THE UNTOLD STORY OF BABY TRAFFICKING IN VICTORIA AUSTRALIA.

THE UNTOLD STORY OF BABY TRAFFICKING IN VICTORIA DURING THE 1940s/50s/60s INTRODUCTION BABIES sold for 50 POUND IN VICTORIA AUSTRALIA

Australian Governments have yet to acknowledge the plight of many of vulnerable  infants who were sold to couples for 50 pounds.

These children’s stories remain a hidden part of our social and political history.

With a history of Male dominance and being shielded in covert graft which was linked to the abortion racquet the sale of babies was recorded in daily newspaper articles, women’s magazines, and even in parliamentary debates.

The introduction of the Model Adoption Of Children’s act inaugurated a Principle Officer thereby theoretically eliminating the need for a Fathers consent but it also heralded the cessation of the understood meaning of private adoptions instead it placed adoption in the hands of the mainly church based Non Government Organizations (NGOs).
The babies born in the era prior to the proclamation of the 1964 Adoption Of Children act (this is the era this paper focuses on) are now adults 50 years and upwards, some of these people may have passed away before knowing the truth about their birth circumstances. The search /research continues or has not yet begun for some adults who were caught up in this period of baby
trafficking.
After the 2nd World War, sterility clinics were established in the major hospitals around Australia due to one in six servicemen not having a family and adoption was regarded to be the new panacea

1743517_268792966618889_775041091_n

1. The demand to adopt increased amid the general populace, particularly female babies under twelve months

2. Adoption was embraced and transformed by the wider community to create a perfect solution for adopters and mothers with babies born out of wedlock. Appalled with the introduction of a Commonwealth pension by the Prime minister Mr Menzies for unmarried women of military personal the moral high ground was being heavily enforced by the churches.

3 An unfortunate  mother could place her baby for adoption and then return to her rightful place in society, and a child would not have to wear the blight, because it would have two married parents, and it solved the problem of infertility or of a person with a history of still born baby’s. Adoption was also seen by some doctors to be a profitable opportunity and they placed it as an adjunct to their lucrative abortion racquet

4 An article published in a Sydney newspaper in 1950 claiming a ring was employing operators in Victoria to run a black market in illegitimate babies and charging mothers to have their babies at a private premise, they guaranteed, that they would find a good home for their baby. The baby was then sold by the operator to the highest bidder. In 1950, another claim was made that an interstate organization with contracts in the majority of hospitals and foundling homes was responsible for the trade of babies throughout the Commonwealth.

1091233_202848453213341_2056636538_o (1)5 The headquarters of this organization was believed to be in Sydney and that if an approach was made through the right channels in Melbourne it was possible to buy a baby. Wanting to expose these unscrupulous people two investigative journalists went to a hotel and bought a baby for 25 pounds. Women were reported in most cases not to receive any money for their baby and “baby black marketers kept all the money they made from the sale.”

6. The headlines of the Argus read “Baby Traffic Probe is on” when reporting an investigation was being held into babies being sold to childless couples. The article reported that Mr Cremean from the Federal Labour Government revealed in The House of Representatives parliament that the practice for charging for the adoption was a widespread practice in capital cities

7 Mr Cremean asserted that children from unmarried mothers were being sold for 50 pounds in Melbourne and other capital cities. Mr Cremean asked for an Inquiry to obtain evidence against “unscrupulous doctors, whom he suspected in engaging in this obnoxious trade”. He said it was as “bad as the white slave traffic or the drug trade.” “The women are sent to a certain private hospital in Melbourne for confinement where they remain until after the baby was born. The baby is then taken over by the doctors”. Cremean then stated that: “these doctors keep well in the background and operate through intermediaries; finally dispose of the child to foster parents”. He believed the price of a baby was 50 pounds. Cremean identified that the doctors “never appeared
as direct negotiators.” Many of the children appeared to be illegitimate and when the child was legally adopted the “register of births was cancelled and the record was transferred to the register of adopted children”.

8. The records could only be inspected with an order of a Supreme Court judge.
A Sydney Morning Herald journalist reported that: “there should be an investigation of the adoption register which would show the coincidence of the number of times adopted babies came from the one hospital with the same doctor as intermediary.” It was noted in the article “that more than one private hospital specialized in that type of operation .It would have been found that the doctor responsible for the confinement was the same as the doctor giving the final authority for the disposal of the baby to the foster parents.”

9 Sir Earle Page for the Federal Department of Health assured Mr Cremean that the “alleged sale of babies through State Health Departments will be investigated.
John Cremean proposed to “scrutinise records of illegitimate births and baby adoptions.”

10) A Sydney hospital and four Melbourne hospitals were selling babies to childless couples. Two doctors operate city practices. One of the doctors’ enticed pregnant women by offering to charge no fees was identified as a leading social figure in Melbourne and had “criminal contact  to put him in touch with  pregnant women. Babies were sold for 50 pounds, but wealthy clients were prepared to pay up to 150 pounds. The women carried out light domestic duties in return for free confinement. In some cases the mother’s hospital Bill was paid for by the Hospital Benefits Act Allowance and the adopting couple. The hospital received 15 % of the adoption fee also.
The doctor handling the confinement was reported to have been given the greatest cut after meeting a childless couple, assuring them of a baby, he requested money required for legal expenses and tipping. They filled out request forms and the application were then duly lodged with the authorities

1798325_268813473283505_520010835_n11. Mr E.J. Pittard, Secretary of the Victorian Children’s Welfare department denied the claims although he affirmed that the adoption of Infants act stated that payments to the “child’s parents for possession of the child were illegal, he argued adoptions had to be authorized by a County Court judge and a judge would refuse to authorize the adoption. On the other hand unofficially senior members of Government department’s admit to the racket’s existence, however police say that it is difficult to prove whether money is passed

 

12 12 a On further consideration Mr Pittard admitted that “some people would do almost anything for a chance to adopt and if they paid for a child they may not have been too keen to talk about what they had done “if there is evidence of payment, it would be difficult to prove that it is for the child.”.

