Joe Hockey: “There is no budget crisis in Australian economy” – so why impoverish sole parents?

Posted on July 27, 2014 by apologyalliance

The government’s line that we have to cut spending because of  the “debt and deficit crisis Labor has left us with”  has been resoundingly denied by Treasurer, Joe Hockey.  A pundit stated on ABC’s Insiders program  (27/07/2014):  “Well there has been some good news  as SBS is reporting that Joe Hockey has told an audience in New Zealand this week that  the Australian economy is NOT in trouble and that there is NO CRISIS AT ALL in the Australian economy”.  Why then does the Treasurer think that the budget cuts did not go far enough and that he should have been able to cut more spending in the welfare sector when Sole parents are already going to be worse off by $6000 per year?  It is absolute proof of what a cruel budget the Australian Tea Party has introduced and that it is based on lies and broken promises and an extreme right wing neo-liberal ideologue agenda. The Liberal Party had no mandate to cut welfare and further impoverish sole parents – and the reasons it has put out for doing so are based on lies – as proven by Hockey himself.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australian-economy-is-not-in-trouble-joe-hockey-tells-nz-20140726-zx6ie.html

Posted in My Articles | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Rupert Murdoch running Australia?

Posted on July 27, 2014 by apologyalliance

Joe Hockey, in his new biography, states that the Australian PM, Tony Abbott,  informed US citizen Rupert Murdoch about his paid parental leave policy before he told him: the Federal Treasurer-  So it is perfectly natural to ask the question: Who’s running Australia?  In fact Tony Abbott briefed Rupert Murdoch on paid parental leave before he briefed his party room

“The book says Mr Abbott, a former Murdoch employee and then the new leader of the Liberal Party, “like many before him, had dinner with Murdoch, where he gave the media mogul a full rundown on the scheme – ­supplying enough detail for Murdoch to later have his Australian-based editors briefed on Abbott’s plan, which [Murdoch] considered a visionary approach to dealing with a real problem in his workforce”.

“They were encouraged to support it, notwithstanding that it represented a tax impost and was skewed to be of most benefit to parents outside their middle-Australian readership,” the book says.

“This fact was unknown to members in the party room, who condemned Abbott’s solo policy making on such a fundamental issue.”

What other policy issues concerning mothers and their babies did the two men discuss?

http://www.afr.com/p/national/tony_abbott_briefed_rupert_murdoch_irvH8lXStm3PPatDZ0WCzH

For instance: Did Murdoch’s advise Australia on his UK pro adoption policy?

Did Murdoch brief Abbott on his pro adoption scheme in the UK or did Abbott brief Murdoch on his intention to make adoption “easier and cheaper” to suit the needs of his wealthy and famous friends such as Hugh Jackman and Deborra-lee Furness? – or was there a meeting of minds on how to deal with “parents that were not effective” (code for poor or welfare dependent)?

In my thesis, Chapter 2,  I briefly outlined the 3 month pro adoption campaign that Rupert Murdoch ran in his British paper: The Times in 2011,  In which there was an entire edition devoted to promoting adoption, authored by the former CEO of Barnardos, Martin Narey.  Narey is the Uncle of several adopted persons.  Narey went on to gain a position advising the UK government on adoption policy and became known as the Adoption Czar.

Following in the  brief extract of Murdoch’s influence on the UK’s adoption policy – the parallels between the campaign here and the UK are striking – it is as if there is a guiding hand on welfare reduction and adoption promotion in the US, UK and Australia. Even to the terms being used to describe welfare.  In Australia Joe Hockey, Abbott and other leading Liberals, have reduced Australia’s welfare safety net to the derogatory slogan: The Age of Entitlement.  In the US,  Fox News and Murdoch’s media empire have run a strident campaign against welfare recipients  under the banner that the US has become the: Entitlement Nation.  Murdoch’s papers both here and in the US have ran campaigns attacking welfare recipients as “leaners” and “takers”.   Murdoch’s papers  even investigated into food stamp recipients to determine on what foods they were “wasting tax payers money”.     Just like Hockey stated here that struggling single parents could afford to pay the $7 co medicare payment if they forego a packet of “ciggies or a stubbie”.  So vitriolic was the attack by Fox News on the poor, in particular food stamp recipients, that the Daily’s Show’s, Jon Stewart,  political commentator and satirist asked: “Why does Fox hate the poor so much”?

Stolen babies – broken hearts : forced adoption in Australia 1881-1987, Vol 1 p. 85

http://arrow.uws.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/uws:17555

……………………

“In Britain, Rupert Murdoch’s The Times newspaper commissioned Martin Narey to write a report on how to reform the adoption system (Narey: 2011,  The Times, July 5, p. 2). Specifically to report on why numbers of adoptions had fallen and what measures needed to be implemented to raise them (Narey: 2011, The Independent, July 31). Narey was already a proponent of adoption having five adopted nephews and nieces: “Who made my brothers, their fathers, very proud” and because of whom he knew “how successful adoption” was (The Times: 2011, July 5, pp. 2-3).  Clare Sambrook, British investigative journalist, was suspicious of the Narey, Murdoch, Times connection stating:

‘Breathtaking collusion between ministers, special advisers and Rupert Murdoch’s lieutenants is being dragged into the light by the Levenson Inquiry. Where else is policy being created by cabal? … This prompted me to reflect on the curious way in which last summer a Blueprint for adoption reform emerged from Murdoch’s Wapping news factory’

Two days after the Report was published Narey was given a two year appointment as Ministerial advisor on adoption (Sambrook: 2012, May 26). His brief, to make “a much more user-friendly and effective adoption system” (Tim Loughton cited in Sambrook: 2012, May 26).

