Imagine a child saying “I don’t want to visit Grandma”, and the parents saying “okay, sweetie, you don’t have to!

“Only in adoption would such an excuse be used, and supported legally.”

It’s an absolute travesty that people exist who feels this type of thinking is acceptable.

Only in a selfish world would such behaviour be welcomed or even encouraged.

I guarantee adopters who do this (under anything less than the most extreme circumstances) don’t feel they’re being selfish; instead, they feel they’ve blessed the child with the highest of favours.

At our last “once-a-year-for-a-few-hours-and-always-at-last-minute-notice” visit, the adoptive father of our daughter’s son commented, “we thought we were changing his life, but instead he’s changed ours.”

I was thinking to myself:

‘First if all, we never asked you to ‘change’ his life, we asked you to ‘enrich’ it.

Second, of course he’s changed your life.

You’ve made it abundantly clear that’s why he was adopted.

He knows your love is contingent upon him ensuring ‘your’ happiness, not his.

Even if it means he’ll never feel comfortable calling us Grandma and Grandpa, because you ‘tell him” to call us Miss & Mister instead; he’ll behave that way because that’s how you’ve ‘trained’ him. And you, no doubt, will have the audacity to think he refers to us as such by ‘choice’. In reality, his actions, who he becomes, will be the by-product of your ‘training’, not your encouragement & support of him to form his ‘own’ identity.’

 It’s been proven time & time again that many adoptees refer to themselves as “good” or “bad”. Gee, I wonder why that is?

23844408_549065315432202_8039632307658591972_n

 

 

 

Advertisements

Open adoption in Australia dose not resolve the mistakes of the past for the adopted person it may resolve the issue of not knowing however

• It still severs all legal rights to family heritage and bloodline.
• It still changes the child’s true identity.
• It still issues a new legal but fraudulent birth certificate that is the child’s primary form of identification.
• It still does not give the adopted person the right to a no fuss no fault discharge and holds them to a contract they did not sign or agree to for life and beyond and even if they did agree on it at a very young age it does not give them the right to change their minds when they become of age.
• It still places the child in possible danger by wiping its hands of the child and pretending it is living in an equal to biological child’s family “As if Born to” and does not take responsibility for its welfare by providing regular unannounced welfare checks while living in a non-biological home.

A child who is in need of care should not have to sacrifice its rights to be legally connected to its brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, extended family, heritage and blood line for life and beyond for that care.

It is to greater price for a child who becomes an adult to pay for care that it needs as a child.

46887305_1156109831220527_1751108340387151872_n

NO FAULT DISCHARGE Submission to the Victorian Law Reform commission (VLRC) Plus The VLRC Response and Recommendations

