{"id":2209184,"date":"2025-04-16T11:58:32","date_gmt":"2025-04-16T02:58:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/?p=2209184"},"modified":"2025-04-18T11:12:22","modified_gmt":"2025-04-18T02:12:22","slug":"adoption-abuse-findings-put-south-korea-at-risk-of-global-legal-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/2025\/04\/adoption-abuse-findings-put-south-korea-at-risk-of-global-legal-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Adoption abuse findings put South Korea at risk of global legal action"},"content":{"rendered":"
South Korea now faces mounting legal and diplomatic fallout following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission\u2019s (TRC) <\/span>confirmation<\/span><\/a> of systemic rights violations in its overseas adoption practices.<\/span><\/p>\n In findings released on March 26, the TRC concluded that the South Korean state and adoption agencies routinely falsified records, coerced or misled birth parents, substituted children\u2019s identities and neglected basic protections in order to expedite international adoptions.<\/span><\/p>\n These abuses reframed intercountry adoption not as an altruistic project but as a transnational human rights concern. The TRC\u2019s report implicates the South Korean state and 11 countries, and its conclusions have emboldened adoptees seeking justice.<\/span><\/p>\n With the TRC\u2019s mandate <\/span>set to expire<\/span><\/a> on May 26, the window for coordinated state action is closing quickly. How the government responds will shape its global standing and determine whether adoptees continue leading the accountability process on their own.<\/span><\/p>\n ADOPTEE TESTIMONY RECOGNIZED<\/b><\/p>\n For decades, adoptee testimonies were sidelined as isolated or emotional. The TRC\u2019s findings reversed that narrative. By acknowledging widespread malpractice, the commission provided institutional legitimacy to accounts long dismissed.<\/span><\/p>\n Adoptees are now using the commission\u2019s findings to lobby governments, file lawsuits and campaign for inquiries in their countries of residence.<\/span><\/p>\n Several adoptees told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i> that this was the first time their experiences were being treated as credible evidence. The findings, they said, finally offered a framework that confirmed what they had known for years. However, some expressed frustration at the absence of individualized truth-statements, which remain limited in number and scope.<\/span><\/p>\n But recognition alone cannot resolve the deeply personal and unresolved questions of origin, identity and legal status. For many adoptees, these findings represent only the beginning of a longer struggle for justice, belonging and legal acknowledgment.<\/span><\/p>\n An illustration of an orphan | Image: Korea Pro<\/p><\/div>\n LEGAL RISK MULTIPLIES<\/b><\/p>\n Within days of the TRC\u2019s announcement, eight adoptees in Belgium initiated legal action against the Belgian state and domestic adoption agencies. Plaintiff Yung Fierans said the lawsuit was being prepared but was timed to coincide with the release of the TRC findings to maximize visibility.<\/span><\/p>\n Except in cases where special laws have been enacted or local governments have promulgated ordinances, South Korea currently <\/span>lacks<\/span><\/a> legal mechanisms for reparations, state accountability, or procedural remedies for victims of state violence.<\/span><\/p>\n While there is debate ongoing in the National Assembly about a unified approach to compensating victims, which foreseeably include adoptees, many are now exploring litigation options in the countries they were adopted to, particularly where naturalization occurred under dubious or undocumented processes.<\/span><\/p>\n While the TRC\u2019s statements are not legally binding, they may carry persuasive authority in foreign courts that recognize institutional abuse. Without a domestic reparative justice framework, South Korea risks losing control of the narrative and facing a wave of foreign litigation.<\/span><\/p>\n Civil society organizations have raised concerns that the commission is slow-walking remaining cases to limit state liability. Only 56 of 367 cases submitted have\u00a0 been confirmed.<\/span> Adoptees and activists protested for TRC accountability and scrutinization of all outstanding cases on April 10, following which a letter of concern was delivered to Chair Park Sun-young.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Adoptees and advocacy groups have taken note of <\/span>public disagreements<\/span><\/a> within the commission that surfaced during the findings\u2019 release. A minority of commissioners argued that missing documentation should itself be treated as a human rights violation. The majority, however, insisted that insufficient evidence precludes formal acknowledgment.<\/span><\/p>\n This debate points to ongoing institutional reluctance to confront the full scope of the problem.<\/span><\/p>\n An adoptee asks TRC chair An adoptee asks TRC chair Park Sun-young to promise to uncover the truth about their adoption status, March 26, 2025 | Image: Jack Greenberg<\/p><\/div>\n HAGUE CONVENTION RAISES DOUBTS<\/b><\/p>\n The TRC recommended that South Korea ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. While some officials see this as a step toward alignment with international norms, legal experts and adoptees expressed skepticism.<\/span><\/p>\n David Smolin, a professor at the Cumberland School of Law, told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i> that the Hague Convention does little to address past abuses or clarify state responsibility for historical wrongdoing.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWhether or not they move forward with ratifying the convention \u2014 that\u2019s not what I\u2019m keeping my eye on,\u201d Smolin told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i>. \u201cI don\u2019t think it makes things either worse or better.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Roelie Post, a former European Commission official and longtime critic of the adoption industry, argues that the Hague Convention was designed to shield intercountry adoption from criminal prosecution. In her view, it legalizes what amounts to the trading of children and risks entrenching systemic exploitation.