Print
See related documents
Report | Doc. 11538 | 27 March 2008
Preventing the first form of violence against children: abandonment at birth
(Former) Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
Summary
The abandonment of children at birth is far from disappearing in Europe. It is a complex issue which involves rights other than those of the mother, such as those of the child and the father.
The Assembly confirms the right of children to live with their family and to find out about their origins, which is a fundamental human right and crucial for their development.
To fight against abandonment, the Assembly invites member states, inter alia, to ensure the right of women to freely choose maternity, appropriate social support and financial assistance to young pregnant women and to the mother and her child, the free-of-charge registration of newborn children and fair and transparent abandonment procedures for the purpose of adoption.
A. Draft resolution
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly is aware that the abandonment
of children, particularly newborn babies, has always existed and
always will. There will always be mothers in distress who feel they
have good reasons to abandon their child at birth (denial of pregnancy,
pregnancy outside marriage or at an early age, poverty, HIV/Aids,
etc.). In the past, certain east European states also had policies
which “institutionalised” the abandonment of babies or which encouraged
parents experiencing difficulties to hand their babies over to the state;
traces of these policies can be found in the attitudes of the public
and maternity hospital staff.
2. Nevertheless, the Assembly is concerned since today, unfortunately,
we are far from seeing an end to the abandonment of infants. Due
to financial difficulties, poverty, HIV/Aids, a high rate of abandonment
of newborn babies persists in certain states of central and eastern
Europe, and this is also coming once again to light in west European
states, even though clearly not to a comparable extent.
3. It notes, moreover, that data on the subject are rare; in
order to respond with relevant measures, we need to quantify the
problem more accurately and put figures on it, particularly in terms
of a breakdown by sex of the babies abandoned. We also need to have
a clearer picture of and to identify, with any certainty, the typical
profile of the mother who abandons her child. In western Europe,
most cases of abandonment would appear to involve very young women
lacking independence (either from abroad, illegal immigrants, or prostitutes).
4. The Assembly notes that adoption has become a market and that
the shortage of adoptable babies in the west makes matters worse.
Adoption is closely tied up with abandonment, just as it is with
child trafficking. Non-governmental organisations often complain
that mothers in distress are not sufficiently well informed about
the options open to them and that their vulnerability is exploited
to persuade them in effect to abandon their newborn children.
5. The abandonment of children at birth is a complex issue, which
involves rights other than those of the mother, such as those of
the child and the father. It is impossible nowadays to overlook
the rights of children, particularly the right of children to live
in a family and to know their origins; it is just as difficult to
ignore the rights of fathers.
6. The Assembly notes that in Europe and throughout the world,
we are currently witnessing the controversial reintroduction of
the foundling wheel system used in Europe in the Middle Ages. In
many cases, the abandonment of children is considered a crime, and
this system is seen by some as inciting crime and taking responsibility
away from mothers. Advocates of the system argue that bringing it
into general use will reduce the number of abortions, prevent infanticide,
ill-treatment and the abandonment of babies in public places and
make sure that the children are adopted.
7. For the Assembly, the abandonment of newborn babies clearly
raises the question of access for women – particularly migrant women
– to sexual rights and reproductive health services. Even where
voluntary termination of pregnancy is permitted, it is subject to
countless administrative formalities all of which constitute obstacles
to many women in distress.
8. The Assembly reasserts its position in favour of the de-institutionalisation
of abandoned infants and of priority being given to the provision
of alternative and family-based care for these children. It also
reiterates that national adoption should take precedence over international
adoption.
9. The Assembly invites the member states to:
9.1. centre their family policy on
one inviolable and pre-eminent principle, namely respect for the rights
of children, in particular the right of children to live with their
families and find out about their origins, which is a fundamental
human right and crucial for their development;
9.2. provide support for pregnant women and young mothers through
measures including medico-social monitoring of pregnancies, protection
against the HIV/Aids virus and measures to prevent mother-to-child
transmission, assistance at childbirth, non-separation of the child
from the mother after delivery and post-natal medical and social
support for both mother and child;
9.3. take due account of the financial pressures that the birth
of a child creates;
9.4. recognise a woman’s full right to freely choose pregnancy,
which means legal and easier access to sexual rights and reproductive
health services;
9.5. and to pay particular attention to especially vulnerable
groups of young girls and women, such as migrant women, women with
HIV/Aids and women from minority groups.