13 he concluded while payment may have occurred, the money could have been paid for clothing for the child or for a pram

14 Pittard recommended to hand an investigation over to the police or the Attorney- General’s Department. It was reported that: “Child welfare officials were powerless in Victoria to prevent this practice, and that under the Child Welfare Act there is no law to prevent the sale of infants. Steps were being made to overcome this position. Authorities have ordered an investigation and a move to bring about new legislation may be made.

15a. Mr Pittard recommended in a memorandum to the undersecretary titled Further recommendation to the Adoption act pushed for tighter regulations in appointing a Guardian ad Litem regarding the protection of the Child’s rights “That all application come under the preparatory investigation of a qualified experienced authority… as the act stands a person who already has the baby in their care has the right to nominate the person to investigate all circumstances and if the court is satisfied it appoints accordingly, however the person holding the baby will invariably nominate a person they know knows them favourably and therefore desirable impartiality is frequently absent”
The department did not have the right to investigate the prospective adopters (foster parents) .

16a Pittard was also very concerned with the role of the Guardian ad Litem and their conflict of interest also he wanted the Department to take control of agencies ensured accountability, he said “my feelings in the matter now are primarily to agree that several agencies referred to certainly are entitled to respect for their handling of adoption arrangements but that they are responsible for only a small percentage of the adoptions negotiated in this state the facts are that average annual number of adoption orders granted by the courts over the past 5 years is 1090 of which, as near as can be gauged, the number contributed by reliable agencies is 240 and this department produces approximately 50 this means that in the vicinity of 800 cases are arranged annually by other than the third reliable agencies, and to my mind it is wrong to leave alone the interests of such a majority in consideration of the treatment of such a few”

17 b recorded The chief almoner of Queen Victoria Hospital Patricia Jackson stated in the 1946/1947 annual report that the new legislation was creating more work for her as she now had to apply on behalf of Mothers for the benefits newly legislated for single mothers

18 However natural mothers attending private institution were not being made privy to any financial assistance

19 In the 1950’s, Mrs Primrose, Secretary of an East Melbourne Founding’s home highlighted that they had a long list of people wanting to adopt children.
Victorian Police admitted that the “law controlling babies was loose and could be exploited, but there was no evidence to support the charge made by Mr Cremean that babies were being sold for 50 pounds”

20 The Victorian police claimed to have had no knowledge of a black market in babies

1003042_202854413212745_155206611_n

21 One month later in April 1950, a newspaper reported that one Melbourne hospital and one doctor were believed to be involved in a baby selling racket in Melbourne The article does not identify the name of the hospital or doctor.

22 As has already been stated the same doctors who performed Dilation and Curettes (D and Cs) on patients who had been aborted by private operators were referring patients and paying Policemen for protection ,were also providing the childless couples with babies. Mrs Jean Field started undertaking abortions in 1950 and she was reported to have given 62,000 pounds in cash to form a company. Her abortion fees of 10 pounds to 30 pounds or “nothing if they were poor.”
And the money had been kept for her by a doctor who had died in 1955.

23/ 23 a however one city hospital in Melbourne and a hospital owner who is alleged to be in partnership selling babies
with a high society doctor are named in a confidential letter from Mr John L. Cremean M.P. to the Chief Secretary the Hon. Dodgshun M.L.A on the 24 July 1951 requesting the secretary carry out a personal inquiry into those people.

1962883_271569876341198_1595165201_n

23 b Dr Norval Morris has noted that “more than 750 orphaned babies in Victoria go out to “unchecked” parents and this should be noted by the Government. At this time new legislation was being framed to create a “clear a path through the jungle of the State’s child welfare laws. “

24 In South Melbourne Avonhurst Private Hospital was operating from 7 Queens Road in 1952 it was the birth place of a male child “William” and is one of the hospitals identified by John Cremean.

It has not been established in a court of Law that certain members of the Victorian police force found it impossible to obtain evidence of baby trafficking because they were receiving protection money from the doctors involved and that the state government refused to acknowledge baby trafficking was happening in Victoria notwithstanding the welfare dept, and other agencies involved in adoptions concurring it occurred, and it is difficult to get indictable proof, that the Vic government found flaws in the adoption bill and considered amending the Act to prevent possible Illegal sale of children

25 and that VAUCLUSE PRIVATE HOSPITAL in Brunswick and THE MANNER HOUSE in Campbellfield were also involved in baby trafficking.

Dr Heath and Dr Edmond’s were supplying babies for adoption.

research shows that Heath was supplying babies as an adjunct to his abortion business and kept the mothers at the manner house in Cambelfield and the babies were delivered at Vaucluse Private Hospital It is also known that the babies left the hospital to go to St Vincent’s Private Hospital where Matron Fagin would give them to catholic families for Adoption.

The Manner House

The Racket by Gideon Hague.

