The state is appealing the case of a woman adopted from Sri Lanka in 1992.

The woman, Dilani Butink, filed a lawsuit against the government because she was never able to find out who her biological parents were due to abuse during the adoption. She was found in favor with the court last summer.

Minister Weerwind for Legal Protection is now writing to the House of Representatives that after much deliberation he has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. Not because it substantively contradicts the Court of Appeal’s judgment, but because the judgment raises “a number of fundamental legal questions” about the state’s liability in individual cases.

“It was not an easy decision,” writes Weerwind. “I realize that the decision to appeal in cassation will be tough for Ms Butink after she has been found in the right after years of litigation.” He has invited her, through her lawyer, to meet in person to explain his rationale.

thanks and apologies

The topic dragged on for years. The lawsuit was initially not heard because the case was statute-barred. After a committee of inquiry led by Tjibbe Joustra delivered a harsh judgment last year on the state of affairs regarding adoptions from abroad and the government’s role in it, the cabinet decided to no longer invoke the statute of limitations in such cases. .

Then-minister Dekker suspended all adoptions and apologized to Butink. He acknowledged that the government had failed. His successor Weerwind is now writing to the House that he is not distracting from this recognition and apology.

However, he was still forced to apply for a judgment from the Supreme Court, “because the decision of the Court of Appeal does not agree with the established case law of the Supreme Court on certain points”. The main issue here is how far the government’s responsibility for supervising adoption organizations went at the time.

The answer to this question is important in determining legal liability, says Weerwind.