The vile UK and US Forced Adoption programme and the shocking outcomes

Dr. Jeremy Sammut wants Australia to follow the US and the UK model of Forced adoption – the link below outlines the shocking abuses inherent in his preferred model

In the US because of financially incentivising adoption, the focus of quick removal of children from their families combined with the fact adopters only want children under 3 thousands of children are left languishing in the foster care system.   Additionally there is a growing number of people who adopt, but are ill-equipped to look after children – so they give them away to unscreened individuals, some of whom are paedophiles,  on line in what is euphemistically called: re-homing

  1. MOTIVATED MOM: In her time seeking children on the Internet, Nicole Eason has referred to herself as Big Momma and Momma Bear. Her term for informal custody transfers is “non-legalized adoption,” and she defines the phrase to mean: “Hey, can I have your baby?” REUTERS/Samantha Sais

In the UK the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, replicated the US adoption model promoed by President Clinton.  The results have been disastrous.  For the same reasons as mentioned above occurring in the US system, thousands of UK children are stuck in the foster care system.  In the UK they do not re-home, but adoption agencies do advertise children via the internet and at “adoption markets” to try and get “hard to place children” – those 3 and over – homes.

Excerpts:  A  Stolen Generation In the Making – Part 6

The expansion of the foster care and adoption industries in the late 1990s is now reaping what it has sown with a concurrent increase of failed adoptions. The increase in subsidies provided to adoptive families under ASFA was the financial carrot to lure more families into taking children from the foster care system.  These subsidies though, only last until the youth is 18.  Financially rewarding individuals or organisations for adopting children has proven a failed social experiment.  The government claimed it would save money by alleviating ‘foster care’ drift. This has not worked.  Instead the increased economic and social costs are now being felt.  The number of homeless youths has increased exponentially and youth removed under ASFA who did not get adopted age out of the foster care system.  Consequently there are a growing number of homeless youths entering the local shelter system.[1]

The other reform that has had catastrophic results for families incurred by the US program to get “tough on child abuse” was the focus on unborn children.  According to Ian Vandewalker, of the Centre for Reproductive Rights, this is creating “yet another category of legal orphans”.   He explains that babies are being permanently separated for something the mother did before the child is born.  Usually it is the use of illegal drugs while pregnant.  The policy is to punish the mother for being ‘bad’.  He states:

This presumption in favour of termination is fundamentally ill conceived.  Termination of parental rights is a drastic and unwise response to the public health problems caused by illegal drug use: drug use or addiction does not, ipso facto, make someone unfit to care for a child –   making drug use itself a ground for breaking up a family is unnecessary. Given that it also has various negative effects, including trammelling the constitutional rights of mothers and creates legal orphans, the policy should be abandoned.[2]


It is not only the foster care system that is riddled with problems.  Children taken from foster care and placed for adoption have been murdered by their adopters:

“If you’re having problems, they’ll take your kids anytime they want,” said Robert Wabash, of the Sioux Nation, whose granddaughter and grandniece both died after being adopted … They are among countless children who have been rescued to their deaths by authorities entrusted with their protection .. Adoption can be every bit as deadly as foster care.[3]

A mother commits suicide because she loses her parental rights. Children are bashed, starved, suffocated, burned and belted to death[4] by people who adopted them to supposedly give them a ‘Forever Home’. Caseworkers do not properly screen potential adopters, falsify reports, and try and reunify children with adoptive parents that abused them.[5]

Part 8: A Stolen Generation in the Making

According to a UK article “While many babies are being adopted, as children get to school age the chances of getting adopted fall off dramatically”.[6]  In the year 2000 Tony Blair followed President Clinton’s lead and “streamlined adoption” by introducing financial incentives and bonuses to increase the number of adoptions conducted.  However adopters wanted babies not older children.   So by 2008 the number of babies taken into care increased by 300% with 4 babies being taken every day.

An investigative journalist stated:  “I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.  Meanwhile millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been given to councils to encourage them to meet high Government targets on child adoption. Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of children being adopted by 50% to 5,400 a year.  The annual tally has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales – 4 times higher than France, which has a similar-sized population.  Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than 2 million pounds each in rewards.  Figures recently released by Essex and Kent  councils  show they received more than 2 million pound in bonuses over three years to encourage additional adoptions.  This was supposed to get difficult to place older children in care but it didn’t work.  Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving even more children languishing in care.  As a result the number of children over seven adopted has plummeted by 50%. From the moment a mother is first accused of being ‘unfit’ to parent, a decision nearly always made by a social worker or doctor, the system is pitted against her.  If a social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving evidence makes a mistake no one finds out and there is no  retribution.   The system’s secrecy hides any wrong doing. One has to ask if a mother is expected to have problems looking after the baby why doesn’t the State help her instead of taking her child away?” [7]

In the UK, by 2013, so many children had been forcibly removed and their parents’ rights permanently extinguished that recruiting adopters for older children had become extremely difficult.[8] So agencies desperate to find parents to adopt the many children stuck in the foster care system have started to place ads in newspapers in what one adoption expert stated: “Felt liked the children were being advertised like an unwanted animal or second-hand sofa”. This has now evolved into placing children’s profiles and pictures up on the net so that potential adopters from all over Britain have a greater selection of children from which to choose.[9]