42795940_1122379991260178_3610715938447425536_n

REFERENCES
1.Senate Inquiry Origins Spasa amendment
2 (The Canberra Times, Wednesday 7th of February, 1945, (The Canberra Times, Wednesday 7th of February, 1945, .
3 Letter from Council of Church’s to Mr Menzies
4 The Racquet Gideon Haigh pages 53,54, 62
5 Black Market in Babies (Morning Bulletin, 31st of January, 1949, p.3)
6 (The Northern Miner, 20th of November, 1950, p1)
7The Argus newspaper (Thursday 30th of March 1950, p3) read
8 28th March 1950 senate adjournment speech Mr cremean
9”(The Sydney Morning Herald, 29th of March, 1950 p.1)
10 (The Argus, Thursday 30th of March 1950, p3).”
11 The Charleville Times reported in July 1950 (p.5
12 Thursday 30th of March 1950, p3 passed
13 (The Charleville Times, Thursday 20th of July, 1950, p.5).” 13a the adoption of infants act 1928
14 (The Argus, 30th of March, 1950).”
15(The Mercury, 30th of March, 1950, p.2.)
16a (The Northern Miner, Monday 20th of November, 1950, p.1).”
16b Court of petty sessions Rules adoption act 31st
17 1928 Adoption Act.
17b Memorandum to Undersecretary 9th
18 Patricia Jackson Chief Almoner 1946/1947 Queen Victoria Hospital Annual report
19 A Mother
20 The Mercury newspaper (Hobart) Thursday 30th of March, 1950, p.2.).
21.” (The Argus, 30th of March 1950, p3).
22.(Northern Miner, Monday, 3rd of April 1950, p.1)
23. (The Canberra Times, Saturday 21 March, 1970, p3).
23a Kaye inquiry 1970
23b The Racket by Gideon Haigh p 53/ 54
24The Argus, Monday 3 May, 1954).
25(The Argus Friday 31st March 1950 page 3)

 

Advertisements

MY FATHER Interesting Mum named me after him and they were both 26 years old.

This is one option we are following at the moment that seems to fit. Rosemary says that any DNA from other family will help confirm your DNA match with your mothers and fathers family. One hit is the start but not the end.

WILLIAM GEORGE ELLIS FAMILY INFORMATION

WILLIAM GEORGE ELLIS is referred to as Johns Father. As not to confuse readers with the different Williams in the family, William Hammersley/John xxxx is referred to as John.

 William George Ellis (John’s father) was born 6/1/1924 in Islington, Great London, England

His parents William Samuel Ellis and Mabel Townsend (John’s Grandparents)

Williams mother Mabel Townsend was married three times. Her first marriage was supposedly to a bigamist. She then married William Samuel Ellis second marriage (John’s Grandfather) who was in the First World War in the Navy. He died around 1933. Mabel married William John Henry (Third husband (John’s step Grandfather) and came to Australia to live

When?

After William Bill (John’s Father) had come to Australia William Bill (John’s Father) was living with parents in England in 1949-50 when William Bill (John’s Father) applied for immigration to Australia.

Mabel (John’s Grandmother) had a daughter with William John Henry (Third husband (John’s step Grandfather) who was named Sylvia in her 3rd marriage who also came to Australia.

When?

After William Bill (John’s Father) had come to Australia William Bill (John’s Father) was living with parents and Sylvia in England in 1949-50 when William Bill (John’s Father) applied for immigration to Australia.

Mabel died in Australia and is buried with her third husband in Canberra. They had married in1935 in Ramford England.

The Question is what took him to Canberra

Keith (a distant cousin from England) said that Mabel’s second husband William Samuel Ellis (John’s Grandfather second marriage) died around 1933-34, and the Ellis children from this marriage were placed in care for a period of time before they were returned to their mother Mabel. One of these children was (John’s father) William George Ellis; another was Eileen who lives now in Canberra. And migrated to Australia after (Johns Father William Bill) had arrived in Australia (It looks like (John’s Father William Bill) was first to come to Australia)

Further facts and figures about the early family can be found on my Ancestry family tree.

England

 1944-1947 – William George Ellis (Johns father) was a contract painter before undertaking war service in the British Army. His forms for Migration to Australia indicate that he possibly completed an apprenticeship in Painting.

List of employment stated on William (Johns fathers) immigration record

Eileen (John fathers sister) reported to Marg (Researcher) from NSW that the family was bombed three times in the 2nd WW in London.

 1949- William George Ellis (Johns father) applied for Immigration to Australia (26th of October 1949) (British citizen, 5 feet 10 inches, 10 lb, 8 stone). This was two years after he finished his time in the army.

(Johns Father William) had to pay 10 pounds to come to Australia under a Commonwealth Government scheme. There was much work in Australia Post second World War. When asked the question of how much money on his immigration application he would bring with him to Australia, he mentioned 20 pounds (Immigration papers). He was not a man with significant resources. When filling out his application he was living with his mother and her 3rd husband William John Henry at 445 Barlow Moor Road, CCH, M/C21. Also his half sister Sylvia was likely to have been living there as well. A couple of his jobs appeared to be on the same road. It is interesting to note he was working for Morris and Sons before the World War 2 and returned working for them after the War.

1951- Ship – SS New Australia. Left from Southhampton, 15th of February, 1951 for Australia, and the ship record indicates that William George Ellis (Johns father) was aboard and disembarked in Melbourne.

Melbourne

1951- The ship first arrived at Fremantle in Western Australia and then came to Melbourne and docked on the 17th of March, 1951. It is likely to have been at Princes Pier in Port Melbourne.

