DOCSLIB.ORG

Illicit Adoptions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Illicit Adoptions ICAV Perspective Paper Illicit Intercountry Adoptions Lived Experience Views on How Authorities and Bodies Could Respond Compiled by Lynelle Long, July 2020 WWW.INTERCOUNTRYADOPTEEVOICES.COM ICAV PERSPECTIVE PAPER 1 Introduction n the past, ICAV Perspective Papers have brought together a range of views on a specific topic from intercountry adoptees all over the world. The goal of these Ipapers have been to raise greater understanding of the complexities we live. This paper attempts to bring together not only the voices and experiences of impacted intercountry adoptees who have lived experience with some form of illicit practice in their adoption, but we also include for the first time, a few adoptive parents and first family representation. For the purpose of this paper, we will use the term illicit adoption practice because it includes illegal adoptions but its meaning can also extend to unethical practices. Sometimes adoption practices are technically legal under the law of the relevant country but are fundamentally unethical under international or other standards such as the CRC, the Optional Protocol (Sale of Children), and the Palermo Protocol. Illicit practices can vary immensely but in general, participants experienced one or more of these 3 categories of instances: one category of illicit practices are instances where the child never should have been removed from (or should have been returned to) their family; a second group deals with subsidiarity in the sense that while it may have been necessary for the child not to be with their family, in-country solutions should have been used; then there are wrongs that go to matching--- such as falsified child study forms — in instances where an adoption could have been appropriate, but the wrongdoing led to creating a placement that was problematic. An objective of this paper is to break down the perception that illicit intercountry adoptions affect just a few. Another objective is to attempt to learn from the past and provide solutions for the future, as well as ensure those from historical intercountry adoptions, are provided for in terms of services and support. A third, is to demonstrate that the remedy needs to deal with the wrong. We are the voices of those most impacted by intercountry adoption practices, past and present from the late 1940s beginning with the Greek and German cohorts, through to the rise en-masse of intercountry adoptions from Asia, South America and the explosion to many other countries like Ethiopia and China at its peak in the early 2000s. We share WWW.INTERCOUNTRYADOPTEEVOICES.COM ICAV PERSPECTIVE PAPER 2 the views of over 601 intercountry adoptees / adoptive organisations representing a minimum2 of 13 adoptive countries and 26 birth countries. Adoptive Countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA. Birth Countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Malaysia, Nigeria, Paraguay, Philippines, Romania, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, USA, Vietnam The co-ordination of seeking and gathering responses occurred from 8 - 30 June from members of the ICAVs wide network, which largely operates over social media. Participants were invited based on the knowledge that ICAV sits as an Observer at the Hague Working Group to Prevent and Address Illicit and Illegal Adoption Practices, which meets on 8 July, 2020 and that ICAV would do it’s best to represent their input and make it freely available on ICAVs website. Contributors were asked the following two questions: 1. What should authorities and bodies do to respond to specific cases of illicit practices? 2. What should authorities and bodies do to prevent and respond to patterns of illicit practices? A handful of 9 adoptive parents also knew about ICAVs collection of responses and expressed interest — so they have also been included, along with one first father from Guatemala who wanted to share too, and an advocate for Uganda families. It is encouraging to see brave, courageous adoptive and first parents speaking out as it will hopefully embolden other parents to do likewise. I hope that in the future, we will hear more from first families as their voice is still largely unheard and invisible from legislation, policy and practice discussions in intercountry adoption, yet they are often the least empowered due to the many disadvantages that led to our adoptions to begin with. 1 One group chose to keep their submission private and confidential for the HCCH only 2 Some adoptive organisations included the consultation of up to 50 members WWW.INTERCOUNTRYADOPTEEVOICES.COM ICAV PERSPECTIVE PAPER 3 In this paper, I present a Summary of Responses and didn’t order them in any hierarchy or try to analyse or interpret these responses to maintain their independence. I tried to present the overall thematic responses in a sequence according to the process of adoption, beginning with legislation