New Review into Barriers to Local

The Adoptee Advocacy and Information Service, South 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 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 , 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 , 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.

4

Myth 3:The conflation of positive long-term care with adoption

The Hon. Julia Banks MP uses the example of Chloe Valentine and the Coroner’s recommendations in South Australia in talking about the need for adoption (radio interview, AdoptChange Facebook page, 2018). The South Australian Coroner, Mark Johns, based a lot of the numerous recommendations about adoption made in the Chloe Valentine Coronial Inquiry on Jeremy Sammut’s adoption theories of saving children from their families in the ‘underclass’ and the reasoning that adoption would have saved little Chloe.

But Chloe’s timely removal would have saved Chloe. Placement into the care of her loving grandmother, Belinda Valentine, would have been the next logical step, by keeping the little girl in the care of her extended family. Again, the “need” to sever a child’s relationship with their entire extended family and ancestry is conflated with the need for removal.

Myth 4: The Myth of Permanence

Discharge of the adoption by the adoptive carers.

There are many myths around the idea of permanence in adoption. The pro-adoption rhetoric implies that, once adopted, the child has exactly the same status as they would have if they were born into the family. That is not the case in Australia.

In South Australia, instead of reducing the availability of discharge for adopters in line with supposed permanence in the “best interests of the child”, the SA Adoption Act will enact new discharge laws by the end of 2018. This change gives the adopter the option of “a return policy” again for the first time since the 1970’s – because surely it’s in the best interests of the child to not be in someone’s care who would go to court to make that happen? - and it joins other discharge legislation availability to adopters in most other states and territories.

When queried why this discharge clause had been opened up for adoptive carers in the new Adoption Act – and not discussed in the Recommendations of the Review, we were advised that it was alright to put it in because no-one had been using it in the other states. But if re- homing is tied to

 adoption rates  awareness of the availability of discharge  the lack of social sanctions against child abandonment where a child is a “troubled and traumatised” adoptee (diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder)

… then that use will certainly increase with the increasing availability of children for adoption in Australia.

A lot of research referred to comparing adoption and foster care is based on UK research, which is based on UK adoptions and . Yet there are crucial differences in the UK and Australian adoption legislation. In both Australia and the UK, discharges of adoption are possible where the adoption order was obtained under fraud, duress or improper means.

5

But the major difference is that in Australia, discharges of adoption can also be obtained for other reasons, and by most of the parties to adoption:

NSW – when there is an “exceptional reason” by:  the Minister  the director-general  the public advocate  the adopted person  an adoptive parent  a person whose consent to the adoption was required

ACT - in “other circumstances that justify” by:

 The Attorney General  any party to the adoption

NT – adoptions are only allowed to be discharged by the Minister and only when the adoptee is under 18.

QLD – in “exceptional circumstances” by:

 the adopted person, if he or she is an adult;  a birth parent of the adopted person;  an adoptive parent of the adopted person;  the chief executive.

SA – (to be enacted by the end of 2018) where “subject to the rights and welfare of the adopted person” by:  the adopted person to whom an adoption order relates;  a birth parent of the adopted person;  an adoptive parent of the adopted person;  the Chief Executive

Tasmania – in “special circumstances” by:  the adopted person to whom an adoption order relates,  a natural parent of the adopted person,  an adoptive parent of the adopted person,  the Secretary,  or the principal officer of an approved agency by which the adoption was arranged

Victoria – in “special circumstances” by:

6

 the adopted child - "child" means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years or a person who has attained that age in respect of whom an adoption order is sought or has been made;  a natural parent  adoptive parent  the Secretary  principal officer of the approved agency by which the adoption was arranged.

Western Australia – where there is “some exceptional reason” by:

 the Attorney General;  the CEO;  an adult adoptee who has notified the CEO of the adoptee’s intention to so apply.

In most states and territories in Australia, the adoption is only permanent for the child only if the adoptive carer wants it to be. John Triseliotis states in his introduction to ‘Long term foster care or adoption? The evidence is examined’ that:

In contrast to long-term fostering, an adoption order confirms permanence through its legality, with all parental responsibilities being transferred to the adoptive family. The child can only be removed, like any other child, if the adopter(s) are found to be neglectful or abusive (2002)

But in Australia, while shoring up the adoptive carer’s rights to the child, we also make sure that there is an escape clause. Permanence is indeed a myth.

