DOCSLIB.ORG

Discrimination Against People with Disabilities Under Adoption Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Keywords: adoption; adoption law; CRPD; disability; disability rights; people with disabilities; social model; medical model; Victorian adoption law 1. Introduction Parenthood is held out to be a transformative part of human life (Chapman et al. 2015). It is therefore unsurprising that many people with disabilities desire to be parents (Shakespeare et al. 1996; Frohmader 2009). While critiques of society’s privileging of parenthood exist, these do not detract from the claims of people with disabilities to this right (Warner 2000). Despite this, recent research has shown that people with disabilities face disproportionate difficulty becoming and being parents—be it as a result of forced sterilisation (Kempton and Kahn 1991; Fennell 1992; Arstein-Kerslake 2015), higher rates of child removal (Llewellyn et al. 2003; Booth et al. 2005; IASSID 2008), over-representation in out-of-home care (Australian Institute of Family Studies 2016) or lack of access to assisted reproductive technologies (Frohmader 2009). Most of this research has focused on supporting the right of people with disabilities to conceive children or to retain custody of children often presumed to be their biological children. Where research has considered the ability of people with disabilities to become parents by other means, it has mostly considered assisted reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilisation (IVF). For example, a recent consideration of parenting laws in a report by the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC 2007) identified disability as a significant barrier to IVF. In contrast, its consideration of adoption was far shorter and identified same-sex attraction as the only hurdle to adoption. Laws 2017, 6, 15; doi:10.3390/laws6030015 www.mdpi.com/journal/laws Laws 2017, 6, 15 2 of 27 Limited research does exist on the discrimination faced by people with disabilities who attempt to become parents through adoption (Wates 2002; National Council on Disability 2012; Fleming 2015). Yet, often this research stops short of critiquing the legal systems that govern adoption, instead focusing on the prejudices of adoption workers and relinquishing parents (i.e., the biological parents of the adopted child). More importantly, no research has considered adoption as a right protected by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)1. While art 23 of the CRPD explicitly guarantees the right of people with disabilities to adopt, the question of whether or not CRPD signatory states have actually implemented their art 23 obligations through domestic legislation has so far evaded scrutiny. Now that the CRPD has been in force for over nine years, there is a need for such analysis. This article seeks to fill this gap in research by conducting an interpretive legal analysis of the adoption regime of one CRPD signatory state, and critiquing that regime against art 23 of the CRPD. Using the adoption regime of the Australian state of Victoria by way of case study, this article will argue that people with disabilities are systematically prevented from becoming parents by the legal systems that govern adoption, in breach of their human rights under the CRPD. In terms of structure, Part II contextualizes this article by outlining the strong political, social and theoretical connections between adoption and other threads of disability advocacy. Part III discusses this article’s methodology, namely how it uses the state of Victoria as a case study to explore how the adoption rights are governed through written law. Part IV discusses the theories of disability relevant to this essay, namely the medical model, the social model and Shelley Tremain’s deconstructionist critique of the social model. Part V introduces art 23 of the CRPD which protects people with disabilities’ right to adopt. Part VI provides a break-down of the legal structure through which adoption occurs in the state of Victoria. Part VII analyses Victoria’s adoption regime against the requirements of the CRPD, which it interprets primarily through the lens of the social model. Part VIII provides recommendations for the Victorian Parliament, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and disability advocates and allies to pursue change to Victoria’s adoption regime and more broadly. Part IX discusses the related but tangential issue of ‘passing’, and how the distinction between hidden and visible impairments can further affect the impact of an adoption system on the disability community. While this article may sometimes refer to three broad classes of disability—physical, intellectual and mental health—it makes every effort not to conflate all people with disabilities during the course of analysis, and not to extrapolate broad stroke solutions that do not reflect this diversity within the disability community. 