Health Fact Sheet: Supporting people affected by forced adoption

http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/forced-adoption-practices

The Working Group (consisting of mothers, adopted persons and a father) advising the Federal Government on the most efficient and effective measures to assist those impacted by Forced Adoption have formulated a brief Health Fact Sheet. The aim of the Fact Sheet is to assist trauma specialists and other clinicians working with Survivors of Forced Adoption to understand their unique mental and physical health needs.

……………………

History and background

A large proportion of the Australian population has been exposed to Australia’s historical adoption practices.  Many of them – mothers, fathers, adopted persons and other family members who were directly involved, as well as subsequent partners, children, extended family and later generations – still experience the wide ranging impacts. 

What did people experience?

A Senate Committee[1] investigated forced adoption policies and practices in Australia. Their report, tabled on 29 February 2012, described the following practices that predominately took place during the second half of the 20th Century:

  • Young single pregnant women were often sent away from home to overcome prejudice or judgement from the community.
  • Most women were sent to institutions owned and operated by religious and other organisations where the conditions were frequently harsh and abusive.
  • The institutions frequently arranged adoptions, but often social workers, and occasionally doctors and nurses, also took ‘consents’ and arranged adoptions.
  • Adoption was almost always recommended (‘the right thing to do’). Other options were limited or non-existent.
  • Some mothers had their ante-natal medical records marked ‘BFA’ (Baby for Adoption) without any discussion.
  • When giving birth, many mothers experienced poor medical treatment, abuse and administration of drugs against their will.
  • Parents, boyfriends and fiancés were discouraged, and sometimes barred, from access to the institutions and hospitals to see the mother or the baby and their perspectives and views on adoption were often ignored.
  • Babies were generally removed at birth and mothers restricted from seeing their babies despite adoption papers not being signed.
  • Babies were often in ‘limbo’ for weeks or even months as adoption processes were finalised.
  • Many mothers were manipulated into giving consent to the adoption and incorrectly told that consent could not be revoked. In some instances their signatures were forged or post-dated.
  • New birth certificates were issued and adoption records sealed. Legal mechanisms were put in place to prevent contact in later years.
  • The separation experience at birth for a mother and her baby was profoundly traumatic for both of them.
  • As people attempted to re-build their lives, mothers in particular were strongly discouraged from speaking about their experiences. They were frequently either not believed or blamed for the adoption.
  • Adopted people were often not given information about their origins. Some felt either abandoned or that they should be grateful for being adopted.  They had to adjust to their separation and loss while integrating new identities and families into their lives. Many were not told that they were adopted and found out as adults, sometimes decades later and in traumatic circumstances.

These practices reflected the ‘clean break’ theory in which a mother and her child were separated as early and as completely as possible.  It was understood that the separation caused both of them grief but the level of trauma inflicted was poorly recognised because attachment theory was in its infancy and pre-birth bonding was not well understood. Mothers and their children did not forget their separation experiences. Many adopted people, as children and as adults, struggled with attachment and identity issues and the ongoing adoption impacts were, and continue to be, felt by many others including their children.

Impacts

Adoption has significant personal and psychological impacts. Research conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies[2] found that for people affected by past adoption practices:

  • Mothers have a higher likelihood of severe mental disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
  • People who are adopted are more likely to experience mental health disorders, poorer wellbeing, higher psychological distress and encounter problems with attachment, identity, abandonment and parenting their own children. In later years, they have sometimes had difficulty acknowledging their role in both their family of origin and their adoptive family.
  • Fathers may experience mental health issues and symptoms of PTSD.

Supporting affected people

The Australian Institute of Family Studies research highlights the importance of:

  • Validating experiences associated with adoptions as most affected people have lived in silence and have not been able to talk openly and freely about their experiences.
  • Understanding that the effects of the separation and adoption experience are real for the people involved and are often ‘triggered’ by subsequent life events eg birthdays, births or deaths within a family.
  • Understanding that there may have been complicity by doctors and nurses, and this mistrust and suspicion carries forward into how affected people trust those professions today.
  • Doctors, mental health professionals and nurses providing sensitive and appropriate professional services across a range of situations.
  • Affected people receiving appropriate therapeutic services which may include treatment for the trauma they experienced.
  • Referrals to adjunct services providing peer support and search and connect services when people are seeking their personal information or wishing to reconnect with their original families. 

What language is preferred?

How people affected by forced adoptions are referred to is important.  While practitioners should seek to understand the client/patient’s preferred description of what occurred, practitioners must remain aware of the power of language and that the terms they use can exacerbate feelings of fear, blame, shame, disassociation and disentitlement.