Discharges for Adoptees

A completely separate area to discharges available to adoptive carers is that of discharges for adoptees, but both in their own ways contradict and discredit the myth of “permanence” in adoption.

The non-availability of discharge of the adoption without pleading and proof of abuse for the adopted adult is a human rights issue. No matter what good intentions there are regarding the ‘paramountcy of the welfare of the child’ there are long-term consequences for the ‘child then adult’ which arise from the obliteration of their natural family ties by law. A common thread among adopted people who speak of their need for discharge/termination /a true birth certificate and identity/annulment/discharge is the absolute lack of choice - the fact that they are subject to a contract for life and beyond death which they did not agree to - the fact that this is still irrevocable when the adopted person reaches adulthood! For many adopted adults, having the choice to reclaim the identity and the ancestry they lost (whether or not they have a social relationship with those of their family who are living) is of extreme importance.

There is a rapidly growing movement of adoptees who have found out it might be possible to discharge the adoption orders applying to them – orders over which they did not ever have a

7 say. The intense interest in discharge availability among the adoptee community speaks volumes for the supposed permanence of adoption and its benefits.

Legislation

Many of the arguments for adoption hinge on documentation and making things easier for the new carers. This comes at the expense of the adopted person being subject to a raft of discriminatory laws the non-adoptee is not subject to – and not just as children but for their entire lives. When an adoptee is created, they are condemned for their entire life to be the subject of adoption law. Our movements and associations as adults are affected by these laws. Even getting paperwork held by the department about them comes under their own specific, targeted legislation. Adoption law in various states and territories is a bureaucratic tangle, varying arbitrarily state by state, and allowing different ranges of Draconian interference in the adoptee’s lives.

In a paper produced as part of the Review into the South Australian Adoption Act in 2014/2015, Associate Professor Lorna Hallahan noted that “[t]he need to provide permanency for children through the practice of adoption is highly controversial from an ethical and human rights perspective”.

Most states and territories have powers to prevent an adopted person from ever seeing their true birth certificate or finding out who their parents and family are – in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – and again contradicting the supposed “openness” of adoption. These powers in South Australia have recently been strengthened with the latest changes to the Adoption Act.

Restrictions on Adopted Adults Rights to Knowledge of their State Origins – Comparison by State

ACT 1993 No restriction. Division 5.3 Identifying Information

Vic

No restriction 1984

Part VI

8

Current: No restriction on supply to the adopted adult if they were adopted after 2008.

NSW (Pre 2008 adoptions) Restriction “if, in the opinion of the Secretary,

exceptional circumstances exist that make it necessary to do so to 2000 prevent serious harm to a party concerned.”

Chapter 8 Who can request that the Secretary restrict supply? - The adopted Part 2 person, the “birth parent”, and the adoptive parent of a person who is

18 or more years of age and who has consented to the request being

made.

Current (post 1994) Restriction – “The Minister shall not provide information to a person under this Part where he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the personal safety of another person may be endangered as a result of the provision of the NT information.” 1994

Part 6 Adoptions under repealed legislation (pre 1994): “Notice of prohibition” can be applied for 3 year periods by a “relinquishing parent” or an adopted person.

Restriction – “An application may be made to the Childrens Court for Qld an order that the chief executive must not give stated information to a stated person… The court may make the order if satisfied there would 2009 be an unacceptable risk of harm to the applicant (other than the chief Part 11 Division 5 executive) or someone else if the information were given. “

An application can be made by an adopted person, a “birth parent” (sic) or adoptive parent of an adopted person or the chief executive.

9

This order can be made at the time of the adoption, or after the adoption order is made.

Restriction if the Chief Executive determines “in his or her absolute discretion” that disclosure:

- “would be an unjustifiable intrusion on the privacy of the person to SA whom the information relates.” OR 1988

From 17/12/17 - “would give rise to a serious risk to the life or safety of a Part 2A person.”OR Open Adoptions

- (Pre-17th august, 1989 adoptees) “would not be in the best interests 27, 27B of the adopted person, taking into account the rights and welfare of the adopted person and any other prescribed matter.”

