DOCSLIB.ORG

New Review Into Barriers to Local Adoption

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Review Into Barriers to Local Adoption New Review into Barriers to Local Adoption The Adoptee Advocacy and Information Service, South Australia Inc. (AAISSA) wishes to strongly object to the way this Inquiry has been framed. An Inquiry into why children are not more freely available for adoption in Australia presupposes that they should be. It presupposes that adoption in its current incarnation as “open” adoption is good for children and the adults they become. But “open” adoption only changes (for better or worse) certain aspects of adoption and the fundamental issues remain – with different complexities and trauma added. Current available research certainly does not provide an evidence base to justify adoption, and instead it points to grave problems. Deciding the fate of thousands of children over the coming years - something which will have ongoing effects and legal repercussions for these children throughout their lives and for any of their future generations - should be based on comprehensive and unbiased evidence and research, and not just the (highly selective) “evidence” and opinions of those with vested interests in the availability of children. Blurring definitions and claiming that there is such a difference now with adoption that current adoptee outcomes cannot be compared at all is part of adoption myth-making. These myths conveniently skirt the issue of the need for comprehensive research, and allow those questioning adoption to be characterised as only talking about “the past” when what we are talking about are the fundamental problems with adoption that have not changed at all. Data matching and linkage with the Births, Deaths and Marriages Departments Australia wide and comprehensive research into the experiences and whole of life outcomes for the approximately 250,000 adoptees in Australia needs to be done and would already have been done for any other minority group with far less indicators of damage than adoptees. Another myth – that of “past-forced” and current adoptions being too different between “now” and “then” to warrant comparison is only relevant to the mother’s experience, not the adoptee’s. Whether the mother was overtly forced or thought she gave her child to strangers of her own free will, this is irrelevant to the child–then-adult experience of being an adoptee. Unfortunately, because the pro-adoption lobby group voices have been the loudest for so long, the MP’s and members of the Committees who often genuinely do have the welfare of children at heart, accept the package presented to them. This is partly because it’s a very neat and attractive package, supposedly tying up a child’s needs with the adult’s need for a child while simultaneously solving the government’s problem of responsibility for children in need of care. But when you look at the reality beyond the myth it doesn’t match. What is really happening is: the child disappears from the out-of-home-care numbers there are sizeable payments to the NGO’s that facilitated the arrangement there are sizeable ongoing cost savings for the State there are no requirements for any future welfare checks on the child by the State or follow up of outcomes 1 the adoptive carers are never reviewed or checked again the child is issued a new identity which severs their ancestry for all time the child–then-adult is made the subject of often arbitrary and Draconian adoption laws for the rest of their life. All of this is done in the name of the best interests of the child! This Inquiry also presupposes that the rest of Australia is already heading down the same dangerous path as NSW is with adoption. But - even with the Federal push - many states aren’t as enamoured with adoption as NSW. The trouble is that beyond the old and new myths of adoption, the reality still exists. In South Australia, the Adoption Act Review commenced in early 2014 and was released in September 2015, with the resulting legislative changes being passed in the South Australian Parliament at the end of 2016. Among other matters, one of the issues that was examined comprehensively in that Review was the question of whether there should be adoption from care at all, and the answer that was arrived at was ‘no’ (2015). How can a National Inquiry into how to increase domestic adoption be considered to be any sort of next step where adoption from care was investigated and not recommended in South Australia? If only one or two states used capital punishment, and the rest didn’t, would a Nationwide Inquiry asking how to achieve more capital punishment be appropriate? Wouldn’t it be best to work out what page we are actually on, before trying to turn it? We wish to make a call for a comprehensive National Inquiry into adoption itself. Adoption – some of the main myths Myth 1:The Numbers Game You can usually tell a person’s motives in adoption by the figures they quote. This Inquiry, along with every interview and every news article demanding that children be made readily available for adoption again, starts by quoting a total figure of 46,448 children in out–of-home-care in 2015/2016, (the latest figure as of 30th June 2017 is 47,915). What is not explained is that this is the total figure which includes every child in care, and: around half (47%) of the children behind the total numbers quoted are living with their extended families. Broken down even further, over 11,000 children – half again of those in extended family care - were in the care of their grandparents. even if they were quoting the 53% of that total left who are not with extended family (which is just over 25,000 children) this is also not telling the whole story, because of the numbers of children in care for a temporary crisis, who can and will be restored to their families. Do those who quote that total figure of 47,915 or similar, consider that children who cannot be cared for by their own parents should not be cared for by their extended families, and should instead be made available for adoption? 