Narey identified three reasons for the drop in the number of adoptions.  1. Misconceptions about attachment theory, the importance of the mother and child bond; 2. The belief that what is best for the child must be balanced with the parents’ human rights; and 3. The belief that placing children in care placed them at risk. So Narey wrote the Blueprint for overhauling the adoption system with the primary intent of overcoming these 3 obstacles and bringing adoption “back into fashion” (Narey: 2011, The Independent, July 31).

The Times had been running a three month campaign to reform adoption (a euphemism for making it easier for couples to adopt) before it commissioned Narey to write what it called “Our blueprint for Britain’s lost children”. The Times revealed its true agenda, at the beginning of Narey’s Report when it posed the question: ‘Why is it … the number of parents wanting to adopt is growing, the number of successful adoptions is falling’. The answer was found – rather than assist vulnerable families to stay intact the strategy was to increase the number of infants in the care system and then make it easy for them to be adopted. Narey states this is now known as ‘Fostering for Adoption’ (Narey: 2013, The Guardian Social Care Network, Feb 13).

…………………….

It is all about reducing welfare and once again punishing the poor by taking their children and giving them to the more “deserving” or to use Abbott’s term: ‘More effective parents’. Or rather those not on welfare!

 

 

Posted in My Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Politicising foster care abuse to promote Forced Adoption: Call for adoption targets

Posted on July 25, 2014 by apologyalliance

Call for adoption targets and fewer family support services in Australia

The CIS is demanding that Tony Abbott forcibly take more children – for their protection!

The CIS  recommends that  authorities need to take more frequent legal action to have abused and neglected children adopted – Sammut’s definition of ‘neglected’ children, includes the children of single mothers, women who suffer domestic violence, mothers with mild intellectual disabilities and women who are homeless.  Another category rarely mentioned is children who were previously removed from their families, generally because of poverty, and placed in the foster care system.  Adults who have been in the foster care system are considered to be ‘at risk’ parents

Dr. Jeremy Sammut of the right wing conservative think tank: Centre for Independent Studies, is politicising the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Sammut  argues that  raising the number of adoptions and making Forced Adoption a key part of child protection policy will lower child abuse and prevent the formation of an underclass composed of unwed mothers and their children. Children who are destined to be ‘no hopers’ and  criminals.  Sammut criticises the Queensland’s Carmody Report for recommending that family preservation services be put in place. He does not support family preservation as he along with Louise Voigt, CEO of Barnardos, do not believe in the ‘rehabilitation’ of ‘ineffective’ parents.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/15/call-for-adoption-targets-and-fewer-family-support-services-in-australia

Really for their protection!    Tell that to the Stolen Generations, Survivors of Forced Adoption and the British Child Migrant Scheme  and the Forgotten Australians. – Sammutt and the CIS are telling us not to believe what we know to be the outcome of Australia’s barbaric forced removal policies but rather what they tell us to believe.

Royal commission:  Department admits children still being abused in care

“A senior bureaucrat in the Department of Family and Community Services charged with improving child protection has admitted young people in care were still suffering sexual and physical abuse by their carers.

However she told the hearing before Justice Peter McClellan she was aware of recent cases where children had died from physical abuse while in care and children who had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their carers.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/royal-commission-department-admits-children-still-being-abused-in-care-20140303-33xut.html

“”There will be some people who choose to misuse their power with children, who are very good at not being detected,” she said.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-03/children-in-nsw-foster-care-still-at-risk-royal-commission/5294958

The above statements represent only the tip of the iceberg

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/man-jailed-for-abusing-girl-while-she-was-in-foster-care-20140711-zt447.html

 The Carers  – Excerpt – A Stolen Generation in the Making: Part 5

At present there are 500 NSW foster carers under investigation for alleged inappropriate behaviour.[1] More than 300 cases were classified as being part of a “backlog” as they had been running for nine months or more, and some as long as two years.[2] 50% of the allegations under investigation are deemed serious.[3]   A man accused of sexually inappropriate behaviour was allowed to continue fostering children and later confessed to raping a child in his care.[4] The man had come to the  attention of the Ombudsman in 2010, but nothing was done and he was allowed to continue fostering until 2012, when he was accused by another teenager of sexual assault. It was then that the other children in his care were removed.[5]  The Opposition’s family and community services spokeswoman, Linda Burney, states:

With the outsourcing of foster care to the non-government sector, the question has to be asked, ‘What is the department doing to make sure that carers going into the non-government sector are properly being screened’?[6]

This is not the first time there has been concern about adequate screening of foster carers.  In 2010 Adele Horin exposed problems with the quality of carers and abuse of children in foster care during an investigation by the Herald.  Horin revealed that the state’s biggest foster care agency, Life Without Barriers (LWB), was being investigated by the NSW Ombudsman’s office over concerns it failed to properly check the background of its carers.[7] Concern was raised when a man with a history of sexual abuse was authorised as one of their foster carers and was given the care of an abused teenage boy. Two more allegations of sexual abuse emerged about its carers during the same year. LWB at the time, had federal and state contracts worth $200 million a year.[8]  It outsourced recruitment to independent contractors who were paid to find and assess prospective carers.  It paid contractors a weekly fee for each child placed with their carers.  The Supporters of Carers, as the contractors are known, or SOCs, do not need relevant welfare qualifications.  The system presents a financial disincentive to report problems because a SOC’s income is dependent on the number of children who are placed –and remain – with carers. There was a great deal of concern about the lack of “rigour of the agency’s system for recruiting foster carers in NSW”.[9]

