Dian Wellfare Adoption Rights Campaigner (1951-2008)

"A Sanctioned Evil" Part Two
Overview of Adoption
"A Sanctioned Evil" Adoption History in Australia
"A Sanctioned Evil" 2
"A Sanctioned Evil" 3
"A Sanctioned Evil" 4
"A Sanctioned Evil" 5
A Sanctioned Evil 6
Dian's Tribute Page
Civil Rights Crimes in Adoption
Wake up Little Suzie
Beyond Pain
Responses to the NSW Inquiry
A Judge Speaks
What they Knew
South Australian Vetos
Dian's Portrait at National Gallery
Origins INC NSW

Continuation  of Origins Submission to NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Adoption Practices


Written and researched by Dian Wellfare


The Child Welfare Act 1939 No.17 and

The Adoption of Children Act 1965



          Adoption legislation does not come into play unless/until a parent or

          guardian of the child has already willingly signed a consent to adoption

          surrendering their parental rights to the state, whereupon the state

          becoming the guardian of the surrendered child is then responsible for

          looking after the child's best interest.


          The control of a mothers pregnancy, birth, and post confinement period

          was outside the jurisdiction of the meaning of the Act. ie., childbirth

          and adoption were entirely unrelated issues.



Legal Interpretation of

'The Best Interest of the Child'


         The original intention of adoption was to provide alternative care for a

         child derived of his own family. It was not meant to set about depriving

         the child of his own family.


         Nowhere in the Adoption Act or its accompanying regulations does it

         state that a child's best interest is best served by being removed from

         his own mother at birth - or thereafter, to be made available for



        Except in cases of abandonment, abuse, or neglect, authorities had no

        jurisdiction to interfere in the primary relationship between a

        mother/parent and her child. Rather, it was considered to be in the

        child's best interest to remain within his or her own family and provisions

        were to be made available to enable a mother to care for her child.


        Adoption and fostering, in that order, were considered a second best  option,

       and only if remaining with his or her own mother was not a

        possible option.


        Adoption was only considered to be in a child's best interest as the

        preferred option to that of becoming a state ward, and only if a mother

        had surrendered her child to the state.


                The legislature made it clear that the legislation is

                to promote the welfare of infants, but it deals with

                the matter on the basis that their welfare will be best

                served if they are brought up with their own parents in

                their own homes, and that adoption is only second best

                when, from the nature of things, the best interest for

                some reason is not available (R.v.B.,[1960] V.R.407)




Misrepresentation of the law


 "Adoption is in the best interest of the child"



Maternal Instinct


This rage

By now my constant companion

Lies dormant - waiting for expression

at the pit of my belly.

Suppressed only by my fear of its ferocity.


Oh how I wish I had not been human.

Had I perhaps been a bear, a mother bear

whose infant cub had been stolen

I might not still feel this way.


For it would have been acceptable

to follow my natural primal instinct

to go after,  and rip the throats out of the

predators  who ran off with my cub.


It would have been seen as a very natural

instinctive reaction, as every hunter

is aware of the dangers in entering the lair

of the wild animal in the breeding season.

It would have served themselves right.


Unfortunately I am not one of those.


Because I happen to be human,

I am crippled by oppression,

which forces me to suppress my natural instinct

to go after those  who ran off with my child,

to retrieve my cub.


My power of reason tells me it is not allowed.

It is against the law.

And would be socially, quite unacceptable.


My primitive,  underdeveloped basic instinct

Tells me it is a mothers very natural response.

Instead -I turn it upon myself.

Dian Wellfare




Where it all Began

Responsibility towards the Unwed Mother


Without going as far back in time to 1923, when the Child Welfare Act was first introduced, and the unmarried mother received a benefit of ten shillings a week to enable her to care for her child for the first three to four years of it's life: and without lingering on the League of Nations recommendation in 1938 that:


     "It may therefore be regarded as an axiomatic principle of child

      care that no child should be removed from the care of an otherwise

      competent parent when the granting of material aid would make such

      removal unnecessary",


As this inquiry is concentrating on adoption practices between the period 1950 to 1998, this submission will begin from the time adoption professionals were introduced to take over the control of unmarried mothers, putting themselves above the law - and damned us all to hell.


As the unmarried mother was so insignificant to the adoption industry, other than to be used as merely the provider of a commodity that allowed the adoption industry to remain a viable service to the community, perhaps the best way to begin this submission is by doing what the adoption experts never bothered to do for over 40 years - and that is to actually read the Child Welfare 17 regulations regarding the treatment of unwed and unsupported mothers - which had been introduced in the early 1950's to protect her and her child from exploitation. These regulations were put into place to ensure the unmarried mother was able to make a free and informed decision about her babies fate - one that she could live with for the rest of her life without regret and without redress.  


