|
Current Adoption Policy and
Practice -
A Comparison Between North America and Australia
by Evelyn Robinson (M.A., Dip. Ed., B.SW.)
Introduction
I am often asked about current adoption policy and practice in
Australia and how this differs from policy and practice in North
America. Although I have never worked in a situation where adoptions
were actually taking place, I have had considerable experience
in post-adoption services for the last fifteen years and, in that
time, I have counselled many whose lives have been affected by
adoption. I have also been able to acquire some understanding
of current adoption policy and practice from colleagues in the
field. During my visits to North America and through my contacts
with colleagues there, I have also gained some background information
on current adoption practices in North America. It seems to me
that there are fundamental differences between what I perceive
to be happening with domestic adoptions in Australia and what
I perceive to be happening with domestic adoptions in North America.
I recognise that adoption policy is, in both places, subject
to state rather than federal legislation and so there are variations
in policy and practice from state to state (in this article, for
simplicity, I have referred to 'state' legislation, although I
am aware that in both North America and Australia there exist
states, territories and provinces). My comments are, therefore,
of a general nature only, as I appreciate that there are many
local variations. I am most familiar, of course, with policy and
practice in my home state of South Australia, but I am aware that
most other states in Australia operate in similar ways. Adoption
policy and practice in South Australia are based on the South
Australian Adoption Act (1988) and have been in effect since that
act was passed in 1989. Since 1989, it has been possible to appraise
and monitor the outcomes of this legislation and the act was officially
reviewed in 1994. At that time, submissions were invited from
members of the public, as well as groups with an interest in adoption.
Some minor alterations to the act were made on the basis of this
review and there have been no official moves to make any alterations
to the legislation since that time.
South Australia was the first state in Australia to put in place
adoption legislation which seeks to protect and support the relationship
between a newborn child and his or her families of origin, as
well as allowing equal access to adoption information when the
adopted child becomes an adult. Other states have followed with
similar adoption acts.
Adoption agencies
Private adoptions are illegal in all states in Australia. All
domestic adoptions are enacted by State Government departments.
There are no commercially-based adoption agencies which are licensed
to manage these adoptions, which means that there are no payments
of any kind connected to the adoptions of these children.
In contrast, in North America, private adoption agencies are
licensed to arrange domestic adoptions. Because adoption has been
allowed to acquire a commercial status in North America, there
are financial advantages for agencies in arranging as many adoptions
as possible. Agencies in North America, therefore, have an incentive
to attract customers, just as any other business does.
Many people have expressed to me that they find the fact that
money and children change hands in the same transactions to be
at the very least distasteful, if not, in fact, immoral.
Expectant mothers
Expectant mothers in Australia, regardless of their circumstances,
are generally encouraged and supported to prepare for raising
their children. After the birth, a Parenting Payment is available
from the Federal Government to anyone, regardless of their gender
or marital status, who is a permanent resident of Australia and
who has custody of a child. This payment, which is means-tested,
is a recognition by the Australian government that children are
the basis of a country's future. The government, therefore, makes
financial support available to parents to assist them to provide
for their children. As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding
payment available at a Federal Government level in North America,
although I have been advised that there may be tax benefits for
parents who are in paid employment.
While there is still a degree of disapproval in some quarters
towards single parenthood, there is a much greater level of acceptance
in Australia than there was in the past. This has resulted in
a dramatic decrease in the number of adoptions in Australia over
the last thirty years. Last year in the state of South Australia
(which has a population of more than two million people), for
example, only one Australian-born child was adopted.
The term 'birthmother' (or 'birth mother') is currently out of
favour with many of the support groups in Australia and certainly
would never be used, as I have heard it used in North America,
to describe an expectant mother. I have even heard the term 'birthmother-to-be'
used to describe a pregnant woman. This sinister use of the term
'birthmother', before the birth has even taken place, implies
that the separation of mother and child is a foregone conclusion.
Expectant mothers in Australia, on the other hand, are generally
encouraged to concentrate on their approaching motherhood throughout
their pregnancies and no decisions regarding their child's future
are expected to be made until after the birth has occurred. This
is an acknowledgement of the fact that it is not possible for
a mother to know how she will feel about her child until after
the child has been born.
Expectant fathers
I know that, in North America, fathers who are not married to
the mothers of their children have a difficult time being heard.