internationally, then the process in-country impacting biological parents, then moving towards the processes in adoption with adoptive parents, then finally to adoptees, grown up as adults. I did not want to espouse a magic solution from everyone’s input, but leave it fairly open to your interpretation. My goal was to ensure everyone’s views are valid and to acknowledge that the stage of where people are at, and what they want, can vary. This will always be the case, although as adoptee generations age, we will see larger and larger cohorts of impacted peoples wanting a response. There was not one person who said they didn’t want a response and are satisfied with the way things are currently, so I think it’s fair to conclude all who are impacted WANT some kind of response and when reading through the submission, there is a collective feel (and some spell it out) that silence and inaction contributes to and compounds their sense of trauma. I also do not attempt to speak for everyone but merely performed a role of gathering responses and presenting them in a fair, unbiased way. My own submission is included under my name so as to ensure my personal reflections are also captured separately. A HUGE thank you to all the adoptees, adoptee organisations, adoptive parents, adoptive parent organisations and first family representatives who participated! This paper has been created because of your honest sharing, effort to put your thoughts together, and trust in ICAV to represent them fairly. I hope this paper encourages policy and legislation makers and professionals around the world, to realise the benefits of learning from those with lived experience and listening to find ways forward, out of what is often traumatic and difficult situations. Lynele Long Founder & Executive Director InterCountry Adoptee Voices (ICAV) July 2020 WWW.INTERCOUNTRYADOPTEEVOICES.COM ICAV PERSPECTIVE PAPER 4 Index Introduction 2 Index 5 Summary of Responses: Q1 8 Summary Of Responses: Q2 13 Adoptee / Adoptee Group Submissions 19 Colin Cadier: La Voix des Adoptés (VDA) 20 Dott.ssa Margarita Soledad Assettati 25 J Aucayse 28 Gabbie Beckley 30 Faith Beacham 31 Nicolas Beaufour 32 Robyn Bedell 34 Kara Bos 36 Sander Breeman: Geadopteerd uit Sri Lanka 37 John Campitelli: Italiadoption 38 Kim Soo-bok Cimaschi: Koreani Adottivi Italiani Organizzati 39 Susan Cox 41 Anna Davison 43 Aaron Dechter 45 Courtney Dobson 47 Sun Hee Engelstoft 48 Coline Fanon: Racines Perdues 49 Moses Farrow: Gide Foundation 54 Esteban Orlando Fleurant: RAIS 56 Julia Forson 57 Ming Foxweldon 58 Marie Gardom: ICAV UK 59 Eric Gustafsson 61 WWW.INTERCOUNTRYADOPTEEVOICES.COM ICAV PERSPECTIVE PAPER 5 Dr Ryan S Gustafsson 62 James Hanks 64 Maria Heckinger 65 Christine Heimann: AdopteeBridge 67 Maria Hernandez 69 Maya Hewitt: CACH-ALL 71 Eva Hoffman 73 Katelin Huber 74 Dr Tobias Hubinette 75 Linzi Clare Ibrahim: Sri Lankan Adoptees 76 An Jacobs: Adoptie Schakel 77 Anand Kaper: DNA India Adoptees 78 Emily Kes: Adoptees for Justice 79 Melanie Kleintz: Adoptierte aus aller Welt 80 Kristopher Larsen: Adoptees for Justice 83 My Huong Le: Vietnam Family Search 89 Jessica Sun Lee 91 Fanny Lefebvre 92 Kimura Lemoine 92 Lynelle Long: ICAV 93 Author Mae 98 Leti Mendes: ICAV USA 99 Philippe-Pradeep Mignon: Empreintes Vivantes 101 Michael Mullen: Also-Known-As 102 Alessia Robin Petrolito: Adopt Cloud 103 Alejandro Quezada: Chilean Adoptees Worldwide 104 Jini Roby 105 Paula C Sabbia 107 Michael Salvia 109 WWW.INTERCOUNTRYADOPTEEVOICES.COM ICAV PERSPECTIVE PAPER 6 Patrick van der Steen: Sri Lanka Family Project 110 Olivia Ramya Tanner 110 Tia Terefe 111 Flavia N Testa: Iranian Adoptees Worldwide 112 Michael Thielmann 113 Jane Jeong Trenka: TRACK 114 Utendlandsadoptertes Politiske Utvalg (UAPU) 116 Dr Indigo Willing: Adopted Vietnamese International 117 Biological Parent Submissions 123 Gladys Bulyaba: Kugatta Uganda 124 Gustavo Amilcar Tobar Fajardo: Guatemala 126 Adoptive Parent Submissions 128 Jessica Davis: Kugatta Uganda 129 Andrea Kelley: Ethiopian Adoption Connection 131 Tracey Chambers: Ethiopian Adoption Connection 133 Kerri Vandiver 133 Cindy Burt 134 Danielle West 135 Anita Pring: Thailand 136 Julia Rollings: India 139 Desiree Smolin: India 142 Appendix A 145 Appendix B 150 Appendix C 155 Appendix D 156 Appendix E 160 WWW.INTERCOUNTRYADOPTEEVOICES.COM ICAV PERSPECTIVE PAPER 7 Summary of Responses: Q1 he next few pages is a collated list of the input everybody gave on both questions. The number beneath each point, identifies the number
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sicily's Ancient Landscapes & Timeless Traditions 2021