Mace v Murray

The legal responsibilities in the treatment of unwed mothers began as a consequence of the famous legal case of Mace v Murray in 1952, where an unwed mother tried unsuccessfully to reclaim her child from its foster parents

who had refused to return the child to its rightful mother. This case resulted in a sensational legal battle which split the nation.


As a consequence of that legal case: to prevent the cluttering of courts with similar cases, and in order to protect adopters from the disappointment of having to return the child, new regulations were introduced to ensure that in future any mother forced to consider adoption was to be made fully aware of the consequences of her actions. Simultaneously The New South Wales Government endorsed recommendations made by the World Health Organisation

in Geneva Switzerland in 1952, to offer provisions to care for homeless and maternally deprived children languishing in institutions.



World Health Organisation


According to a report by John Bowlby, M.A., M.D. on behalf of the World Health Organization as a contribution to the United Nations program for the welfare of maternally deprived and homeless children, in 1951: 


“If a community is to remove this source of deprived children, it

will have to be more realistic in its handling of the problem, both

by providing economic and psychological assistance to the  unmarried

mother to enable her to keep her child, and by providing skilled services

to arrange for the adoption of those children who cannot be so cared for.”


Children In Need

Donald McLean


Chapter 4

Page 52


Prefaced and endorsed by the Honorable R J Heffron, Deputy Premier and Minister for Education in NSW


To avoid any misunderstanding or any suggestion that the mother was misled or uninformed, District Officers are instructed to explain to the mother, before taking the consent, the facilities

Which are available to  help her keep the child. These include homes licensed under the Child Welfare Act for the private care of children apart from natural parents, financial assistance to unmarried  mothers under section 27 of the Child Welfare Act, admission to  State control until the mother is in a position to care for the child, and , assistance to affiliate the child and obtain a maintenance  order against the putative father.


When all these aids have been rejected, the officer is expected to explain to the mother the full implications of the Act of surrendering her child. Only when the mother has considered these, and still wishes to proceed with the surrender for adoption, should the consent be accepted. “



        "The vast majority of adopting parents prefer to take a child from birth.

         When professional agencies have strictly adhered to later placements, in

         parts of America, a black-market in newly born babies has sometimes

         developed. Placement from birth was forced on many American agencies

         under war-time stress, and the departure from the former practice was




A Panel Discussion

The Committee on Adoption Academy

United States



       "The mother of a child born out of wedlock is, of course, young,

        frightened, and very much alone when she is forced to make the

        momentous decision about her future life and that of her child. The

        provision of proper medical care, casework service, a plan for her

        child, full and honest disclosure as to her legal rights and the

        consequences of surrendering her child for adoption are essential if

        the substance rather than the mere form of her legal rights is to be

        secured. It is when this is not done, when she is not helped to work

        through to the right decision, that decisions made under duress may

        and often do lead to unresolved conflicts that may shadow her life

        and also the lives of the adoptive parents."


Child Welfare of NSW 1958

Social Work Training Manual


By 1958 the Child Welfare of New South Wales social work training manual (meant to be followed during the 1960's) - explains that:


       Most of the babies come from large public hospitals where the

       mother has indicated that she does not desire to keep her child.

       In these cases the mother is visited in hospital by a specialist

       Lady District officer who explains to the mother the facilities

       (assistance) which the Department can offer to affiliate the child."


These include:


      1. To assist with monetary allowance (section 27 aid. Child Welfare  Act).

      2. Or by admission to State control until the mother is better placed

         to resume custody and control of the child.

     When all of these aids have been rejected and the mother still desires

     to surrender the child for adoption the full import of surrendering her

     child is explained (this included warning the mother of the risk of dire

     future regret if she should decide upon adoption).


     Only when the mother still INSISTS does the department's officer prepare

     a form of surrender. This form must be witnessed by a Justice of the

     Peace who in turn must furnish an affidavit to the effect that the

     instrument of consent was read and explained to the mother and in the

     belief of the Justice was understood by the mother."


But these regulations were never complied with.


    In this State the mere signing of a consent does not remove parental rights -   which remain until the order is made.


    Adoption is one of the most satisfying of the Departments activities. and it is

    a constant source of pleasure to officers of the Department when adopting

    parents proudly bring their children to Head or District offices, and

    enthuse over their progress. It is highly gratifying to note that the baby

    has grown up as much the child of the adopting parents as though he has

    been born to them naturally. The fact that applications for a second child

    are so rapidly increasing clearly establishes that adoption is meeting the

    needs of both child and adopting parents in a very real manner."