10. Member states are also invited to frame a proactive policy
to prevent the abandonment of newborn babies which:
10.1. prohibits all incitement or
pressure brought to bear on mothers from medical and paramedical staff
or government authorities to abandon their children;
10.2. prevents “dumping”, which endangers the life of the newborn
baby, by appropriate measures such as accessible reception facilities;
10.3. prevents early and unwanted pregnancies through information
and sex education, particularly at school;
10.4. provides mothers, especially mothers belonging to vulnerable
groups, with better information about all the assistance available
to them, particularly financial support to help them cope with the
added expense that a child represents;
10.5. helps with the setting up and expansion of care and temporary
accommodation centres for mothers and their children.
11. Council of Europe member states should urge mothers to give
their identity, even though at the same time, protected forms of
childbirth should be introduced offering some confidentiality for
the mother. Children must not be deprived of the right to find out
about their origins and should be allowed to do so even before they reach
the age of majority.
12. In order to combat the trafficking in newborn infants, the
Assembly recommends that the registration of all children at birth
be an obligation totally free of charge for parents; provision could
be made for incentive measures for such registration, for example
by means of a grant paid on the birth of the child.
13. The Assembly calls on member states to introduce transparent
procedures for the giving up of newborn babies for national and
international adoption purposes; mothers should be given a reasonable
length of time within which to change their mind and wherever possible
the consent of the father should not be overlooked; recourse to
national and international adoption should not prevent or prohibit
children from finding out about their origins.
14. Finally the Assembly considers that it would be a failure
on the part of any state in the Council of Europe which does not
adopt policies that give every child, irrespective of where they
live or their origin, the opportunity to develop to their full potential.
Every state should have an obligation to ensure that each child
is always in a place of safety either with his/her family, a foster
family or a family of adoption. No child should needlessly be put
in harms way when education, health or the general social infrastructure
of life is available. Failure to do this would be a disgrace to
the individual country and its continued membership of the Council
of Europe. The Council of Europe as a whole should endeavour to
ensure that each state lives up to the obligations it has towards
its children and there should be regular reports to the Assembly
about the fulfilment of these obligations by member states.
B. Explanatory memorandum, by Mr Michael Hancock
(open)1. The motion “Preventing the first form of violence
against children: abandonment at birth”, Doc. 10921, initially tabled by
Mrs Bargholtz (Sweden), was entrusted to the Chairperson of the
Sub-Committee on Children, Michael Hancock (United Kingdom), who
was appointed rapporteur.
2. The rapporteur opted to send a questionnaire directly to the
member states. He particularly wishes to thank his assistants, Mrs Vanessa
Metcalf and Ekaterina Zatuliveter, whose hard work has enabled the
Sub-Committee on Children to receive replies from 20 countries (Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania,
San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom
and Ukraine) and to come to some conclusions on the basis of the
information provided.
3. At a meeting in Berlin, the committee held an exchange of
views with, inter alia, Sister
Chiara, Head of the St Joseph Hospital, who provided detailed information
regarding the “baby hatches” set up in 2001. The rapporteur was
authorised to make an official visit to Ukraine (27-30 August 2007)
and he would like to thank the Ukrainian authorities and all those
he met for the reception he was given and for the valuable information he
was able to obtain while there.
4. The abandonment of children, particularly newborn babies,
has always existed and always will. There will always be mothers
in distress who feel they have good reason to abandon their child
at birth (denial of pregnancy, pregnancy outside marriage or at
an early age, poverty, etc.). In the past, certain east European states
had policies which “institutionalised” the abandonment of babies
or which encouraged parents experiencing difficulties to hand their
babies over to the state; traces of these policies can still be
found in the attitudes of the public and maternity hospital staff.
5. Unfortunately we are a long way off seeing an end to the abandonment
of infants. Due to financial difficulties, poverty, HIV/Aids, etc.,
a high rate of abandonment of newborn babies persists in certain
states of central and eastern Europe. Although by comparison the
phenomenon seems to be much less common in western Europe, it does
exist and seems to be on the rise. The existence of a market for
adoption and the shortage of adoptable babies in the West appear
to be making matters worse.
6. It seems that national statistics on the number of abandoned
newborn babies are rare or (as in Belgium’s case) non-existent.
Figures on the number of children placed in the care of institutions
are available. Some states claim that abandonment of newborn babies
does not exist in their country (for example, Slovenia and Liechtenstein)
or is very rare (Finland). Recognising that it has underestimated
the phenomenon (1 549 cases of abandonment in 2004, but only 998
in 2006), Ukraine has recently decided to set up a computer database to
manage its information.