NO FAULT DISCHARGE
Authors: William Hammersley and Elizabeth Edwards
There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and says “What the hell is water?”
This is Water some thoughts delivered on a significant occasion about living a compassionate life (David Foster Wallace 20/11/ 2014 Quotes Published in “Good Reads”
In our society, the importance of kin and ancestry is so deeply embedded that often it’s unrecognisable to those with the privilege of the unique combination of recognised social and genetic connections with their family group. This is the ‘water’ most are in, but adopted people are swimming in a very different substance. It’s partly why some of the concepts are so difficult to get across to non-adopted people, and from the adoptee point of view, our voices have certainly not been heard in the area of discharge.
‘Sharyn White’
i) No fault discharges
An adopted person can apply to the Victorian County Court for a discharge of an adoption order made under section 19(1) of the Adoption Act 1984. There are two grounds under which an application can be made, these are:
(a) That the adoption order or consent for the purposes of the adoption order was obtained by fraud, duress or other improper means: or
(b) That special circumstances exist why the adoption order should be discharged (this includes a reference to an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the adoptive parents and the adopted person).
Adoption Origins Victoria believes what is needed is the option for adopted adults to be able to apply for the reverse of the adoption with a straightforward discharge that carries no determination of fault. Adoption Origins Victoria proposes that this is a discharge where the adopted person over the age of 18 years applies to the court and obtains the discharge with very little interrogation, if any, by the court as to the reasons why that person seeks a discharge.
Adoption Origins Victoria believes that the only legislative precondition to the granting of the no fault discharge should be service on the adopted parents and that legal advice has been given as to the impact of the discharge at law. Some adopted adults will not ever consider a discharge but Adoption Origins Victoria believes that many adopted adults would benefit from the right to seek a no fault discharge.
Adoption Origins Victoria believes that all adopted adults should have available to them to the ability to apply to discharge the adoption order without having to prove fraud, duress or that the adoption was improperly obtained or that special circumstances exist, and that the Adoption Act 1984 (Vic) should be immediately amended to reflect this.
As set out in section 19, there is a discharge available under ‘special circumstances’. This of course is analysed on a case by case basis but usually requires ‘irreconcilable differences’ between the adoptee and the adopters and almost always requires that the adoptee has suffered abuse that they may not wish to share with a case manager and the court.
To many adopted adults who would seek a discharge, the relationship with the adopters is irrelevant to their right to live as the person they were when they were born and have the ancestry they had when they were born. Technically, no fault discharges are available on the ‘special circumstances’ ground. However, Adoption Origins Victoria believes it would be more appropriate to create an explicit no fault ground under section 19 of the Adoption Act 1984 (Vic).
Adoption Origins Victoria believes that currently section 19 ignores the rights of adopted adults to extract them rather than be bound beyond death to a contract they did not consent to in the name of their ‘welfare’ and section 19 ignores the rights of adopted adults to their initial identity at birth and ancestry.
Adoption Origins Victoria does not believe that the intent of a ‘Special Circumstances’ discharge which relies on an ‘irretrievable breakdown’ of the relationship with the adopters, allows the Court to give equitable consideration with regards to wider, rights-based discharges, where the quality of the relationship with the adopters is irrelevant. The imposition by the Court of an investigation and case manager is an invasion of privacy which equates to anthologizing something which is not abnormal; that is the right of the adopted child then adult, to resume their original legal identity.
Adoption Origins Victoria believes that no matter what good intentions there are regarding the ‘paramountcy of the welfare of the child’, there are long-term consequences for the child now an adult which arise from the obliteration of their natural family ties by law.
A common thread of experienced among adopted people when advocating for their need for annulment, discharge, termination of the adoption, a true birth certificate and reinstatement of their identity is the absolute lack of choice – the fact that they are subject to a contract for life and beyond death to which they did not agree.
For some adopted adults, having the choice to reclaim their identity and the ancestry they lost (whether or not they have a social relationship with those of their family who are living) is of extreme importance to them and their children and their children’s children and generations to follow.
“The prevailing legal belief is that adoptees are not a party to their own adoption, only the parties who originally brought the petition to court are. An analogy would be that a consumer may return an item they bought back to the store if they are displeased with it for some reason, but the object may never return itself, no matter how displeased the object may be with the arrangement.
Therefore, adoptees are but legal chattel with no say in what happens regarding their own adoptions. This needs to be challenged. Nowhere else in law are competent, adult citizens permanently legally bound to contracts they did not sign and do not agree with.”
Julie Kelly 2014. Choosing Adoption. Or not Available at: http://www.thelostdaughters.com/2014/12/choosing-adoption-or-not.html
Furthermore, Adoption Origins Victoria draws the Commission’s attention to the comments of Julie Kelly:
“Once an individual is no longer in need of the courts or their parents to make decisions on their behalf, by virtue of being no longer incompetent by reason of minority, they should, by all rights, be entitled to take over making decisions for themselves.
Julie Kelly 2014. Choosing Adoption. Or not Available at: http://www.thelostdaughters.com/2014/12/choosing-adoption-or-not.html
Adoption Origins Victoria believes that Victoria has been a leader in Australia and the world in adoption reform at times. The opening of records which occurred here in Victoria during the 1980’s is what is still being fought for in most states of the USA. The majority of adoption rights advocates in the USA still believe that getting access to see their original birth certificates is the pinnacle of equal rights.