    YOUR O.A.T. ADVENTURE TRAVEL PLANNING GUIDE® Sicily’s Ancient Landscapes & Timeless Traditions 2021 Small Groups: 8-16 travelers—guaranteed! (average of 13) Overseas Adventure Travel ® The Leader in Personalized Small Group Adventures on the Road Less Traveled 1 Dear Traveler, At last, the world is opening up again for curious travel lovers like you and me. And the O.A.T. Sicily’s Ancient Landscapes & Timeless Traditions itinerary you’ve expressed interest in will be a wonderful way to resume the discoveries that bring us so much joy. You might soon be enjoying standout moments like these: Who doesn’t love to eat in Italy? But Sicilian food, which is heavily influenced by the Arabs who thrived here, is in a league of its own. Sample the local flavors when you visit the Tunisian-inflected town of Mazara del Vallo and share a traditional Sicilian lunch with a local family. As you savor the home-cooked fare, you’ll learn how the city’s identity continues to evolve, and the vital role of the local fishing industry. You’ll also visit a home of a very different sort, one that traveler Carol Bowman described as “a house full of hope.” It’s Casa di Maria, an organization (and Grand Circle Foundation partner) established by a family in Catania to provide a loving home for children who are refugees or victims of neglect and domestic violence. The daughter-in-law of the founders (Sergio and Carmela) will enlighten you about Sicily’s foster care system. And you’ll meet more of the Casa’s extended family, including a young Nigerian woman who literally showed up on Sicily’s shores with nothing and grew up here, and hear her harrowing—but ultimately inspiring—story.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Policy and Practice Barriers to Adoption
    4 Policy and practice barriers to adoption 4.1 This chapter reviews the evidence on policy and practice barriers to adoption. 4.2 It considers how past forced adoption policies and practices, as well as complex and time consuming administrative processes, create barriers to a forward looking approach to adoption. The legacy of past forced adoption policies and practices 4.3 Past forced adoption policies and practices were unethical, immoral and often illegal. They resulted in a high prevalence of forced adoptions from the 1950s to the 1980s.1 4.4 The Australian Government has issued apologies to those affected by past practices of forced removals and forced adoptions, including the 2008 National Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, the 2009 National Apology to the Forgotten Australians and Former Child Migrants, and the 2013 National Apology for Forced Adoptions.2 4.5 In addition, states and territories, with the exception of the Northern Territory, have also apologised for past forced adoption policies and practices.3 All have undertaken not to repeat them.4 1 Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), ‘Forced Adoption National Practice Principles’, 2016, pp. 3, 6, <https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/fass-practice-principles.pdf> viewed 3 October 2018. 2 Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 103, p. 16. 3 Name withheld, Submission 57, p. 4; Mrs Jo Fraser, Submission 75, p. [1]; Ms Alison Anderson MLA, Minister for Children and Families, Northern Territory Government ‘Support for adoption apology on behalf of nation’, Media Release, 21 March 2013, 66 4.6 The Australian Institute of Family Studies defines forced adoption as referring: … to mothers who were forced to give up children for adoption.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercountry Adoption in Australia
    Inter country Adoption in Australia By Damon Martin – NSW Service Coordinator – ISS Australia (NSW Office) Australian Federation It is important to begin by explaining the nature of the Australian Federation and how that affects agreements made with overseas countries in relation to adoption. First of all, Australia is a federation consisting of the Federal Government (i.e. the Australian Government which is based in our capital city, Canberra), it also known as the Commonwealth Government. There are also the governments of the six States (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania) and the governments of two territories (Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory). There is legislation at the Federal and State/Territory levels relating to adoption. While the adoption laws in each of the States and Territories are fairly similar, they are not identical. 1. Situation of Intercountry Adoption in Australia Agreements with Overseas Countries In the past intercountry adoption programs were established and managed by the various State or Territory Governments. Usually a state like Victoria or New South Wales would then take the lead on being responsible for the management of that program. Nowadays the Commonwealth Central Authority has now taken on the full responsibility of the management and establishment of Australia’s intercountry adoption programs. Therefore the Federal Government enters an agreement with another overseas Government on behalf of itself and each of the State and Territory Governments within Australia. It is important to note that the Commonwealth Central Authority will always consult with the States and Territories prior to establishing any new agreement with an overseas country.