7. Newborn babies are often found abandoned on the street, in
dustbins, etc.: this is referred to as “dumping”, with little likelihood
of the babies’ survival; some babies are luckier and are anonymously abandoned
in a safe place, are legally abandoned for adoption in a hospital
or are left with a children’s institution.
8. We are currently witnessing the controversial reintroduction
of the foundling wheels used in Europe in the Middle Ages. In Germany,
Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Belgium and Italy, parents
can leave their baby, via a flap in an outside wall, in a baby hatch,
where carers are alerted by an alarm whenever a new baby is put
inside. The baby is then nursed, fed and cared for by foster parents
while awaiting adoption. Normally, the child’s birth is registered
immediately, and it is given a forename and surname.
9. Europe is not the only place witnessing what is now a global
phenomenon. The Japanese have just set up the same system in the
city of Kumamoto. Since the United States’ Safe Haven laws came
into force in 1999, parents in most states can anonymously leave
their baby (newborn up to one year of age) in special safe locations
without risking criminal prosecution.
10. In most cases a letter is sent to the mother explaining how
to get the baby back if she changes her mind and advising her of
the various forms of assistance available that might help her to
care for her child herself.
11. There is much controversy over the baby hatches. In many countries,
abandonment, particularly in a public place, is considered a crime,
and the system is seen by some as inciting crime and taking responsibility away
from mothers. While these schemes often have no legal basis (in
Belgium, for example), in Germany permission was recently granted
to advertise them.
12. Advocates of the initiatives argue that bringing baby hatches
into general use will reduce the number of abortions, prevent infanticide,
ill-treatment and the abandonment of babies in public places and
make sure that the children are adopted.
13. The same arguments apply to giving birth anonymously, which,
curiously, is not very widespread. Parents in most countries, particularly
mothers, have a legal obligation to officially register the birth
of the child.
14. France has a well-developed system of anonymous birth and
is one of the few countries where the practice has existed for a
long time. The procedure allows the mother to give birth in complete
anonymity. The child’s maternal descent is not registered and it
is put up for adoption.
15. Recently, in order to respect the rights of the child to find
out about his/her origin, the procedure has been somewhat modified
(see 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child): women are prompted
to state their identity, which is kept secret but, if the mother
agrees, can be revealed to the child when it reaches adulthood enabling
it to trace its parents. This is now referred to as “discreet birth”.
16. It is impossible nowadays to overlook the rights of children,
but it is just as difficult to ignore the rights of fathers. So
what rights do fathers have in the event of anonymous or discreet
births? The father has no say in the matter. He may be unaware of
the pregnancy, has no part in the decision to give birth anonymously
and his paternity will not be recognised. In France, anonymous birth
denies fathers all rights even where they have acknowledged paternity
of an unborn child. This was challenged by a judgment of the Court
of Cassation in April 2006 (the Peter case).
17. There are some 500 anonymous births in France each year, compared
with 10 000 in the 1960s when contraception and abortion were still
illegal.
18. It is difficult to identify, with any certainty, the typical
profile of the mother who abandons her child. Most cases of abandonment
in western Europe involve very young women, often from abroad and
lacking independence (illegal migrants, prostitutes or women from
a Muslim background), who for some reason were unable to use contraception
or have an abortion.
19. Abandonment of children raises the question of access for
women (particularly migrant women) to contraception and abortion.
Abortion has not been decriminalised in all countries. Even where
it is permitted, it is subject to countless administrative formalities
which form obstacles to many women in distress. In some cases and
in some countries, doctors’ conscience clauses or strict time limits
on terminations of pregnancies may sometimes render this right,
granted to women in principle, worthless in practice.
20. In eastern and central Europe, there is still a strong tendency
for parents to leave their infants in the care of institutions.
This is particularly the case in Romania, a country still influenced
by the legacy of the communist dictatorship of leaving children
in the care of the state. Poverty and the inability to take on the
responsibility of bringing up a child explain today’s abandonments.
In Ukraine, the reasons put forward in explanation are family pressure
on the mother, lack of adequate housing or resources, the fact that
the mother was herself an abandoned child, and problems of drug
dependency or alcoholism. Sometimes, there is still a mentality favourable
to institutionalisation, which is a source of employment and income;
but thanks to the current efforts by the government to change this
view, there have been real improvements in Ukraine, as well as in
Romania and Bulgaria. In this connection, the rapporteur would refer
to his previous reports (Recommendation
1601 (2003), Doc. 9692,
and Recommendation 1698
(2005), Doc. 10452)
on the lot of abandoned children in institutions.