At the time the alarm was raised by former staff when it was revealed that a coalition of NGO’s were pressuring the state government to shift foster care entirely on to the non-government sector.  Community Services was responsible for 85% of foster carers, with the remainder contracted by NGO’s.[10]   LWB was responsible for more than 1000 children and received $140 million a year in state contracts alone for foster care. According to Horin, “it had a phenomenal growth in the past decade.  Critics believe the growth in foster care is due to a recruitment model that is good for business expansion, but not for children”. When the Herald newspaper viewed some internal documents they revealed that in October 2010, 14% of the 573 foster carers in the Sydney area did not have the legally mandated Working With Children Check, which includes a check of the relevant criminal records.  63% did not have the more extensive Criminal Record Check as required by LWB policy.  The recruitment of foster carers was outsourced by LWB to 30 contractors with no special qualifications.  The contractors were paid $350 to access potential carers.  For providing 24 hour support, they were paid a continuing fee of between $150 and $200 per child placed with carers.  The system provided a financial incentive for contractors to support their carers and to minimise problems.  The contractors or SOCs, earned up to $300,000 a year.  The SOCs were only supposed to employ 20 carers, but one had nearly double that amount. In addition some SOCs had subcontracted the carers they were supposed to monitor. Poorly screen carers proved a recipe for disaster:

Former and current staff told the Herald that last year there was a backlog of 180 allegations about carers some two years old and serious.  Former and current staff told the Herald that many foster carers lived in tough Housing Department areas and “are raking in thousands tax-free”.[11]

Appallingly there was a financial incentive to break up sibling groups as the second and subsequent siblings were paid at a lower rate compared with unrelated groups of children. According to former staff: “There are many cases where siblings were split up”.  An LWB spokeswoman said more than 97% of LWB’s children had only one or two placements in a year compared with a 47.5% rate for the whole sector.[12] One must ask is that because they have a financial interest to protect rather than the child?

So it seems the warnings were there in 2010, but with the rush to get part of the financial pie now available in child protection, they were not heeded. Caroline Overington, warned of the risks of shifting the management of foster care and adoption to NGOs in 2008:  “There are close to 13,000 children in state care in NSW, and the numbers are rising rapidly … An increasing number of foster homes are being managed by private corporations, which have stormed into NSW as tens of millions of dollars become available for those providing welfare services … The Australian spent several weeks visiting foster children in their homes, some which were overcrowded and dirty”. The Create Foundation, an advocate for young people in care, warned that “children are removed to readily and that there were already too many in care”.[13]  Hence the warnings were there in 2008, 2010 and yet again in 2013.

[1] Foschia, L. (2013, Sep 16). “FACS boss reveals 500 NSW foster carers are being investigated over alleged inappropriate behaviour’, ABC, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-16/500-nsw-foster-carers-investigated-over-behaviour/4959846

[2] NSW faces 500 foster abuse claims, (2013, Sept 13). News.com, http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/nsw-faces-500-foster-abuse-claims/story-e6frfku9-1226720164534

[3] Foschia, L. (2013, Sep 16). “FACS boss reveals 500 NSW foster carers are being investigated over alleged inappropriate behaviour’, ABC, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-16/500-nsw-foster-carers-investigated-over-behaviour/4959846

[4] ibid

[5] NSW faces 500 foster abuse claims, (2013, Sept 13). News.com, http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/nsw-faces-500-foster-abuse-claims/story-e6frfku9-1226720164534

[6] ibid

[7] Horin, A. (2010, Dec 14). ‘Child’s agency’s background checks under cloud’, SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/child-agencys-background-checks-under-cloud-20101213-18vi0.html

[8] Adele Horin. (2010, Dec 13). ‘Foster carer linked to sex abuse slipped past the barriers’, SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/foster-carer-linked-to-sex-abuse-slipped-past-the-barriers-20101212-18u1w.html

[9]Adele Horin. (2010, Dec 13). ‘Foster carer linked to sex abuse slipped past the barriers’, SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/foster-carer-linked-to-sex-abuse-slipped-past-the-barriers-20101212-18u1w.html

[10] ibid

[11] Horin, A. (2010, Dec 14). ‘Child’s agency’s background checks under cloud’, SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/child-agencys-background-checks-under-cloud-20101213-18vi0.html

[12] Horin, A. (2010, Dec 14). ‘Child’s agency’s background checks under cloud’, SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/child-agencys-background-checks-under-cloud-20101213-18vi0.html

[13] Caroline Overington. (2008, Nov 21). ‘Former judge fails to meet children in preparing care report’, The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/children-ignored-in-care-report/story-e6frg6o6-1111118098172?from=public_rss

 

There is a record number of children being removed – but at what cost!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/record-number-of-children-in-care/story-fn59niix-1227000730368

Posted in My Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Senate backs inquiry into children in out of home care – Exposing horrific sexual abuse

Posted on July 24, 2014 by apologyalliance

The Senate has supported the Greens call for an inquiry into children taken into care – terms of reference available on Senator Rachel Siewert’s website: 

http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/senate-backs-inquiry-children-out-home-care

This was announced on July 17 -this is timely in view of the revelations being made about the criminal sexual abuse in the SA out of home care industry:

Premier Jay Weatherill to order Royal Commission into child abuse following horrific new case at government-run care facility

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/premier-jay-weatherill-to-order-royal-commission-into-child-abuse-following-horrific-new-case-at-governmentrun-care-facility/story-fni6uo1m-1226997496682?nk=baf1e2579be771570b89c67ec6861240

