Deborra-lee Furness is back in town promoting her new pro adoption campaign.  The Murdoch controlled media are in full swing promoting her pro adoption agenda.

http://thehoopla.com.au/time-change-inter-country-adoption/

Prior to and after the National Apology (2013) we were dignified by being referred to as mothers who survived the Forced Adoption regime wherein 250,000 babies were illegally taken.  17% of whom were stolen from aboriginal mothers and placed with white married couples.  In Wendy Harmer’s article, Adoption: time for change, she interviews Furness who labels us “relinquishing mothers” and our stolen babies as “relinquished”.  I wonder in the US does Furness get away with using the “N” word to describe African Americans – because in my opinion she is getting away with the same level of insult here.  After I was drugged and held down and had my baby taken sight unseen to be referred to as a “relinquishing mother” is deeply insulting,  discriminatory and TRAUMATISING.  I guess though when your best friends with the PM and the Murdoch press you can get away with saying whatever you want about whatever minority you want  to insult.

The article once again regurgitates the lie that there are millions upon millions of orphans waiting to be saved.   Furness states:

UNICEF tried to correct the myth and stop the misuse of  labelling millions of children orphans – when they were not – for an obvious agenda.  They published the following on their website:.

Orphans | Press centre | UNICEF

UNICEF and global partners define an orphan as a child who has lost one or both parents. By this definition there were over 132 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean in 2005. This large figure represents not only children who have lost both parents, but also those who have lost a father but have a surviving mother or have lost their mother but have a surviving father. Of the more than 132 million children classified as orphans, only 13 million have lost both parents. Evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of orphans are living with a surviving parent grandparent, or other family member.  95 per cent of all orphans are over the age of five.This definition contrasts with concepts of orphan in many industrialized countries, where a child must have lost both parents to qualify as an orphan. UNICEF and numerous international organizations adopted the broader definition of orphan in the mid-1990s as the AIDS pandemic began leading to the death of millions of parents worldwide, leaving an ever increasing number of children growing up without one or more parents. So the terminology of a ‘single orphan’ – the loss of one parent – and a ‘double orphan’ – the loss of both parents – was born to convey this growing crisis.

However, this difference in terminology can have concrete implications for policies and programming for children. For example, UNICEF’s ‘orphan’ statistic might be interpreted to mean that globally there are 132 million children in need of a new family, shelter, or care. This misunderstanding may then lead to responses that focus on providing care for individual children rather than supporting the families and communities that care for orphans and are in need of support.

In keeping with this and the agency’s commitment to adapt to the evolving realities of the AIDS crisis, UNICEF commissioned an analysis of population household surveys across 36 countries. Designed to compare current conditions of orphans and non-orphans, the global analysis suggests we should further expand our scope, focusing less on the concept of orphanhood and more on a range of factors that render children vulnerable. These factors include the family’s ownership of property, the poverty level of the household, the child’s relationship to the head of the household, and the education level of the child’s parents, if they are living.

In UNICEF’s experience, these are the elements that can help identify both children and their families – whether this term includes living parents, grandparents or other relatives – who have the greatest need for our support.

// Updated: 21 August 2008

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45279.html

What’s worse in poor countries where there is demand for children orphans are manufactured. For example:  Orphan Tourism in Cambodia

http://nelbie.com/kevmarl/2014/8/5/the-cambodian-orphans-head-first-with-sabour-bradley-on-abctv

The above documentary implores Australians to stop  supporting an industry that exploits poor Cambodian children (who are not orphans) – It highlights the dreadful incidences of  tourists  walking in off the street and gaining unsupervised access to children or even being allowed to take them out of the orphanages on excursions – paedophile paradise!

On the Cambodian Orphanage Industry –

The desire of tourists to ‘help’ orphans – either as day tourists, volunteer tourists or donors – means there’s a huge amount of money on offer if you can start up an orphanage.

And many Cambodians are doing just that: stocking them with children they rent, buy or borrow from extremely poor parents (often in rural areas) with promises of a better life in the city. –

Hugh Jackman and Furness are both lobbying Tony Abbott to open up adoptions once more from Cambodia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/5431870

/Deborra-Lee Furness has met privately with Tony Abbott in New York to discuss adoption reform 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/deborralee-furness-has-met-privately-with-tony-abbott-in-new-york-to-discuss-adoption-reform/story-fni0cx12-1226951035812

Cambodia was originally closed to intercountry adoptions because of serious corruption and child trafficking

http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/adoption/cambodia.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884728.html

Interestingly when intercountry adoption was banned the number of “orphans” declined

Babies for sale: no warranty – http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884728.html

Returning back to Harmer’s article:

It also addresses the vexed issue of the supposedly anti-adoption culture  –  remembering anti-adoption is equated with a lack of care for children.  This is a false comparison and one that should never be made.