At this time, Gloria ran Guesthouse house at 34 Coles Crescent, Coburg East (1951/52). Not electoral rolls have been sourced as yet with Gloria listed in this location.

Wally (Gloria’s 2nd husband) arrives in Australia in October 1951 about three months after Johns conception.

John was born as “William Langdon” at the “Avonhurst” Private Hospital, Queens Road, South Melbourne on the 26th of February, 1952, John would have been conceived around May 1951. William George Ellis (his father) arrived into Melbourne in March 1951 indicating the conception would have been within 3 months of him landing in Australia.

The Canberra Story

Information from Property Tenancy Record

House Number 16 Hoddles Garden, Canberra

3/2/1941 Occupied by Mr L G Luton and his wife Doris May Flemming. She will be known as Dot and in this document. Dot went onto marry Johns father William George Ellis. She would be Johns step mother. Mr Luton has had a history of depression and suicided on the 29/12/1950, leaving Dot, and his wife with three children. Several notices of his death and circumstances appeared in the Canberra Times.

The children were- Janice Lorraine Luton, Lloyd Henry Luton and Anthony Richard Luton (1941-2005). You could say these children were Johns step sister and brothers. Memorial notices from Dot (Stepmother) appeared in the Canberra Times for 5 years. (until 1955) (reported by Marg, Researcher, NSW). Anthony was born in 1941, but no other birth dates or other information has been sourced for Janice and Lloyd.

2//1950 Dot is listed as a widow on the Property Tenancy Record.

***1943, 1949 and 1954 Dot (Step mother) listed on the Electoral roll with surname ‘Luton’ in Canberra

 

 

 

 

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article91203407

 

Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 – 1995), Wednesday 9 February 1955, page 2

 

National Library of Australia

 

 

 

 

 

William George Ellis aged 30 years fined for negligent driving in Canberra Petty court session, Campbell Street address, no street number listed.

Information from Property Tenancy Record

25/6/1957 Dot listed as Mrs Ellis

Doris May Fleming (Dot, Johns Stepmother) was born 18/4/1918. Based on this she was 6 years older than William George Ellis (6/1/1924)

William (Johns Father) and Dot likely to have married therefore between February 1955 (newspaper article date) and  25/6/1957 (Property Tenancy Record.)

1957 -Mabel Townend (Grandmother of John) dies in 1957 in Canberra . Mabel buried in Canberra.

June ? 1957- Sylvia Ann HENRY (1/2 sister of Johns father, Mabel her mother and father William John Henry) married Robert Frederick Stephens, Carpenter in Canberra. She was on the Canberra Electoral roll until 1980.

1958 – Dot (Stepmother) on Electoral Roll, 16 Hoddles Garden, Canberra

1958 – William (Johns Father) on Electoral Roll, 16 Hoddles Garden, Canberra. Painter

 Information from Property Tenancy Record

1/5/59 – William George Ellis (Father) is listed as being on the registry instead of Dot (John’s stepmother).

1963, Dot on Electoral Roll, 16 Hoddles Garden, Canberra

1963 – William (Johns Father) on Electoral Roll, 16 Hoddles Garden, Canberra. Painter

1964- THE KIJAKS FROM CANBERRA – Travelled by Aircraft to Australia- 1st of October, 1964. Eileen (born 23 of September 1928), Kazimeirz Kijak (born 12th of May 1919) her husband and two children Carol Ann (born 20th of August, 1954) (1st cousin)  and Christine (born 9th of April, 1956) (1st cousin) Record from National Archives.

An Article about Kaz Kijak, (written after his death) (Uncle) identifies that two of Eileen’s (Johns auntie) family were living Canberra when they arrived the 1960s. These two were William George Ellis (Johns Father) and Sylvia Henry (William George Ellis ½ sister). Sylvia, Eileen and William George Ellis were ½ siblings.

1965 – William HENRY (STEPGRANDFATHER, married to Mabel Townsend GRANDMOTHER) dies and is buried 10th of July 1965 with Mabel (WODEN CEMETERY, CANBERRA).

1965- Probate Notice – Sylvia (Johns ½ aunt, sister of Johns Father) was an Executor on the William HENRY Estate. Also William George Ellis (Johns Father) was also an Executor. At this time, Sylvia was listed as living at 15 Hope Street, Dixon, Canberra.  William (Johns father) was still living at Hoddles Street and his occupation was a Company Representative. William Henry (Johns Step grandfather) was listed as Retired Public Servant.

1968- Dot (Johns Stepmother) on Electoral Roll in 16 Hoddle Street, Canberra

1968- William (Johns Father) on Electoral Roll in 16 Hoddle Street, Canberra.

1971 Canberra Times- Christine KIJAK (First Cousin) married Paul Smith in Canberra. Sister Carol Ann married a Stonham in Canberra.

1972- William (Johns Father) on Electoral Roll in 16 Hoddle Street, Canberra.

1977 – Dot (Stepmother) on Electoral Roll in 16 Hoddle Street, Canberra.

1977-     William (Johns Father) on Electoral Roll in 16 Hoddle Street, Canberra.

1980 – Dot (Step mother) on Electoral Roll in Canberra in 16 Hoddle Street, Canberra.

1980 – William (Johns Father) on Electoral Roll in 16 Hoddle Street, Canberra.