In Victoria, Adoption Origins Victoria believes that access to no fault discharges for adults is the logical next step in adoption if adoption is truly about the paramountcy of the welfare of the child (then adult). If this no fault discharge pathway is created some will take this up, but some will not. However, Adoption Origins Victoria believes that the very option will be significant and beneficial to all adoptees because of the respect afforded to them as adult human beings to have the equal right to agency over their lives in the same way non-adopted adults have, rather than being bound beyond death to a contract they did not consent to in the name of their ‘welfare’.
ii) Inheritance
In the experience of Adoption Origins Victoria inheritance is often a major point of interest for the Court but usually a minor concern over all the others for the adopted person. Default formulas for property division are only used when a legal will is not left. If a legal will is left the deceased can leave an inheritance to whoever they like,  As above, there should be a requirement that the person have received professional advice and be aware of the legal implications of being discharged from the adoption. The professional advice will presumably include that they are also terminating any of their adoptive claims on their adopted parents’ possessions and estate, and also include information on authority for medical decisions and next of kin rights. Adoption Origins Victoria believes whatever inheritance rights should not dictate the right to identity and be part of a child’s natural family.
iii) Discrimination
Adoption Origins Victoria believes that currently, adoptees are discriminated against and not being treated equally to non-adoptees, in breach of section 8 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights & Responsibilities 2006 (Vic). Adoption Origins Victoria is concerned that adoptees are not equal before the law and that adoptees are discriminated against because they cannot use their original birth certificates like everyone else, and adoptees are legally prevented from identifying as the person they were when they were born as is the right of every non adopted person.
For example, X was adopted as an infant in the 1950’s. X’s deepest and longest held dream since finding out her real parentage has been to explore and connect with her ancestry in New Zealand. The time has finally come, and first she needs a passport to travel to New Zealand. To get the passport to connect with her ancestry she is forced to lie. The form requires that she answer the question: mother’s name. If she lies, she gets her passport and can go to New Zealand. If she tells the truth she is treated as having lied and the passport is withheld. The distress and pain of this has previously prevented even the thought of doing it, and has immobilised the passport application for eight months, to date.
To prevent the ‘re-homing
• Transparent process and criteria for straightforward ‘no-fault divorce’ type Discharges of Adoption for adult adoptees only to be written into the Adoption Act.
• To prevent the ‘re-homing ‘situation prevalent in the US – that adopters should only be able to apply for a Discharge of Adoption under no wider grounds than “that the adoption order or a consent for the purposes of the adoption order was obtained by fraud, duress or other
improper means”
• Recognition in the Act that ‘consent’ for the Adoption Order has already ceased to have effect when the Adopted Person has reached 18.
RE- HOMEING You would say this could never happen in Australia
However our current State Adoption Act1984 has a loophole that leaves the possibility WIDE OPEN.as the changes to the adoption act will remain in place for many years as time rolls on this clause could be taken advantage of .
VICTORIAN ADOPTION ACT 1984 – SECT 19
Discharge of adoption orders
(1) An eligible person may apply to the Court for an order discharging an order for the adoption of a child made under this Act
(a) “eligible person” means the adopted child to whom the adoption order relates, a natural parent of the adopted child, an adoptive parent of the adopted child, the Secretary or the principal officer of the approved agency by which the adoption was arranged;
Changes are necessary we completely oppose adopters having rights to discharge an adoption other than fraud. That the adoption order or consent for the purposes of the adoption order was obtained by fraud, duress or other improper means”
So- if the adoption order was obtained by fraud (i.e. the adopters were misled)
– If not it will almost always be in the best interests of the adoptee to be unadapted by people who don’t want them. It gives the adopters too much of an out. What happens to the child then?
We argue giving adopters greater rights commodifies children because it means they can be “returned” if the adopters can make an argument that it’s in the child’s best interests
The Governments who have this legislation are trying to keep the adoptees, natural parents and adopters THE SAME but because it involves children they are NOT THE SAME.
VIC Law Reform Commissions response and Recommendations
Discharge of adoption orders
Current law and practice
14.147Adoption orders are considered more permanent than orders under the CYF Act169 and Family Law Act,170 as they do not automatically expire when an adopted child turns 18. However, adoption orders can be discharged by the court.
14.148An adopted child or adult, a natural parent, an adoptive parent, or the Secretary or principal officer, may apply to the court to discharge an adoption order, if:171
the order, or consent given for that order, was obtained by fraud, duress or other improper means, or
special circumstances exist for the order to be discharged.
14.149The term ‘special circumstances’ is defined in the Adoption Act to include ‘an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the adoptive parents and the adopted person’.172
14.150The court can direct an investigation into the circumstances of an application (known as a section 19(3) investigation).173 The investigation can be undertaken by the Secretary, or a nominated person from the Department of Justice and Regulation, who makes enquiries and files a confidential report with the court.174
14.151The court must be satisfied that ‘the welfare and interests of the child would be promoted by the discharge of the adoption order’.175
The effect of a discharge order
14.152 The effect of a discharge order is that:
any consent given to the adoption ceases to have effect176
the ‘rights, privileges, duties, liabilities and relationships of the child and of all other persons’, shall be as if the adoption order had not been made.177
14.153 The discharge of an adoption order severs an adopted person’s legal relationship with their adoptive family and reinstates their legal relationship with their family of origin.178 It also reinstates their original birth certificate, their rights of inheritance from their natural parents and their legal relationship with any biological siblings or wider family.
14.154 Children and those over the age of 18 are both subject to the same legal test.179 The Adoption Act does not provide for a ‘no fault’ discharge or reflect a person’s autonomy to choose their identity once they are an adult.