In South Australia, an unmarried mother who is considering adoption
will always be asked to name the child's father and attempts will
be made to include him in the decision-making process. If the
father is named on the birth certificate or if a man is recognised
by the court as being the father of a child, then his consent
is necessary before that child can be adopted. The father will
be allowed time to establish paternity. If the father wishes to
raise the child, he has the right to do so. If the mother and
father do not agree with regard to the child's future, the matter
may be decided by the Family Court. This would happen before any
consent to adoption had been completed.
Consent to adoption
Under the South Australian Adoption Act (1988), consent to adoption
cannot be given until the child is at least fourteen days old.
Counselling after the birth is compulsory and must be completed
at least three days prior to consent being given. The mother of
the child must also be given information in writing regarding
the consequences of the adoption, prior to any taking of consent.
After the consent has been signed there is a period of twenty-five
days during which the consent may be revoked. This period can
be extended by up to fourteen days, but it cannot be shortened.
In practice, the consent to adoption is sometimes not finalised
until several months after the birth. While this may not be an
ideal situation, it is felt to be of prime importance that children
have every opportunity to be raised within their families of origin.
This will prevent the long term complexities in the lives of those
children and their parents, which would occur if an adoption took
place. During this period the child may remain with the mother
and/or father.
I have heard of cases in North America, tragically, in which adoption
consents have been signed even before the birth, or very soon
after the birth. I have also heard of cases where attempts to
revoke the consent the day after it had been signed have failed.
Meetings with prospective adopters
In Australia there is never any contact of any kind between expectant
mothers and prospective adopters. I know that there are many who
agree with me that such contacts are intrusive, disempowering
to the expectant mother and potentially exploitative. They may
even serve to encourage an inappropriate sense of 'ownership'
in the prospective adopters, which, I believe, shows a lack of
respect for and understanding of the sanctity of the mother/child
bond. I am aware that this shocking practice is considered by
many to be unethical.
In South Australia, only after the consent to adoption has been
signed and after the twenty-five day revocation period has expired
will the government department involved select adopters for the
child. After this decision has been made, a meeting may take place
between the prospective adopters who have been selected and the
mother, if the mother requests such a meeting. Prospective adopters
will not have any contact at all with the child until after the
revocation period has expired and they have been notified that
they have been selected to adopt.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can support the practice
of having prospective adopters meet with expectant mothers and
try to induce them to consent to the adoption of the child they
are carrying. I believe that prospective adopters are sometimes
even allowed to be present at the hospital while the birth is
taking place. I was appalled to hear that this happens in North
America. I find such behaviour totally inappropriate and unethical.
It concerns me greatly that prospective adopters who behave in
this way are not thereby considered as unsuitable to adopt.
Birth certificates
In South Australia, if the adopters are willing, they can have
their names added to the child's original birth certificate instead
of having a new one issued. This means that, after the adoption,
the names of both the parents and the adopters appear on the same
document, which is the child's legal birth certificate. The mother
of the child has access to the original birth certificate from
the time that the adoption takes place. The father also has access
if his name appears on the birth certificate.
Regardless of the type of birth certificate issued, adopted adults
in South Australia have access to their original birth certificates
and other documentation pertaining to their adoption, when they
are eighteen years old. The original birth certificate has details
of their parents, including their names and addresses at the time
of the adoption. They may have access prior to the age of eighteen
with the consent of their adopters. The mother of the adopted
child also has access to the replacement birth certificate when
the adopted child becomes an adult, at the age of eighteen years.
This document has details of the child's adopted name and the
names of the adopters and their address at the time of the adoption.
These documents are also available to the children of the mothers,
either if the mother gives permission or after her death and to
the children of an adopted adult, if the adopted adult gives permission
or after their death. Similar access to adoption information is
available in all states, although in some cases, the release of
information can be prevented by a person involved in the adoption.
Fathers also have the right to access information about their
children under certain circumstances. The legislation which allows
this access has been in effect in South Australia since 1989.
I know that there are some states in North America where adopted
adults are allowed to access their original birth certificates
but there are no states, as far as I am aware, in which parents
are allowed to access the replacement birth certificates once
their children are adults. I look forward to the time when equal
access to adoption information, such as exists in South Australia,
will be accepted as a basic human right everywhere in North America.
This is an on-going issue of social justice.
