A Stolen Gen 8: Adopters Don’t Want Contact

A STOLEN GENERATION IN THE MAKING

 Part 8

 Adoptive Parents Do Not Want Contact with Original Parents

Adoptive parents fought hard against the right of their adopted children now adults to access information about their biological parents contained in their adoption records.  In Australia adopters formed the Adoptive Parents Privacy Group and lobbied the government not to allow adoptees access to their information.[1]  They were concerned it would disrupt their adoptive families.  They felt betrayed that adoptees wanted to know their kin. When US adoptees tried to gain access to their records the APPG worked with the US based National Council For Adoption (NCFA) to ensure they did not succeed.  The APPG applauded the State of Tennessee’s decision not to allow adoptees access to their information as a victory for adoptive parents and applauded themselves for their contribution to the outcome.[2]  APPG and its sister organisation: The Australian Council for Adoption (ACFA) had links to William Pierce, the former Director of the NCFA and former President and Executive Director for the Committee of the International Association of Voluntary Adoption Agencies and NGO’s (IAVAAN).[3]  Pierce stated in an affidavit, he made when campaigning to stop the opening of the Tennessee records: [4]

The opening of adoption records and the reappearance of birth parents … have caused many potential parents to fear adoption in the USA … [It was] found that 10% of Americans who adopt from overseas did so because of this fear.

William Pierce was an avid supporter of closed secret adoption as are adoptive parents in general.

Trudy Rosenwald, in an ACFA submission to the government stated:

There is no longer any confidentiality in adoption arrangements … even though it is not in the best interests of the adopted person or the birth parent to have their rights to privacy violated.  Adoptive parents are “selfish and possessive” if they wish to preserve the unity and security of their intact family … Thus Australia is seeing continual decreases in adoption, due largely to this negative portrayal of adoption which started in the 70s as a strategy in the campaign to open closed adoption records, which in itself is a strategy to destroy adoption …Anti-adoption culture … this was activated initially by the opening of the adoption records, thus abolishing the last vestiges of privacy.[5]

The ACFA made a submission to the Inquiry into Adoption of children from overseas (2005) chaired by Bronwyn Bishop. In it they complained about the anti-adoption culture, so designated because this country had given adoptees’ the right to access their original birth records.  Adoptive parents advocated for the removal of single mothers’ children because they accused them of being child abusers.  In their submission the ACFA were concerned that amendments to the 1994 WA Act would “abolish the last vestiges of privacy in adoption [and]… that would discourage adoption”.[6]  The APPG is still in operation today.[7]

The APPG which represents the interests of adoptive parents throughout Australia has the ear of government.  Part of their oral and written testimony was cited in Bishop’s Final Report. Adoptive parents have stated to Bronwyn Bishop that they prefer to adopt overseas because they did not have to “deal with birthparents”. [8]

One member of the APPG stated:

I understand the current minister, Mike Reynolds, is pro adoption.  I think he is very much on side with the open adoption philosophy, which is not really a good thing … There has to be an option for confidentiality, particularly in today’s climate; otherwise, as they found in America, you will have trouble having crack-addicted babies adopted—I am talking about locally adopted—because adoptive parents do not want constant visitations by the crack addicted birth parents, at least until the child is 18. So there has to be an option for confidentiality somewhere along the line. It cannot be just blanket open adoption.[9]

Minister Goward has assured NSW citizens that adoptions will allow children contact with their parents.  This is not though the stated intention or desire of adoptive parents.  Professor Ainsworth stated that the approach to adoption whereby foster carers can more easily adopt a child placed with them has the potential to return to an era of ‘closed’ adoption. He explains:

It is unlikely that an adopter recruited in this way is going to be in favour of sharing the child with a birth parent in an ‘open’ adoption … there is no indication that Australian adoptive parents will be prepared to share the child with the birth family.  It is also possible that this new policy will lead to a weakening of the Aboriginal Placement Principle.  Will Aboriginal children be adopted out of the kinship group again?  If Aboriginal children will not be subject to this new easier adoption process then it could be argued that non-Aboriginal parents whose parental rights are dispensed with by the Supreme Court of NSW will be victims of racial discrimination …  such an approach is unlikely to increase social cohesion.[10]

Even when adoptive parents agree to open adoptions there is no guarantee that they will maintain contact.  They may claim that the contact is disruptive to the placement and negotiate for reduced or no contact.  They may move interstate or overseas and the mother and father cannot afford to visit the child.  In the US many poor mothers were enticed into adoption by the reassurance that they would have ongoing contact and information about their infant.  When adoptive parents have reneged on their obligations there has been catastrophic results with some mothers committing suicide.[11]  However maintaining open adoptions is not easy.  It can prove too painful and distressing for family members and many parents withdraw their contact, much to the distress of the child.[12]  Some suicide.[13]  Open adoptions are not a solution, only a bandaid and a very dangerous one.