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/sa-childcare-worker-faces-sex-charges/story-fni6ul2m-1226997304018

SORDID HISTORY OF CHILD PROTECTION INDUSTRY

Families SA – South Australia’s statutory child protection body –  was told bluntly in 2002 and again in 2008 that it was failing to protect its most vulnerable children.  It was further told that removing children from their ‘dysfunctional’ families and placing them with strangers was in many cases putting them at more risk. Here we are more than a decade later and a system of child removal continues unabated while at the same time failing to protect children from predators lurking within the very system purportedly set up to protect them.  The introduction of non-government organisations working in tandem with the government has not made it safer.  The following is an excerpt from a damning report released 2008-2009:

“The Committee heard evidence that a culture of power and impunity operates within Families SA; that there is a “rotten culture of power without accountability” in the Department. Many departmental officers behave in an unprofessional, biased and vindictive manner and they are permitted to hide from recrimination. Case-workers are bullied by supervisors. Departmental policy is developed without consulting with those working at the “coal-face”. Policy makers fail to support workers and readily shift blame for adverse events onto the workers rather than admitting to organisational failure.  This evidence painted a picture far removed from the Department’s self-proclaimed culture: ‘connected, ethical, brave and respected’. Any who come into contact with the Department would greet with cynicism the words of farewell from the former chief executive when she referred to a strong culture of ‘working together and putting our customers and their families first.’  The passage of legislation with the cutely reassuring title of Children’s Protection (Keeping Them Safe) Amendment Bill 2005 and the publication of glossy brochures in response to the disturbing findings of the Layton Report (2002)  have done nothing to change the ingrained culture of Families SA …   Many workers in the field are young and inexperienced yet have unfettered power, poor professional supervision and a lack of accountability. They often display an inability to work in partnership with families  … Many staff are untrained in child development and have little understanding of children’s reactions to abuse and neglect. Staff also lack training in conflict management, case-conferencing and the skills necessary to productively engage highly emotional and disenfranchised parents, relatives and carers … Lack of experience and training may also explain why some caseworkers fail to adequately verify facts and case notes include conjecture as “fact”. Evidence was received that it is not uncommon for case records to be altered when they come under scrutiny”.  (Legislative Council of South Australia, Select Committee on Families SA. (2009, Nov). Report of the Select Committee on Families SA, Presented to the Third Session, Fifty-First Parliament 2008-2009, at p. 5, available on-line.)

The foster care system is a dismal failure. But lets not allow non-government organisations such as Barnardos’, to politicise this fact by promoting its open adoption program as a safer alternative.  It is NOT. And we should remember that for every child Barnardos fast tracks into adoption it is financially rewarded – receiving $37,000.   Adoption is NOT safer, and statistically, removed children who are adopted have higher rates of drug and alcohol problems and are at higher risk of suicide than their non-adopted peers – and that includes those left with their ‘dysfunctional’ families.[1]  It must be remembered that just as foster carers are genetic strangers so are adopters.  The foster care system has the supposed added protection of the ongoing scrutiny of children in its care, however once a child is adopted no such scrutiny exists. Biological relatedness offers a degree of inherent protection.  Research indicates that in sole parent families it is the introduction of the non-related male that raises the risk of sexual and physical abuse of children and infants.  It is not the fact a child is being raised by a single parent that is the danger – as much as the pro adoption lobby like to insist it is!

Jan Barham from the Greens does not support making adoption the default option for children at risk and  cites submissions, given at a recent Inquiry re the changes to legislation in NSW that prioritize adoption, to support her view. Barham states:

“The Greens do not support the pursuit of adoption as a solution to the challenges facing the child protection system and consider it an inappropriate and ineffective way to ensure the wellbeing of children who have been placed in out-of-home care. The inclusion of adoption as part of a standard decision-making framework, to be applied in all cases where it has been decided that restoration of a child to their parent is not realistic, risks permanently removing the legal relationship and connection between parent and child in a way that may be unnecessary and against the best interests of the child. Many submissions to the Government’s Child Protection Legislative Reform Discussion Paper, which proposed not only this move to promote adoption but also included proposals to allow greater capacity to dispense with consent and even to remove a parent’s right to be informed of a proposed adoption from out-of-home care, highlighted that adoption may be appropriate in some cases but that this must be decided based on the individual circumstances and with careful consideration.

There are a number of reasons that promoting adoption as a general principle is inappropriate within child protection. The evidence does not clearly establish that adoption itself produces better outcomes. The quality and stability of placements are important. These need to be addressed in the foster care system, through improved management and resourcing, and could be addressed via options such as well-supported guardianship. Associate Professor Judy Cashmore stated in her paper entitled “What can we learn from the US experience on permanency planning?”:

the well-being of children in adoptive homes, in foster care or returned home was related to their sense of permanence in the placement, not to their legal status.