The right to raise a child
There seems to be an unhealthy attitude in North America that
there are some people who are 'entitled' to raise children (whether
their own or someone else's) and that there are others who are
not. The result of this seems to be that, rather than adoption
existing to serve needy children, adoption seems to exist to a
large extent to serve needy adults. In some sectors of the media
in North America, the idea that certain people have a right to
acquire a child, by any means at their disposal, seems to go unchallenged.
Although this misguided notion does, no doubt, also have some
support in areas of the Australian media, I find this attitude
to be much less prevalent in Australia than it is in North America.
Removing children from families
I was very shocked to learn that, in North America, parents who
are married and already have children are being persuaded to relinquish
newly-born infants. The subsequent separation of such a child
from a previously intact family is causing enormous losses, for
the child, for the parents, for the other children in the family,
for the grandparents as well as many other members of the extended
family. This does not, to my knowledge, happen anywhere in Australia.
Apparently, having children while on a low income is now perceived
as such a crime in some parts of North America, that this dreadful
punishment has been devised. If poverty is considered to be a
disadvantage to such children, then government initiatives which
address the issue of poverty would be more useful to them than
replacing the complications created in their lives by poverty
with the complications created by adoption.
In my professional opinion as a social worker, any prospective
adopters who would be willing to acquire a child in this way,
from an established family, would be considered to be unsuitable
candidates to be entrusted with child-rearing responsibilities.
It seems that a 'supply' of such children, who already have an
entire family of relatives, is being engineered to meet the 'demand'
created by affluent strangers, who wish to attempt to manufacture
a family through adoption. I cannot comprehend how anyone could
consider such a transaction to be anything other than exploitative
and socially unjust.
Adoptions of older children
While there are many in North America who are working in family
preservation programmes to prevent separations of mothers and
babies, I am saddened by the fact that there are still those who
believe that adoption is an appropriate outcome for older children
who are unable to return to live with their families. Adoption
is rarely considered to be an appropriate outcome for such children
in Australia.
I have heard it said in North America that adoption can provide
such children with a sense of security. In fact, in my opinion,
the opposite is the case. Children such as these know who they
are and to whom they are related. These realities do not change,
no matter where the child is living. To deny that identity and
those connections by issuing the child with a false birth certificate
has, in fact, the potential to create an enormous sense of insecurity.
If their identity and their family connections are so dispensable,
then how can a child in this situation develop any sense of reality
and permanence? We all know that being part of an adoptive family
does not provide protection against abuse, death or divorce. Adoption,
in fact, does not guarantee permanence of any kind and is actually
an attempt to create relationships where none existed previously,
rather than honouring those relationships which already exist.
In Australia, children who are unable to live with their families
can be provided with a safe home environment, based on an arrangement
which accepts and honours the reality of their identity and their
existing relationships. This, I believe, can allow them to heal
and recover without involving them in the deceit and denial associated
with adoption. Some of these children have already been traumatised
by the abuse or neglect which they have suffered. In my opinion,
it is unnecessarily cruel to add to their trauma by subjecting
them to an adoption.
Conclusion
I am not, of course, suggesting that every child in Australia
lives in an ideal family environment. However, it is not considered
to be appropriate in Australia to try to solve the problems of
poverty and abuse in families, by removing children and arranging
for them to be adopted.
Adoption is not a commercial transaction in Australia and it
is gradually being replaced by other, more effective means of
providing homes for children in need. This suggests to me that
Australians respect the advantages in life which cannot be bought,
including a sense of knowing who we are and where we fit, a sense
of heritage and ancestry and a respect for the intrinsic value
of family membership.
I look forward to the day when children all over the world will
no longer be removed from what are perceived to be dysfunctional
poor families and placed in what too often turn out to be dysfunctional
affluent families.
© Evelyn Robinson, M.A., Dip. Ed., B.SW.
January, 2004
This article may be reproduced for non-commercial
purposes only, providing that
it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.
Evelyn Robinson, who is a counsellor, speaker and
author of Adoption
and Loss -
The Hidden Grief, welcomes contact from interested
readers.
Clova Publications
PO Box 328, Christies Beach, South Australia 5165
Tel: +61 - 8 - 8384 5805 / Fax: +61 - 8 - 8384 5815
E-mail: erobinson@austarmetro.com.au
Web site: www.clovapublications.com
|
Considering
adoption? Don't feel you have any other options? We're here to help!