14.155From 2010 to 2016 there were 17 applications for discharge. All applications were made by adults and all were granted by the court. In 16 cases, the court directed a section 19(3) investigation.180
Responses
14.156 The Commission was told that the grounds upon which an application to discharge an adoption order can be made should be amended.
14.157 Some submissions stated that it was ‘virtually impossible’ to discharge an adoption order.181 Others stated that it should be a person’s ‘right’ to seek a discharge of their adoption order and restore their original birth certificate.182
14.158 Adoption Origins Victoria proposed that the Adoption Act should contain a ‘no fault’ discharge to enable adoptive persons over the age of 18 years to easily apply to discharge their own order. Adoption Origins Victoria explained that the requirement in the Adoption Act of ‘special circumstances’ almost always requires that the person has suffered abuse. It submitted that:
To many adopted adults who seek a discharge, the relationship with the adopters is irrelevant to their right to live as the person they were when they were born and have the ancestry they had when they were born.183
14.159Adoption Origins Victoria considered that the Adoption Act ‘ignores the rights of adopted adults’ and binds them to a contract that they did not consent to.184
Commission’s conclusions
Adopted child
14.160Judicial oversight is required to ensure that the discharge of an adoption order would be in the best interests of a child. The current legal threshold set out in section 19 is appropriate for applications to discharge an order in relation to an adopted child.
14.161The tests set out in sections 19(1)¬–(2) and 19(5A) should remain for applications to discharge an order in relation to an adopted child.
Adopted adult
14.162A number of people can bring an application to the court to discharge an adoption order, including the adopted person, the adoptive parents and natural parents.185
14.163The tests in section 19 are appropriate for applications to discharge an order in relation to an adopted person who is over the age of 18, if the application is filed by a person186 who is not the adopted person.
14.164For example, an adoptive parent should not be able to apply to discharge an order without establishing, to the court’s satisfaction, that there has been fraud, duress or improper means, or that there are special circumstances to warrant an application, as the effect of the discharge would be to legally exclude their adopted adult child from their family, a decision that may not be in the adopted person’s welfare and interests.
14.165The Adoption Act should apply a different test to applications to discharge an adoption order filed by an adopted person over the age of 18.
Application filed by an adopted adult
14.166To apply for a discharge of an adoption order, section 19(1) requires that the order or consent was obtained by fraud, duress or other improper means. This is a high threshold for an adult adopted person to meet. Alternatively, they must establish ‘special circumstances’ which justify that the order be discharged, such as an irretrievable breakdown or abuse in their relationship with their adoptive parents.187
14.167It is not clear whether the current tests in section 19(1) are difficult to satisfy, as judicial reasons are not published. In any case, the Commission considers that these tests do not reflect an adopted adult’s autonomy to choose who they are. A person adopted as an infant had no say in their parentage or in the change of their identity. Adopted adults may wish to discharge their adoption order for a wide range of reasons. They should have greater access to the court for this purpose.
14.168The Commission considers that the tests set out in sections 19(1) and 19(5A) should not apply to an application brought by an adopted person over 18.
14.169The Adoption Act should not impose a barrier to an adult adoptee applying to the court for a discharge of an adoption order but should require the court to be satisfied that the discharge of an adoption order is appropriate and desirable in all the circumstances.
14.170The Commission acknowledges that discharging an adoption order has implications such as reinstating a person’s right to inherit from their natural parents and severing their right to inherit from their adoptive parents. It is open to the court to make any orders relating to the ownership of property.188 The court should continue to have the ability to make ancillary orders when discharging an adoption order.189
14.171The Commission observes that the court has made 17 such orders in the previous six years. Its recommendation does not change the consequence of discharge orders.
Parties to an application to discharge an adoption order
14.172Under section 19(9) of the Adoption Act, the child, the natural parents, the adoptive parents, the Secretary or principal officer, and any other person who the court determines has a sufficient interest in the matter, may appear and be heard at the hearing of an application to discharge an adoption order.
14.173The Commission recommends that the Adoption Act should prescribe the parties to proceedings rather than it be discretionary. This should ensure that parties, including the natural parents and adopted parents, are advised of any application to discharge an adoption order and permit them the right to appear and be heard by the court in relation to an application.
14.174 It is important that all parties understand the legal effect and the possible consequences of discharging an adoption order. The court should ensure that they are advised of those consequences when they are notified of proceedings.
14.175 The Adoption Act should differentiate between parties to the discharge of an adoption order which relates to an adopted child or to an adopted person over the age of 18.
14.176 Parties to an application in relation to an adopted adult should include the adopted person, the natural parents and the adopted parents.
14.177 Parties to an adoption plan or the Secretary or principal officer should not be parties to proceedings for a discharge of an adoption order that relates to an adopted person over the age of 18. The terms of any adoption plan190 or conditions under an adoption order cease to have effect once an adopted person is over the age of 18,191 and the views of the Secretary or principal officer are no longer relevant.
Recommendations
69 The Adoption Act should:
a.define the parties to an application to discharge an adoption order:
i. in relation to an adopted person over 18, to include the adopted person, the natural parents, the adoptive parents, and any other person the court determines has a sufficient interest in the matter
ii. in relation to an adopted child, to include the adopted child, the natural parents, the adoptive parents, the Secretary or principal officer, any party to an adoption plan, and any other person the court determines has a sufficient interest in the matter.
b. require that the parties are advised of the legal effect of discharging an adoption order, when they are notified of proceedings.
70 The Adoption Act