Unmarried Mothers


    A special service to unmarried mothers has been established and a lady

    district officer, holding the Diploma of Social Studies, is attached to head

    office to deal with this matter. Many approaches are made direct, and others

    are referred by hospitals and social agencies. Advice is tendered in many

    cases, before birth. Assistance is given in regard to waiting time,

    arranging confinement, employment of the mother in such capacity as will

    enable her to retain and care for the child, financial assistance, admission

    of the child to a home or to state control, surrender of the child for

    adoption, and reference to the Affiliation Officer."


    This work calls for the greatest tact and sympathy, when one remembers

    the great emotional and physical stress under which the unmarried mother

    labours at such a time."


NB Although adoption professionals still claim that no provisions were available to support unwed mothers until 1973, an article found in the Daily Telegraph on 25th March 1965 promoting the new upcoming adoption laws had district officers reassuring the reading public of the mothers above mentioned rights, including how she had to insist upon adoption before the adoption procedure could commence, plus all facilities available to the unwed mother who keeps her child was clearly outlined at the eleventh National Conference of Social Workers in 1968, disproves the ignorance adoption professionals now claim to have about the availability of such facilities.



Maintenance Orders.


When explaining today why unmarried mothers were not being told about financial help that had been available, adoption workers explain that before an unmarried mother could obtain financial assistance under section

27 aid, she had to put herself through an embarrassing affiliation procedure

in the Courts before benefit would be granted. (see Lateline video Jennifer

Burns `Birth Bond' 21st October 1997). That does not seem to be entirely true.


According to their training regulations, the benefit was available to her irrespective of any forthcoming maintenance. She was expected to hand the responsibility of chasing up maintenance from the father over to the Department. She would then have to endure the possible embarrassment of proving the paternity of the father of her child, through the Court.


Enforcement of maintenance orders under

the Deserted Wives and Children Act.

Child Welfare of NSW 1958


        When a deserted wife, or the mother of an illegitimate child, receives

        an allowance under Section 27 of the Child Welfare Act, she is required

        to give control of any maintenance order against the father of the child

        to the Department. If such orders are not complied with, application is

        made to the Court for enforcement. At the Metropolitan Children's Court

        an officer attends daily to present evidence in support of such

        applications. At Courts other than the Metropolitan Children's Court

        this work is undertaken by a Field Officer.



Adoption of Children Act 1965


Offences clause


The new Adoption of Children Act 1965 then added offences clauses into legislation against coercion, duress, and undue influence to prevent exploitation of mother and child by unscrupulous baby traders.






Coercion does not always require overt bullying tactics. Realising they could get just as many babies with honey as with vinegar, the adoption experts had mastered the art of undue influence and coercion in many cases simply by denying her information about legally available assistance to make keeping her baby a viable alternative. Making her believe she had made a decision although no option had been offered, and insisting that adoption was in her child's best interest, was in itself coercion - railroading the mother into the only direction offered to her.     

Section 27 aid -

Allowances for Children 1968

- available since 1939


Additionally, in 1968 the Department of Social Welfare reported on benefits

available to unmarried mothers - under Allowances for Children. section 27 aid, explained that:


         "Not all unmarried mothers wish to have their child adopted and in

          many cases have no family at hand to help with the care of the

          child. This embryo family group has an important mother-child

          relationship that needs both support and nurture and the

          Department assists the mother by acting for her in affiliation

          proceedings and by the granting of regular allowances once the

          mother's eligibility has been established.

          The services of the social aid branch are also used in special

          cases to supply a layette, special foods and milk. Many unmarried

          mothers call upon the services of the Dept to act for them in

          court to obtain an affiliation order. There is no charge for this



That having been said, we are yet to meet any mother who has been aware that such provisions even existed. And yet these documents are clear evidence that financial assistance and other provisions have always been available to assist the unmarried mother to keep her child.


NB An article in a Social Work manual written in March 1977 by Elspeth Brown, explains that in her time, between 1958 and 1963, 60% surrendered and the bulk of 40% of babies kept by their mothers were born either to mothers in stable de-facto relationships or to very young mothers, in particular those emanating from Child Welfare Department institutions.