1981- Doris Mabel Ellis (John’s fathers sister) dies in Wales. She married a Mr Littler and had six children. Those children were:

Vera has 3 children

Robert (Bob) had 4 children

Shirley 4 children

William (Bill) 2 children

Lynda 6 children

Alan 4 children

At this stage, nothing has been sourced about Dot (stepmother) and William (father) and their life in Tuross and when they first moved onto the coast. Christine Kijak indicated that they had lived there for some time before they died. Tuross is a nice small fishing community on the NSW central coast.

Dot (Step mother) died and was buried at Moruya Cemetery, close to Tuross on 08/09/1996. She had been living at Tuross with Johns father before her death. William George Ellis (Father), was buried at Moruya Cemetery on the 29/01/1999 and has lived at Tuross Head. He died about 16 months after Dot.

After Eileen Kijak (Johns father sister) and Kaz Kijak retire they moved to Tuross for about four years before moving back to Canberra to be near grandchildren. No year is yet known when this occurred.

(Could be 2003 to 2004 approx. based on a theory that (Eileen John’s Aunty Bill’s sister) and her husband went to Tuross to look after William (Bill) after he lost his wife Dot.)

 

 

 

 

 

Adoption in Australia and its Breaches of Human Rights.

images

 

Adoption in Australia and its Breaches of Human Rights.

Author: Sharyn White

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

Much of the legislation in the Adoption Acts in the various jurisdictions of Australia is in direct contravention of the rights enshrined in the UNCRC, particularly those which fall under these clusters:

Civil rights and freedoms – particularly:
• birth registration, name and nationality (art. 7)
• preservation of identity (art.
• protection of privacy and protection of the image (art. 16)

and Family environment and alternative care – particularly:
• separation from parents (art. 9)
• family reunification (art. 10)
• children deprived of family environment (art. 20)
• adoption, national and inter-country (art. 21)
• periodic review of placement (art. 25)

Most states and territories still have powers to seal adoptee’s birth records for all time and this falls under:

Article 16
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

As these laws and powers vary dramatically between jurisdictions, it is clear from the huge differences that these laws are subject to arbitrary decision-making processes.
Articles 7, 8, and 9 specify the importance of identity, and the right to “know” and be cared for by your parents. The right to “know” your name and details at birth is a right enshrined in the UNCRC. The separation of “know” and “be cared for” is important here, meaning there is a right to “know” who your parents are.
The powers to prevent an adoptee from seeing their original birth certificate (and knowing who their parents are) vary arbitrarily by state and territory. Where they are legislated, the justifications are arbitrary also, around safety and welfare. But other legislation exists which restrains contact – where necessary – among every other citizen. Why are adoptees subject to this extra legislation by virtue only of being a member of a minority group?

In 2013 there was a Federal Apology for Forced Adoptions, and Article 8:
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.
These Conventions are being ignored in current laws which in some jurisdictions have INCREASED the roadblocks for people trying to know what their identity was, let alone re-establish it.

Another human rights abuse affecting only adoptees occurs under Article 25, which is not being followed in any Adoption Legislation in any state or territory. It follows from Article 20 which states that:

Article 20
1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.
2. States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care for such a child.
Part 3. of Article 20 states that “… such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children…”
… so it follows that Article 25 should be applied:
Article 25 States Parties recognize the right of a child who has been placed by the competent authorities for the purposes of care, protection or treatment of his or her physical or mental health, to a periodic review of the treatment provided to the child and all other circumstances relevant to his or her placement.

Why is a child who has been placed in adoptive care – which is included with all other forms of care inter alia in Article 20 – not included as requiring periodic reviews?

We call on Federal and State/Territory governments to conduct a review of legislative or regulatory discrimination against individuals on the grounds of their adoptive status and to review the Adoption Acts in each jurisdiction to check for breaches of the Human Rights Instruments that Australia is signatory to.

 

We ask that the practice or issuing New Birth Certificates to change the identities of adopted children stop immediately

2n2wzj

Every human being has the right to a true and correct record of their birth.

Currently in Australia all adoptees have had that right violated.

To become ‘adopted’ the person’s true and correct birth certificate is declared legally null and void.

A new one is issued with genetic strangers falsely named as parents. The child’s real identity and ancestry are forever wiped by legal decree as if they never existed.

The new legal but, fraudulent birth certificate is irrevocable and the adopted person and all their subsequent generations are bound by it.

They have been legally severed from their true ancestry and legally bound to genetic strangers.

Adopted people demand equal legal rights to a true and correct birth certificate, and the basic human right to true family connections and ancestry.

“How about we let adoptees KEEP their ancestry, identity and bloodline, and TELL them the names and history of the new carers instead!!”      Sharyn White

Why won’t people who want to adopt simply care for the child without going through the adoption process

Why won’t people who want to adopt simply care for the child without going through the adoption process of ownership that legally servers not only the parents but also the child’s, brothers, sisters, uncle aunts, cousins, grandparents, extended family, heritage and blood line and beyond ?

Kinship Care is said to be the first option for a child who can no longer live with their parent/s however in some cases extended family members may not be able to take the child in for many different reasons.
Should the child be legally severed from them for life and beyond if they cant take the child ?
Of course there are varying situations but they don’t justify locking a child into a life long and beyond contract of adoption at 12 years of age.and also legally severing the child from it’s heritage and bloodline.
“It looks to me to be a manipulative trap taking advantage of a child’s vulnerability set up by people who want a child,The NSW Government who want to get them of their books and NGOs who get payed $$$ for every adoption finalised. to take advantage of a child who needs care and stability.”
William Hammersley
New South Wales is the only jurisdiction where children who are aged 12 and older, if they have sufficient capacity, can provide sole consent to their own adoption;
The Spider and the Fly
“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
“‘Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I’ve a many curious things to shew when you are there.”
“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne’er come down again.”
“And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne’er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.”