21. There is also the special case of mothers with HIV/Aids who
abandon newborn babies who have or are likely to have the virus,
particularly in the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Because
of the lack of adequate resources and the stigma surrounding those
who are HIV-positive, newborn babies are segregated in specialised
institutions (if such institutions exist at all; other-wise segregation
takes place in ordinary hospitals: in 2005, Human Rights Watch estimated
this to be the case for 50% of all children born in these circumstances)
where it is allegedly easier to care for them. Existing institutions
often refuse to admit them, even where it is illegal to do so, and
can always find an excuse.
22. Such institutions often lack staff capable of looking after
and nurturing these infants, which results in major developmental
problems. This is especially harmful for the children, particularly
those who turn out to be HIV-negative when tested at the age of
eighteen months.
23. In a large number of the countries which replied to the rapporteur’s
questionnaire, it seems that there is a legal requirement for the
authorities to search for the family of a child who is found abandoned
(for example, in Germany, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland
and the Czech Republic). However, very little information is provided
about the form that these searches take and how long they last.
24. The rapporteur does not wish, at this stage, to go into the
highly complicated legal matter of the rules governing legal proceedings
connected with the abandonment of children –a matter which it would
be worth investigating in more detail, but in another report. These
proceedings are governed by different rules in different countries.
Their emphasis varies according to whether the aim is to encourage
a complete or partial break in any ties with the family of origin,
promote the adoption of young children, or make provision for the
child to be reintegrated into his or her family of origin in the
longer term. These choices will depend on the country’s family policy.
25. Adoption is closely tied up with abandonment, just as it is
with child trafficking, and it has become a very lucrative business.
Babies are becoming rarer in western Europe. Often associations
complain that mothers in distress are not sufficiently well informed
about the options open to them and that their vulnerability is exploited to
persuade them in effect to abandon their newborn children.
26. Reference has already been made above to the practice of inciting
mothers to abandon their children, which held sway in central and
eastern Europe for many years and has left its mark on people’s
mentalities. European newspapers regularly report cases involving
the sale of, and trafficking in, newborn children for the purposes
of illegal adoption. The rapporteur has already prepared several
reports on the situation of children in institutions and would reiterate
that national or even international adoption is always preferable
to institutionalisation.
27. Bearing in mind the alarming situation in certain central
and east European countries as regards abandonment, many NGOs and
international organisations such as UNICEF have decided to set up
care centres which offer young mothers and their children temporary
care so as to prevent children being abandoned in institutions.
UNICEF has already set up several centres in Ukraine, which accommodated
60 or so women and their newborn babies in 2006 and whose activities
help them to reconstruct their family life. During the rapporteur’s
visit to Ukraine, he visited such a centre in Cherniliv. There have
also been centres of this kind in Georgia since 2003.
Conclusions
28. The abandonment of children at birth is a complex
issue, which involves rights other than those of the mother, such
as those of the child and the father. The first point to make is
that data on the subject are rare. An attempt should be made to
quantify the problem and put figures on it, particularly in terms
of the breakdown by sex of the babies abandoned. The reasons for
abandonment are complex; they vary according to circumstances and
sometimes they fall outside the realm of politics.
29. However, in Europe, particularly in central and eastern Europe,
the main reasons seem to be poverty, financial insecurity and the
inability of the mother to cope with the financial burden that a
child represents.
30. This means there is a need for family policy choices which
take account of the financial pressures that the birth of a child
creates, and a need to monitor pregnancies and childbirth and support
young mothers.
31. All the measures proposed should centre on one inviolable
and pre-eminent principle, namely respect for the rights of children,
particularly the right of children to live with their families and
to know their origins, which is a fundamental human right and crucial
for their development.
32. Particular attention must be paid to vulnerable groups such
as young migrant women, women with HIV/Aids and women from minority
groups.