Restriction on supply of birth certificates or information:

- An adopted adult can apply. BUT “a relevant authority may decide Tas to refuse to give any or all of that information.” The reasons for the decision must be specified in writing. 1988 - The adopted adult can then apply for a review of a decision to the Part VI Secretary or the principal officer of an approved agency, and the Division 2 decision can be to “refuse to give any or all of that information.” The reasons for the decision must be specified in writing.

- The adopted adult then “may apply to a judge in chambers for an order permitting him to obtain that information” and this may be granted under best interests/special circumstances provisions but the

10

information cannot be given unless the parent, if they can be found and if they have failed to agree in writing, has had “an opportunity to be heard in circumstances in which [their] identity is not disclosed to the applicant.”

Restriction: The CEO is to give access to the information unless the WA CEO thinks there is a good reason for not doing so.

1994 Also, information cannot be released by the CEO to adopted adults who had information vetoes placed on them which became ineffective Part 4 in 2003 unless the adopted adult has attended an interview with an officer of the Department AND “all the parties to the adoption and their relatives have been provided with the information, counselling and mediation that the CEO thinks is necessary in the particular case.”

Research and the “evidence-base”

Outcomes for adoptees

Although there are the capacity and the records available, there is little to no data-linked research done in Australia on adoption and we have to look overseas to try to get an evidence base when the exact same work should be being done here.

This study: Excess Mortality Rate During Adulthood Among Danish Adoptees using a very large sample size of adoptees – over 13,000 - with a median age at adoption of one year – shows significant excess mortality for adoptees especially from cancer, alcohol related deaths, and suicide:

Results: Significant excess mortality before age 65 years was also observed for infections, vascular deaths, cancer, alcohol-related deaths and suicide. Analyses including deaths after age 65 generally showed slightly less excess in mortality, but the excess was significant for all-cause mortality, cancer, alcohol-related deaths and suicides. Conclusion: Adoptees have an increased all-cause mortality compared to the general population. All major specific causes of death contributed, and the highest excess was seen for alcohol-related deaths (Petersen, Sorensen, Mortensen, Andersen (2010).

11

The median age in this study is closer to the median age of the adoptees who were taken from their mothers at birth in Australia and almost immediately placed in adoptive families. So, what is it about adoption itself on a fundamental level that leads to these outcomes? It certainly cannot be reduced down to the one problem of “open-ness”.

Over 3000 children have been adopted in since 1984, under laws which mandate Open Adoption. On 14/07/2017, AAISSA asked Associate Professor Amy Conley Wright whether the Institute of Open Adoption Studies in NSW were aware of the opportunity for research of such a large group of Open Adoptees in Australia. In an email on 12/12/2017 we were advised by Associate Professor Wright that:

The Institute of Open Adoption Studies is an independent research centre funded by the NSW Government and the University of Sydney and is a joint venture between the University of Sydney and Barnardos Australia, hosted by the Sydney Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. The Institute is focused on children who have been permanently removed from the care of parents by the NSW Children’s Court. Our research agenda is to build the evidence base about children and their best interests, with regards to contemporary open adoption and other permanency options in under recent legislative reforms. As such, we are not planning on research that will follow adoptees from Victoria, as you enquired. As an independent research centre, we do not have a role in determining NSW Government policy or programs regarding preferences for placement types.

The Institute aim is building the evidence about children and their best interests. International research demonstrates that stable, long-term placements produce the best outcomes for children, and ‘openness’ involving contact between birth and caring families, enhances children’s wellbeing and maximise their opportunities to reach their potential.

It is beyond baffling that a cohort of over 3000 Australian young Open Adoption Adoptees born after 1984 (with most in the age range of their twenties up to their mid thirties), is not of interest to an Institute of Open Adoption Studies – and yet ‘international research’ is quoted!

No reply has yet been received to AAISSA’s subsequent enquiry sent on 13/12/2017, and then re-sent on 19/04/2017 which included this query:

Would you please advise why the Open Adoption Institute is not interested in looking at outcomes, life experiences and perceptions of adopted people who are now adults who have experienced open Adoptions in Australia?

Surely if the Open Adoption Institute uses terms like 'best practice' and 'evidence base' this would require that they should be interested in the evidence of previous practices of Open Adoption - especially if it is available in Australia? Or is the Open Adoption Institute not actually interested in the whole of life outcomes of Open Adoption?

