ECPAT NZ Submission: Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill

Introduction

ECPAT Child Alert Trust (ECPAT NZ) supports measures that strengthen safeguards against child exploitation, and the misuse of adoption processes for immigration purposes. Ensuring that overseas adoptions are subject to robust oversight and that children’s rights and welfare remain paramount is consistent with Aotearoa’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) and international efforts to prevent the sale and trafficking of children.

ECPAT NZ is concerned however that the proposed amendments to section 17 would very likely be inadequate as well as having significant unintended negative consequences for legitimate kinship-care arrangements, particularly those involving Pacific children and families. As currently drafted, the Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill risks creating barriers for children who are genuinely being cared for by extended family members in Aotearoa and whose arrangements arise from longstanding cultural, family, and community practices rather than any attempt to circumvent immigration requirements.

We submit that the Bill should be amended to preserve appropriate safeguards against exploitation and abuse while also ensuring that genuine kinship-care arrangements are not inadvertently excluded.

ECPAT NZ’s Position

ECPAT NZ supports:

• Strong protections against child trafficking and exploitation.
• Measures that prevent overseas adoption processes from being used improperly.
• Immigration settings that prioritise the safety and best interests of children.
• Effective scrutiny of overseas adoptions where concerns exist regarding child protection safeguards.

ECPAT NZ does not support a framework that may unintentionally deny children access to care, family support, education, health services, and stable living arrangements solely because they originate from a country that has not been designated under a future regulatory process.

Concern Regarding Proposed Section 17(3)(b)

The proposed amendment would prevent a child from obtaining immigration status through an overseas adoption unless:

1. The adoptive parent or parents were ordinarily resident outside Aotearoa for at least 12 months prior to the adoption and were not residing overseas primarily for the purpose of adopting; or
2. The adoption took place with a child from a designated country.

While these provisions are intended to reduce the risk of adoption being used primarily as an immigration mechanism, and to reduce the potential for abuse or exploitation, they may also capture legitimate family-based care arrangements that have long existed within Pacific communities.

Many Pacific children are cared for by grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, and other members of their extended family network. These arrangements are often motivated by the child’s welfare, educational opportunities, family obligations, and access to support. They are not equivalent to the forms of child movement or adoption practices that international anti-trafficking frameworks seek to prevent.

The Bill, as drafted, makes no distinction between:

• adoptions undertaken primarily to secure immigration outcomes; and
• genuine kinship-care arrangements established in the best interests of the child.

This lack of distinction creates a risk that children with legitimate family connections to Aotearoa could be prevented from joining family members willing and able to care for them.

Impact on Pacific Children

ECPAT NZ is particularly concerned about the potential impact on Pacific children.

Aotearoa has deep historical, cultural, familial, and migration relationships with Pacific nations. Extended-family care arrangements are a recognised and valued aspect of many Pacific cultures. Children may move between households, communities, and countries within wider family networks in ways that do not always align neatly with Western legal concepts of adoption.

The proposed designated-country mechanism places substantial weight on future ministerial decisions. If a Pacific country is not designated, or if designation is delayed, children may lose access to the pathway that has enabled them to live with family members in Aotearoa.

The practical consequence may be that children are separated from willing caregivers, despite the absence of any concern regarding exploitation, trafficking, or harm.

Such outcomes would be difficult to reconcile with the principle that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, as required by Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Child Rights Considerations

ECPAT NZ submits that any legislative framework governing overseas adoptions and immigration consequences should be assessed against Aotearoa’s obligations under United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Relevant considerations include:

Best Interests of the Child: Article 3 requires that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration. The proposed amendment creates categorical restrictions based largely on country designation and residence criteria. It does not provide any mechanism for assessing the individual circumstances of a child whose welfare may clearly be served by living with family members in Aotearoa.

Preservation of Family Relationships: Articles 5, 8, and 20 recognise the importance of family relationships, identity, and appropriate alternative care for children. Legislation should avoid unnecessarily disrupting family-based care arrangements where appropriate safeguards can be demonstrated.