There has been a deliberate effort to keep adoptees quiet.

Author ; Kerri Saint

What a lot of reports don’t cover is the damage that happened to adopted children in many adoptive homes across Australia .

Over ten thousand children were taken in one year alone, and do you want to know how many adoptive families had proper checks to see if they were suitable people to care for a baby?

Very few to none!

There are atleast 40,000 abused adoptees living amongst you in Australia, as a direct result of forced adoption.

Many adoptees ended up in homes where they were abused and mistreated by the very people chosen for them.

Many of the kids from institutions stayed in these very homes at Christmas and Easter as they were farmed out at these times to such families.

If you take the time to talk to these victims you will know that adoptive parents often housed kids from institutions for short periods of time, and suffered abuse from these adoptive parents and witnessed diabolical abuses upon the adopted child.

Adoptees like myself gave evidence at the senate inquiry into forced adoptions.

Accounts of horrific abuses at the hands of adopting parents were told from all corners of Australia.

Yet unlike the Forgotten Australians and Stolen Generation we the adoptee never received an apology for the abuses that we suffered.

We were not accepted in the inquiry into forced adoption and many times were told that it was not about us, the children.

( Well who the hell did they take)? and we were never given our own royal commission or inquiry.

If you think that we are included in the royal commission into child sexual abuse, think again, as we are not allowed to mention that we are adopted.

As far as I am concerned there has been a deliberate effort to keep adoptees quiet.

Why are we continually having doors shut in our faces, why are we not being included in any response to child sexual abuse or any abuse for that matter?

Why is it wrong to uncover that adoptees were abused by adopting parents, the very same people who fostered children.

Foster children were included in the inquiry into children abused in care, but we were excluded, Why?

When is a major current affair, and or investigative show going to expose the dark secrets of adoption upon the adoptee?

Why does the dept of Family Services here in Australia exclude abused adoptees from their stake holder meetings, and lie to them?

How about journo’s, how about uncover and telling the truth of abused adoptees, the very children stolen from these loving single mothers.

email kerris.1@bigpond.com if you want the truth.

32459421_10160233243755567_6733577231915810816_n

 

OPEN ADOPTION IS NOT NEW IN AUSTRALIA.

Open adoption was first introduced 35 years ago in the Adoption Act 1984 in Victoria and then gradually introduced into other states and territories in Australia.

Adoption practices and effects including open adoption are not evidence based.

A national research project needs to be implemented into the long-term effects of open adoption, NOT a limited, childhood only, insular, state based research program like is happening in NSW.

What is needed is: – A program that is truly independent.

– Research that is NOT partnered or sponsored by NGOs, adoption agencies, Governments or people seeking to form families. This research should encompass Victoria and all other states and territories where open adoption has been implemented or included as part of the Adoption Acts or guidelines in Australia.

“I’ve heard the statement thrown around, “Open adoption shouldn’t be legally enforceable.” My question: Isn’t that happening already?”

Contact  

“I’ve heard the statement thrown around, “Open adoption shouldn’t be legally enforceable.” My question: Isn’t that happening already?”

Authors: William Hammersley & Elizabeth Edwards

Current practice and section 59A of the adoption act 1984 (Vic) permits mothers to nominate a preferred frequency of contact in the form of face-to-face meetings and information exchange, which, with the agreement of the proposed legal parents, is written into the adoption order by the Court. Contact is generally set at between one to four times per year but this is usually a minimum frequency with contact beyond the nominated frequency at the discretion of the legal parents. How contact is to be conducted is not prescribed beyond the requirement that the adoption service manage the arrangements for the year between the placement of the baby and the order being ratified in the Court. After the adoption order is made, there is no professional support for the ongoing contact ordered by the Court.

Contact is a difficult issue, relying on, in practice, the goodwill of the parties involved.

However, parent/s should be counselled that any private agreement with the new legal parents can be reneged upon by them at any time and that a contact regime can only be legally protected and enforceable if the Court has made the contact regime part of the adoption order.

“To make a long story short: The adoptive parents lied through their teeth & kissed our butts, until the “Open” adoption was finalized. Afterwards, they increasingly, deliberately & for no good reason withheld our grandchild’s right to see his birth family, including his birth mother (our daughter). They said they understood why we asked them to stay close, claiming empathy for our reasoning that all children (adopted or not) should be allowed to experience their birth family’s love throughout their life. That they were fully aware of the reasons behind our family’s choice for him; that we never “wanted” to give him up & weren’t “giving him up”. Instead, we were entrusted them with his care, his heart & his soul. For this, they ungratefully & cruelly (for their own selfish comfort) stole his rights & tossed them aside as if they were nothing. Instead, they chose to move him so far away as to make it impossible for us to visit, let alone regularly. By doing this, they’ve only proven their love as conditional; contingent upon him becoming who they want him to be “for them”, not encouraging him to get to know his origins & therefore himself… to be who he “is”… ALL of who he is.

One of the most important concerns when open adoption was first introduced was that it might interfere with the attachment between children and adoptive parents (Kraft 1985) and it was feared that children might be confused about whom their primary carer was, and therefore who their primary attachment figure was, and they might develop divided loyalties between the two sets of parents. There were also concerns that the involvement of the parents might make the new legal parents feel less secure and entitled to a parental relationship with the child, which could impair their ability to engender the child’s secure attachment. Research evidence to date has suggested that in fact the opposite is the case.