Written materials should be designed with great care.  When working with clients/patients who have a personal experience of separation by adoption, it is respectful to the client to use language with which the client feels safe and comfortable.

Recommended terminology includes:

  • Mother / Father – Many women who gave birth to children who were subsequently adopted prefer to be known as ‘mothers’ without any qualifying terms like ‘birth’, ‘natural’ or ‘relinquishing’ which may insult or annoy mothers and fathers who had their child removed at birth.  The use of the term ‘birth mother/father’ has the effect of denying their status of being a mother or a father and may also be interpreted as limiting their role to that of an incubator.
  • Adopted Person – Many adults who were adopted as children prefer to be known as ‘adopted persons’.
  • Adoptive parents – Use this term with great sensitivity.  Mothers often feel adoptive parents were complicit in the forced adoption practices and adoptive parents can feel blamed for what happened.  Referring to ‘adoptive parents’ in the presence of a mother who had her child removed at birth can be highly traumatising. 

Assistance for people affected by forced adoptions

On 21 March 2013 the then Prime Minister of Australia offered a national apology ‘for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering’.

On the first anniversary of the National Apology, the Forced Adoptions History Project http://forcedadoptions.naa.gov.au/was launched.  This website is helping raise awareness of forced adoptions issues. It includes the history and effects of forced adoptions, and information about accessing records.

The website also includes information about the support and advocacy organisations in each state and territory.

People affected by forced adoption may benefit from the Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS) or Medicare subsidised services. They can also access a range of other mainstream mental health services including crisis support lines, telephone and online counselling and the virtual clinic, Mindspot.

For more information about specialist support services for people affected by forced adoptions visithttp://dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/forced-adoption-practices orEmail forcedadoptions@dss.gov.au.

 

[1] Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report, Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices, February 2012.http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/commcontribformerforcedadoption/report/index

[2] Past Adoption Experiences: National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Practices http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport21/index.html

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.

2 Responses to Health Fact Sheet: Supporting people affected by forced adoption

  1. Rob Taylor says:

    It has now been over 56 years since my husband was kidnapped from his mother at birth. She died before he ever had the chance to meet her. In May last year , on his 55th birthday he applied to the AIU to have all information released to him. In September last year he received the adoption paper that his mother had signed . All the information had been typed in. The date and place of signing was missing. He discovered that his mother and father had been in a relationship for 12 months and that his father was 27 years old. His mother had left all of his fathers details including his last name.(She would have expected it to have been on his original birth certificate but it WASN”T!!!! )The AIU however REMOVED his fathers name because it was not on the Memorandum of Adoption. It was not on the MoA because the social worker at the time did not want the father getting in the way of the adoption. In early October he asked PARC to obtain his fathers name from the AIU. In early December PARC finally received his fathers name to begin the search. In early April he applied under Freedom of Information to the Minister Pru Goward to obtain his fathers name. Her office wrote back saying they had referred the application back to the AIU. This has been an exercise in frustration. We have the ludicrous situation of the AIU and PARC knowing his fathers name but my husband is not allowed to know his own fathers name!!!!. So the law applies now but it was quite acceptable in 1958 for an almost 23 year old woman to have her only child kidnapped at birth,forced to sign a false document,witnessed by a JP(who committed perjury) and given away to strangers by the Supreme Court of NSW . So all of those who took part in a criminal act (doctor , midwives,JP, social worker ,child welfare department director and last but not least the Supreme Court judge) are apparently all above the law. If this disgraceful practice doesn’t warrant a Royal Commission then I don’t know what does!!!!
    How many others have been getting the run around like we have? If this is typical then the apologies from politicians was just a cheap and cruel exercise to gain political points.
    We are totally disgusted by the criminals who perpetrated this crime and those who protected them and still do to this day.

  2. Rob Taylor says:

    Now that so many victims of “forced adoptions” (kidnapping) have had their paperwork released to them ,is it possible to begin to compile a list of all of those (criminals) who were involved?
    I have a full list of everyone involved in my family’s case and am prepared to release them for public viewing.

    Just as the victims of institutional chid sexual abuse were named before that Royal Commission began, could this list be the beginning of a push for a justifiable Royal Commission into “forced adoptions”?

    Those responsible need to be held accountable no matter how long ago these crimes were committed. Kidnapping is a criminal offence and these babies were kidnapped. The perpetrators have been protected for far too long.

    I would value the opinions of others whose lives have been affected by this cruel practice.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s