    [Show full text]
  • Road to Poreign Adoptions Gets Rock- Février 1990 (P. 13
    ANNEXE A* -<<Roadto Poreign Adoptions Gets Rock- 1 INTRODUCTION ier», The Christian Science Monitor, 28 février 1990(p. 13), A Historique du projet ANNEXE B* - «Exploitation of Working Children and StreetChildrerw, UNICEF, ExecutiveBoard, 1 A sa Seizièmesession, tenue à La Haye du 3 au 20 1986Session, E/ICEF/1986/CRP.3, p. 13-16. octobre 1988,la Conférencede La Haye de droit inter- national privé a décidé ANNEXE C -Tableau synoptique des lois matérielles en «d’ inscrire à l’ ordre du jour des travaux de la Dix-sep- matièred ’ adoption d’ enfants, infra, p. 102. tième session l’ élaboration d’ une convention sur l’ adop- tion d’ enfants en provenance de l’ étranger» et a chargéle ANNEXE D” - Conventioninteraméricaine sur les conflits Secrétaire général «d’ entreprendre les travaux prélimi- de lois en matière d’ adoption de mineurs, naires et de convoquer une Commission spéciale à cet Série sur les Traités, OEA, No 62. effet)). La réciséqu ’ elle estimait ANNEXE E* - Convention européenne en matière «indispensable la présence au sein de cette Commission Série des traités d’ adoption des enfants, spéciale des Etats non membres d’ où proviennent beau- européens, No 58. coup de ces enfants» et a prié «le Secrétaire général de faire de son mieux pour obtenir leur participation aux ANNEXE F - Working Arrangement Between the Phil- travaux à titre de Membre ad hoc»? ippine Ministry of Social Servicesand De- velopment and the Australian States and 2 Un lien étroit était ainsi établi entre la décisiond ’ ins- Territories Adoption Authorities on Inter- crire le sujet de l’ adoption d’ enfants en provenancede country Adoption, infra, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Discrimination Against People with Disabilities Under Adoption Law
    laws Article Some Parents Are More Equal than Others: Discrimination against People with Disabilities under Adoption Law Blake Connell Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3053, Australia; [email protected] or [email protected] Received: 31 May 2017; Accepted: 9 August 2017; Published: 23 August 2017 Abstract: Article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) explicitly includes ‘the adoption of children’ as a right to which people with disabilities are equally entitled. Despite the CRPD having been in force for over nine years, research is yet to consider whether CRPD signatory states have brought their respective adoption regimes in line with their obligations under art 23 of the CRPD. Using the laws of the Australian state of Victoria by way of case study, this article aims to shed light on the difficulties people with disabilities still face when attempting to adopt children. In terms of methodology, this article conducts an interpretive critique of Victoria’s adoption law against art 23 of the CRPD, which it interprets mainly through the lens of the social model of disability. Ultimately, this article finds that Victoria’s adoption framework closely resembles the adoption regimes of many other CRPD signatories, yet it clearly fails to uphold Australia’s obligations under the CRPD. This is both as a result of the words of the legislation as well as their implementation in practice. This article proposes a suite of changes, both legislative and cultural, to bring Victoria’s adoption framework in line with art 23, which it hopes will serve as a catalyst for change in other CRPD signatory states.