In reality the pro adoption lobby believe  supporting vulnerable families remain intact equates with being anti-adoption.  I suggest being pro adoption is being anti-biological family, particular  mother-headed families.

Furness states:

Then there are the children that were put up for adoption during the 50s to 70s who were born to single mothers – all the kids who were abused in State care. Society at the time did not look kindly on this situation.

What a lot of lies!  For one there was both financial and other supports available (and were from early 20th century)  but they were never revealed to the mothers because married infertile couples wanted our babies.

We did not relinquish our babies THEY WERE STOLEN – THAT IS WHY WE RECEIVED FEDERAL AND STATE APOLOGIES  –  FURNESS PLEASE READ THE APOLOGIES

I am 62 years old and I am on the younger side of many I have fought alongside to gain justice for mothers who had their children stolen for adoption – yet Furness is claiming many of us are NOW working within the adoption and foster care system  – doesn’t anyone question the rubbish that comes out of her mouth?

The whole nonsense about being anti-adoption is a strategy originally employed by the billion dollar unregulated adoption industry to stop adoptees who wanted their sealed adoption records opened.  Former President of the National Council for Adoption USA and President and Executive Director for the Committee of International Association of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, William L. Pierce, stated that anyone who wanted adoption records opened was anti-adoption.  This strategy was employed here by adoptive parent organisations such as Adoptive Parents Privacy Group and the Australian Council for Adoption (formerly the National Council for Adoption (Aust)).  The latter organisation and a number of its members submitted with their submission to the Inquiry into Overseas Adoption (2005) chaired by Bronwyn Bishop, a paper written by William L. Pierce, titled Death of Adoption in Australia? which criticised the opening up of records in Australia because we were being seen as a rallying point for US civil rights activists (mothers and adoptees) there.

Pierces states:

New Zealand, which has anti-adoption scene similar to Australia, has long been cited along with Australia as being a “model” for the US by anti-adoption interests such as Bastard Nation, the American Adoption Congress, Concerned United Birthparents and similar groups.

Anyone who reads the transcripts of the evidence given at that Inquiry cannot help but see the complete bias in support of adopters and the disregard for any damage done to adoptees and the mothers from whom they were taken.

The anti-adoption slogan also  happens to be a world wide strategy utilised by the international pro adoption lobby to garner societal support for the movement of  children across borders and for forcibly removing children from poor to comparatively wealthier families domestically –  and most relevantly – to silence its critics.

See: Submission 56 adoption – Google Search australian council for adoption – Parliament of Australia

To contrast the above pro adoption smoke and mirrors campaign described above please read the following media release from the WA Government:

A Memorandum of Understanding has been agreed with the Canadian province of Alberta to share the WA-developed Signs of Safety child protection practice framework. It is a tool embedded in WA’s child protection practice which enables child protection workers to rigorously assess the safety of a child.

“WA is a world leader in child protection practice, with the locally developed Signs of Safety child protection practice framework now being used in more than 100 jurisdictions and 17 countries around the world,” the Minister said. “Signs of Safety places families at the centre of assessing, planning for and taking responsibility to provide a safe and positive environment for their children.

Critically, the framework has strengthened our work with families, meaning more children can stay at home with a safety plan in place where needed. “Today’s signing will benefit both parties – we look forward to sharing the knowledge, skills and experience we have in WA with our Alberta counterparts, and in turn learn from them.”

The agreement was signed simultaneously via video link by Mrs Morton, and Alberta Minister of Human Services Manmeet S. Bhullar. “We know that removing children from their families is devastating and traumatic for all involved. I strongly believe children should remain with family or within their community unless there is a clear threat to their safety and wellbeing,” Mr Bhullar said.

Since the Signs of Safety Child Protection Framework was introduced, the average growth rate in numbers of children needing out-of-home care in WA over the past five years has almost halved to 6.7% in 2013-14 from 13% in 2007-08