Stolen Babies - Broken Hearts: Forced Adoption in Australia 1881-1987
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
School of Social Sciences and Psychology Stolen Babies - Broken Hearts: Forced Adoption in Australia 1881-1987 Volume 1 Christine Anne Cole This thesis is presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The University of Western Sydney June 2013 © Christine Cole 3 At the ACT Apology a simple parchment was given to all those who attended: Legislative Assembly for The Australian Capital Territory The ACT Legislative Assembly acknowledges with deep regret that past practices of removal and adoption have caused great pain and suffering to mothers and their children, who are now adults. We recognise that past practices have profoundly affected the lives of not only those people, but also fathers, grandparents, siblings, partners and other family members. We acknowledge the life-long impact of this separation: the grief, trauma, loss, disconnection and unwarranted shame, guilt and secrecy. To those mothers who had their babies taken from them, who were denied the opportunity to care for their child, who were not informed of their rights, nor provided with the support that mothers need, we are deeply sorry for this injustice and all the harm it has caused. To the adopted children, who are now adults and who were denied the opportunity to grow up with and be cared for by their parents and families, we offer you our sincere and unreserved apology. To those ACT families, past and present, separated by an adoption that was forced upon them, the Assembly expresses its heartfelt sympathy and is sorry. We are committed to providing support, counselling and assistance to ACT families who are parties to an adoption, and to ensuring that the flawed adoption practices of our community’s past are not repeated Kathy Gallagher MLA 14 August 2012 Excerpt from the ACT Government Forced Adoption Apology Speech1 ACT Legislative Assembly Seventh Assembly Daily Hansard 14 August 2012 MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo-Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, by leave: I move (p. 3067): I would like to acknowledge the work done by the Apology Alliance, which, in arguing for a national inquiry and an apology, has played such a leadership role in forcing us all to face up to this dark chapter of our past. And thank you again to the many women who have, through their own stories, written that chapter into our official history book at last. To all those affected by forced adoption, please accept this apology in the spirit in which it is offered. 1 The Apology Alliance is a lobby group set up by the author. The acknowledgement was tri-partisan. See the transcript of the ACT Liberal Party Apology that followed - Vol. II Appendix, p. 226 (Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2012, Week 8 Hansard (14 August) p. 3072). ii ABSTRACT A hidden history of government intervention into the lives of unwed, white mothers is beginning to emerge. Most Australians are unaware that thousands of white babies were forcibly taken under a policy of assimilation during the 20th Century. This research project has attempted to explain this phenomenon by contextualising it within an historical account of ‘child removalist’ polices that were imported into Australia with British settlement. It also makes a linkage between the British treatment of its destitute, unwed mothers under the Poor Laws, the forced removal of their children and Forced Adoption/white stolen children in 20th Century Australia. From the beginning of colonial history motherhood has been constructed by the structures of patriarchy and capitalism imported along with the rigid, hierarchal legal system of Britain, and the ideology that underpinned it. In the 1800s the babies of convict mothers were taken and placed in Orphan Asylums, whilst they were sent back to work. During the late 19th century unsupported, unwed mothers had their babies forcibly taken and fostered out to country areas in order to be separated from their ‘contaminating’ influence and that of their ‘pauper’ families. Hence the beginning of the child welfare system was grounded in child removal practices, not in supporting vulnerable families stay together. By the early 1900s, a population policy moulded by two forces: eugenics and pronatalism had emerged. It was directed by the Commonwealth and enacted by State institutions. Its particular focus was to populate Australia with ‘good white stock’: legitimately born white infants, who could be called upon to defend the Empire. White Australians were not considered a homogenous grouping, but a continuum that ranged between the ‘racially superior’ elite and ‘racially inferior’ ‘degenerates’. The latter category included white, unwed mothers and their infants. Illegitimacy was seen as a threat to ‘race improvement’, and presumed to be the root of racial decay. It was assumed that if children were removed and assimilated with white, married, employed couples, their