    [Show full text]
  • WHERE WAS MEAN SOLAR TIME FIRST ADOPTED? Simone Bianchi INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico Di Arcetri, Largo E. Fermi, 5, 50125, Flor
    WHERE WAS MEAN SOLAR TIME FIRST ADOPTED? Simone Bianchi INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo E. Fermi, 5, 50125, Florence, Italy [email protected] Abstract: It is usually stated in the literature that Geneva was the first city to adopt mean solar time, in 1780, followed by London (or the whole of England) in 1792, Berlin in 1810 and Paris in 1816. In this short paper I will partially revise this statement, using primary references when available, and provide dates for a few other European cities. Although no exact date was found for the first public use of mean time, the primacy seems to belong to England, followed by Geneva in 1778–1779 (for horologists), Berlin in 1810, Geneva in 1821 (for public clocks), Vienna in 1823, Paris in 1826, Rome in 1847, Turin in 1849, and Milan, Bologna and Florence in 1860. Keywords: mean solar time 1 INTRODUCTION The inclination of the Earth’s axis with respect to the orbital plane and its non-uniform revolution around the Sun are reflected in the irregularity of the length of the day, when measured from two consecutive passages of the Sun on the meridian. Though known since ancient times, the uneven length of true solar days became of practical interest only after Christiaan Huygens (1629 –1695) invented the high-accuracy pendulum clock in the 1650s. For proper registration of regularly-paced clocks, it then became necessary to convert true solar time into mean solar time, obtained from the position of a fictitious mean Sun; mean solar days all having the same duration over the course of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Cornette, Carla. Colonial Legacies
    http://www.gendersexualityitaly.com g/s/i is an annual peer-reviewed journal which publishes research on gendered identities and the ways they intersect with and produce Italian politics, culture, and society by way of a variety of cultural productions, discourses, and practices spanning historical, social, and geopolitical boundaries. Title: Colonial Legacies in Family-Making and Family-Breaking: Carla Macoggi’s Memoirs as Semi-Autobiography Journal Issue: gender/sexuality/italy, 7 (2020) Author: Carla Cornette, Pennsylvania State University Publication date: February 2021 Publication info: gender/sexuality/italy, “Continuing Discussions” Permalink: https://www.gendersexualityitaly.com/13-colonial-legacies-family-making-and-family-breaking-carla- macoggis-memoirs Author Bio: Carla Cornette is an Assistant Teaching Professor of Italian at Pennsylvania State University and the faculty co-leader of Penn State’s study abroad program in Reggio Calabria. She holds a Ph.D. in Italian from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a minor in African Cultural Studies and Gender and Women’s Studies. Her dissertation project (2018) is entitled “Postcolonial Pathology in the Works of Italian Postcolonial Writers Carla Macoggi, Ubah Cristina Ali Farah, and Igiaba Scego” and interrogates the notion of depression in Italian postcolonial literature as a politically and socially induced phenomenon. She is currently preparing a monograph based on this study which argues that melancholic psycho-affective sequelae that manifest in Black diaspora women literary figures are the natural and expected consequence to continual subjection to multiple axes of oppression including race, gender, geography, and class, inequalities which have their origins in Italy’s colonial history. Abstract: Kkeywa: Storia di una bimba meticcia (2011) and La nemesi della rossa (2012) constitute the sequential memoirs of Carla Macoggi, Ethiopian-Italian author and attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercountry Adoption
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Overseas Adoption in Australia Report on the inquiry into adoption of children from overseas House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services November 2005 Canberra © Commonwealth of Australia 2005 ISBN 0 642 78649 6 (printed version) ISBN 0 642 78650 2 (HTML version) Front cover: Photograph by Jeff Camden, The Courier-Mail Back cover: Photograph by Rev Ted Sherrin Cover design: Publishing Office, Department of the House of Representatives Appendix H: ‘The Nature and Nurture of Economic Outcomes‘ by Bruce Sacerdote is produced with the author’s permission Contents Foreword............................................................................................................................................vii Membership of the Committee ............................................................................................................xi Terms of reference............................................................................................................................xiii List of abbreviations ...........................................................................................................................xv List of recommendations ..................................................................................................................xvii 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 Attitudes to Adoption in Australia..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Adoption Support for Adoptive Families in Australia: Is It Time for the ‘Triple-A’ Approach?
    POST-ADOPTION SUPPORT FOR ADOPTIVE FAMILIES IN AUSTRALIA: IS IT TIME FOR THE ‘TRIPLE-A’ APPROACH? POST-ADOPTION SUPPORT FOR ADOPTIVE FAMILIES IN AUSTRALIA: Is it time for the ‘triple A’ approach? Adopt Change Research, November 2016 Researcher: Dr Tanya Bretherton About Adopt Change About the Researcher Adopt Change believes that every child has a right to Dr Tanya Bretherton is a Sydney-based grow up in a permanent, stable and loving home, and research consultant, sociologist and writer. embraces adoption as a positive and important way Dr Bretherton has twenty years experience in the of forming that family. fields of early childhood development, education and care, organisational culture and professional Adopt Change’s mission is: development. She has published both domestically • to raise community awareness and internationally on a wide range of issues that • encourage ethical reform impact the safety and security of children and • empower Australian’s to engage with issues young people. surrounding adoption For more information contact [email protected] www.adoptchange.org.au 2 © Copyright Adopt Change Limited 2016 Executive Summary Adoption practice in Australia now stands at a cross-road. Over the past two decades researchers, lawyers and practitioners in the child protection field have aligned their efforts around the core concept of transparency in adoption. The social and emotional damage caused by the history of closed adoption in Australia is now widely acknowledged. Improved openness in adoption now represents the prevailing goal of current and emerging practice work because this is argued to yield strong benefits for children in terms of healthy attachment and identity development.
