Denmark forced adoption rules are being questioned after new research and a DR documentary series showed that the country removes children from their biological parents through adoption more extensively than its Scandinavian neighbours, often cutting family ties permanently.
The debate has intensified after DR’s documentary series Når staten bortadopterer (When the state adopts away) followed parents whose children were adopted without consent. According to Amalie Sehested Rom, a PhD researcher at Roskilde University (RUC) who studies forced adoption in Denmark and Norway, Danish practice stands out in Scandinavia because it can entirely sever the legal and personal relationship between a child and their biological parents.
Denmark’s forced adoption model cuts family ties more completely
In Denmark, forced adoption can mean that biological parents lose all contact with their child. Rom describes the Danish approach as exceptional because it is built on the idea that some parents are considered so unfit that the child gains no value from knowing them at all.
Her research, cited by DR, indicates that around two out of three forced adoption cases in Denmark are anonymous. In these cases, contact with the biological parents disappears, and the child is legally placed into a new family without an ongoing relationship with their origin family.
This makes Denmark different from the rest of the Nordic region. Sweden does not use forced adoption in the same way, while Norway does, but generally with a more cautious model. In Norway, children are usually first placed with a foster family. If the child develops a stable attachment, adoption may follow after three or four years. In Denmark, children may instead spend time with a temporary foster family before moving again to an adoptive family, creating more transitions in some cases.
A policy pushed in the name of stability for vulnerable children
The increase in forced adoptions is closely linked to a political shift under Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. In her 2020 New Year’s address, Frederiksen argued that more of Denmark’s most vulnerable children should grow up with “security, love and stability”.
Since then, the number of children adopted away from their biological parents has more than doubled. According to DR, 39 children were adopted in this way last year.
Supporters of the policy argue that adoption can provide children with permanent family life when their biological parents are assessed as unable to care for them. The Danish debate is therefore not only about parental rights, but also about how the state should protect children whose early lives are marked by instability, neglect or repeated care placements.
But critics say Denmark has moved too quickly and too far. Rom argues that the country has developed a practice it effectively stands alone with in the Nordic region, without clear evidence that closed and anonymous forced adoption is necessary or consistently better for children.
Researchers question whether closed adoption is always best for children
The evidence behind Denmark’s approach remains contested. DR cites Swedish knowledge reviews which did not find proof that forced adoption was the best option for the child. A report from the Danish Institute for Human Rights (Institut for Menneskerettigheder) has also argued that forced adoption is not unequivocally the best solution for children who have been placed in care for long periods.
The key concern is not only whether children should be protected from unsafe family situations. It is whether protection requires the complete and permanent removal of their relationship with biological parents, siblings and wider family networks.
Adoption & Society (Adoption & Samfund), a Danish organisation representing adoption-related interests, has called for a rethink. Its chair, Sanne Vindahl Nyvang, argues that Denmark should move away from closed and anonymous adoptions, especially given children’s right to identity and their frequent desire to know their origins.
This position reflects a broader shift in adoption debates across Europe. The child’s need for stability is increasingly discussed alongside the child’s right to identity, continuity and knowledge of family background.
Forced adoption also changes who carries responsibility
Rom also points to a less visible effect of adoption policy: responsibility shifts from the public welfare system to private families.
If a child remains in foster care, the foster family normally receives payment and support from the authorities. If the child is adopted, the responsibility for a complex and often demanding lifelong care task is transferred to an adoptive family, which may not have the same professional support or preparation.
For Rom, this amounts to a form of privatisation of responsibility for some of Denmark’s most vulnerable children. It also raises a practical question: if children adopted through the system have complex needs, what support should adoptive families receive after the adoption is completed?
The lack of long-term research on how children fare after forced adoption makes the issue more difficult. Critics argue that Denmark is expanding a far-reaching intervention without enough evidence about its outcomes.
Political pressure grows after errors in child placement cases
The debate has also been shaped by wider criticism of Denmark’s child welfare system. The Danish National Audit Office (Rigsrevisionen) recently found errors in many placement cases, adding to concerns about legal safeguards and administrative quality.
The Denmark Democrats (Danmarksdemokraterne) have called for forced adoption to be thoroughly investigated. The party’s social affairs spokesperson, Karina Adsbøl, told DR that legal safeguards are weak and that something is fundamentally wrong with the current system.
The issue now sits at the intersection of child protection, family rights and trust in public administration. Denmark’s policy was designed to give vulnerable children permanence. The question raised by researchers, rights groups and parts of the opposition is whether permanence must come at the cost of erasing family ties altogether.