12

[We] have seen some very small studies done already by the Open Adoption Institute, using as few as 6 very young adoptees - some even from the same family! [We] would have thought that the potential to assess commonalities from a population of around 3000 people who have experienced Open Adoption in Australia already would be something the Open Adoption Institute should welcome, and provide a more valid 'evidence base' for your research?

Social Rejection and Ostracism Among the many issues in adoption, one that is emerging is that of social rejection and ostracism, which is tied to the severing of ancestry, and the replacement of birth certificates. It is the social and legal exclusion from kin - the most extreme form of social rejection that can be effected upon a human being.

The work of Kipling Williams has shown that ostracism or exclusion causes pain in human beings that matches or is stronger than physical pain. The brain’s dorsal anterior cingulate cortex responds to social injury as well as physical pain. Williams says:

Again and again, research has found that strong, harmful reactions are possible even when ostracized by a stranger or for a short amount of time,” (Williams in Purdue University news, 2011).

While it is a permanent feature of being adopted, at different stages of their lives, adoptees are experiencing ostracism on different levels. Williams asks of his study participants who are not excluded for their entire lives from their families, but just briefly by genetic strangers,

How can it be that such a brief experience, even when being ignored and excluded by strangers with whom the individual will never have any face-to-face interaction can have such a powerful effect? (2011).

The coping strategies vary according to personality, but they follow patterns of behaviour often seen in adoptees:

 engaging in behaviour which might increase inclusion like mimicking, complying and obeying orders  provocative behaviour/aggression  resignation with alienation, depression, helplessness, feelings of unworthiness.

“Openness” or its lack is not the only problem with adoption and there is a dire need for real research to be done here in Australia to able to properly respond to current adoptees with adequate services, and as a basic duty of care to potentially adoptable children-then-adults. An adoption evidence base needs to be built on more than wishful thinking, public opinion, short-term dollar saving and long-term vested interests.

13

Long-term care vs Adoption

Talking about ‘breakdowns’ and ‘dissolutions’ and the existence or lack of them in adoption compared to foster care is highly problematic. When people could not get a divorce, the divorce rate was zero. But of course no-one would claim from that ‘zero’ divorce rate it meant there were no problems in marriage. The variable affecting that figure is the availability of divorce and the social climate in which it occurs.

Where –except in adoption – is remaining legally related as a child of someone equal to being in a safe, successful and healthy family relationship with them? On that reasoning, there’s a 100% success rate in every family, because the legal tie itself becomes the benchmark for defining success.

When looking at breakdowns and disruptions this has traditionally been from the perspective of the person who acquired the child, and not the child-then-adult. Factors like the child’s behaviour, and the adoptive carer’s capacity to deal with it, the adoptive carer’s original motives for adopting, the adoptive carer’s availability and awareness of legal means of getting out of the adoption, and the social acceptance of adoptee abandonment are all aspects which have affected the continuation of adoptions.

In the US, breakdowns/dissolutions/adoptee abandonment has been rebranded as ‘Re- homing’ and children are advertised like puppies on Craigslist and Facebook. In Australia, during the , it was taken for granted that if there was something ‘wrong’ with the child, they would be returned.

In 2002, John Triseliotis compared short-term outcomes for children adopted at various ages:

[Pre-School Children]

Overall, if we include past studies, then breakdowns amongst the adoption group were significantly lower compared with the fostering group. However, if we include only studies carried out in the past 10 or so years, then hardly any differences would be found. This could be attributed to improved policies and practices.

[Children placed between the ages of 5 and 12]

If studies carried out before about 1990 are included, then long-term fostering experiences would show significantly higher breakdown rates compared to adoption. However, if studies carried out after about 1990 were contrasted, then they would show that fostering breakdowns were still higher, but the gap between these two forms of substitute parenting is narrowing..

[Placement of adolescents]

Though the overall breakdown rate suggests somewhat lower breakdown rates in favour of adoption, this disguises the fact that a proportion of older children are adopted by their foster carers after the placement stabilises. (p 25-26).