I heard in a number of speeches in this place and the other place reference to evidence about adoption being better than stable, secure and permanent placement. That just is not true. The evidence is not there. The submission by the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] on the child protection legislative reform discussion paper emphasised the importance of stability as a principal consideration that is not as simple as preferring one form of placement to another. The submission states:

NCOSS notes that data shows that children under the care of the Minister are more likely to have multiple placements and therefore poorer wellbeing outcomes than their peers. NCOSS does not support the argument that this is an inherent feature of such care and would argue that efforts can, and should, be made to improve stability in placement in such care arrangements. In other words, NCOSS advocates that across all forms of care, steps must be taken to improve stability of placements. NCOSS is therefore not convinced that the proposed hierarchy of placement is necessary and that decision should be made based on the best interests of the child or young person in their particular circumstances and context.

http://www.janbarham.org.au/2014/03/child-protection-legislation-amendment-bill/

Adoption is a dangerous enterprise:

A 2006 Swedish study identified the higher risk of suicide among adoptees, whether they were adopted from overseas or locally and irrespective of the age  adopted.[1]  Another study supports this and states:

The study of more than 1,200 Minnesota teens found that those who were adopted were four times more likely to have attempted suicide. More than 8 percent of adopted girls and 5 percent of boys had tried to take their own lives, compared to less than 2 percent of non-adopted kids …

Adopted teens also tended to have more problems that can be associated with suicide risk — such as behavior problems at school and “family discord.” But even when the investigators factored in those differences, adopted kids were still nearly four times more likely to have attempted suicide than non-adopted teens …

And although the majority of the teens (in the study) were adopted from other countries, Keyes said there was no evidence they were at greater risk of suicide attempt than U.S.-born adoptees …

parents of adopted kids need not be alarmed, but should be aware“. [2]

This was the same advice given  by researchers to Swedish adopters in the previously mentioned study – in fact the researchers recommended that anyone who adopts should be educated to be aware of behaviours that indicate their adopted child/adult is at risk of a suicide attempt as the propensity for suicide was 6 times higher than their non-adopted peers.

“Adoption agencies should inform prospective adoptive parents honestly about raised risks of compromised long-term development compared with peers in the general population … clinical agencies should state in their internal guidelines that adoptees are granted easy access to diagnostic procedures … professionals are advised to take seriously the concerns of adoptees and their parents and intervene with appropriate consideration of the high risk of suicidal behaviour”.[3]

1] Von Borczyskowski, A., Hjem, A., Lindblad, F. & Vinnerljung, B. (2006). Suicidal behaviour in national and international adult adoptees: A Swedish cohort study, Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 41, 95-102, Retrieved 12 August 2007 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/y73646n507593n76/fulltext.pdf

[2] Anthony Rivas, Medical Daily, Sept 9, 2013,  http://www.medicaldaily.com/adopted-teens-4-times-more-likely-attempt-suicide-stark-reminder-clinicians-should-take-parental : http://www.wbtv.com/story/23378206/adopted-teens-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide-studyfinds?utm_source=Weekly+Spark+September+26+2013&utm_campaign=Weekly+Spark+September+27+2013&utm_medium=email

[3] Anders Hjern, Frank Lindblad and Bo Vinnerljung, (2002).  The Lancet, August 10, p. 443.

In short children placed in the care of strangers are far more likely to be in the juvenile system, pregnant or unemployed and  homeless,[1]  than those who remained with families purported to be dysfunctional. These facts were supported by a 2007 study that found that children whose families are investigated for abuse or neglect, but whose children are not removed do better in life than if they go into foster care. [2] A data linkage study of 45,000 Illinois child protection cases compared children at similar risk level where some were placed in foster care and others remained at home.  School aged children on the margin of placement who remained at home had lower adult arrest rates, lower teen pregnancy rates and better employment than those placed in foster care.[3]

Researcher Joseph Doyle, an economics professor who studies social policy, was impressed at how much better children did that remained in their supposedly dysfunctional homes: “The size of the effects surprised me, because all the children come from tough families”.  Doyle’s research traced 15,000 kids from 1990 to 2002, and is the largest study to look at the effects of foster care and compare it with children from at risk families.  Doyle’s and another study done by Mark Courtney, from the University of Chicago, showed that the 500,000 children in US foster care are more likely than other kids, and that included children from at risk families,  to drop out of school, join welfare, commit crimes, abuse drugs, become teen parents and end up part of the homeless population.[4]

Doyle’s research shows that this holds true even when foster kids are compared with other disadvantaged youth. He states than an abusive family environment is harmful, but removing a child is traumatic and that is harmful in itself.[5]  To then be placed in foster care with strangers with its inherent higher risk of abuse leads to very poor outcomes for children and increased social problems.  Doyle’s study provides “the first viable, empirical evidence” of the benefits of keeping kids with their families. He states: “Our research supports family preservation”.[6]

Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, stated: “Children do better with their own families than in foster care. But instead of helping families deal with the issues of poverty and substandard living conditions they have a “take the child and run mentality”. He went on to say that nearly 60% were in care because of neglect.  Neglect is defined as the failure of the parent to provide for the basic needs or provide a safe and sanitary living environment. Wexler explains that is the perfect definition of poverty and “confusion of poverty with neglect is the single biggest problem in American child welfare”.

[1] Children First Advocacy: Keeping Children & Families Together  http://www.childrenfirstadvocacy.com/

[2] Koch, W. (2007, July 3). ‘Troubled homes better than foster’, USA Today, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm

[3] Doyle, (2007) ‘Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care;, American Economic Review, 97(5), 1583-1610; Scott, D. ‘Fragile Families: Handle with Care, Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/childhood/professionals/profdev/dscottfragilefamilies.ppt

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

[6] Doyle, J. (2007). ‘Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care’, Forthcoming, American Economic Review, http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march07_aer.pdf  MITnews. (2007, July 3). ‘Kids gain more from family than foster care’, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/sloan-fostercare-study-0703.html

………………………………………

When will Australia learn that removing children from their families creates inter-generational abuse and systemic social and economic problems. Foster care and adoption as alternative care arrangements have never protected children in the past nor saved them from trauma and/or multiple mental health problems.  It is far better to provide services to support vulnerable families and keep them intact.