Although it has been generally assumed that financial assistance to unwed mothers was first introduced by the Whitlam Government in 1973, finally enabling mothers the option of keeping their babies, that wasn't historically true. It seems that all Whitlam did was to advertise the already available but unknown benefit to single mothers, gave it it's own title, and brought it into line with CPI.


the Adoption of Children Act 1965

The Propaganda Begins


From 1965 adoption propaganda had been launched to introduce the new upcoming Adoption Act 1965. In reducing the mother's revocation period to no more than 30 days, the new legislation making all surrendered children `as if

born' to their adopters (for inheritance purposes), severing forever any further connection between mother and child - adoption had become a hot topic of discussion in the media, with welfare officers promoting the location and availability of newborn babies as their exciting new service to the public.


In order to recruit a greater pool of potential adopters from which to choose,

a new term "unwanted baby" had been introduced into adoption propaganda to allow the potential adopters to believe they would be `saving' the child by adopting it, More importantly, its prime purpose was to give the adoptive parents a sense of entitlement to lay claim to another woman’s child, as the belief was that they could not `bond' with the child of another without a sense of entitlement.


Additionally, being fully aware of their legal obligations, these same welfare officers deceived the public (via newspaper articles and TV propaganda

releases) into believing unwed mothers actually were being offered financial assistance and options, were being warned of the potential for dire future regret if considering adoption, and assuring them she actually had to insist upon the adoption of her child. But never did they advertise the tactics used to manipulate them into surrendering their babies.


Knowing perhaps all too well that the concerned public would not tolerate baby theft, they kept their de-babying procedures conveniently hidden from public gaze.


The propaganda process  relied on a two fold manoeuvre. On one hand, because the community needed to be assured that the child was not being punished for it's mothers mistakes, district officers were claiming to the public the babies were unwanted and therefore needed to be `rescued', and on the other hand, the industry was denying the unmarried mother her rights, forbade her to see her own baby, and hid her baby from her either forever, or until a consent to adoption could be taken. 


The much needed promotion of social hatred towards the mother of the illegitimate child can be observed through the evolution of old movies, where

the unmarried mother, (prior to intervention of the social worker) showed the tragedy of the unmarried mother needing to hide her `child of shame' and fade into obscurity being depicted in sad and heartfelt old weepies, such as `Stella' with Barbara Stanwick, and `The Old Maid' with Bette Davis. Movies of the 1930's witnessed fallen women trudging through heavy snows to leave her baby lovingly snuggled into a basket on the steps of some benevolent foundling home - a supreme and loving sacrifice.


However, once social workers were introduced to promote the concept of traditional adoption, the trend altered significantly. No longer an act of sacrifice, the unmarried mother of the illegitimate child conveniently came to be seen as a pariah, a woman to be scorned, to be reviled, an unnatural mother who could willingly give away her own flesh and blood, a neurotic

woman whose child needed to be `saved' and protected from its own `deviant' mother through legislation. The hatred generated was perfectly orchestrated, so much so that those few brave `birth' mothers attending adoption conferences and meetings in the early and mid 1980's, were treated with such contempt, one reports being up and spat on by an adopting parent, others recall being called sluts and seen as a lower class of human being.

Only the very brave entered these meetings to endure the humiliation of hearing members of the audience make derogatory comments about teenagers like: 


"why can't they just go to the drive-in and `get on with

it' so we don't have to wait so long for our babies!"


Many witnessed utter contempt from their found child upon reunion. The hatred fed through media articles, and talk back radio during debate about changes to legislation and continued to be observed without respite through the 1990's.

Blaming the Victim


With the cunning of a paedophile the industry and society continued to blame and punish their victim. SHE gave away her baby! SHE signed the consent! SHE made the decision! She has no rights!


The contempt manufactured by the adoption industry itself, rather forget they had been dealing with human beings, many of whom had been little more than children themselves when they lost their babies.


Now blamed for having made a decision when no option had been offered, punished for having been abandoned and unsupported by their own families, stigmatised by their community, and hoodwinked out of their babies by the well rehearsed lines of a devious adoption agent who saw the mother as simply a breeder. A social worker explained at a 1995 conference workshop on Trauma, Grief and Loss at Sydney University:


     "We never considered you mothers. All we could see were the families

      we were creating. We'd see an only child and think "wouldn't it be

      nice for him to have a little sister."


It was considered, because a few older mothers came back for `counselling',  that the younger the girl, the easier it was for them to forget. They would just go on home and resume their lives and were never heard from again. Instead of realising that their inability to even return for their post partum check-up at six weeks, was a direct result of their inability to cope with their unspeakable

death-like trauma when they were too young, too psychologically immature to comprehend the nightmare inflicted upon them. Their pathological grief  dismissed by the agencies with contemptible distain. They had after all, brought it upon themselves!