2. Snapshot of Adoption in Australia Adoption is the legal process by which a couple (the ‘adoptive parents’) become the legal parents of a child under the age of 18, replacing the child’s birth or biological parents (which the Victorian legislation refers to as ‘relinquishing parents’). Legally speaking, an adoption order extinguishes all rights of the relinquishing parents in relation to the child (unless it specifically mentions such rights), and entitles the adopted child to all the rights of a biological child in their new adoptive family. This said, there are different types of adoption (and other forms of caregiving), many of which fall outside the scope of this essay. This Part will limit this article’s scope of enquiry to local adoptions. 2.1. Local Adoption in Perspective At the highest level, it is important to distinguish adoption from other ways that non-biological parents may care for children, namely out-of-home care (OOHC). OOHC is a state-based statutory system which includes relative care (where a child is cared for by a relative), foster care (where a child is cared for by an unrelated carer) and residential care (where a child is cared for in a communal 1 Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 13 December 2006, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 May 2008). Laws 2017, 6, 15 3 of 27 residential building). From the outset, it must be stated that the number of adoptions is minuscule compared to the number of children in out-of-home care. In the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s (AIHW) latest reporting period, there were only 278 adoptions in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016). This compares to 11,581 Australian children admitted to OOHC in 2014–2015 (Australian Institute of Family Studies 2016). OOHC can be informal or formal. Informal OOHC is where a biological parent consents to their child going into the OOHC system, whereas formal OOHC occurs as a result of the state forcibly removing a child through a care and protection court order. It is important to establish that biological parents with disabilities, as well as children with disabilities, are both over-represented in the OOHC system (Senate Community Affairs References Committee 2015). While this issue lies outside the scope of the article, future research should focus on this phenomenon, as the rights of such parents clearly also come within the scope of art 23 of the CRPD. Of the 278 adoptions which occurred in Australia in 2015–2016, there are different types of adoption. This article only deals with Australian child adoption, as distinct from intercountry adoption. Local adoptions accounted for 196 (or 71%) of the adoptions in the last reporting period, compared to 82 intercountry adoptions (29%) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2016). While many of the same processes and issues discussed in this article remain relevant to intercountry adoption, intercountry adoption involves less clear-cut Australian regulation, is highly dependent on the Hague Convention and the legal regimes of foreign jurisdictions and involves other complex issues (such as the consent of birth parents) that can obscure the operation of disability human rights. Of these adoptions, some are considered ‘local adoptions’ while others are considered ‘known child adoptions’. Local adoptions are where the adopted child has had no previous contact or relationship with the adoptive parents. In contrast, known child adoptions are where such contact has occurred (e.g., where a child adopted by a step-parent or relative).
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]
  • 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]
  • White Unwed Mother: the Adoption Mandate in Postwar Canada Valerie Andrews a THESIS SUBMITTED to the FACULTY of GRADUATE STUDIES
    White Unwed Mother: The Adoption Mandate in Postwar Canada Valerie Andrews A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN GENDER, FEMINIST AND WOMEN’S STUDIES (GFWS) TORONTO, ONTARIO March, 2017 © Valerie Andrews, 2017 ii ABSTRACT The white adoption mandate was a process of interrelated institutional power systems, which together with socio-cultural norms, ideals of gender heteronormativity, and emerging sociological and psychoanalytic theories, created historically unique conditions in the post WWII decades wherein white unmarried mothers were systematically and often violently separated from their babies by means of adoption in the hundreds of thousands in Canada. These factors, together with urbanization, eugenics, the profession of social work, and the introduction of baby formula; all within the context of two World Wars, collided as a kind of perfect storm to create an unprecedented locus in history where approximately 300,000 unmarried mothers in Canada were systematically separated from their babies at birth for adoption in an attempt to rehabilitate them for normative womanhood. iii DEDICATION For my son, Christopher (1970-2008) “Take me outside I want to feel the rain on my face,” he said, so we went outside and sat together holding hands and felt the light, warm Vancouver rain fall on our faces. We talked not about our lost past, but our lost future… I remember those days my Beloved When we danced in the teardrops of the Goddess
    [Show full text]