Protection from Exploitation: Articles 21, 35, and related international instruments require strong protections against trafficking, sale of children, and improper adoption practices. ECPAT NZ agrees that these protections are essential. Safeguards however should be targeted at identifying risk and exploitation at the level where the risk actually exists: the individual caregiving arrangement in the receiving country, not just the sending country. Such a model would assess risk where it is most relevant—here in Aotearoa, where children are living and could be abused or exploited. Mechanisms must address and monitor activities in Aotearoa to ensure child safety.

Recommended Amendment

ECPAT NZ recommends that the Bill be amended to include a specific exception or assessment pathway for genuine kinship-care arrangements.

For example, an additional subsection could provide that: The adopted person may be granted a visa or entry permission where the decision-maker is satisfied that:

• the adoption or care arrangement is genuine;
• the adopting parent or parents are members of the child’s extended family or established kinship network;
• the arrangement is in the best interests of the child; and
• there is no evidence of trafficking, exploitation, improper financial gain, or other child protection concerns.

Furthermore, the Bill should strengthen safeguards by looking beyond country designation of the sending country, and also look to child-protection mechanisms within the receiving country, Aotearoa.

To strengthen safeguards, a more responsive framework could incorporate a dedicated kinship-care pathway alongside anti-trafficking protections. Such a pathway could include:

• verification of family relationships;
• documented informed consent from parents or customary caregivers;
• assessment of the child’s best interests;
• police and child-protection vetting of proposed caregivers;
• independent review of the caregiving arrangement;
• post-arrival monitoring and support; and
• cooperation between Aotearoa and Pacific authorities.

One illustrative design option is a Pacific Customary Care Protocol paired with a dedicated temporary residence/long-stay visa, designed for kin-based caregiving and support (not adoption). This would differ from intercountry adoption in three key ways:

1. Clear purpose and eligibility: It would provide a lawful pathway for children to live with verified kin in Aotearoa for defined purposes (e.g., education, medical access, or periods of caregiving support), without requiring the legal severance of adoption.
2. Culturally grounded proof of kinship and consent: Evidence would include formal documentation where available, alongside culturally recognised attestations (e.g., statements from recognised community authorities), with safeguards to ensure informed, documented consent from the child’s legal/customary caregivers.
3. Proportionate, enforceable safeguards: Child safety would be protected through mandatory vetting of proposed caregivers (including police and child-protection checks), a pre-arrival suitability assessment, and structured post-arrival monitoring and support—ideally delivered through agreed government-to-government processes and resourced social work follow-up—rather than relying on high-cost adoption pathways.

Such a provision would preserve the Bill’s core objective of preventing abuse while ensuring that legitimate family care arrangements remain possible.

Section 3AAA(2)(b) refers to ‘exceptional circumstances’ but does not define or illustrate what these might include. To avoid arbitrary or inconsistent interpretation, the Bill should explicitly recognize culturally grounded kinship-care arrangements—such as those common in Pacific communities—as a qualifying exceptional circumstance, ensuring such cases are not inadvertently excluded.

Alternative Recommendation

If the Committee is not minded to adopt a specific kinship-care exception, ECPAT NZ recommends the inclusion of a discretionary pathway allowing immigration decision-makers to consider:

• the best interests of the child;
• the existence of genuine family relationships;
• evidence of caregiving arrangements;
• cultural and customary caregiving practices; and
• the absence of trafficking or exploitation concerns.

This would provide a safeguard against unjust outcomes arising from rigid application of the designated-country framework. A commitment to this pathway should be made before the current Bill is progressed.

Conclusion

ECPAT NZ supports the objective of preventing child trafficking, exploitation, and the misuse of overseas adoption processes.

The Bill as currently drafted however risks unintentionally restricting legitimate kinship-care arrangements, particularly within Pacific communities with longstanding traditions of extended-family caregiving.

Children should not be denied opportunities for care, safety, family connection, education, and well-being solely because their circumstances fall outside a designated-country framework.

ECPAT NZ urges the Committee to amend the Bill to ensure that genuine kinship-care arrangements can continue to be recognised through a child-centred, best-interests-based assessment process that maintains strong safeguards against abuse while protecting the rights and welfare of children.