In the US research was done in the late 1970s to find out what the best method was to convince usually poor white mother to give up her newborn for adoption.[14] Open adoption was initially proposed by Baran et al as a way of encouraging unmarried women (and specifically unmarried white women) to relinquish their babies for adoption at a time when they were increasingly choosing to raise them alone.

Their research indicated that promising a mother ongoing contact and information about her child would be the “lure” to get more babies for the adoption market. These agreements are not legally binding nor could they restrict adoptive couples from moving interstate or overseas.

One of the most revolting tactics used to obtain babies is the promise of “open adoption”, the promised of continued contact with their child, made only with the intent to lure in unsuspecting mothers who might have otherwise kept their child.  Open adoption agreements are not legally binding as other child custody or visitation agreements are and this frequently has devastating consequences.  Many a mother is grieving the loss of a child to adoption.  This grieving is compounded when she has so obviously, blatantly been used as a baby-making machine and then tossed out like yesterday’s garbage oncer her child is in possession of the adopters.[15]

In Australia many women have spoken out about their distress at having their baby forcibly removed and then being completely cut off from their infant forever.  Many stated that it felt as if their baby had been kidnapped.  Many professionals working in agencies are aware of the high number of suicides amongst this population and of the severe mental health problems including PTSD.  Hence to persuade state governments and professionals working with disadvantaged families and youthful parents certain organisations and individuals have stated that these adoptions are different – using the same US style tactics described above, they claim they are better because they are open.

Louse Voigt and Minister Pru Goward when interviewed both stressed that adoption was not like it was in the past – now it was open.  Voigt reassured the press that families would be able to have contact at least 3 times a year. This argument is nothing more than a distraction. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) open adoptions have been part of contemporary adoptions for “more than a decade”. [16]   What Voigt and Goward are proposing in limiting contact between children and their family is nothing but a scaling back of rights parents already have Open adoption it no solution, it is cruel and causes grief and loss to not only the mother and father, but the entire extended family.

Kallen et al noted that open adoption by itself would not be sufficient to persuade sections of the community that adoption was no longer like it was in the “bad old days”. Kallen stated “the mere availability of open procedures will not be sufficient.  Family professionals must take advantage of the opportunity to provide information, guidance, and counselling in support of open adoption”.  All such measures were identified as being needed to convince society of open adoption’s ‘benefits’.[17]

Adoptive Parents want Babies – Not Children over 3[18]  [19]

Past adoptions in Australia operated according to the market principles of supply and demand.[20] Unfortunately it is once again demand for babies by a powerful lobby of infertile couples that is the driving force behind the latest campaign to “save” children.[21]  Saving children however is only a smokescreen for what is the real agenda: owning a baby.[22]  Adopters do not want older children, they want brand new infants.[23]  Deborra-lee Furness made this apparent when she admitted that after she and Jackman adopted two newborns through the US adoption system that many potential adoptive parents asked her to help them to achieve the same here.[24]  When asked how long couples should wait to adopt Furness responded: “Gestation”.[25] When asked if she would adopt an older child from foster care she stated: “In good faith, I  don’t know that I would have considered that”.[26]  Minister Goward has stated publicly that promoting adoption will “benefit infertile couples”[27]  However adoption is not supposed to be an adult based service it is supposed to be a last resort for children without parents or kin and conducted “in their best interests”.[28] “A guiding principle in modern adoption is that it is a service for children not for adults wishing to acquire the care of a child”.[29]  Since Minister Goward wishes to emulate the US and UK adoption system it may be worthwhile to examine some outcomes of their model.