should provide that an application to discharge an adoption order filed by an adopted person over the age of 18 should only require the court to be satisfied that the discharge of the order is appropriate and desirable in all the circumstances.

How does the need to remove abused children and place them in appropriate care justify adoption? 

Adoption is a system that changes the child’s authentic identity, it issues a completely new birth certificate naming the adopters as the people who gave birth to them, and severs the child’s legal connection to sisters, brothers, grandparent’s, uncles, aunts, extended family, heritage and bloodline for life and beyond, when there are other long term guardianship programs that do not sever the child’s birth rights?

Forced adoption is being introduced in NSW but not all states agree

images (13)

VIC, SA, WA, and QLD have rejected adoption as not being in the best interest of the child and have introduced, expanded and re modelled various methods of long term guardianship that do not sever the child’s birth rights to its identity heritage and blood line but offers all the long term stability love and support a child needs, who can’t live with their parents for a variety of reasons.

Victoria’s position is that permanent care orders are a more appropriate and balanced option than adoption.(Permanent Care in Vic is a Guardianship model)

Liana Buchanan Victoria’s Commissioner for Children and Young People agrees – “adoption cannot be seen as the panacea; Systems such as Permanent Care have been able to negotiate permanent arrangements for out-of-home care children that take into account the connection circumstance, heritage of the biological family, and can be more flexible in bringing permanency for the child in their care.”

Government of Western Australia Department of Communities
Do not support adoption from care as a primary mechanism for reducing the numbers of children in care a protection order (special guardianship) is the preferable option.

Queensland Chooses long –term out of home care for children and young people instead of adoption. My Home is a new care option for children who need long-term out-of-home care.

South Australia 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 children can gain additional feelings of security within a loving family through Other Person Guardianship.

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 interest 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’.”

Yesterday, the NSW Minister for Family and Community Services, Pru Goward, announced she will not be running for re-election in 2019.

 Pru Goward’s Retirement, Wednesday 19th December 2018.

Yesterday, the NSW Minister for Family and Community Services, Pru Goward, announced she will not be running for re-election in 2019. She has served the state of NSW for 12 years and is retiring to care for her ageing husband. No-one could fault retirement for such a purpose.

44023628_2119311504788396_8913081523259834368_n

NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, said Ms Goward was a ‘trailblazer for women’ and a ‘strong advocate for the people of the Goulburn electorate’ (1).  NSW Planning Minister, Anthony Roberts described her as ‘a remarkable individual’ who had ‘championed the cause of women over decades’ (2). A quick google search provided these – just FYI:

1. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/no-safe-refuge-for-domestic-violence-victims-in-goulburn-20150710-gi9fr9.html

2. https://www.wel.org.au/womens_refuges_15_10_15

I suspect there are more.

Ms Goward said that her decision was ‘personal’ and a ‘difficult one’, made ‘in the best interests’ of her family.

Interesting.

Using near century-old adoption language to describe her family circumstance is psychologically…. performatively….. interesting.

Has ‘in the best interest of the child’ become part of her daily vernacular? The definitive discourse of adoption applied in a different context, slipped so easily – by design perhaps – into her retirement announcement … transliterated for media consumption to – ‘in the best interests of my family’.

It is simple of course. Now, at the end of his life, her husband needs his family.

He needs care from those who love him – those who know him. He will not be placed in the ‘care’ of strangers and ‘forgotten’. He will not be ‘vulnerable to abuse’ in a government run facility. He is not ‘unsupported’. He will not be voiceless and powerless to the impatience, abusive language or violence of strangers in an institution. Even the very best that money can buy in an aged care facility, wouldn’t be good enough. No-one is more qualified to care for a loved one who is dying than one’s own family. In both our coming in to life, and in leaving it, we are entitled to the care of our families.