Keeping the lid on the truth -

 propaganda continues


Even decades later, when the 1990 Adoption Legislation allowed mothers and children to be reunited and support networks were set up to counsel parties affected by adoption separation, STILL the propaganda continued.


Support services and information provisions were being controlled by the very same social workers who had worked in the industry. All counselling was manoeuvred to keep a lid on the past and focus on the present, to look forward to re-union and it's associated problems.


Mothers were again being told to consider the feelings of others. How will the adoptive parents feel! Think about their fear of losing their child! "We are only doing women like you a favour. We don't have to give women like you anything!"  You should be over this by now! He has parents and won't want another! You should consider yourself lucky if your child even sees you as a friend! Well dear you did sign the consent after all! The past was social mores of the time! It was the best decision you could have made back then! It was your decision! look forward! Consider yourself lucky! Don't rock the boat or you will lose any possibility of a future relationship! Boys are not usually interested! Most reunions fail after the honeymoon is over anyway! It's a shame you can't let go! Don’t tell the child the truth, it will only upset him! Don't write and tell him you have always loved him, it will upset his parents. Write only that you want to know if he is happy and your decision had been the right one, it's not so threatening - it keeps the myth alive. Get on with your life! You should be grateful! You made a loving decision!


Above all keep the propaganda up - keep patronising and blaming the mother - keep avoiding the past - keep the lid on the truth!  


Professional Concern


Possibly the most eye opening aspect of this study has been to notice how throughout the history of adoption, members of Parliament were clearly intent on improving the lot of the unmarried mother and her child. Often showing sympathy for the mother and child - as opposed to the promotion of adoption.


One example from the Minister for Social Welfare in 1961, Mr Hawkins declared how:


        The child must be protected from unnecessary separation

        from his natural parents who could themselves provide 

       security and love if adequate help and guidance  were

        available. The child must be protected from adoption by

        people who are unsuited to the responsibility of rearing

        a child or who approach adoptions as a means of satisfying

        their own neurotic needs, The natural parents must be

        helped to make their decision to surrender a child for

        adoption only after mature consideration of the alternatives

        available and should be protected from any attempt to persuade

        them to place the child unsuitably.

Hansard page 927

Concern was expressed in Parliament about the minimum time in which the unmarried mother could sign an adoption consent, given that, as stated by Mr Kearns "Because a number of provisions in this bill affect fundamental rights of human beings we are not in a position to dismiss it lightly." Discussions on the issue included remarks by the Honourable Eileen Furley in 1965 that:


         She is usually emotionally disturbed and after only three

         days not in a fit mental state to make such an important

         decision. Even with the saving thirty days in which to revoke

         her decision, she may feel too timid or overawed to say that

         she wishes to change her mind.


1965 Hansard 3053


The Hon. C.A.F. Cahill in 1965 states:


         I agree that a young mother would not be in a fit state for

         some days after the birth of her child, by reason of her age

         and the trauma of the occurrence, to exercise properly her

         rights in giving approval.


Hansard 3061

The Hon. Asher Joel suggested that the period be extended to the five day post confinement period after the child’s birth, during which 


        "to get to know her child" and "she will be better able to

         determine whether she wants to keep the child".

op. cit. page 3057



Insight Report on adoption,

"When a baby is given away"

Alexina Mary McWhinnie MA.Phd.SW



      "In general, she says, "adoption is a pretty hit and miss affair which

       can leave scars on the people concerned." Material conditions and class

       status, Dr McWhinnie finds, have no invariable significance in themselves

      "Spontaneous and real love for children for their own sakes is the only

       sure safeguard against the hazards of adoption."


       Occupation, social standing, religion are not actually the most important

       things when placing a child. She thinks it would pay to give more

       attention to the moral and emotional attitudes of prospective parents than

       to their community standing and economic level..."Some people want a

       child as a status symbol. They are  ashamed of their sterility. Or they

       may want a child as a pet. In that case they would be better off with a

       house broken dog."  



Explaining the Adoption of Children Act 1965


SOCIAL SERVICE Journal of the Council of Social Service of New South Wales. Implementing the Adoption of Children Act.

by W.Langshaw. Dip. Soc.Stud. Deputy Director,

Department of Child and Social Welfare. Vol.18, No 2. 1966.


Announcing how the rights of the unmarried mother remains essentially the same as with the Child Welfare Act (ie only the revocation period is reduced) Langshaw further explains:


    "The placement of children for adoption should have as its main objective

     the well-being of children. Its main purpose is not to find children for

     families, nor should it be expected to provide help for many of the

     problems associated with childlessness."