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”.[30]  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? [31]

A recent case that has shocked the world is the forced caesarean of an Italian woman who had a relapse of a bi-polar disorder whist studying in Britain. It was reported that she stopped taking her medication, had a panic attack and was then sectioned under the Mental Health Act.  The baby was taken into care at the birth by Essex social workers.   The little girl is now up for adoption even though the mother is fully recovered and wants to return to Italy with her daughter. An MP called the Essex children’s services ‘unaccountable and out of control’.[32]  It has been revealed that Mr. Justice Mostyn of the Court of Protection authorised doctors to carry out the C-section using  “reasonable restraint” because he claimed a “natural delivery risked rupturing her womb”. There were also concerns that the mother would be uncooperative when she went into labour and doctors would be “unable to monitor the baby’s heartbeat to see whether Ms Pacchier’s womb had ruptured”.[33] The abuse of power, when unchecked and financially rewarded, has led to such atrocities as the one just described and to claims that UK adoption services rivals the institutions one would expect to find in a fascist state ruled by someone akin to Hitler.

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.[34] 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.[35]

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.[36] 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.[37]  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.[38]  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.[39]

Pru Goward’s attempt to implement legislation to make it easier for couples to adopt does not mean they will want children over three from foster care. Neither does it necessarily mean that all foster carers will want to adopt.  The president of the NSW Foster Carer Association, Patray Moncacha, said many carers had been deterred from adoption because of financial pressures.

A lot of the foster carers are pensioners.  Financially they cannot simply support children in their care, not knowing what medical requirements is needed … they can’t make that commitment.

The opposition community services spokeswoman, Linda Burney, raised doubts as to whether sufficient numbers of parents would be willing to take on children.  “We know that these children, particularly the babies, are born with significant health problems and can be addicted to opiates; the older children are often deeply scarred, damaged and many have disabilities,” she said.[40]  Supporters of adoption argue that increased money should be provided for adopters to look after children with special needs, why isn’t the government spending the money on assisting their own families do the same?  The only assumption one can make is that this policy is more about punishment, and social control that what is in the best interests of the child which should include its family.  Commissioner Carmody has already identified that children do far better and are far safer if they are kept in their own homes with support services.

In the previous Forced Adoption era, when abusive practices, such as the use of secret codes and forcibly taking the baby at the moment of birth stopped, the number of babies available for adoption dropped dramatically. Adoptive parents began to source babies overseas.[41] They did not take children from foster care. They wanted healthy babies or infants and they did not want “complications with birthparents”.[42] In the last few years because of the illegal trafficking in intercountry adoptions many sending countries have considerably reduced the number of babies or toddlers sent or have stopped altogether.[43]  The fall in the number of intercountry adoption has been in decline since 2006.   According to the AIHW the proportion of infants aged under 12 months continued to decline from a peak of 47% of all intercountry adoptions finalised in 2005-2006 to 19% in 2012-2013.  The number of adoptions has continued an 8 year pattern of decline. In 2011-2012 for the first time since 1998-1999 more Australian children (184) were adopted than children from overseas (149, excluding expatriate adoptions) (55% and 45% respectively).[44]  This trend continued in 2012-2013 with only 38% of children being adopted from overseas whilst 67% were local adoptions.[45]  Furness’ admonishment of Australians for the low intercountry adoption numbers is a red herring. It is not because of “red tape” and “bureaucracy”: easy slogans she has bantered around since 2007, but other far more complex factors.  Firstly it is the corruption of the system by money; wealthy westerners going to impoverished developing countries and their demand and money creating black markets and trafficking. Secondly, economic and social changes that allow children to remain with their family or be adopted in their country of origin.  This according to the AIHW has led countries of origin to implement strategies to manage the number of adoption applications they receive; for example, by introducing more stringent eligibility requirements, or quotas.[46]

Hence the wait that Furness and her supporters complain about is not under the control of the Australian government.  What is of concern is adoptive parents’ sense of entitlement to other people’s babies and their insistence that their demand be met.[47] Unfortunately this can only happen at the expense of poorer, overseas families, or disadvantaged mothers or families locally. Hence, Prime Minister Abbotts’ promise, to open up  new countries from which to source babies may very well implicate Australia in the creation of  child trafficking and a black market in babies.[48]  It seems that a trade in local babies has already commenced. To conclude there are NOT enough babies to meet the demands of adopters.  Yet the media continues to perpetuate the myth that there are millions of orphans that need saving, and thousands of children in need of protection locally.