    [Show full text]
  • TITLE: General Public Perceptions and Motivations to Adopt Children From
    This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Cambridge University Press in Children Australia on 19 August 2019, available online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/children-australia/article/general-public-perceptions-and-motivations-to- adopt-children-from-outofhome-care-in-new-south-wales-australia/C3316DA7782CC8B1A682A8C9D7AF95CD TITLE: General public perceptions and motivations to adopt children from out-of-home care in New South Wales, Australia AUTHORS: Dr Betty Luu, Research Associate, Institute of Open Adoption Studies, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia [email protected] Associate Professor Amy Conley Wright, Director, Institute of Open Adoption Studies, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia [email protected] Professor Melanie Randle, Associate Dean (Research), School of Management, Operations and Marketing, Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong [email protected] CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Betty Luu, [email protected] +61 2 8627 6575 Education Building A35, The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Abstract: Recent reforms in New South Wales, Australia, prioritise adoption over long-term foster care. While previous research has examined motivation to foster, less is known about the interest by the general public in adoption from out-of-home care. A general sample of the New South Wales public (N = 1030) completed an online survey about adoption practices and their willingness to consider adopting from out-of-home care, with background questions on perceived social support and life satisfaction. Barriers to pursuing adoption were identified, including concerns about the characteristics of the child related to their experiences of care, and personal impacts including financial costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Adoptionfinrepa4.Pdf
    T A S M A N I A LAW REFORM I N S T I T U T E Adoption by same sex couples FINAL REPORT NO 2 MAY 2003 Contents Information on the Tasmania Law Reform Institute 1 Terms of reference 2 Acknowledgements 2 Executive summary 3 Part 1 Introduction 8 Changing family structures 8 Changing attitudes to same sex parenting 9 Part 2 Adoption: law and process 13 What is adoption? 13 Who can apply to adopt? 13 Trends in adoption 14 Adoption rates 15 The adoption process 16 Part 3 Should same sex couples be eligible to adopt? 21 Introduction 21 The Institute’s view on eligibility of same sex couples 22 Arguments against same sex adoption 25 Recommendation 1 43 Part 4 The profile of applicants for adoption and birth parents’ preferences 44 Introduction 44 In favour of profiles disclosing sexuality and relinquishing parents expressing a preference 44 Against profiles disclosing sexuality and relinquishing parents expressing a preference 46 The Institute’s view 47 Recommendation 2 47 Part 5 Known child adoption only? 48 Introduction 48 Issues in relation to known child adoption 49 Recommendation 3 51 Part 6 Additional qualifications: length of the relationship 52 Recommendation 4 53 Appendix A: Summary of responses to the Issues Paper: Qu 1(a) 54 Appendix B: Summary of responses to the Issues Paper: Qu 1(b)-3 68 Appendix C: List of original respondents to the Issues Paper 73 Appendix D: List of people who sent multiple responses or signed a petition 75 2 3 Information on the Tasmania Law Reform Institute The Tasmania Law Reform Institute was established on 23 July 2001 by agreement between the Government of the State of Tasmania, the University of Tasmania and The Law Society of Tasmania.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Department C Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION in the EUROPEAN UNION
    Directorate-General Internal Policies Policy Department C Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Final Report – 2009, March 27th Résumé: The main purpose of the report consists of proposing an up-dated comparative vision in the field of intercountry adoptions at European level, in particular following an interdisciplinary perspective able to give adequate consideration both to social and legal aspects involved. In particular, the research envisages two different levels of analysis: a documentary analysis based mainly on a statistical profile of the phenomenon within EU countries followed by a review of the fundamental international and European instruments that actually regulate the international adoption system and a survey that will be realized specifically at national level. The study led to some concrete proposal for the interventions of EU level and national policy-makers as well as representatives of civil society directed to harmonize the different national rules and experiences and to create a European adoption system. IP/C/LIBE/IC/2008-003 This note was requested by: The European Parliament’s committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. This study is published in the following language: EN The report has been coordinated by Istituto degli Innocenti, Florence Scientific Committee: Femmie Juffer, Isabelle Lammerant, Enrico Moretti, Piercarlo Pazè, Raffaella Pregliasco, Peter Selman, Elena Urso Texts by: Erika Bernacchi, Federico Brogi, Isabelle Lammerant, Femmie Juffer,
    [Show full text]