In the UK it is estimated that more than 40% of children, whose parents had their rights terminated in order to free them up for adoption, do not get adopted and remain in the foster care until they age out.[10] For these children the future is bleak.  One-third of children in care leave without matriculating only 6% of care-leavers go to university compared with 38% of all young people (which includes those left in challenging families). 40% of all young people in young offender institutions have been in care for more than two years before ending up in prison, while 25% of the adult prison population have been in care as children. UK adoption expert Kate Hilpern states that because of the above appalling statistics for the outcomes of children freed up for adoption, but who nobody wants, social workers feel they must now advertise them in the national press.  Joanne Alper, a service director at AdoptionPlus said her agency was under a lot of pressure to be creative and find adoptive parents so that is why her agency advertised the children.  Between 2011-2013 years things became so desperate that adoption agencies began holding adoption markets. These are gatherings where children are put on display so that potential adopters may select the one they want.[11]  The markets are usually reserved for hard to place children, such as those over three, sibling groups and children with special needs. A booklet of the children’s profiles is provided.[12]  In short the UK and the US by offering financial incentives for agencies and local authorities to foster and adopt children have created a market based care system that fails to protect children, has created a domestic market that relies on trafficking children from one class to another and has led to thousands more children languishing in foster care and institutions.[13]

[1] Ibid ; Foster Care, Child Welfare Reform in Review. (2012). ‘The Legal Orphans’, January 1,

[2] Vandewalker, I.  (2008).‘Taking the Baby Before it’s Born: Termination of the Parental Rights of Women Who Use Illegal Drugs while Pregnant’, N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 32, pp. 423-463, at p. 423

[3] Rewarding States for Adoptions Part of the Problem, Rather Than a Solution (2010, Nov 6).  ; Wodard, S. (2010, Oct 12). Iowa Commission Takes on Child-Welfare Morass’, HuffingtonPost

[4] Barth, R. Hodorowicz, M. *2011). ‘Foster and Adopted Children Who Die From Filicide: What Can We Learn and What Can We Do’? Adoption Quarterly,  14(2), pp. 84-106: .Pierce, J. (2010, Aug 11). ‘Adoptive Mother, Boyfriend Not Charged with Murder in OKC Child’s Death’, Oklahoma’s Own.

[5] Rewarding States for Adoptions Part of the Problem, Rather Than a Solution (2010, Nov 6).

[6] Roberts, H. (2011, April 18). ‘Orphans aged over five left to languish in care because they’re ‘too old’ for adoption’, MailOnline

[7] Reid, S. (2008, Jan 31). ‘How Social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption’, MailOnline,

[8] ibid

[9] Amanda Williams. (2013, Dec 24). ‘Parents can adopt online: Children’s photos and profiles to be put on internet to boost adoption rates’, Daily Mail,

[10] Halpern, K. (2013 Dec 11). ‘Parents wanted: Why adoption agencies are going to greater lengths to find home for children’, The Independent

[11] Hilpern, K. (2013, Sept 24). ‘Adoption parties: the best way to find a child a family’, The Independent,

[12] ibid

[13] Reid, S. (2008, Jan 31). ‘How Social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption’, MailOnline,


About apologyalliance

For Bio info click on - About - tab and 'A bit about me' Dr. Christine A. Cole Convenor Apology Alliance Australia
This entry was posted in My Articles. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The vile UK and US Forced Adoption programme and the shocking outcomes

  1. Phylis Read says:

    The Australian Government are going to do this…under the guise of ‘only at risk children and in the best interests of the child’…
    this is a falsehood in every aspect,for one the children who ‘fit the criteria’ for immediate adoption are healthy loved babies from birth (straight from the Young Mother’s womb at the birthing suite) to 3 years of age,the departments very own ‘criteria’ for ‘undamaged babies-toddlers’ as damaged children and older children do not ‘fit their criteria for immediate adoption,also the lies that continue about this is only to ‘blind-blinker’ the public to the truth,’a lie repeated enough must then be true’…so the public are unaware of the true intent and danger in this policy.why while still holding the Royal Commission into child abuse across Australia,after all the Apologies to the Forgotten Australian’s/Stolen Generation’s/Child Migrant’s/Maltese and Mothers of Forced Adoptions is this continuing ?…because not one part of this is True and in the best interests of the child in any way it is being pushed through as fast as possible while the Publics and Medias eyes are on the Royal Commission,and ‘surely the department and Government would never repeat the same mistakes of the past while such a public display of the Royal Commission is ongoing?’…yes it is and with such malicious intent they have learnt nothing from the past,our past,my past but to lie better and continue to state ‘only those endangered or unwanted’.lie after lie after lie.Wake up Australia before it is your child or grandchild stolen!…From a Forgotten Australian/Stolen Generation Child Abuse Survivor still fighting to protect innocent children and families 30-4-2014.

