Opposing the NSW Government's anti extended family reform for the rapid adoption of non-indigenous Australians.
The NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) intends to fast-track and promote rapid and infant adoption of non-indigenous Australians with a preference for adoption by non-kin (non-indigenous?). Do you agree?
Read this extract from 'Child Protection' and have your say:
“Adoption is not always the preferred option for children and young people in OOHC. Adoption of children by their relatives is generally not favoured in contemporary adoption practice because it disrupts family and genealogical relationships. Before making an adoption order in favour of a relative, the Court must be satisfied that the adoption order is clearly preferable to any other action that could be taken by law in relation to the child...Adoption is generally not the preferred permanency outcome for Aboriginal children. The Adoption Act specifically recognises that adoption is a concept that is absent in customary Aboriginal child care arrangements.” (REF: http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/lib100047/cp_reforms_discussion_paper.pdf
The planned 'reforms' are policies, including the baseless assumption that adoption is an unsuitable kinship model for indigenous Australians, as that implies that adoption is a suitable kinship model for non-indigenous Australians. This is a denial of the rightful place of some groups of individuals in relationship with extended family : those who have faced the very same challenges themselves as teen mothers.
Adoption has not only historically targeted illegitimate infants but continues to do so, according to the Community Affairs References Committee’s Final Report ‘Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices’.
Grandparents were not permitted to visit their daughters in a homely setting but infrequently in a small waiting room, and certainly not permitted to visit them on the ward. Neither was a grandparent allowed access to his grandchild in a locked adoption nursery. There were policies and practices not only around unmarried teen mums but also around their babies, at least in 1975 at St Margaret's Hospital for Women, Darlinghurst. One of Adoption's prevalent features is opposition to extended family values, though the 'Child Protection' paper implies that only modern adoption prefers that. Check this out (one reference of many proving Adoption’s inherent disapproval of grandparental intervention) : Hundreds of parents are asking IS OUR BABY SAFE?. (1954, May 15). The Argus (Melbourne, Vic), (1848 - 1956), p. 11. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article23414692
Adoption is almost synonymous with fraud and coercion, as tens of thousands of its victims worldwide are testifying. Adoption is a gateway to abduction of the infants of young and vulnerable mothers just as Euthanasia is unpopular (see the elderly in Holland) because it is a gateway to assisted suicide and murder especially of the elderly).
Keep them single and keep them vulnerable to predators, says the logic of denying a mother a place in her extended family in order to take her child as the child of another. Rather, you have insisted that she continue to be isolated as she continues to be seen as ‘sole’ relative to the nuclear family model you promote. She is not sole, she is not alone. She has extended family and community.
Then support extended family and community values in order to avoid separation. Mothers are important and deserve to be treated with dignity and compassion whether 'single', 'sole' or 'unmarried'. These terms mean the same thing. And that is, someone in your own family is suffering because of atomism. Adoption’s misery has stricken all kinds of families because what it does is inhumane. And, as the executive summary of the recent AIFS Report attributes much higher rates of Post Traumatic Distress Disorder to family separated by adoption, you will now intentionally because knowingly inflict that harm. It is downright immoral. Any true mother would be horrified to witness that.
Those of teenage-specific fertility belong to an Australian national group, according to the Australian Year Books. They have as much right to be defended against being targeted by discriminatory social policies as any other national fertility group. Australia has its own Human Rights Commission which in recent years has focused attention to the discrimination of ageism. Is the NSW Government about to go there?
Does the fact that you wish to earmark unborn babies for rapid adoption indicate that you believe in personhood from the womb? Abortion is legal for social reasons, in NSW, since the Levine Ruling. Will a mother facing the certain removal of her newborn infant for rapid adoption under your watch feel forced – in her ignorance of human rights – to allow the termination of her earmarked unborn baby lest it suffer the fate of expulsion from its own family forever once born? We have witnessed such a case in recent years, in the State of Victoria, in the criminal courts. And open adoption is a contradiction in terms.
They’ll be direct quotes from ‘Child Protection' in future news bulletins raising public awareness of the very large community of Australians impacted by the rogue policies of individuals in the NSW Department of Community Services also. Australians, say “no” to this phony conservatism which is really a veiled harkening to alleged prevalent historical values. History proves that adoption has been an opponent of the values which Australians have held dear, which are common to Humanity. More to come on that also, as I make this petition site a public voice opposing the plans of the NSW Government on the eve of an Australian world-first forced adoptions apology, as this apology will be offered on behalf of the nation, which includes all offending state governments and their NGOs. Show respect, then, to the ones you have offended and extend the deadline for submissions to ‘Child Protection’ to later in the year. The threats it poses are of far too great import to be pushed through in haste before peer survivor groups have had their say.
Placement with relative or kinship carers provides children with a stable, long-term nurturing placement similar to adoption; however, adoption by relatives is not generally favoured in contemporary adoption practice because of the confusion it creates between familial roles and legal status. For example, if a child is adopted by their grandmother, the adoption would mean that the child’s grandmother becomes their legal mother. This means that adoption is favoured in cases where it is in the child’s best interests to be cared for by a non-relative. Improving permanency options for relative and kinship care arrangements is discussed in further in this section.
- Shadow Attorney-General, Shadow Minister for Arts
Mark Dreyfus QC MP
- Attorney General's Department
Honourable Mark Dreyfus
- Department of Family and Community Services
- Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for the Arts
- Shadow Attorney-General, Shadow Minister for Arts
Mark Dreyfus QC MP
Rapid adoption of babies from their extended families of origins is not reform, as your 'Child Protection' discussion paper asserts. Instead, preserve and promote extended family values of indigenous and non-indigenous Australian teen mothers alike
Today: E is counting on you
E B needs your help with “Opposing the NSW Government's anti extended family reform for the rapid adoption of non-indigenous Australians.”. Join E and 294 supporters today.