    "The natural parents and especially an unmarried mother, have the right to

     full discussion of all the factors that may help them to a reasoned decision

     to keep or surrender their child, and need to have trust that the

     arrangements made for their child are, in fact, the most suitable that can

     be made."


    "A person using undue influence to induce the signing of a consent to

     adoption or to the expression of any wishes in such a consent, is also

     guilty of an offence."   He was ignored.


Private Adoption Arrangements


It has been estimated that there could be as many private arrangements having occurred where no official registration of the adoption has been made, as there are official registered adoptions. The exact numbers we may never know.


It was once common practice to arrange private adoptions between family and friends without the intervention of the state.


However there have also been many instances where doctors and other professionals have made baby transfers their business. One such example was uncovered in 1961 around Newcastle where the unmarried mother would be hit with an enormous medical bill and told it would be wiped out if she booked into the hospital under a certain name, registered the baby in a certain name, where upon discharge, a taxi would be waiting to pick her up where she was to drive to a certain location, drop her baby off, and drive on.   

The birth and medical records had been registered in the name of the adopting mother, to imply she had given birth, and no record of an adoption was made.


After discovery the doctor concerned was fined for false information on a birth certificate only. This type of scam was apparently occurring all around the country, making one wonder just how many Australians are married to their own blood relations.


The Collapsed Mother


"When a mother collapses, it means

she has lost her sense of herself."


The way to cause a mother to collapse is to divide

her emotionally. The most common way, time out of

mind has been to force her to choose between loving

her child and fearing what harm the village will

visit on her and the child if she does not comply

with the rules.


When a mother is forced to choose between the child

and the culture, there is something abhorrently cruel

and unconsidered about that culture. A culture that

requires harm to one's soul in order to follow the

cultures prescriptions is a very sick culture indeed.

This "culture" can be the one a woman lives in, but

more damning yet, it can be the one she carries

around and complies with within her own mind....."


Women Who Run With The Wolves Clarissa Pinkola Estes



Licensing Adoption Agencies -



Although outlawing independent baby traders, the new protection clauses introduced into the new Act, had been entirely disregarded as the industry introduced practices that simultaneously contravened its own legislation, allowing the newly "respectable" licensed adoption agencies to simply turn baby trading into a major industry - and a very lucrative one at that.


Providing lifetime careers for agents, finders fees for the location of suitable babies, providing as many babies to their own friends and family members, church friends and members, including hospital staff, their family and their friends, all helping themselves to our newborns as required. With district officers hounding mothers day and night, who had refused or resisted signing their babies away, only to find decades later that that same district officer had been the very person to adopt her baby, that the same paediatrician who had pulled her baby out of her womb had taken her baby for himself, that nurses working in hospital nurseries had earmarked a particular baby for themselves and waited weeks or months before taking the baby home to coincide with their annual holidays, or long service being due, long after private adoption arrangements had been banned.




But possibly the biggest factor that motivated the ferocious promotion of babies for adoption was the reaping in of huge financial gains. Call it what you will and give it any official name you like, but it was selling babies nonetheless, by way of charging administrative fees and demanding tax exempt and often huge donations from adoptive parents - for services rendered.


Under the new Adoption of Children Act 1965, however, it is an offence to make, give, receive, or agree to make, give, or receive payment or reward in consideration of any arrangements with a view to adoption.


A Marketable Commodity


If both adoption and foster care are services to provide for children in need: given that less work is involved in the process of arranging an adoption placement of a healthy white newborn which is over once the order is made, and yet prospective adopters now pay administration fees of around $3,500,  by comparison to the massive work involved in the placement of a child into long or short term foster care where the paper work, visitations, relocations, court orders and arrangements etc., can continue for years on end at no cost to the foster parent (in fact she gets paid), with the state picking up the tab, and given that adoptive parents prepared to adopt a disabled child are exempt from administration fees, if adoption really is now a service to provide for children in need, and not still a marketable commodity, why isn't the state also picking up the tab for administrative fees for adoption placements?


Why is it that only a perfect newborn is expected to be paid for?


A Social Experiment


While the baby's mother was being promised the perfect life with perfect parents , an idealised family structure she could not hope to compete with, and being made to believe she would be a selfish mother to deny her child a life far superior to anything she could provide, the reality was that no-one knew if the placement of her child would even be successful let alone superior. Traditional adoptions were simply a long term experiment with the lives of our children. An experiment which according to many outcomes -  and the cost in human terms - has failed dreadfully.  