    • Rob Taylor says:

      My husband was taken from his mother at birth and did not ever have a chance to meet her or tell her that he loved her. She never married or had another child. On receiving her medical records 55 years later he was horrified to read that she had been injected with piticon to make labour as painful as possible. She was given NO pain relief. Both mother and baby were put at risk due to this unnecessary CRUELTY. Our family history will record what was done to my husbands mother. We hold everyone involved personally responsible for their inhumane treatment of a frightened, vulnerable young woman and her tiny ,precious newborn baby. Not one person thought about mother or child. The actions of those involved in the kidnapping are criminal.The adoptive “parents” will be viewed with utter contempt for future generations, due to their total selfishness.

  2. This is a scary, gross and disturbing report! Sammut, the author of a very negative report/article that came out just after the Apology – a Debbie-Lee fan who obviously doesn’t give much thought to the human sides of this supposed ‘grand plan’: saving dollars for the government, creating virtual families for the wealthy and basking in the Hollywood spotlight are the winners here!

    How is the government going to fund safe, precise, exact assessment of legitimate ‘adopters’ to eliminate costs of the OOHC when they complain about increasing spending $s on the present system – and that even isn’t done correctly?
    We hear and read of so many complaints of children slipping through the cracks, ending up injured or dead after DOCS ignored or incorrectly assessed situations. Or won’t they bother: simply hand them over to anyone who ‘wants’ a child for whatever reason (??? scary) once they get legislation through?
    If abuse and the reasons for taking children from existing homes, continues in their new homes – who will they then blame?
    Or will they simply keep it quiet, seeing they have solved the problems infertility and cutting costs to the public purse starting with that most valuable commodity: babies and children!

    Then I suppose they’ll look seriously at cost cutting the disabled purse – Joe Hockey did mention something about this the other day – followed on by the elderly in nursing homes with government subsidy, after they cut the age and carers pensions.

    Also the eugenics tainted plan of giving wealthy couples bonuses to produce a better class of Australian? This totally disgusts me and many others. But abuse occurs through all levels of society and this won’t stop – will they take the abused children from those with the financial means to fight DOCS to save their reputations?.

    I do believe that those self-funded retirees should be more tightly means tested, but what of those of us who did not have the chance to build up superannuation during working years? As deserted wife with two children I worked as a casual for many years: no holiday pay or super, and only in the last ten years of my working life was able to save enough to ensure I now own the roof over my head.

    All the gloom and doom regarding growing ageing population with dementia, I wonder if in the future they will bring in compulsory euthanasia at a certain age if the person does not meet their health and self-sufficiency criterion; to save the public purse of course!

    There has to be a better way of managing this country – I do despair sometimes thinking of my grandchildren and theirs to follow.

  3. Rob Taylor says:

    I am horrified that the government is going to allow adoptions again on the excuse that it is in the “best interests of the child.” It is sad that some women can”t have children (like Debra – Lee Furness) that does NOT mean they are entitled to another womans child because they have more money. Money does not qualify a woman as a good mother!!!!!!!. Oprah Winfrey didn’t feel the need to take another womans’ child- she donated money to educate children so they could stay with their parents. That is what Debra- Lee Furness could also do if she really cared about those children. Taking another womans’ child is absolutely abhorrant and should NEVER, EVER be allowed in Australia again. There is always a blood relative of a child to care for him/her until the mother/parent can resume their care. I fear for the mothers and their babies who are once more going to be reduced to mere commodities again because of Debra- Lee Furness and her rich and famous husband. She is not a mother and has no concept of the mother -child bond.

  4. Philippa Boldiston says:

    In the Bringing Them Home report of 1997 it established that 90% of adult Aboriginal male prisoners in Australia had been adopted, fostered or institutionalized as children. In NSW 95% of adult male (self termed) Aboriginal prisoners had been adopted, fostered or institutionalized as children. Is removing a child from its family really in the best interest of the child?

    Taking children from their biological family creates catastrophic consequences for that individual and the entire society. Many children extracted from their biological origins grow into adults who have had their true identities hidden and suffer from a range of distressing identity problems…. Their children in turn also have to take on fictive ancestries…. Is living a lie, in the best interest of the child/adult? What child/adult?

    Waiting for eighteen years before being legally permitted to find the truth of your own identity defeats the purpose of individual security. How can it be in the best interest of a child to have a fictive identity forced upon him or her only to find the truth as an adult?

    Who Do You Think You Are? Is an extremely popular and intriguing television series where well known individuals come to ‘find themselves through their ancestors’. I would like to know Who Debra Lee Furness and Hugh Jackman think they are. Have they told the boy they took at birth about his mother? Have they told her that his mother killed herself because she was not allowed to see him her son? The lies and secrecy gives a lifelong cover to adopters for their kidnapping of another woman’s baby. Is this lifelong secrecy in the best interest of a child/adult?
    Just exactly who does benefit from lies and secrecy? Who is being protected by lies and secrecy and being removed from all natural biological communications…. Has the baby been abused by every member of its own family? Why stigmatize a baby/child/adult?

Leave a Reply