2 Do those who quote that total figure consider that any child that is removed from their family for whatever reason should immediately be seized by the state and made available for adoption? L. Hallahan describes a theme in adoption discourse where “..children must be saved from their abusive and hopeless parents thereby revealing an (often unstated) philosophy based on a lack of hope and inhumane practice. For some children, entry into care can be avoided or is on a temporary basis,” (Adoption and Long Term Foster Care, 2015). Over 8,000 children were returned to their homes in the 2016/17 year. Unless all children in care are considered to be automatically in care permanently – or unless a blanket permanent removal approach to child protection is the real goal - then quoting figures that are at least 10 times higher than the relevant figure is very misleading. Myth 2: Open Adoption is so much different to that old “past/forced/closed” Adoption One of the main myths about adoption is how different it is today from the past: Did this happen in Does this still Features of adoption the old ‘past- happen currently in forced’ Adoption? “Open” Adoption? Legal order severing connection to ancestry Yes Yes Cancellation of birth certificate Yes Yes Yes. Integrated birth certificates add the original parents names but do not replace the severed Issue of a new birth certificate with new name ancestry, ie the child Yes and new carer’s names is still never again related to them, their kin and ancestry. At most it is a record of who the child used to be related to. Verbal advice to the child that they are Most Most adopted. 3 Access for the adopted person to their original birth certificate when they are over 18, unless Yes Yes restricted in some States/Territories Legal power of the government department responsible for Child Protection in most Yes Yes States/Territories to prevent the adopted person from ever accessing their birth records Can adopters return the child? (discharge Yes Yes availability) Welfare checks? Never Never The differences between so called “closed” adoption and “open” adoption are minimal. In the United States there never was a downturn in adoption as there has been in Australia and adoption has continued unabated. Many adult “open” adoptees recount the pain of watching their families and kept siblings leaving them over and over again, of never feeling part of either family. Here are some observations from open adoption adoptee blog, Sisterwish, by Kat Stanley: I felt trapped between worlds. I never knew how to tell my mothers how I felt without hurting their feelings. I dealt with every single reunion issue adult adoptees have – except I was six. Genetic mirroring was looking like the person who left me. Open Adoption is an adult concept based on boundaries. As a child I didn’t know that. I was fully invested. For many ‘under 18 open adoptees’, the jealousy and insecurity of the adoptive carers in the face of the perceived or real threat to their parenthood or the adoptee’s loyalty has been traumatically damaging – akin to the push and pull between two parents after a divorce, but with the other cumulative trauma of adoption added in. And that is for those who actually did see their mothers/parents/siblings as they were growing up. “Open” adoption could mean anything - they might get a meeting, a phone call, or a letter, or nothing. That is dependent on the adults, and the torn child has to negotiate a minefield of jealousy and loyalties.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Past Adoption Practices Summary of Key Issues from Australian Research Final Report
    Impact of past adoption practices Summary of key issues from Australian research Final report A report to the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Dr Daryl Higgins1 General Manager (Research), Australian Institute of Family Studies March 2010 (amended 30 April, 2010) 1 The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following Institute staff: Carole Jean, who assisted with identifying relevant research, Alister Lamont, who assisted with reading and making research notes about the key issues raised in some of the autobiographical literature, and Lan Wang, who edited the report. Dr Matthew Gray—Deputy Director (Research), also provided valuable feedback and support. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and may not reflect those of the Australian Institute of Family Studies or the Australian Government. Impact of past adoption practices 2 Executive summary Although reliable figures are not available, in the decades prior to the mid-1970s, it was common for babies of unwed mothers to be adopted. Estimates of the number of women, children and families affected by the adoption of babies of unwed mothers are considerable. However, there is limited research available in Australia on the issue of past adoption practices. The purpose of the attached paper, commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), is to review existing research literature about past adoption practices