MAEV O'COLLINS..B.A. Dip. Soc. Stud. Social Worker, Catholic Family Welfare Bureau, Melbourne, Vic. (extract from a paper printed in the;  AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK Vol 19, NO 1. February 1966)


    In assessment and placing of children with adopting applicants we are

    always looking for their normal capacity for parenthood. Our judgement in

    many cases is only a little better than chance and our ability to assess

    possible problems must leave a greater margin for error than perhaps any

    other field of social welfare. However, it is reassuring to note that studies

    carried out in the USA have shown that trained workers in adoption

    agencies have significantly better results than independent adoption

    work........Often we are affected by over-crowded nurseries and

    insufficient couples applying to adopt 'hard to place' children and a growing

    awareness that delay for the baby can have a damaging effect on his

    personality that even the best and most understanding couple may not be

    able to counteract.

    This may mean that in the 'stress' of the moment we place a child hurriedly,

    perhaps too soon, perhaps to the wrong couple, perhaps to unsuitable

    people. Donald Brieland in his experimental study of the Selection of

    Adoptive Parents at Intake, raised the problem that individual judgement by

    social workers is only somewhat better than chance.

    Our task of clarifying and strengthening the reality of parenthood while at

    the same time not withholding or denying the fact of the child’s biological

    origins will perhaps always remain the crucial difficulty in adoption.


    Studies to determine the success or failure in adoption work must always be

    considered against the background of normal family living, and results may

    not be readily assessed until 15 or 20 years after the original placement.


    Adoptive parents will make mistakes because they are human and will not

    always understand, thus adoption is not a panacea, it will not always

    produce well adjusted adults but it does seem to be the best plan we have to

    offer the child denied his own parents'.


That timing coincided nicely with legislative changes in Victoria by 1985. The experiment on our children had obviously failed.


Recruiting Potential Adopters


Just as Vincent had forecast some years earlier, the recruitment of more prospective adoptive parents had begun in 1967 by the use of media articles, ministers of church congregations calling on their parishioners to do their Christian duty, even if they already had families of their own, began to draw huge levels of applicants.  


By 1967, McLelland, referred to the historical developments in the selection of adoptive parents where efforts were also being made to recruit those prepared to take hard to place children:


"Including those who were by no means ideal".    


A thought for the unmarried father.

Sunday Tele 5/2/67 Miss Mary McLelland.


         "There are three people involved in adoption," she said, "the child, the

          natural parent who must surrender him, and the adoptive parent."


          Miss McLelland said another current change in the adoptive practice was

          that the supply of children was falling in relation to the supply of

          adoptive parents. This was even more unfortunate as not all adoptive

          parents were suitable....a further modern day role of the social

          worker was to recruit adoptive parents by stimulating interest among

          suitable people."


Dissenters of Adoption


McWhinnie scathingly attacked adoption as a hit and miss affair in 1967, publicly exposing (via the Daily Mirror), the findings of research she had conducted on 58 adult adoptees. Of her 58 guinea-pigs, only 15 were well adjusted and considered their childhood to be happy and successful, 10 were poorly adjusted and 21 were still struggling with severe immediate emotional problems relating to adoption. The rest were considered to be intermediate.


Rapid Adoptions


I should note here that in 1967 according to the Proceeding Seminar held on Friday 3rd February 1967to proclaim the new Adoption of Children Act 1965,

giving mothers protection as never before (apparently), concerns had been raised by the medical profession regarding what they considered to be the best form of adoption. These were known as "rapid adoptions."


A rapid adoption was a process whereby the parents of a recently stillborn child (not having intended to adopt) were offered a substitute baby to replace their own dead infant so as not to leave the hospital empty handed. But the decision had to be made quickly as the swap had to be made prior to leaving the hospital.


As the grieving mother of the stillborn, in having just given birth could immediately breastfeed the alien child, this was considered to be a much favoured adoption variable by many in the medical profession. It relied simply on swapping the dead infant for an available recently born ex-nuptial one.


Naturally the security of such a placement would have been imperative and may well have relied on telling the unwed mother her baby had been stillborn to ensure she didn't try to legally reclaim her child.  


Rapid adoptions were very much discussed at the seminar, and could well be the answer to the recently exposed adoption/stillborn scandal of 1996 where many unwed mothers across the country, having been told their babies had been stillborn, have reunited with their so-called dead babies in recent years. Their children had been taken for adoption instead.  


Some mothers around the Newcastle area were told their baby had died and would be buried in the `rose garden' on the grounds of the hospital.