14

In the ‘Adoption and Long Term Foster Care: How do they Compare’ Hallahan concludes that:

the studies suggest, unsurprisingly, that children fare better when they do not have prolonged exposure to highly inadequate parenting, poor living conditions, sustained neglect and abuse. They also fare better when their living arrangements are safe, stable and maintained over their childhood.(2015)

The requirement of adoption is not necessary to achieving good outcomes from care, so why expose a child-then-adult to the negative short and long-term effects of adoption when the same outcomes shown in these comparison studies can be achieved without it? Who is adoption really for?

The South Australian Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People in their response to the SA Adoption Act Review agreed that “…the evidence is not strong for favouring adoption over long-term foster care placements to achieve good outcomes for children and the risk of is similar,” (2015).

Also quoted in the South Australian Guardian for Children and Young People’s response was this from The Victorian Inquiry into Protecting Vulnerable Children (Cummins, Scott and Scales, 2012, 229):

A recent UK study suggests that the main factors influencing outcomes in care are age, pre-placement adversity and delay in placement (that is, exposure to adversity). Where adversity levels are similar, children in stable foster care and adopted children had similar needs and outcomes when they arrived at the placements at similar ages. Overall there were no significant differences in outcomes between children in stable foster care and children who were adopted. (Beek et al, 2010, pp 2-4)” and a literature review: “Tilbury and Osmond’s (2006, citing Sellick and Thomson 2002) literature review suggests that temporary foster placements that become permanent deliver as good outcomes as other permanent arrangements, including adoption.

The supposed “good” outcomes from adoption cannot be separated out from that of long-term care, and this is without the hidden short and long-term impacts of adoption on adoptees over their lifetimes being included in those comparisons.

Summary

Sadly, those who want to make children more freely available for adoption, and those who want to develop the adoption industry in Australia, have a lot of money to throw at Think Tanks and Institutes, at high impact, slick advertising, and towards the moulding of public opinion. What they haven’t got are the facts to back their model up. Their only option is to ‘change’ and hide the facts, and – as is the case in this Inquiry – avoid the facts altogether by

15 creating an assumption that the evidence for adoption at all has already been collected and established.

Long-term care (good long-term care) is obviously better than numerous short-term placements in cases where a child cannot return to their family. That is really a no-brainer – and it’s something that is backed by an evidence-base. But severance of a child’s ancestry and kin connections for all time and replacement of their identity and birth certificate (which happens in all adoptions, even if the child still has some form of contact with the people who used to be their relatives), is completely unnecessary to the provision of that long-term care.

The premise of this Inquiry ignores the voices of adopted people and others who are saying that no matter how adoption is re-branded, the fundamental problem with adoption is adoption itself.

We call for an Inquiry into Adoption itself.

Check the facts, don’t change the facts.

References

Julia Banks Radio Interview about reducing the ‘Barriers to Adoption’ on AdoptChange Facebook Page, 2018

Beek, M, Biehal, N, Sinclair, I, Baker, C & Elison, S (2010) Belonging and performance: outcomes in long-term foster care and adoption, summary 1, Adoption Research Initiative, York.

Cummins, P, Scott, D and Scales, B (2012) Report of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry, Department of Premier and Cabinet: Melbourne

Guardian for Children and Young People (2015) GCYP Response to Adoption Review, Government of South Australia

Hallahan L (2015) Adoption and Long Term Foster Care: How do they Compare?

Hallahan L (2015) Adoption Act 1988 (SA) Review

Parliament of Australia, Chapter 6, 1961-1964 discussions of Model Adoption Legislation. “A variation of the model legislation was subsequently implemented in each state and territory between 1964 and 1968”

16 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Co mpleted_inquiries/2010-13/commcontribformerforcedadoption/report/c06

Petersen L, Sørensen TIA, Mortensen EL, Andersen PK (2010) Excess Mortality Rate During Adulthood Among Danish Adoptees. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14365. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014365 last accessed 13/5/18

Stanley K. Sisterwish [Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.sisterwish.com/ 01/05/2018

Triseliotis J (2002) Long term foster care or adoption? The evidence is examined.

Williams K, Purdue University (news) http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2011/110510WilliamsOstracism.html

______

Submission by Sharyn White for The Adoptee Advocacy and Information Service, South Australia, Inc. - AAISSA

17