An official government-appointed committee has concluded that the Norwegian adoption system suffered from systemic failures, illegal practices, and unethical conduct over several decades. Barne- og familieminister Lene Vågslid (Ap) received the 750-page report on Monday, which documents how authorities and adoption agencies consistently underestimated risks, failed to verify child origins, and prioritized financial incentives over the best interests of children.
What were the primary failures identified?
The committee, appointed in 2023, found that Norwegian authorities failed to conduct independent investigations into conditions in countries of origin, choosing instead to rely on provided documentation. According to the report, this failure led to multiple breaches of international standards, including the lack of valid, informed consent from biological parents. In several instances, children were systematically registered as orphans despite having living families, and international adoption was frequently used as a first-choice solution rather than exploring domestic care options in the child’s home country.
Did You Know? The investigative report spans 750 pages and covers the entire period of international adoption activity in Norway up until the committee began its work in 2023.
Specific instances of systemic risk
The committee highlighted three distinct areas where the lack of oversight led to grave consequences. In China, high demand and requirements for monetary donations created a systemic risk for illegal practices. Between 1985 and 1995, adoptions from Chile occurred while the country was under a military dictatorship, resulting in many infants of unclear origin being sent to Norway. Additionally, the committee cited the “Søskenprosjektet” (Sibling Project) in Ethiopia, which began as humanitarian aid but evolved into a system of financial support for families who consented to give up their children for adoption.
Expert Insight: The challenge of accountability
Expert Insight: The findings suggest a fundamental conflict between the administrative goal of processing adoptions and the duty of child protection. By prioritizing formal compliance over independent verification, Norwegian authorities effectively outsourced their due diligence to private agencies and foreign entities. The resulting lack of specialized follow-up care for adoptees and families highlights a long-term failure to manage the humanitarian consequences of these systemic lapses.
What happens next for the adoption system?
The report has been sent to public hearing, a process Minister Lene Vågslid emphasized as essential for the government’s next steps. While the minister stated that the government has already tightened security and control measures in recent years, she declined to outline specific future actions until the administration has fully processed the report’s recommendations. Meanwhile, interest groups such as “Koreanskadopterte i Norge” and “Adopsjon i endring” are calling for a formal government apology and a prioritize focus on reparative measures for affected individuals.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is responsible for the criticized adoption practices?
The report identifies a systemic failure involving both Norwegian public authorities and adoption agencies. Adopsjonsforum, Verdens Barn, and InorAdopt are named as the agencies that facilitated these adoptions, with Adopsjonsforum being the only one still in operation.
What does the committee recommend for adoptees?
The committee proposes that authorities provide better support for adoptees seeking information about their origins, improve access to adoption documentation through international cooperation, and explore the possibility of allowing biological families to gain insight when they initiate contact with Norwegian authorities.
Has there been an official apology?
Not yet. While Adopsjonsforum has issued an apology to the affected parties, opposition parties such as the Progress Party (Frp) have called on the government to issue a formal public apology to the adoptees and their families.
How should the government balance the need for accountability with the ongoing needs of those who have been adopted?
