Saturday, May 14, 2011

Adoption: Aussies and US

Jane and Evelyn Robinson
 Australia puts the United States to shame when it comes to domestic adoption. By removing profit from adoption and implementing reforms demanded by Australia’s ugly past, domestic adoption rates have plummeted to near zero benefiting both mothers and children.

The salient features of adoption-Aussie style according to birth mother and author Evelyn Robinson (Adoption Separation: Then and Now) include the following:
  • The government arranges all domestic adoptions.
  • The government provides means-tested Parenting Payments to permanent residents who have custody of children.
  • Mothers have fourteen days after birth before they may consent to adoption and 25 days to revoke consent. In practice consent may not be finalized for several months, during which time children may remain with their mothers or fathers or both. (US states generally allow consent soon after birth and a few allow consent before birth.)
  • Fathers have a realistic opportunity to establish paternity and may obtain custody.
  • Prospective adopters are selected only after the period for revoking consent has expired, thus preventing prospective adopters from attending the delivery and hovering at the hospital as in common in the US, directly or implicitly pressuring mothers to “perform a selfless act and gift them with her child.”
  • Names of the adoptive parents may added to birth certificates rather than replacing the names of the first parents with the names of adoptive parents.
  • Adoptees and their birth parents may obtain original birth certificates when the child turns 18.
These reforms stem from abuses inflicted on children, particularly Aboriginal children, in the name of social progress. When I was a first year law student at the University of Oregon in 1967, an Australian graduate student told me about her adopted brother, an Aborigine child. She explained that Aboriginal mothers often discarded their children at roadsides or in train stations. The fortunate ones were rescued by passersby who turned them over to the government which placed them with white families.

I am ashamed to admit that I had no trouble believing that Aboriginal women cared so little for their children even though I was grieving over the loss of my daughter, Megan, to adoption less than a year earlier.

Eventually the truth came out. Aboriginal children had not been abandoned; the Australian government had taken them forcibly from their families and placed with white families in an attempt to “westernize” them, a story poignantly told in the film, The Rabbit-Proof Fence.

(In the US at least a quarter of American Indian children were taken from their families by public and private agencies under the pretext of rescuing them from abuse and placed for adoption with white families. In response to the high number of children being removed from their homes, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978 requiring agencies to place Indian children needing care with Indian families.)

In 2008 the Australian Federal Government apologized to the Aboriginal children ("the Stolen Generation") and their families. In the following year, it apologized to the "British Child Migrants" and the "Forgotten Australians." The British Child Migrants were children from poor families sent by the British government to Australia for adoption. Many were placed in Australian orphanages where they were forced to work as unpaid laborers and abused. The Forgotten Australians were children separated from family members under draconian child “protection” laws.

Robinson and other first mothers are pressing the Federal Government to apologize to single mothers who lost their children to adoption between 1965 and 1975 (the Australian “baby scoop era.” These children are sometimes referred to as the “white stolen generation.” The Western Australia Parliament issued an apology to mothers in 2010.

Australia continues to import children from abroad to meet the demand of would-be adopters, a practice based on the same ideology (some would call it hubris) that resulted in the wholesale removal of earlier generations of children. As we’ve written here, the demand for healthy infants in Australia, the US, and other western countries has resulted in kidnappings and exploitation of poor families. The latest in this sad saga is the reported kidnapping and sale for adoption of at least 16 Chinese babies claimed to have been born in violation of strict family planning rules.

Robinson concludes by asking for an end to intercountry adoption:
“As a caring, responsible nation, we have no justification for facilitating intercountry adoption, as we have a responsibility to learn from the mistakes of the past and not to repeat them. Apologies may appear to be empty and meaningless, if they are not followed by genuine change.
In the near future, the Australian Government will doubtless be apologising to the Intercountry Stolen Generation.”

5 comments :

  1. We hope Evelyn's closing words come to pass, but first we have the Inquiry into forced adoptions to get through and then the results of that, which we hope will be an apology.
    The story of the aboriginal children is of course more complex than it appears and some of it tied up in different standards of child care and sexual and other abuse.It doesn't get any better.
    Please note that these first Australians like to be called aboriginal and not aborigines.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is my firm belief that educated nations of the world need to lead the charge in the negating of any adoption that includes any monetary payment, for or after, adoption oriented. That we need to lead the world in the ending of adoption as a practice for obtaining a baby....

    Maybe then, since there is not way social services is going to stop taking children, those children that actually do need homes will get them.... from people that really do want to help and that are able to truly open their hearts and homes and lives to the children. Maybe then guardianship would finally be accepted as the norm rather than adoption.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Our country has a lopsided view of adoption. I’m frustrated by the ‘cotton ball world’ picture that the media and government present of adoption. And I appreciate the excellent job FMF does of identifying many of those lopsided views, why they’re lopsided and what it means for those involved with adoption.

    Last year I met a social worker from Belgium, where the state handles adoptions, who told me that domestic adoptions are in the single digits and that they work to support mothers so they can raise their children. There are instances when a child is abused or the parents are addicted to drugs or alcohol, where children are placed in foster homes but parental rights and visits are maintained. Intercountry adoptions still take place but are limited. I don’t know what number equates to limited but she was keenly aware of the child trafficking problems. What impressed me was her recognition of the incongruity of allowing intercountry adoption and at the same time working to end domestic adoption.

    I don’t know what the outcome will be for Belgium on that front but awareness is an important step to taking action, and in a country where the state handles adoption it seems hopeful that intercountry adoption too, will come to an end.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbit-Proof Fence is one of my favorite all-time anti-adoption, pro mother's love, pro adoptee return to mother movie!

    Bring hankies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jane,

    Good article I must say that searching all over the world fir a baby will never stop until those that just have to have a baby get it. Sadly so many don't and of course greed and need lead those who think they can take a baby and make it theirs. A baby grows up and wants to know who their mother is it is a human need to know the truth.

    Ps the pictures are cute

    ReplyDelete

BOTH JANE AND LORRAINE WILL BE AWAY FROM COMPUTERS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS IN EARLY AUGUST. PLEASE BE PATIENT.

We welcome comments from all, and appreciate letting us know how you relate to adoption when you leave your first comment.


COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish or not. We are trying to find a way to end the endless anonymous comments, which drive many of us crazy. Pick a name! Any name. Choose the NAME/URL selection. You do not need a URL. Your name does not have to be your name IRL though we appreciate those who do, and we understand due to the sensitive nature of our subject, many will prefer to use a nom de plume. Okay with us, but the endless Anons are tiresome for everyone. If you post as "anonymous" you run the risk of not being posted.

We try to be timely but we do have other lives.

For those coming here from Networked Blogs on Facebook, if it does not allow you to make a comment, click the "x" on the gray "Networked Blogs" tool bar to exit out of that frame and it should then let you comment.