tainted biology would be neutralised. It was also a measure to expand the white, middle and upper classes. A little known fact is that there was resistance to the forced removal/assimilation policy at a grass roots level and that the majority of white unmarried mothers kept their infants. iii Therefore this research project hypothesised that there were two discourses that regulated the lives of unwed mothers. Mothers who had their infants taken were exposed to an institutional discourse that was comprised of motherhood, medical and eugenic discourses, imported from the ‘mother country’ and the United States. They were articulated through maternal and infant welfare representatives and their practices which included Forced Adoption. At the same time a lay discourse that had co-existed for hundreds of years was also imported. This was expressed in the language, the practices and the support given to daughters and grandchildren by their kin and was a backlash against the autocratic State practice of forced removal. The discourse that framed the mother’s pregnancy and birth experience determined whether or not she kept her infant or had it taken for adoption. Both discourses were grounded in patriarchy as the mother who kept had the protection and support of her patriarchal structured family. The unsupported unwed mother stood outside the norms of what was considered right and proper by the social work and medical elite. Her pregnant body challenged the power structure on which patriarchy rests: control of the reproductive labour of women. The language used for the justification of forced removals has evolved over the centuries. The 18th century ‘pauper’ was ‘vicious’ and wanted to rid herself of her burden, the 19th century feebleminded mother was incapable of providing a ‘moral’ environment. The rise of Freudian based social casework theory that dominated social work in Australia (1940- 1970s) labelled her as too ‘immature and neurotic’ to rear her ‘unwanted’ infant. It was considered to be in ‘its best interest’ to be removed and placed with a ‘normal family’ with a ‘real’ mother and father. Unsupported, unwed white mothers did not have the same maternal rights as their married counterparts. They did not have access to their rights of citizenship, which led to major violations of their human and civil rights. The most brutal, being separated from their newborns at birth. iv Acknowledgments My heartfelt thanks go to my supervisor, Dr. Mary Hawkins. Throughout this thesis and in particular the last gruelling months, her patience, support and guidance has been immeasurable. Her pragmatism, strength of character and ability to ground me has kept me going when the death of my mother and other very difficult family events threw me off my path and almost jeopardised the completion of this study. Magnanimous in her generosity she has been truly inspirational. I thank my Associate Supervisor, Dr Stephen Janes, whose encouragement and advice was timely and for his ongoing support of my research. I would like to thank the many participants who contributed their time and narratives. I know it was not easy to invoke such traumatic memories, but because of your courage the history of adoption in Australia is substantially richer. I am grateful to the many organisations and groups around Australia that supported my project and advertised via their email lists, newsletters and by word of mouth for participants for my research study. I owe much to Judy McHutchison whose 1986 Thesis first awakened me to the illegality of the acts perpetrated against myself and the other mothers who had their newborns forcibly taken for the purpose of adoption. I have built on her research, as have many others who have worked to expose the past human rights violations and re-establish the primacy and sacredness of the bond between mother and child; irrespective of marital status, colour or situation. I would like to thank Ms Sheila Simms who gave me access to the Women’s Hospital Crown Street Archives and to the other professionals who willingly gave of their time and spoke openly and frankly about the institutional abuse meted out to the unwed mothers with whom they came in contact. I owe much and am truly grateful to Dr. Geoff Rickarby, who is not only a long time friend and a fellow activist, but has supported many mothers in their darkest hours. His candour and courage in speaking out when no-one believed or wanted to listen to the way unwed mothers were mistreated not only saved lives, but contributed to changing the abusive culture that existed within the institutions. I truly appreciate Mr. Pat Rogan’s, former MP for East Hills, friendship and unwavering support since 1994. Without Pat’s assistance and that of his assistant Ms Margaret Como, mothers would never have succeeded in gaining a State Inquiry into Past Practices in Adoption (NSW) (1998-2000). This was the first time a government formally acknowledged that the phenomenon of Forced Adoption existed and that it was both unethical and illegal.