33. A proactive policy to prevent the abandonment of newborn babies
should:
33.1. prohibit all incitement
or pressure brought to bear on mothers from medical and paramedical
staff or government authorities to abandon their children;
33.2. prevent “dumping”, which endangers the life of the newborn
baby, by appropriate measures such as accessible reception facilities;
33.3. not allow anonymous childbirth to be legally possible;
mothers should be required to give their identity, even though it
should of course be possible to establish protected forms of childbirth
offering some confidentiality for the mother, but children must
not be deprived of the right to find out about their origins and
should be allowed to do so even before they have reached the age
of majority;
33.4. encourage the registration of all children at birth; this
should be an obligation and totally free of charge for parents;
provision should be made for incentive measures, including a grant
paid on the birth of the child. A system of financial allowances
sufficient to help care for children should be introduced, payable
with effect from the birth of the first child;
33.5. introduce transparent procedures for the giving up of
newborn babies for adoption purposes; mothers should be given a
reasonable length of time within which to change their mind and
wherever possible the consent of the father should not be overlooked;
recourse to national and international adoption should not prevent
or prohibit children from finding out about their origins;
33.6. recognise a woman’s full right to freely choose pregnancy,
which means legal and easier access to contraception and abortion;
33.7. prevent early and unwanted pregnancies through information
and sex education, particularly at school;
33.8. provide support for pregnant women and young mothers through
measures including medico-social monitoring of pregnancies, protection
against the HIV/Aids virus and measures to prevent mother-to-child
transmission, assistance at childbirth, non-separation of the child
from the mother after delivery and post-natal medical and social
support for both mother and child;
33.9. provide mothers, especially mothers belonging to vulnerable
groups, with better information about all the assistance available
to them, particularly financial support to help them cope with the
added expense that a new child represents;
33.10. and help with the setting up of care and temporary accommodation
centres for mothers and their children.
Reporting committee: Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.
Reference to committee: Doc. 10921 and Reference No. 3244 of 26 June 2006.
Draft resolution adopted by the committee on 14 March 2008.
Members of the committee: Mrs Christine McCafferty (Chairperson), Mr Denis Jacquat (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Minodora Cliveti (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Konstantinos Aivaliotis, Mr Farkhad Akhmedov, Mr Vicenç Alay Ferrer,
Mrs Sirpa Asko-Seljavaara, Mr Jorodd Asphjell, Mr Lokman Ayva, Mr Zigmantas Balčytis, Mr Miguel Barceló Pérez, Mr Andris Berzinš, Mr Jaime Blanco García, Mr Roland Blum, Mrs Olena Bondarenko, Mrs Monika Brüning, Mrs Bożenna Bukiewicz, Mr Igor Chernyshenko, Mr Imre Czinege, Mrs Helen D’Amato, Mr Karl Donabauer, Mrs Daniela Filipiová, Mr Ilija Filipović, Mr André Flahaut, (alternate: Mr Philippe Monfils), Mr Paul Flynn, Mrs Pernille Frahm, Mrs Doris Frommelt, Mr Renato Galeazzi, Mr Henk van Gerven, Mrs Sophia Giannaka, Mr Stefan Glǎvan, Mr Marcel Glesener, Mr Luc Goutry (alternate: Mr Geert Lambert), Mrs Claude Greff, Mr Michael Hancock, Mrs Olha Herasym’yuk, Mr Vahe Hovhannisyan, Mr Ali Huseynov, Mr Fazail ibrahimli, Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mrs Marietta Karamanli (alternate: Mr Jean-Paul Lecoq), Mr András Kelemen, Mr Peter Kelly, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mr Haluk Koç, Mr Slaven Letica, Mr Andrija Mandić, Mr Michał Marcinkiewicz, Mr Bernard Marquet, Mr Ruzhdi Matoshi (alternate: Mr Aziz Pollozhani), Mrs Liliane Maury Pasquier, Mr Donato Mosella, Mr Felix Müri, Mrs Maia Nadiradzé, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Mr Peter Omtzigt, Mrs Vera Oskina, Mrs Lajla Pernaska, Mrs Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Cezar Florin Preda, Mrs Adoración Quesada Bravo (alternate: Mrs Bianca Fernández-Capel), Mrs Vjerica Radeta, Mr Walter Riester, Mr Andrea Rigoni, Mr Ricardo Rodrigues, Mrs Maria de Belém Roseira, Mr Alessandro Rossi, Mrs Marlene Rupprecht, Mr Indrek Saar, Mr Fidias Sarikas, Mr Andreas Schieder, Mr Ellert B. Schram, Mr Gianpaolo Silvestri, Mrs Svetlana Smirnova (alternate: Mr Vladimir Zhidkikh), Mrs Anna Sobecka, Mrs Michaela Šojdrová, Mrs Darinka Stantcheva, Mr Oleg Ţulea, Mr Alexander Ulrich, Mr Mustafa Ünal, Mr Milan Urbáni, Mrs Nataša Vučković, Mr Victor Yanukovych, Mrs Barbara Žgajner-Tavš.
NB: The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in bold.
The draft resolution will be discussed at a later sitting.