Dutch State not accountable for birth moms' suffering in forced adoptions: Appeals court

The State cannot be held responsible for the sadness that women have suffered in the past because they had to leave their children against their will. This was the ruling of the court of appeals in The Hague after the district court had made the same ruling two years ago.

The case was initiated by Trudy Scheele-Gertsen. She was 22 and unmarried when she had a child in 1968. She gave birth in the presence of the nuns of the Paula Stichting in Oosterbeek, Gelderland. The boy was taken away from her shortly after the birth against her will. The child stayed with the nuns before being adopted. Scheele-Gertsen only got in contact with him in 2018.

Identical situations occurred to 15,000 women between 1956 and 1984. Bureau Clara Wichmann, a legal office that helps finance and aid women in their equality court cases, had joined Scheele-Gertsen’s case on behalf of the women who have suffered this fate.

The court of appeals feel that Scheele-Gertsen's claim has expired. The court stated that she had 20 years to hold the state accountable. Her son was born in 1968 and his adoption was irrevocable by 1974 meaning that the limitation period expired in 1994 at the latest.

Scheele-Gertsen initiated her case 25 years later, in September 2019. For Bureau Clara Wichmann, it was more about a collective case regarding the other mothers, but the court thinks that their personal circumstances differ too much to treat their case in one large claim.

Just as the court did, the court of appeals recognizes the suffering that the mothers went through. “The file is full of suffering, which is real and understandable. It is not up for discussion that this is a black page in our history. Pregnancy out of wedlock was seen as a disgrace. The mothers felt pressure from their surroundings, including their parents, the general practitioner, the church, and medical personnel,” said the presiding judge.

When asked why the limitation period could not be deviated from, the court responded by saying: “The fact that the situation is dire, and that is undoubtedly the case, is not enough.”

The court also said that they understand that the ruling will feel like a blow to the parents. “The fact that the State cannot be held responsible does not mean that it is the mother’s own fault for leaving the child. The fact that the claim has expired does not mean that the mothers' suffering has expired, because that never expires."

Bureau Clara Wichmann has said in response to the ruling that they feel the government should speak to the women affected and take responsibility in that way. They think conversations should be about "recognition and remedial measures" so that the State "can still take its responsibility."

The initiators are currently contemplating their next move. Bureau Clara Wichmann has said that they will continue to support the mothers "despite this legal setback. The pain and impact of this history still affect thousands of mothers and children."

Scheele-Gertsen was disappointed by the verdict. "The State has not taken their responsibility thus far. They have only looked away from the past. Until now, the State has also been reserved in its discussions with mothers and children outside the courtroom. That must now change."