship and adoption, said that it was a myth that international adoptions took place with the sole purpose of harvesting organs.
The welfare of children adopted by foreigners and moved to their countries continued to be subject to scrutiny by the relevant authorities when they got there, she said.
There had been some failures, where children ended up having left an institution in Bulgaria, only to find themselves in a similar institution in a foreign country, she said,adding that Videnova said the number of international adoptions in Bulgaria did not exceed domestic ones.
Mangham said foreign agencies were using the internet to market children for adoption. On one such site, he had seen Bulgarian orphans up for adoption described as "dark-skinned with big brown eyes" as if they were a product being hyped.
To add to the impression that they were a commodity for sale, the site said the children were not drug-dependent, because their parents could not afford drugs.
The "product price" was between $23 000 and $24 000, with a breakdown of costs being provided. This breakdown included a $2000 "donation" to the institution from which the child came.
Under the heading "miscellaneous" there was a warning that prices were subject to change.
Mangham said such practices provided stimulated corruption.
"Why there should be any profit in it if it is in the best interest of the child to go for adoption internationally?
"We could talk about covering costs like air fares and administration but when you have budget lines with 'miscellaneous', with $3500 contributions to institutions around the country, this is corruption," he said.
Mangham said that taking into account records that there had been 1119 children adopted internationally, and multiplying this by $24 000, "we are talking about an industry worth $30 million a year".
"When those figures are involved you start to easily lose sight of the best interest of the child. It is an invitation to corruption, and people who are making profits out of the process can be influential, and are blocking moves to make it more transparent."
Mangham said there were myths surrounding international adoptions.
Foreign would-be parents coming to this country truly believed they would be rescuing orphans from the institutions of Bulgaria.
"They truly believe that without their intervention their children are all destined to a future of poverty and misery.
"The myth exists in the fact that hardly any of the children are true orphans. Nearly all of the children who go for international adoption have at least one living parent. The fact is that poverty lies at the root of why many families of Bulgaria consider the option of putting up their child for adoption."
He said that what was necessary was for the Government to recognise that it had certain responsibilities, and to try to offer such families support to overcome their social and economic difficulties.
Only after such steps had been explored, and had failed, should adoption be considered as a child protection measure.
But, Mangham said, the first option should be to place the child with a relative so that it retained its family ties.
If this failed, national adoption was the next best step, because it was preferable to the child being removed from the country, and would allow it to retain its language and cultural roots.
"If all those measures are not possible for various reasons, international adoption has its place as a child protection measure.
Mangham said statistics showed that proper procedures had not been followed.
In 2002 there were 1119 children who were adopted internationally, and of these, 1004 were of Roma ethnicity.
"This figure is huge for a country of the size of Bulgaria," he said, adding that only a fraction of this figure should be expected.
"Adoption is now seen as a child protection measure," Mangham said, adding that until now it was considered something different.
If a family had difficulties because of poverty, but were thinking of placing their child in an institution, then they had access to social support, he said. But if they were thinking of considering their child for international adoption they were considered somehow different and had no access to social services.
With adoption being recognised as a child protection measure, the two things were brought together.
"We are looking at the same issue, which is poverty," he said. "Adoption should not be the only option for a child. Adoption has its place, but it should be a part of a wider procedure."
There were "a hundred" approaches that could be made to assist a family with its problems that would allow the family to retain their child.
One such example was in Rousse, where Save the Children was co-operating in a joint project with the Government on preventing children going into institutional care in the mother and baby home institution.
These were the same institutions from which infants are sent for international adoption. "It is looking at the same issues and under these projects social workers from the child protection department from the municipality level in Rousse go out and visit families who are experiencing economic social problems," he said.
"Whatever the circumstances, at the end of the day, it makes it difficult for the family to meet its basic food requirement and basically exist as a proper family unit."
Many families had in the past considered placing their child in the mother and baby institution either temporarily or for quite long periods, or asking that their child be internationally adopted.
The parents could be put in touch with an organisation assisting people with alcohol problems. A disabled child's family is provided with an opportunity to work during the days while the children are accommodated at a day care centre.
"These are alternative ways to adoption and if all of them turn out unsuccessful, then the only sensible outcome would be international adoption," Mangham said.
There was an external review of the project in Rousse by the State Agency for Child Protection and an outside technical consultant who assessed the programme.
In a report in December, they concluded that the project had reduced the number of children who were full time in residential care by more than 30 per cent. This worked out to about 40 children who did not end up full time in institutional care. Forty children does not sound a lot considering the 31 Mother and Baby Institutions across the country. Rough calculations showed that 1200 children across the country could be helped in a short space of time, if this approach was applied.
"We have been promoting this approach for some time, and it is the only way forward, because for Bulgaria now to get into the EU, the preconditions for accession in 2007 have been changed," he said.
A clause specifically states that Bulgaria must reduce the number of children in institutions. Mangham said it was quite possible for Bulgaria to do this.
"No one expects institutions to rapidly empty of children between now and 2007," he said, while adding that the process of offering families assistance in dealing with social and economic difficulties was quite feasible.
"What we are looking for between now and 2007 is for this approach to be applied nationally. Once it is applied nationally, it is not an approach that would go into a U-Turn or into reverse after 2007," Mangham said.
It made economic sense, and it made sense to invest social capital in youth, he said. "Where is the logic in every year sending over 1 000 of Bulgaria's youngest generation to a foreign country when you have a decreasing birth rate anyway?"