“The adoption consent asks for ‘wishes’ of the natural parent. So, even if a mother identifies her wishes for contact, there is no guarantee she will get them met. Ultimately, the consent order is so vague in its legal commitment, the adoption agency and adopters have a clear route out of committing to the requests of the mother. So, the adoption order will say something like “contact to be agreed upon by both parties”… what a joke! By the time the adoption order is made, the natural parent has no legal recourse. Ultimately, the adopters know this and they can chose what they want to go into the order about contact – with no legal obligation to agree to the natural parents ‘wishes’. The language is loose, it can be manipulated by the adopters and the adoption agency. If a parent asks for contact three times per year, then that is what should be legally placed into the adoption order. If the adopters don’t agree, then the child should not be placed with them. Instead, the power shifts to those who have more power again… the agency and adopters. It is underhanded, deliberately deceptive and has created more children who have been negatively impacted by adoption – despite being labelled ‘open’. It is not, if that is not what the adopters wish.”

If the introduction of open adoption is to be expanded greatly in Australia to those children in the child protection system then research will be needed to be able to meet the needs of those children and young people at different stages of need and development.

Toddlers and older children will have established relationships with their parent/s immediate and extended family and will have different needs to those babies and infants who will most likely suffer separation trauma and may have suffered medical and psychological damage in the uterus. Standard practice of a minimum of four times per year will not likely be helpful for such children.  Judicial education may need to occur further for those judges who decide adoption matters.

US Adoption expert Mary Martin Mason proposes how she thinks open adoption should work. Some of her suggestions may make some uncomfortable, but all of them are interesting.

Open adoption is designed to be a child-centred arrangement based upon the premise that humans need genetic continuity to attain a healthy identity. Contact benefits children by providing a lifelong, authentic relationship and a genuine connection to their lineal heritage, ongoing answers to questions, and healing for the losses that permeate adoption. Open adoption benefits parents because the grieving process that follows all adoption need not be complicated by having to live with the ambiguity of not knowing what happened to their children. The new legal parents have access to the continuing genetic, medical and family information needed to raise the child.

Mary Martin Mason, suggests, that the top 10 ethical considerations in Open Adoption Practice, should be:

  1. “To fulfil in the goal of benefiting the child, an open adoption should be a fully disclosed adoption and should move beyond the practice called mediated or semi-open adoption in which an agency serves as an intermediary to exchange information between parties.
  2. The child should be given the option to be a full participant in the open adoption rather than the adoptive parents maintaining contact with birth family members without the child’s knowledge.
  3. Agency workers need to be educated and overcome fears about allowing clients to be in contact without agency control. An agency that simultaneously practices semi-open adoption and fully disclosed adoption communicates its distrust of the foundation of openness, often communicated as, “We let clients make that choice.” Professional standards require that agencies provide guidance and education to clients, including the few parents who insist on confidential adoption. Ethical standards require that agencies refuse to do a confidential adoption even if it means losing a client.
  4. Systemic change must take place in agencies that practice open adoption, requiring a shift in policies, in job descriptions for workers and ultimately, in post adoption services that will eschew secrecy as the foundation for adoption.
  5. Fathers, as in other forms of adoption, need to be identified, notified and invited to participate in open adoptions. Father-friendly inclusion should be the mission of those practicing and participating in open adoption. Professionals frequently need training in revamping services to be father-friendly before successfully engaging fathers.
  6. Services such as pre-adoptive education, legal representation and post-adoption mediation or counselling should be equalized for birth and adoptive parents.
  7. Open adoption should never be used to entice, pressure or coerce any one experiencing a crisis pregnancy to choose adoption.
  8. Post adoption contact agreements should be standard and fully enforceable in Victoria
  9. Legal counsel should not be shared between parents considering adoption and prospective adoptive parents because they have conflicting interest.”
  10. Agencies that practice open adoption while opposing the right of adoptees to have access to their original birth certificates “serve two masters.” If a foundation of truth is solid, then it should serve adoptions moving forward as well as adoptions that took place in the past. Mary Mason’s tenth principle is not relevant to Australia.

American Adoption Congress 2016 “The top 10 ethical considerations in Open Adoption Practice,” by Mary Martin Masoiii)       Strengthening the Court’s oversight of Adoption Practice

  • The  Court ought to be further empowered to scrutinise the adoption process including whether appropriate counselling has been received and consent given consent and most importantly, be able to penalise any legal parent who does not allow contact in accordance with the contact regime on the adoption order.
  • To assist the County Court that an Independent/Ethics Committee not connected to the NGO or DoHHS is established to report to the court. This body oversee, monitor, and report to the court on all aspects of the adoption process, including counselling, taking of consent, post adoption welfare checks on adopted children, and the open adoption contact regime
  • .Welfare checks must be carried out on adopted children in private homes, because at present government and NGOs have no duty of care once a child is adopted which possibly leaves the child at risk
  • Contact agreements should be set based on each individual case recognising one size does not fit all, along with the ongoing monitoring, implementation of those agreements with the full weight of the law for the execution of such until the child comes of age.
  • Contact Agreements should be decided upon between the independent committee/child advocate , parents, and legal parents before the parents sign the instalment of consent to consider adoption

If the family of origin do not keep their commitments, it would be part of the role of the committee/child advocate to consult and counsel all parties, if the ethics committee’s efforts fail, there is little that can be done to enforce the natural parent’s to uphold their agreement. However if the break down is due to the natural parents and or other family members a report from the ethics committee as to why the contact regime failed should be added to the adopted persons file that becomes available when the child turn 18.

  1. Natural parents must have the option to re-establish contact at a later date   pending their circumstances.

If adoptive parents are found by the ethics committee to make it difficult or uncomfortable for families of origin to stay in contact the legal parents should be held responsible by the court.

If the ethics committee has failed to resolve the issues coursing the breakdown, they should refer the adoptive parents to the court to deal with this. Also recommend the court documentation of such a breech and also an Ethics Committee report      be added to the adopted persons file that becomes available when the child turn 18.

Note: The fact that a report is going to be available to the adopted person may act as a deterrent from such actions from happening.

It is in the adopted person’s best interest that the truth be known and not hidden. Open Adoption should mean honest, open, and transparent.

images (12)

“Legally enforceable,open adoption and suggesting it’s possible, is laughable.”

 Can you imagine a mother taking the adopters to court, trying to argue that they are breaching the order (if there is, in fact, contact clearly articulated in the adoption order)?”

The adopters will have a thousand reasons why the order should not be followed – late to a visit, uses drugs, too demanding at visits, and smelt of alcohol at a visit, child not interested, not polite at previous visits… you watch the excuses come thick and fast.

That mother would be dragged through the mud, and then have to ‘justify’ why she should see her own child – who she may barely know.

She would have a hard time arguing her case if she had put a toe out of line.

Then there is the impact of the adopters on her child, if she dares challenge them in Court.

And who pays the legal bill?

The State certainly wouldn’t – the mother would be expected to foot the bill.

No-one! No-one should be relying on good will in an open adoption.

The adopters cannot ever be trusted, as the institute of adoption ensures they have the power, control, resource and ultimate say in what happens with the child.

Their insecurities will ensure that ‘good will’ goes out the window when the reality of contact is brought to the fore.

They’re living in an alternate universe if they think ‘good will’ can underpin an adoption order.

 It is fanciful. It is unrealistic. It is not legal.

My understanding is that once consent is provided, and the 28 day revocation period has passed, the child is no longer the child of that mother. He becomes a child of the State.

 Then the legal relationship is between the State and the potential adopters. So the mother will have no further voice.

What goes into that order is for the rest of that child’s childhood/life.

The mother is not present in Court when the Order is made – has no idea of what has gone into the order.

 The adopters will either be there, or be legally represented. They know exactly what they wish to see go into that order.

 They will ensure they get it. The only time a parent might have a comeback is if the level of contact is clearly articulated on the adoption consent form.

However, I’m unsure, as the adopter’s legal rep could argue that these are only ‘wishes’!

 It gives everyone an out because of the way the consent form is written, and then what is written by the mother (or agency) will be heavily influenced by the agency and its agenda.

What mother, at the time of consent, understands enough about the legal consent form to ensure that she clearly articulates what level of contact she wants, and writes it in a way to makes it very clear that her consent is provided on that basis.

 This form is a tick the box, predominantly – carefully structured to pretend that it gives choice to mothers… but has no teeth when push comes to shove.

images (43)

 

“Legally enforceable,open adoption and suggesting it’s possible, is laughable.”

 Can you imagine a mother taking the adopters to court, trying to argue that they are breaching the order (if there is, in fact, contact clearly articulated in the adoption order)?”

The adopters will have a thousand reasons why the order should not be followed – late to a visit, uses drugs, too demanding at visits, and smelt of alcohol at a visit, child not interested, not polite at previous visits… you watch the excuses come thick and fast.

That mother would be dragged through the mud, and then have to ‘justify’ why she should see her own child – who she may barely know.

She would have a hard time arguing her case if she had put a toe out of line.

Then there is the impact of the adopters on her child, if she dares challenge them in Court.

And who pays the legal bill?

The State certainly wouldn’t – the mother would be expected to foot the bill.

No-one! No-one should be relying on good will in an open adoption.

The adopters cannot ever be trusted, as the institute of adoption ensures they have the power, control, resource and ultimate say in what happens with the child.

Their insecurities will ensure that ‘good will’ goes out the window when the reality of contact is brought to the fore.

They’re living in an alternate universe if they think ‘good will’ can underpin an adoption order.

 It is fanciful. It is unrealistic. It is not legal.

My understanding is that once consent is provided, and the 28 day revocation period has passed, the child is no longer the child of that mother. He becomes a child of the State.

 Then the legal relationship is between the State and the potential adopters. So the mother will have no further voice.

What goes into that order is for the rest of that child’s childhood/life.

The mother is not present in Court when the Order is made – has no idea of what has gone into the order.

 The adopters will either be there, or be legally represented. They know exactly what they wish to see go into that order.

 They will ensure they get it. The only time a parent might have a comeback is if the level of contact is clearly articulated on the adoption consent form.

However, I’m unsure, as the adopter’s legal rep could argue that these are only ‘wishes’!

 It gives everyone an out because of the way the consent form is written, and then what is written by the mother (or agency) will be heavily influenced by the agency and its agenda.

What mother, at the time of consent, understands enough about the legal consent form to ensure that she clearly articulates what level of contact she wants, and writes it in a way to makes it very clear that her consent is provided on that basis.

 This form is a tick the box, predominantly – carefully structured to pretend that it gives choice to mothers… but has no teeth when push comes to shove.

images (43)