Pru Goward’s husband is entitled not to suffer forced removal, or to be placed in ‘care’ against his will and/or without the consent of his family.

DB8g6nlO_400x400

Ms Goward’s words are powerful. She is an actor of the political stage. Her role is one of power – she is the maker of decisions – of lasting impact – forever even – in the lives of others. She speaks words that construct social narratives. Journalists record her words – the media repeats her words – inscribes her words – enshrines her words into history.

And so, I wonder whether Ms Goward has ever suffered financial hardship. She was not born into poverty, she has never been the victim of domestic violence, nor lost her home, nor been rejected by her parents, her church, society, judged by medical practitioners, state social workers, or the law. Nor do I believe, was she ever alone and destitute, when pregnant with any of her three children.

I listen to and I watch her performance. Despite her own contribution to the NSW State Apology for Forced Adoption (2012), in her final political act, only four short weeks ago, Ms Goward’s new ‘adoption bill’ for the state of NSW was passed into legislation.

Her solution to the state’s child-protection system’s ‘failings’ was to make forced adoption legal.

When NSW forced adoption law is implemented it will be couched as being, ‘in the best interests of children’.

Ms Goward worked hard to implement her final political act. I don’t think this is her final exit from the public stage. She is entering a transition period. She will come through this transition and we will see her again. She will most likely be playing a different role – but one of similar character – one with the same objectives.

And, ‘in the best interest of the child’ will be a repeated line.

If she does not return, it will only be because resistance to her final act is persistent. It will only be if resistance to the Commonwealth Parliament’s Committee Inquiry into Local Adoption Report,

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Localadoption/Report?fbclid=IwAR2tEh0mBs2R9owecNoGrIuVmW5-LBSPrVfw3ESmMTz9W8Dx-pm2JlagxRA

… which recommends, a ‘national (forced) adoption law’ is persistent.

25550355_1735359599850257_6654000041061965488_n

If she does not return it will be because persistent resistance comes from within the ‘system’ – by the good people working in our states’ and territories child protection units, who have, over decades, campaigned for and successfully implemented ‘permanent care orders’ not adoption orders – and only when absolutely necessary.

If she does not return it will be because resistance also persistently comes from those of us who know what it means to live with the impact of family separation – of inter-generational loss – and the lifelong impact of adoption trauma.

Resistance must come from those of us who believe in breaking the cycle – from those who know that change can only come through continuity in the care for mothers, babies, children and families in need – and in commitment to the preservation of families – not in the same repetition of speech, action and silenced outcomes.

Not in what the state itself has acknowledged was cruel – not in apology – and not in claiming, that the political ‘mistakes of the past’ would never be repeated.

Elizabeth Russell

Thursday 20th December, 2018

 

 

Why wont adopters care for children without having the child’s identity severed?

“If we’re going to make a decision to remove children from their family of origin, it has to be to something better.”

A model that changes the child’s true identity in the name of care, like adoption does, is not better. It may save a child from abuse but at what price?

2o7j3t

I see adoption, in it’s present form, as a crime against the child; to legally sever a child, who will become an adult, from not only the parents but also their brothers, sisters, uncle aunts, cousins, grandparents, extended family, heritage and blood line.

As an adopted person I can understand in some cases a child may not be able to live with their parents, for many reasons, however I cannot understand the legal severing for life being the price the child pay’s for that care.

Is this in the child’s best interest?

May be in some circumstances severing parental rights until they are 18/21 years of age is necessary but why brothers, sisters, uncle aunts, cousins, grandparents, extended family, heritage and blood line for life?

I think not.

It seems to me that it’s all about the adopters wants for ownership to fulfill their needs and governments need to get them out of the system and save money. Get them adopted and off their books.

As an adopted person living grafted onto my adopters family tree and having no legal connection to my true heritage the pain gets more and more as I grow older.

To tell you the Truth, now at 66 years of age I don’t want to die being someone else. I want to die being the person I was born as and that is William Hammersley (the name my mother gave me). I want my real parents names on my death certificate not my legal parents (the adopters) .

The adopters always argue that they are the real parents and our Biological parents are merely Birth parents and that Biology and heritage does not matter.

This I find extraordinary, especially when I consider the number of non adopted people that use Ancestry.com and other heritage search organisations. I cannot understand why it is important to the thousands if not millions of non adopted people but not adopted people.