Unfortunately though, according to Professor Patricia Fronek:

“It is no secret that the real political agenda is to turn Australians towards adopting children from care. That’s cheaper than government-funded foster care and providing services for struggling families”. http://theconversation.com/changes-to-intercountry-adoption-must-put-childrens-needs-first-26635

 

 

 

 

Posted in My Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

State sanctioned kidnap

Posted on July 15, 2014 by apologyalliance

“Bob Geldof, launching a report last December on the “barbaric” chaos of our family law system, called “state-sanctioned kidnap”, whereby social workers, abetted by family courts and an army of complicit lawyers and “experts”, routinely snatch children from loving parents to feed the maw of the adoption and fostering industry.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7840626/Big-money-to-be-made-in-the-adoption-trade.html

Tony Abbott wants to emulate the UK and US big business adoption models by fully privatizing the care industry here and financially incentivising child removal.  Financially rewarding NGO’s  for child removal  has never worked in the past, why does Abbott think it will now?

In 2011 Martin Narey, former CEO of Barnardos, and Uncle to several adopted children, was featured in a 3 month promotion of adoption in Murdoch’s magazine, The Times.  Narey went on to become known as the Czar of Adoption advising the government on adoption policy. Barnardos Australia under the leadership of Louise Voight, rakes in $37,000 for every child fast tracked from the foster care industry into adoption.  She does not believe in family preservation nor that vulnerable families can be “rehabilitated”.   It is not surprising that Barnardos is at the forefront of the adoption industry.  One only needs to read the organisations’ history.  In the late 19th century, many parents filed cases against the founder of the organisation, Dr. Barnardo,  for kidnapping their children, and then sending them abroad to the back blocks of Canada, South Africa and of course Australia.  We know that the children that he sent here were brutalised in institutions. And though many sent to Canada were adopted, they were still abused, used for cheap labour and many just disappeared. Thousands of pounds were made by unscrupulous operators in the early adoption industry.  Various State Inquiries into the care industry have recommended to the Australian government that the safest place for the majority of children is with their parents.  They have also concluded that it is cheaper to put in support systems to assist vulnerable families stay together than to pay strangers large amounts of money to care for someone else’s child.  It seems that when individuals are rewarded for child removing and the foster care and adoption industry make millions for the unscrupulous, children are not kept safe, but become yet another commodity to be traded.

 

Posted in My Articles | Leave a comment

Pregnant women will lose all support for 6 months under Abbott’s Cruel Budget

Posted on July 11, 2014 by apologyalliance

Following is a response I got from  Terese Edwards,  Chief Executive Officer –  National Council of  Single Mothers & their Children – to my post re refugees so despairing of their situation they were asking for their unborn children to be later adopted to save them from living under such cruelty:

“I would also like to add my complete dismay that the Government has announced that young Australians without work and studying will have a 6 month wait before being eligible for any assistance (Newstart).  They will then encounter 6 months of income support & 6 months without (subject to passage of legislation).  This includes women who are pregnant (there is no exemption)”  

08 8354 3856  –  www.ncsmc.org.au –  Blog

…………………………………………

What Terese Edwards is describing above is nothing less than the reintroduction of Forced Adoption.  During the 20th century so many single mothers were preyed upon and told they were unfit to rear their infants because their was no welfare available and it would be wrong to rear a child in poverty (even though we now know there were both economical and other measures of practical assistance available but were withheld because people in power wanted babies). The lack of any supports was one of the means used to shame mothers into compliance.  Now it seems the government is purposely creating a situation where there really will be no way for a poor mother on her own to keep her infant as there will be no financial assistance whatsoever – for Abbott and his government to create the social environment where a mother is forced to adopt out her child because of poverty is a crime against humanity. One must also ask whatever happened to the Australian government’s promise that Forced Adoption would never be repeated again in this country?   It seems it has gone the way of all of the other Abbott promises along with any compassion for the vulnerable.  Being poor is equated with moral failure and being an “ineffective” citizen – therefor not deserving of support, respect or human dignity.

The Lie of the Budget Crisis

Most people are now aware that there is NO BUDGET CRISIS – as explained by a Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, on the ABC program:  Q & A. –

You can read about the budget crisis lie and Stiglitz’s scathing criticism of the Australian government’s absurd ideological driven agenda and its stupidity for wanting to emulate the USA’s race to the bottom in the following article:

Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says Abbott government budget changes are ‘a crime’

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/nobel-prizewinning-economist-joseph-stiglitz-says-abbott-government-budget-changes-are-a-crime-20140702-3b8vb.html

Anyone who has read any of my articles on this Blog is aware of  my scathing criticism of replicating the USA’s failed  child welfare industry and in particular applying its Adoption model in Australia.  I do not see any value in emulating legislation and social policy that has caused such pain and devastation to US families, here.

So what is Abbott’s real reason for misleading the Australian people?

The USA welfare system is all about creating an underclass. An underclass then becomes a resource to be plundered by the powerful. For instance in the US there are thousands of poor, unwed mothers who loose their babies every year – because of their poverty.  In the US adoption is an institution that has a cult like status, promoted by movie starts and religious crack pots, it is also a multi billion dollar industry and many adopters want to see it replicated here. The powerful and rich who benefit from such an unjust system are happy to see the US model adopted here.  But unfortunately for them, while single mothers here are well supported the elite cannot get their hands on their babies, take away the support systems and it will be a very different story.