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption by Same Sex Couples
    T A S M A N I A LAW REFORM I N S T I T U T E Adoption by same sex couples Claire Buxton Kate Warner ISSUES PAPER NO 4 FEBRUARY 2003 Contents How to respond to this issues paper 2 Information on the Tasmania Law Reform Institute 3 Background and terms of reference 4 Executive summary 5 Part 1: Introduction 7 Part 2: Same Sex Couples 18 Part 3: Additional Qualifications: Length of the Relationship 28 Part 4: Options for Reform 30 Questions 32 How to respond to this issues paper The Tasmania Law Reform Institute invites responses to the issues discussed and proposals made in this issues paper. Questions are contained at the end of the paper. The questions are intended as a guide only – you may chose to answer all, some or none of them. Please explain the reasons for your views as fully as possible. If you would like your views and/or the fact that you made a response to this paper to be kept confidential, simply say so, and the Institute will respect that wish. Responses should be made in writing by 10 March 2003. If it is impracticable for you to make your response in writing please contact the Institute to make other arrangements. Responses may be sent to the Institute by mail, fax or email. address: Tasmania Law Reform Institute Private Bag 89, Hobart, TAS 7001 email: [email protected] fax: (03) 62267623 Inquires should be directed to Jenny Gawlik, on the above contacts, or by phoning (03) 62262069.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Changing Definitions of Love, Marriage and the Family
    Silent Violence: Australia's White Stolen Children Author Moor, Merryl Published 2006 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School School of Arts, Media and Culture DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/46 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/365291 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au SILENT VIOLENCE: AUSTRALIA’S WHITE STOLEN CHILDREN A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the Doctorate of Philosophy in Arts, Media and Culture at Griffith University, Nathan, Qld Merryl Moor ______________________ Griffith University 2005 ii In relation to adoption, the question needs to be asked: In what other period of human history did young mothers willingly defy nature and give away their babies en masse to strangers? (Jigsaw, Brisbane) iii Abstract This thesis makes a significant contribution to the existing knowledge on ‘unmarried mothers’. Much of the literature on ‘unmarried mothers’ has been written by white, male, middle-class professionals who assume that unwed mothers are happy to place their babies for adoption so that they can be free to pursue other interests, meet other men and make a new life. However, after interviewing many of the mothers who gave up their babies in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s in Australia, I found this was not the case. Many of the mothers had wanted to keep their babies but were forced to relinquish them by their families and the wider society who seemed more intent on upholding nuclear family values than making available the resources needed to keep natural mothers and their babies together.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Adoption of Children Act 1965
    NSW Law Reform Commission REPORT 81 (1997) - REVIEW OF THE ADOPTION OF CHILDREN ACT 1965 (NSW) Table of Contents Table of Contents Terms of reference Participants Executive summary List of recommendations Cataloguing in publication 1. INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT Background to the review CONSULTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS Issues Paper 9 Discussion Paper 34 Research Reports: Intercountry Adoption and Parent Support Groups; The Aboriginal Child Placement Principle OUTLINE OF THE REPORT 2. THE CONCEPT OF ADOPTION SHOULD ADOPTION CONTINUE TO EXIST? THREE KEY FEATURES OF ADOPTION LAW RECONSIDERED CHILD’S WELFARE AND INTERESTS ARE THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION Public regulation of adoption Secrecy SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES LEGAL EFFECT OF ADOPTION ORDERS GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRACTICE OF ADOPTION Respect for the child’s viewpoint Preserving the child’s identity 3. THE ADOPTION PROCESS REGULATION OF STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR PRIVATE ADOPTION AGENCIES Conclusion LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHILD BEFORE AN ADOPTION ORDER IS MADE Current law and practice Local adoptions Intercountry adoptions Conclusion INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ADOPTION PLACEMENTS Current law and practice Discussion Paper 34 Submissions and response Conclusion Preliminary hearing Who could request a preliminary hearing? INDEPENDENT REPRESENTATION OF THE CHILD Current law and practice Discussion Paper 34 Submissions and response Conclusion: provision for guardian ad litem and independent legal representative Discretionary appointment Role of the guardian ad litem
    [Show full text]