Why is there a shortage of carers in child protection when we are told there are so many people who want to adopt?

Why won’t a person who wants 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?

To know who you once were (like adoption is suppose to allow) is not the same as being legally connected to who you really are.

 

 

“HER ADOPTIVE MOTHER SAYS THE LITTLE GIRL HAS  “COMPLETED ME”

In a new advertising campaign by Family and Community Services NSW,

https://www.facebook.com/familyandcommunityservicesnsw/videos/286339242006851/

A very young adopted child is presented to viewers through only the perspective of her adoptive parents. Entitled ‘A Perfect Match’, the ad’s language harks back to past practices when babies and children were ‘matched’ to their adopters, and when adoption was sold as the ‘one size fits all’ solution to social problems of poverty, single motherhood, the ‘unwanted’ child, illegitimacy and infertility, in one fell swoop. In this ad, the adopted child’s adoptive parents ‘talk about’ her – she is too young to grasp the intent of the advertisement. Her adoptive mother says the little girl has ‘completed me’ and again, the notion that the grief of infertility is resolved by adopting someone else’s baby harks back to past narratives and false claims that adoption completes life for people who are unable to have their own children.

Elizabeth Russell

download (3)

The majority of adopters are infertile and infertility is considered to be a trauma and professionals now recommend that before one takes a major decision such as bringing an alien child into the home the potential adopters work through any grief issues they have about the loss of not being able to have their own biological child.

If the grief and other psychological phenomena that attach to infertility are not dealt with prior to adoption it can set the adoption up to fail.

Additionally unexpressed or repressed grief may be displaced as an overwhelming need to adopt and this of itself can cloud judgement. Once a couple have adopted they then have a vested interest in justifying to themselves and others that what they have done is ‘good and moral’….Apology Alliance

2mf883.jpg

So her entire ancestry and identity had to be obliterated so she could get care? How is that still happening in this day and age? If she has siblings she is not related to them anymore! And now has genetic strangers named as having given birth to her!

Sharyn white

 

 

You are told that the UK is an example that should be followed here in Australia and that we don’t adopt anywhere as many as we should like the UK do.

The Liberal MP Ms Banks said while launching the Federal report recommending a national adoption law be established. in Canberra on Monday 26/11/2018. “That adoption figures would have been closer to 5000 if Australia had a less fragmented system, like that in the United Kingdom.”

Yet in the United Kingdom a very different view is rising

The use of adoption places the UK in much closer alignment with the US than with European states, as outlined by the Donaldson Adoption institute.

Let’s look at the ethical dilemma that is now presenting in the UK after several years of previous Prime Minister David Cameron’s push for more adoptions to take place and forced adoption which mirrors the push here at the moment by the Federal Government and people with vested interests in adoption.

The research paper below screams caution, caution and was done BY the people at the coal face of adoption in the UK.
They felt it necessary for many, many reasons as they find themselves in an ethical dilemma having been forced to follow

Cameron’s emotionally ignorant and damaging push.

Anyone person caring for children at the moment with a view to adopting them has no idea today how adoption will play out in the lives of those children when they grow up.

NO IDEA.

It is nothing that any prospective adoptive parent can predict little alone this committee and it really is Russian roulette when it comes to their later life.

We can look at what has gone before in this country and learn from the lived experience of tens of thousands of people and be emotionally intelligent ENOUGH in the best interests of the child and the child’s ENTIRE LIFE to say, the lived experience of so many tells us to be very cautious when it comes to adoption in any form open or closed.

You are told that the UK is an example that should be followed here in Australia and that we don’t adopt anywhere as many as we should like the UK do.

This following film tells a different side of the story
Great Britain is one of two European countries where ‘forced adoption’ takes place, whereby a child’s biological parents are given no say in the decision to give up their offspring.

The stated motive for the practice is putting the child’s interests first, but opponents insist that social workers often abuse their powers simply to meet targets. Human rights activists have raised concerns about the fairness of the system.

They believe child protection services often act on false allegations and operate under vague definitions of child abuse to forcibly remove children from their natural parents.
Is this what we want in Australia?

It has been shown in other countries that Adoptions lead to even higher costs, with the engagement of Adoption Agencies as exceedingly high placement fees, and in some instances a continuation of fostering allowances to the adopters until the child attains 18 years.

Unsurprisingly, it is also the Adoption Agencies that are pressing for more adoptions, as it will considerably enrich them as it has done in the UK and other countries.
Many families have had to flee the country just to keep their kids.

