Current
Adoption Policy and Practice -
a comparison between North America and Australia
Evelyn Burns Robinson
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. 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, MA, Dip Ed, BSW
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