<\/span><\/p>\n The TRC\u2019s recommendation, she said, appears aimed at normalizing South Korea\u2019s adoption system rather than addressing its structural failings.<\/span><\/p>\n Norwegian adoptee Elin Netland echoed that skepticism. \u201cThe Convention needs to be updated,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s foolish for organizations to keep fighting for something that\u2019s average at best.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n An illustration of a person bogged down by bureaucratic red tape | Image: Korea Pro<\/p><\/div>\n CITIZENSHIP GAPS REMAIN<\/b><\/p>\n One of the most pressing unresolved issues involves citizenship. In countries like the U.S., thousands of South Korean adoptees were brought in under legal frameworks that failed to guarantee them citizenship. Some may remain without valid immigration status or citizenship<\/a>, facing legal risks despite spending their entire lives in their adoptive countries; often due to their adoptive parents\u2019 failure to apply for or report naturalization.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen we\u2019re talking about Korea and adoptees specifically, the number is around 18 to 20,000,\u201d said Susanne Seong-eun Bergsten, an officer in the Women\u2019s Rights Division. \u201cThe bigger number, which [includes all international adoptees in the U.S.] could reach up to 75,000, is very hard to know.\u201d Her comments reflect the long-standing lack of reliable documentation and institutional transparency.<\/span><\/p>\n The TRC has called for a comprehensive investigation into this \u201ccitizenship gap,\u201d but momentum may be difficult to sustain. Bergsten was blunt about geopolitical constraints. \u201cI don\u2019t think Korea could put much pressure on the U.S., especially under Trump… I\u2019m not sure how realistic that recommendation is.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n PARENTS SPEAK OUT<\/b><\/p>\n Some adoptive parents are beginning to support calls for accountability. Among the few to speak publicly is Kristin Molvik Botnmark, a Norwegian sociologist and adoptive mother of two Korean children.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI had to confront the fact that I benefited from a system that likely harmed others,\u201d Botnmark said. She now advocates for further investigation and justice, despite resistance from other adoptive parents. \u201cThere\u2019s a kind of emotional self-protection among parents. But I believe truth-telling must come first.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Botnmark\u2019s remarks suggest that adoptive parents could play a larger role in demanding reform. In many receiving countries, they hold social and political influence that adoptees often lack.<\/span><\/p>\n BUREAUCRACY FALLS SHORT<\/b><\/p>\n Of the TRC\u2019s recommendations, the one most actionable by Seoul is the improvement of records access. But even here, implementation has lagged. Government agencies remain <\/span>underfunded and ill-equipped<\/span><\/a>, and the National Center for the Rights of the Child (NCRC) has struggled to provide timely documentation, clear communication or consistent follow-up.<\/span><\/p>\n The NCRC is scheduled to relocate, and private agencies are expected to shut down post-adoption services this summer. As demand for records rises, the administrative capacity to respond is shrinking.<\/span><\/p>\n This administrative vacuum risks deepening adoptee frustration and may further damage South Korea\u2019s international standing. As the country invests heavily in cultural diplomacy and soft power, its continued failure to engage meaningfully with past human rights violations may reinforce perceptions of avoidance and neglect.<\/span><\/p>\n TRC chair Park Sun-young gives a press conference, March 26, 2025 | Image: Jack Greenberg<\/p><\/div>\n TRC FACES POLITICAL STRAIN<\/b><\/p>\n While the TRC acknowledged complicity by receiving states, Seoul is unlikely to press the U.S. or EU member states for action. Strategic issues, including, trade, security and military cooperation remain the dominant concerns shaping foreign policy.<\/span><\/p>\n Adoptees are instead mobilizing their own advocacy efforts. Some are engaging directly with foreign legislatures and truth commissions, using the TRC\u2019s findings as a platform to advance a global conversation on adoption ethics, reparations and historical accountability.<\/span><\/p>\n However, a new complication is growing dissatisfaction with the TRC\u2019s leadership. Its current chair was <\/span>appointed<\/span><\/a> just days after former President Yoon Suk-yeol\u2019s martial law declaration, and both she and her <\/span>predecessor<\/span><\/a> have faced accusations of politicization and weak independence.<\/span><\/p>\n As the commission\u2019s expiration nears, some have raised the possibility of establishing a third commission with a stronger mandate for remedy and reconciliation, rather than fact-finding alone, which has already become highly politicized.<\/span><\/p>\n Meanwhile, opportunities for international coordination are narrowing. Norway, which has launched its own inquiry into adoption practices, met with the TRC the day after the findings were released. But the Norwegian commission has not confirmed how those findings might influence its work, underscoring how much coordination still depends on political will.<\/span><\/p>\n TIME RUNNING OUT<\/b><\/p>\n Time is running out for South Korea to institutionalize its findings and demonstrate meaningful accountability. Unless action is taken soon, adoptees will likely continue leading the push for justice through lawsuits, testimony and international lobbying.<\/span><\/p>\n The moment presents not just a legal reckoning but a test of South Korea\u2019s commitment to truth, reconciliation and global norms. How South Korea responds now will shape both its domestic credibility and global reputation in confronting the legacy of state-sanctioned adoption.<\/span><\/p>\n Edited by John Lee<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n