Bridget Robb Chief Executive British Association of Social Workers – Time: 46.38 in the following film states

“There are some cases going on where the parents are challenging the adoption order and that’s a very hard one because legally at adoption they are no longer a child of those parents.

The courts normally say even if it was wrong to make that initial decision to upset the child again and move them back is not necessarily the right answer because adoption stays with people the rest of their lives.

This isn’t a short-term decision; this is making a decision for the next 70-80 years of that person’s life that they look back on that time in their life and they say but why, why was that and why was that done?

Why was I taken away without the consent of my parents? “

(Please note the video has some quiet spots in it please be patient and continue watching to the end)

BASW unveils the UK Adoption Enquiry report and key findings

https://www.basw.co.uk/media/news/2018/jan/basw-unveils-adoption-enquiry-report-and-key-findings

A new piece of research written by social workers predicts that forced adoption will come to an end in the UK. The document also offers new research on the impact of adoptions on birth parents and asks whether it is right for the government to pursue adoption at any cost.

The End Of Forced Adoption In The UK? Meet The Social Workers Challenging The System.

https://www.academia.edu/26396736/Birth_parents_perceptions_of_professional_practice_in_child_care_and_adoption_proceedings_implications_for_practice

How can it be right to have targets for breaking up families?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/13/breaking-up-families-councils-child-adoptions?fbclid=IwAR1S1_gSXBRp5mQy75Nuo2za_vQVFqNolSmpdjgQW6ZxYieAkZ0J-RYKD7g

“I know someone who’s adopted and they turned out fine”

michael janson 001Michael Janssen

FOUR FLAWS IN THE “I know someone who’s adopted and they turned out fine” argument

“They turned out just fine” is a popular argument defending many beliefs, including in adoption. It relies on the personal experience of just one adoptee who the supporter of adoption claims is ‘fine’.

It’s an argument with fatal flaws.

ONE: It’s what’s known as an ‘anecdotal error’

This error, in simple terms, states that “one adoptee was not negatively affected (as far as I can tell), so it must be O.K. for everyone.” As an example: “I wasn’t vaccinated, and I turned out fine. Therefore, vaccination is unnecessary.” We are relying on a sample size of one. Ourselves, or someone we know. And we are applying that result to everyone. This argument also immediately dismisses any and all adoptees critical of adoption as not being ‘fine.’

TWO: It takes a shortcut relying on  ‘availability reasoning’

Related to the anecdotal error, it’s where we reason using information that is immediately available to us when we are in the middle of the argument. In this case, information about a ‘friend who’s adopted’ is handy — it’s already available. My brother was smacked as a kid and he turned out fine, so smacking doesn’t hurt anyone. But studies show that availability reasoning is a cognitive bias that can cloud us from making accurate decisions that rely on ALL the information available. It blinds us to our own prejudices.

THREE: It dismisses well-substantiated, scientific evidence.

To say “I know an adoptee who turned out fine” is an arrogant dismissal of an alternative evidence-based view. The statement closes off discussion and promotes a single perspective that is oblivious to alternatives that may be more informed. Anecdotal evidence often undermines scientific results, to our detriment.

FOUR: It leads to entrenched attitudes

When confronted with alternative views, adoption supporters make an assumption that whoever holds those views is not fine, refusing to engage, explore or grow. Ironically, the inability to engage with views that run counter to their own suggests that it may be them who did not turn out quite so “fine.” For where is the line for deciding if an adoptee turned out fine? If it means the adoptee avoided prison, they are setting the bar conveniently low. Gainfully employed and have a family? Still a pretty basic standard. It is as reasonable to say “I turned out fine in spite of adoption” as it is to say “I turned out fine because of adoption.”

Adapted from Justin Coulson, author of the Australian best seller “10 Things Every Parent Needs to Know.”

FORCED ADOPTION DISPENSATION OF PARENT CONSENT

Adopt Change the New South Wales legislative approach would bring meaningful change to adoptions in Australia, in particular
:… the dispensation of consent to adoption where a known carer applies for adoption of a child.
The legislation goes on to specifically allow parents’ views on adoption to be overridden where there has been welfare concerns for the child and the court considers that adoption would be in the child’s best interest.
Barnardos Australia recommend that all states and territories should align their legislation to the standards of New South Wales where
:… children’s consent and the new relationship with the carer is a ground for dispensation of parental consent.
Parental consent may be dispensed with under certain circumstances if the child consenting to adoption is over 12 in New South Wales
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; therefore, the consent of the birth parents is not needed.
The children in child protection should not be able to choose to be adopted against there parents wishes studies show that they are unable to make such legally binding life long decisions