Even though some people still believe the budge crisis lie they are still concerned about the inequality that is inherent in Abbott’s budget and ask reasonably – if there is a budget crisis why aren’t multi-national corporations and the mining industry not expected to pay more? Why aren’t we following a country like Norway that believes that all finite resources belong to the people. Not to one individual – say like Gina Rhinehart. Once those resources are gone that’s it! So those individuals and companies who are making billions off the back of the nation’s future are expected to pay a resources tax which then goes into the education and medical system.  It pays for research and development and the building up of  the country’s manufacturing industry.  It is used to support the most vulnerable – like providing an adequate social safety net for young, single mothers and their children http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/19/mining-tax-its-time-for-all-australians-to-realise-they-are-being-ripped-off

Norway is not giving their resources away to the mega rich and impoverishing the poor by getting rid of its welfare net, because it is not intending to create an underclass. And that is why asking reasonable questions will not elicit a reasonable answer.  Creating an underclass is not about reasonableness it is about purposely creating an unequal society – it is driven by an ideology, not logic.  Stating the budget is unfair and arguing for more fairness won’t work.  The budget is meant to be unfair, the agenda IS to create an unequal society. Abbott is accomplishing what he intends.

Why would any thinking person want to follow the US?

The US has one of the  most inefficient and expensive medical systems in the world.  The present education system here is one to be envied the US’s is a disaster.  The inequality is appalling and the number of young women who “give up” their babies because of poverty is outrageous.  Why then would Abbot and the Liberals want to recreate such inequality here?  Amongst other things I believe the  Libs’ agenda is to create a cheap and compliant labour force?  Expand our military with impoverished  youths.   Ensure an easily manipulated society because it is divided by class warfare. Keep taxes low for the wealthy – particularly by cutting welfare.  And to remove the infants and children of those the elite deem inferior or as Abbott calls them “parents who are not efficient” and place them with those the neo-conservatives think are (efficient: code for financially secure).  But as far as I am concerned one of the most inhumane characteristics of the unequal society Abbot is creating is that the poor are more likely to have their children removed and placed with selected strangers.

The New Child Removalist Campaign has already started

So far a vicious campaign to demonize mothers  has focused on the very young, poor, substance dependent, homeless or victims of domestic violence.  Laws have been altered to make it easier for governments around Australia to forcibly remove their newborns, irrespective of the trauma caused to mother and child. Who are the key promoters for freeing up adoption and promoting forced adoption?  Adoptive parents. Who are advising the government on adoption policy? Rich and powerful adoptive parents,  in particular movie stars. It seems the government has no concerns about  conflicts of interest, and certainly no embarrassment about toadding up to the rich and famous.

The Movie Stars

Hugh Jackman and Deborra-lee Furness both attended the birth of their adopted children.  They did not adopt orphans. Neither did they adopt from overseas as both were living in the US where the adoptions took place. Both their adopted children had mothers who were poor and vulnerable – would those mothers have lost their children if they were not part of the great American underclass? No –  if the US did not have such a large underclass there would not be in excess of 5,000 newborns adopted annually. Having an underclass creates the environment for extreme exploitation, and the worst sort of exploitation is forcibly taken someone’s newborn or making the economic and social environment so unbearable that just like the despairing refugees, mothers think they must give up their infant to save it.

It is the poor who loose their children to the rich, and it is the most vulnerable whose newborns supply those comparatively wealthy couples and individuals who cannot  have their own children.

I was astounded that Julia Bishop, Foreign Affairs Minister, criticized Leonardo Di Caprio for daring to comment on the state of the Barrier Reef. How dare, she cried, that an American actor offer an opinion,  he is not a marine biologist, Bishop snapped, and therefore has no right to comment.  The hypocrisy of the Liberal Government is mind boggling.  Abbott and Bishop both wined and dined Hugh Jackman and Deborra-lee Furness at Kirribilli House, November 2013.  Not only were they fawned over, but these particular movie stars were giving so much credence that social policy and law changes have been enacted on their advice. What credentials give Furness and Jackman’s the right to influence Australian legislation and social policy on something as serious as the welfare of babies and their families?  Nothing, I would suggest, but their own self interest.  Furness claimed, when attending Kirribilli House with various politicians and high flying Australians, that she wanted a “champion” to make it easier and cheaper for people like her to adopt.  Well now we have a Prime Minister that has stated that making adoption quicker, easier and cheaper has become a personal goal.  He placed so much importance  on making more children available for adopters that he gave the issue top priority and placed it on the agenda for the COAG meeting: – the annual meeting of all  State Premiers, First Ministers and the Prime Minister.

And Julia Bishop attacked Di Caprio for only making the comment that the Reef had deteriorated since he dived there a decade ago!

Adoption which is based on the exploitation of the poor and the vulnerable certainly fits into the Liberal’s  tea party agenda.  Abbott’s statement that “parents who are ineffective” should not be allowed to rear their own children belongs back in Germany circa 1940. Furness and Jackman have spearheaded the pro adoption lobby in Australia since 2007 and laws and social policy have been amended or introduced to facilitate them and their friends. Two movie stars with no other credentials other than they have benefited from adoption. There is no budget crisis just an extreme right wing – predominately white male, Christian government that, unfortunately for us, is now in charge of Australia.  As former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating remarked when it was suggested Abbott would be elected as Prime Minister: “God help us all”!

 

 

 

Posted in My Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Desperate Refugees beg for adoption to save their children

Posted on July 10, 2014 by apologyalliance

Some refugee mothers held within Australia’s inhumane detention system have become so desperate they are begging Australian families to adopt their children to give them a better life.