The Children's Medical Research


Crown Street Sydney


Medical records of Crown Street hospital indicate that some babies born to unwed mothers were being used as guinea pigs in trials being conducted into the respiratory development of low birth weight babies in the mid 1960's. The babies were being administered the drug Phenergen at a few days of age, although the drug was not to be administered to a child under two years old.


On the same point, unwed mothers were being used to trial new diuretics. By the mid 1970's Rubella Titre trials were being conducted on unwed mothers without their consent or knowledge.



- A Well Kept Secret -


This section will come as a shock to every mother who reads it. Nevertheless it must be known.


Since the introduction of the Adoption of Children Act 1965, only one paper presented at a 1968 Conference for social workers outlined provisions available to assist the unmarried mother who keeps her child, including financial assistance, and child care facilities available in and around the city of Sydney which accommodates the child while the mother works.


This was obviously a well kept secret available only to those in the know and I suspect their secret didn't leave the conference room, given that mothers were being told there was no assistance even if they knew to ask. Even those who managed to keep their babies were not made aware of the provisions and subsisted on family help until 1973.


One can only wonder how many lives might have been saved, how many unnecessary separations might have been averted, how much pain and suffering might have been avoided had the regulations been complied with togive mothers a free choice.


That the primary reason why the vast majority of mothers lost their babies because they were given to believe no help was available only to learn that there was help, and they did not have to lose their baby after all, is to all, an indescribable violation. The cunning of the industry in their self righteous, outright theft of our children, by conveniently denying the mother her legal options defies description.



Financial Assistance, and Support


Australian Association of Social Workers

Eleventh National Conference Proceedings

Social Issues of Today'

`The unmarried mother who keeps her child'

Miss Pamela Roberts 


  `From the Commonwealth, the unmarried mother receives the Maternity

   allowance of $30.00  and thereafter child endowment of 50 cents a week. She

   is entitled to special benefits until six weeks after the birth of the baby,

   when it ceases unless she is considered medically unfit. She must apply

   through the courts to obtain maintenance from the putative father before she

   is entitled to any help from the Department of Child and Social Welfare.

   This help would vary according to circumstances but is always $1.00 below

   that of the Widows pension. As you know, a Class A Widows Pension for a

   woman with one child who is paying rent is $23.00 a week....So unless she

   returns to work, she is permanently on an income below that of a Widow's


-Day care for the child-


   If she is to work, the mother who is on her own needs to find satisfactory

   day care for her child. In New South Wales, if she is within reasonable

   distance from the inner city she will be given priority at one of the six

   Sydney Day Nurseries Association nurseries which take children under the

   age of two years.



  The other essential for the mother on her own with a baby is, of course,

  accommodation. In New South Wales she can apply to the Housing Commission

  for accommodation and, in due course, when her turn is reached on the waiting

  list she will probably be allocated a flat. At present, the average waiting time

  for this is 3-31/2 years. There is one infants home in Sydney where a mother

  can go with her child but otherwise there is at present no special provisions

  for this group of mothers.


-Support and Counselling-


  In some cases for the first few weeks of the baby's life, the obstetric hospital

  will still be the main source of support and help to the single mother who is

  trying to keep her child without her own family's help. It may well be that

  much help is needed in these first few weeks because, for some mothers, the

  actual experience of caring for the baby, accepting the reality of what this

  means to both of them is only fully appreciated after caring for the child. If

  support and acceptance is still freely available, subsequent surrender of the

  baby, which may be in everyone's best interest -including the child - may be




The last public advert

The following article was the last time any mention had been made publicly of services available to allow an unwed mother the option of keeping her child until the sole parents benefit was re-introduced/advertised in July 1973.



25TH March 1965

 `Adopted babies to get new deal'

     by Wallace Crouch   


                    "Child Welfare officers emphasise that before she

                     signs a consent a mother is made fully aware of

                     the import of her actions. Alternatives to adoption

                     are  outlined to her - financial assistance, placement

                     of her child in a licensed home or its admission to

                     State control as a ward. Only if a mother still

                     insists that she wants her child adopted does the

                     officer proceed with the consent."


According to Hansard, the Child Welfare Department was concerned about the level of pressure being put on them by infertile couples who constantly complained how 4 - 5 years was too long a wait to obtain babies once the decision to adopt had been made. This article indicates that their demands had been acknowledged and were going to be met. 







The website is constructed and maintained by Lily Arthur in memory and honor of Dian Wellfare


The material on this site is subject to Copyright 2009 Any reproduction must be approved by
Origins Inc