The Hon. Justice Peter McClellan sounded as if he’d had his fill of the child savers
Deborra-lee Furness has been nominated as NSW’s Australian of the Year. I am outraged! Furness an adoptive mother who has pushed her own agenda and used her power and media prestige to do so – in my opinion has done nothing to promote the real interests of the most vulnerable children in either Australia or overseas. I focus on the children because that is Furness’ ploy. Furness wants to be known as an “orphan saver” – last century she would have been called a “child saver”, but what about the families, the mothers of the children she is supposedly “saving” – what about their exploitation? In fact they are rendered invisible – how many in the main stream media, know or care about what happened to her adopted son’s mother? She committed suicide. But I never hear any discussion of the terrible outcomes for the mothers whose baby’s are saved by the Furness’ of the world –
Just like the 250,000 babies stolen from their white unwed mothers over last century – only they were labelled “unwanted” and the Furness’s of the time their saviours. How many of the child savers of last century were rewarded for their services to children. Those that run institutions were children were routinely brutalised, those like Dr. Barnardo that shipped children to the back blocks of Canada where they were supposedly adopted and where many just disappeared – unable to be traced. They were the children of the poor rounded up off the streets of London, labelled orphans and sent overseas to be “saved”. How much money changed hands in the adoption trade? According to one British Report I read one privately run adoption agency made over 100,000 pound – in today’s money that equates to many millions of dollars.
In the last month we have had some powerful documentaries exposing the very ugly side of adoption. For instance how adopting orphans, who turn out not to be orphans, from orphanages in developing countries not only causes black markets in children to develop but another phenomena called “orphan shopping” and “orphan tourism” to emerge – where strangers are given unsupervised access to young children in these institutions. The unfortunate reality of saving orphans are that in many cases the people that Furness represent are actually making the problem worse. Wealthy foreigners going into developing countries with weak laws and corrupt officials is having the unintended consequence of creating more orphanages so unscrupulous middle men can take advantage of an expanding economic market – a market in children. Hence more orphanages are springing up – some describe them as “child supermarkets” – and these middle men make millions from “stocking” these institutions with borrowed or stolen children. They use the children as fund raising tools or in some cases make large profits by selling children to wealthy westerners.
Just this week ABC 4 Corners exposed the barbarity of the unwed mother and baby homes and the cruelty inflicted on the thousands of babies stolen from their Irish mums – many being sold to wealthy Americans – these children were sent to America as Irish orphans – how many Furness’ received awards for saving these stolen children?
The history of Forced Adoption in Australia is in essence a history of the development and implementation of modern day slavery. A newborn treated as if a commodity is transferred via a dubiously acquired or fraudulent contract from their mother to a more powerful class of strangers who want/need are desirous of children. The newly acquired human beings have their identities changed and ownership confirmed through a certificate of entitlement given to the adopters. It is not a birth certificate but a certificate of entitlement because it does not reflect the true birth details of the baby – the real parents are obliterated and the adopters are referred to as the only parents – and misrepresents the birth by inferring that they were the ones who gave birth. The original name is changed and the newly acquired infant must take on the name of the adopters. So as this document in no way reflects the reality of the birth it cannot be called a birth certificate. It merely reflects a legal transaction whereby the person so transferred has taking on a new identity and now belongs to its new owners. No longer allowed knowledge of or any access or contact with any member of his or her original family. The child had absolutely no rights in this transaction and if anyone thinks that the mothers’ did they are deluding themselves. The mothers were treated as unpaid surrogates and were expected to carry their infant for the benefit of a white, middle class married couple. And just like slavery of old these children are expected to be grateful to the strangers who have acquired them.
Please read the following short history of the failure of the state to care for children – whether via institutionalisation, foster care or adoption – they are all failed social experiments that have served a number of highly dubious purposes – providing babies for the infertile powerful; saving the state money; assimilating children considered inferior to a “class above their own”; the “whitening of Australia” and a tool of social control. It is a sad fact that Australia has acknowledged that the removal or threat of removal of one’s child has been a most effective form of social control since at least the late 1800s. Abbott’s recent reference to the quick removal of children from “ineffective parents” is certainly a veiled threat to parents on welfare that they best become “effective” very quickly or risk the removal of their child/ren –
A short excerpt
Australian Inquiries// <!– apparently unsupported –> // //
At the time that Justice McClellan was making his opening remarks, barely three weeks had passed since Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard delivered her historic apology to an estimated 250,000 mothers for the coerced adoptions they had endured at the hands of social workers, hospitals, and the clergy.
“Friends, as the time for birth came, these babies would be snatched away before they had even held them in their arms,” Prime Minister Gillard said during her apology.
“Sometimes, consent was achieved by forgery or fraud. Sometimes women signed adoption papers whilst under the influence of medication.
“Most common of all was the bullying arrogance of a society that presumed to know what was best.
“The hurt did not simply last for a few days or weeks. This was a wound that would not heal.”
Veteran journalist Dan Rather conducted an extensive investigation into coerced adoptions, finding them to be a phenomenon with global reach. In a recent article on the subject, Rather explains: “From Australia to Spain, Ireland to America, and as recent as 1987, young mothers say they were ‘coerced’, ‘manipulated’, and ‘duped’ into handing over their babies for adoption. These women say sometimes their parents forged consent documents, but more often they say these forced adoptions were coordinated by the people their families trusted most… priests, nuns, social workers, nurses or doctors.”
With respect to coerced adoptions in the United States, Rather explains: “We have interviewed numerous women in the U.S. who told us that they were sent to maternity homes, denied contact with their families and friends, forced to endure labor with purposely painful procedures and return home without their babies. Single, American mothers were also denied financial support and told that their children would be better off without them.” According to some estimates, Rather explains, approximately 1.5 million women in the United States may have been pressured or coerced into relinquishing their babies shortly after birth.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s apology followed the recommendations of a Committee established to investigate the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices. The Committee’s report provided a stunning indictment of practices that were frequently engaged in by social workers, maternity homes, hospitals, and religious institutions. These practices had gone largely unchallenged for decades.
The Committee noted that while there may have been a difference of opinions between professionals regarding the issue, at least one prominent professional had a specific view. In 1959, Dr D. F. Lawson of the Royal Women’s Hospital gave the R.D. Fetherston Memorial Lecture. In his address, the Committee notes that he “made some startling remarks that carry particular significance when viewed through the lens of the experience of the women who gave evidence” to the inquiry:
The prospect of the unmarried girl or of her family adequately caring for a child and giving it a normal environment and upbringing is so small that I believe for practical purposes it can be ignored. I believe that in all such cases the obstetrician should urge that the child be adopted… The last thing that the obstetrician might concern himself with is the law in regard to adoption.