They have become so desperate about the fate of their unborn babies and the plight of their children that they have called for Australian families to “save” their baby when its born by adoption

This is a shocking indictment on Australia’s treatment of its most vulnerable –  one can only hope that the mothers will be given the support they need so they can rear their own children in an appropriate environment  –  and one hopes that those in more powerful positions do NOT   once again take advantage of those in such a powerless situation – as was the case for most of the 20th century when unwed mothers were used like unpaid and forced surrogates – expected to birth children for the benefit of infertile married couples.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health-workers-tell-of-pregnant-asylum-seekers-desperate-adoption-pleas-20140709-3bnc9.html

Posted in My Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Call for a Royal Commission

Posted on July 8, 2014 by apologyalliance

The following comment was a response to my yesterday’s post – I think however, it warrants being posted generally as it encompasses many of the crimes committed against mothers, fathers and their children perpetrated by the government and its representatives and for which to date no-one has been held responsible.  In my case the social worker who lied and deceived me, also  lied to others in order to kidnap their children.  My social worker told another mother that her baby had died, when he had not, and another that if her and her partner did not sign the consent then the hospital would not perform the operation needed to save their daughter’s life.  So here we have 3 incidents that I am personally aware of where this one social worker purposely deceived mothers to take their children.  As everyone is aware a consent was never supposed to be signed when a mother was distressed, yet this woman wrote on my social work papers that after the birth I was distressed and 3 months later when I returned to the hospital still pleading for my daughter, that I was “still distressed”. Though I requested my child be returned she stated there was nothing she could do.  She knew it was illegal to take my consent whilst distressed and in any case a consent was a contract and to expect someone to sign a contract, particularly a minor, under the influence of drugs constitutes an ‘unconscionable contract’ and was and still is illegal.  This woman went on to have a career as head of a social work department at another hospital and is still alive – why has she never been made accountable for her crimes and for the damage and havoc she inflicted on so many lives? These same questions are being asked by the author of the below comment:

………..

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.

Posted in My Articles | Leave a comment

Health Fact Sheet: Supporting people affected by forced adoption

Posted on July 7, 2014 by apologyalliance

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

Posted in My Articles | 2 Comments

Learning from the Past: When Goverment deems it appropriate and when it does not

Posted on May 15, 2014 by apologyalliance

It took decades for mothers to achieve the NSW Upper House Inquiry into Past Adoption Practices (1998-2000)  and then the Federal Senate Inquiry (2011-2012). These Inquiries foregrounded a shameful part of  women’s history that had been hidden away for decades and impacted approximately a quarter of a million mothers. Many of who died early because of stress related illnesses or committed suicide.  The majority who have survived do so suffering complex PTSD.  Callously amongst some member of government there still seems indifference and the intent to hide the truth or to diminish the barbarity of what really happened.

For instance there are over 300 accounts given by mothers  to the  NSW Inquiry that have not been made public.  Women were willing to open up very painful wounds on the belief that their doing so would educate  the public about what really happened: that their newborns were stolen and they had never willingly gave them up for adoption. At the outset of the Inquiry mothers were asked to mark their Submissions  confidential if they did not want them made public. This was thought necessary because some mothers may have wanted to remain anonymous or what was more likely the case because there were instances where the information was too sensitive. One such example would have been if the mother knew her taken child, now an adult, had been sexually and/or physically abused growing up.   One might want  this information be made available to government so politicians might learn about the unintended consequences of flawed social policy, but not want such personal information made available to the public.

I wrote to Pru Goward in 2012 and asked if  the submissions could be put on the public record. The Labor Opposition Leader, John Robertson, wrote to Goward on my behalf, also making that request.  Goward refused stating that at sometime during the Inquiry the Senate Committee decided to make all the submissions confidential.  This information was never disclosed to the mothers nor was it ever discussed.  It seems that even at that time there was an effort to ‘keep a lid’ on the information contained in the submissions.

The National Archives which has been funded to collect data to enable an accurate rendering of the history of past Forced Adoption in this country does not have access to these mothers’ accounts. Therefore misses out on  this valuable source of historical data.  One may even state that without the accounts the National Archives cannot fully realize its brief.

Lets contrast the above with the government’s tackling of the four deaths attributed to the Home Installation Scheme.

The Home Installation scheme, which was initially introduced as part of a suite of programmes to combat climate change, was then incorporated into a larger package of measures to stimulate the economy in order to avoid a recession when the GFC hit.  Sadly many business sprang up which hired young, inexperienced installers and  did not implement adequate safety measures. As a result four young men died of electrocution.[1]

Tony Abbott on the Royal Commission into Home Installation and the making of secret cabinet documents public:[2]

Reporter:  Does this fundamentally change Cabinet secrecy when a Royal Commission can now have it exposed?

“Nothing is going to change, the vigour, the candour, ultimately the constructiveness of Cabinet conversations … In respect of this particular Royal Commission, I think it is important, that this Royal Commission be supported and encouraged to get to the bottom of what happened here because lets face it,  this is the most disastrous domestic programme that the Commonwealth Government has every been responsible for we have got to the learn the lessons and frankly if Mr. Rudd can speak freely and have access to relevant documentation, if the other Ministers and officials can speak freely and have access to relevant documentation that surely helps the Royal Commission to do its work”.

Reporter: So you’re not worried about a future Government holding a Royal Commission about something that has happened under your watch and all the Cabinet documents being made public?

Abbott:  “Well I am confident that we won’t run a ‘roof bats’ style disaster and frankly if we ever do it ought to be investigated.”

[1] Former PM Kevin Rudd giving evidence at the Royal Commission into Home Insulation, Brisbane, 15 May, 2014 – Sky News

[2] Sky News National, Prime Minister Tony Abbott interview, 15 May, 2014, 10.27 a.m.

 

 

Posted in My Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment