Whilst state governments argue the need to regress to past forced adoption practices to solve the problem in child protection, with out of home care other states and countries forge a forward thinking approach to caring for vulnerable children.They are seeing the light, finally coming to the reality of trauma created by a draconian adoption model that they have endorsed in the past and we are currently introducing again.

In all the following alternatives to Adoption they all have the same fundamental difference to adoption and that is that they do not change the child’s Identity or sever the child’s legal ties to their siblings, heritage, extended family and bloodline.

  • The UK has introduced a special guardianship model.
  • South Australia Places guardianship as the preferred model for child protection instead of adoption.
  • Queensland is piloting the following program Permanent care for children and young people
  • Victoria already has a viable alternative in the Victorian Permanent care model along with a viable alternative in the stewardship model that has been and is being proposed

Background to special guardianship UK.

1.The Prime Minister’s Review of Adoption identified that, while there was no clear difference in disruption rates between adoption and long-term fostering when age was taken into account, there were indications that children generally preferred the sense of security that adoption gives them over long-term foster placements. However, research indicated that there was a significant group of children, mainly older, who did not wish to make the absolute legal break with their birth family that is associated with adoption.

2.The report identified the need for an alternative legal status for children that offered greater security than long-term fostering but without the absolute legal severance from the birth family that stems from an adoption order. The report recommended that the Government consult on the details of a new legislative option for providing permanence short of adoption. This was strongly supported in the consultation on the report that followed.

3. The White Paper Adoption: a new approach 2 set out a number of routes to permanence for looked after children. One of these proposed routes was a new legal status to be known as special guardianship. The White Paper committed the Government to legislating to create special guardianship to provide legal permanence for those children for whom adoption is not appropriate. It stated that special guardianship would:




Stability of care relationships for children is an important precondition to their development. Adoption is one way of securing that stability. Some members of the community hold the view that adoption of children from care solves the problem of the shortage of suitable home-based placements.

However, the Commission is not persuaded that an increased emphasis on making children in care available for adoption is necessarily appropriate, when fundamental considerations of the child’s best interests are brought into account. That is not to exclude the possibility of adoption of children in care when it is genuinely in their best interests.

However, children can gain additional feelings of security within a loving family through Other Person Guardianship where guardianship responsibilities and powers are shifted in certain circumstances from the Minister to the carer of the child under the Children’s Protection Act. It can bring a greater sense of stability, certainty and normalcy to a child’s life, including placing important decision-making in the hands of the adults who know the child best.

Other Person Guardianship has been under-used in South Australia. The Agency has retained decision-making powers over many children in situations in which, for all intents and purposes, they are a settled part of a new family. In 2014/15 South Australia had the lowest rate of Other Person Guardianship carers of any state in Australia.

The focus on Other Person Guardianship should be renewed. The Commission recommends a new procedure to facilitate such applications being made by foster parents—an independent expert panel established to enable foster parents and relative carers to apply for an official assessment of their suitability and timely consideration of such applications.

The Children’s Protection Act should be amended to limit the ability of a child’s parents to oppose the making of an Other Person Guardianship order if the court is satisfied that such an order is in the best interests of the child.”



All children and young people deserve to live in a safe and supportive home where they are valued and cared for.

In building a new child protection and family support system in Queensland, the department is working to reduce the number of children and young people in the tertiary system.

My Home is a new care option for children who need long-term out-of-home care and where reunification with family is no longer possible.

Couples who have been assessed by the department as suitable adoptive parents, or who have committed to an adoption assessment, can become permanent foster carers and provide a loving, nurturing and stable home where the child is considered as a member of their family.

Children under six years of age and subject to Child Protection Orders until they are 18 years old (or a decision has been made to apply for a Child Protection Order until they are 18 years old) will be placed with suitable permanent foster carers.

My Home also enables the department to consider whether the permanent foster cares will be the child’s legal guardians under a Long-Term Guardianship Order to the carers. This allows the child to have the security and stability of living permanently with a family, without ongoing intensive involvement from the department.

Providing a permanent, stable home life allows children to form trusting and secure attachments to their carers, and feel a sense of belonging with family and community.



Why a stewardship model and not adoption for children in child protection?

chere’s how a Stewardship model works: The approach is tailored to the Child’s needs first and is the paramount consideration. The overarching principle which is meant to govern adoption is that the ‘welfare and interests of the child’ are the ‘paramount consideration’.

This puts the child’s welfare and interests above the interests of the, people wanting to adopt adoptive parents and the child’s natural parents This overarching principle is the focus of the Alternative care Stewardship model to ‘ensure that the best interests and rights of the child are the foremost consideration in any decision made

Adoption changes the child’s identity and the child is legally severed from their family heritage and blood line it is not only a replacement family but also an ownership transaction that denies the child’s human right to their true identity but allows the child knowledge of who they use to be.

On the other hand a stewardship model has the role of the life long relationship between the child and adult clear the family is not a replacement family because the child already has one but a lifelong support family that take the role as an uncle and aunt type characters who include the child in their family but do not try to replace the child’s family and respect’s the child’s identity and loves the child as any relative should.

The Stewardship model is preferred as a last resort instead of adoption

After all efforts have been exhausted for family reunification and have exhausted all efforts to place the child with appropriate kin then it only is logical that a model is chosen that takes on a kinship type roll such as stewardship rather than a replacement family as the child already has a family and heritage. In a position to care for them or not they are still the child’s flesh and blood. In a stewardship model The child maintains its rights to their true identity and has a lifelong support family grows up to become an adult with no confusion, no divided loyalties no living a lie and growing up with the truth about their family circumstances and is supported to come to terms with the truth within an honest ,transparent and supportive family with a warm and loving safe environment to grow up in and not be expected to be anyone else but the child’s true self and as the child becomes an adult they will still be supported through to independence and beyond without having to trade their identity for care and will always have some where to come home for Xmas.

“Stewardship is the responsible overseeing and protection of somebody special considered worth caring for and preserving”.

  • The Court issues a guardianship Care Order granting custody to a nominated family
  • Retain original birth certificates and the truth of the family of origin
  • Issue a subsequent document which states care and guardianship without legally severing biological ties
  • Only sever the ties that give care and control for a child whilst a minor.
  • Add a clause about continued responsibility and obligation after the child reaches 18 years of age therefore reality and truth is retained, consequently identity is protected.

We agree that some children can’t be raised with their parents for many reasons and that they might feel positive about the experiences they’ve had in the care of others – even in some cases building relationships with these people who are ongoing, strong and positive. The way to get it right is to fundamentally rethink how to provide safe homes to all children.” NOT permanent removal by means of adoption by people fulfilling their need for a child and governments looking to save money. Adoption is a past option for today’s children who need care. However severing ties and creating a false birth certificate isn’t a necessary part of that. It doesn’t logically follow that to protect and care for a child their identity must be changed or invented. Basing care of a child on changing the child’s identity and denying a previous existence and origins (whether known or not) is not a sound basis for child protection and child development. Definitely, there will always be a need to remove children in some cases, however family preservation should always be the first port of call but changing the child’s birth certificate (adoption) is not about what the child needs at all. In adoption, child protection becomes inextricably linked with child ownership and becomes – disturbingly often – about those who ‘need’ a child.

Wherever an adoption has ‘worked’, what should be examined is whether great caring with well-balanced, good people lucky enough to have the means to offer care has ‘worked’ instead. (Sharyn White)


Wherever an adoption has occurred, what should be examined is whether it was necessary to change the child’s identity, and disconnect the child from its family, heritage and blood line. ·

Stewardship is a model just like kinship Care is a Model and both are placed and monitored under a guardianship order by the courts. After it has been determined that there has been no coercion, family reunification is not possible and all efforts have failed to place the child with kin a guardianship order is legally established. In the case of siblings, a stewardship family is chosen that can keep them together. The guardians are responsible for all day-to-day care of the child and for decisions about matters such as education, employment, health and wellbeing.

The guardianship order expires when the child reaches age 18/21 and it is assumed that by adding the clause about continued responsibility and obligation after the child  reaches 18 years of age along with the close relationship established between the guardians/family and the child who becomes an adult would last a lifetime. The child is able to be involved in both the guardians/family and their own parents/family lives by choice. Without the added pressure from a replacement family that wants the child to be  “As if Born To” them that often exists in adoption. .

“In a natural family the parents no longer have the legal responsibilities for their child when the child reaches age 18/21 the child becomes legally responsible for themselves, however the relationship between the child and their family does not finish, and this is the same with a stewardship model”


The court’s involvement is to construct a contact regime for each particular child with immediate family, siblings, grandparents and extended family depending on his or her needs and circumstances, (you can’t say ‘one size fits all) that is legally binding and the guardians are legally bound to support its implementation through until the child reaches the end of the guardianship order. If this is not appropriate the court shall set out and monitor what is appropriate. Contact is a difficult issue, relying on, in practice, the goodwill of the parties involved however we believe that a contact regime can only be legally protected and enforceable if the Court has made the contact regime part of the guardianship order. In adoption current practice and section 59A of the adoption act 1984 (Vic) permits mothers/parents to nominate a preferred frequency of contact in the form of face-to-face meetings and information exchange, which, with the agreement of the adoptive 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 adopting parents. Open adoption in the Adoption Act 1984 2.46 The Adoption Act establishes open adoption. Openness is built into the adoption process. The Act allows natural parents to nominate a preferred frequency of contact which, with agreement from the adoptive parents, becomes a condition of the adoption order

‘However while contact arrangements agreed to in an adoption order are legally enforceable, in practice they rely on the goodwill of the parties involved. If family of origin members do not keep their commitments, there is little that children or adoptive parents can do to enforce them. Likewise, adoptive parents can also ‘make it difficult or uncomfortable for families of origin to stay in contact, with the result that contact may cease or greatly diminish over time’. Review of the Adoption Act 1984: Consultation Paper/ Victorian Law Reform Commission

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.

A stewardship model would introduce a body to assist the court with an Independent/Ethics Committee not connected to the NGO or DoHHS is to be established to report to the court. This body would oversee, monitor, and report to the court on all aspects of the process, including the contact regime and regular welfare checks

Welfare checks must be carried out on all cared for children in private homes not like adoption which has no welfare checks or follow-up at present the 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 ethics committee, parents/relatives, the guardians and the child when the child is of an age to contribute overtime. Recommendations should be put to the court for including in the guardianship order. If the family of origin do not keep their commitments, it would be part of the role of an ethics committee to consult and counsel all parties, if the ethics committee’s efforts fail, then it goes to the court to be determined

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

Whilst Britain continues to try, not terribly successfully, to modernise its child welfare system, we continue to look to countries like Australia, who are always ahead of the curve in this field.


Former judge of the Family Court of Australia, Professor the Honourable Nahum Mushin on ‘permanency and adoption’:
“I think the concept of permanency is contrary to what I regard as being in the best interests of children. We shouldn’t be talking about permanency, we should be talking about long-term. Once we get to that, really what you got to do is that you have to construct a care regime for each particular child depending on his or her needs, and you can’t say ‘one size fits all’.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s