is predominately with the proposed introduction of lifetime vetoes against birthmothers - an outrageous discriminatory proposition
in protection of other parties to the adoption process.
would assume in this enlightened decade that birthmothers had suffered enough at the hands of this draconian, unnatural and
inhumane process of separating a mother permanantly from her own child at birth because she had the misfortune of falling
pregnant in a country such as Australia when she was young, victimised, unsupported and essentially helpless.
type of discrimination can be allowed to continue in 1995 in light of the well acknowledged awareness of past practices is
the naive and uninformed are not yet aware of the criminality and illegality which permeated the entire adoption process Australia
wide over the last 50 years, and specifically over the period since the introduction
of the 1965 Adoption of Children Act where laws were passed which were meant to protect the unwed mother and her child from
separation through coercion and undue influence and which failed to do so.
are dealing with in 1995 are women who are no longer those teenage unwed mothers who lost their babies to scandalous adoption
practices after having been placed into the care of government employed and licenced adoption workers but who are now adult
women seeking advice from legal professionals who, until recently, have had little or no involvement in adoption law, and
are beginning to recognise that the Adoption Act has been almost entirely contravened through the system's practices and blatant
misrepresentation of adoption law and policy guidelines.
of the readily available research which declares that:
" birthmothers suffer chronic and irresolvable grief which only
intensifies with time", (ref.JCondon, Winkler VanKeppell,
the introduction of lifetime vetoes against the birthmother as a dictum of law, could very well be seen as breaching a professional
duty of care (where no-one is legally entitled to knowingly do harm to others - a principal of civil law for approximately
lawyers we assume you would be aware of Australia's history
adoption practices (not practiced in other nations) and would therefore assume that, in law, your committee would be seeking
ways of making restitution by at least looking after the emotional needs of birthmothers
which has until now been grossly and negligently ignored, even though research and their own manuals of adoption practice
indicate that adoption professionals have been aware of the long term consequences to the birthmother and were meant to, as
part of their duty of care, warn the mother of the emotional consequences of separating from her child ie that she may "suffer
greivous future regret" rather than encouraging the surrender of her child to adoption. (a guideline which has always been
and continues to be ignored by adoption workers).
what has evolved as a result of the "lack of accountability" of adoption workers could very well be construed as mass kidnap
of thousands of newborn babies by Government bodies - if contested in a court of law.
video and audietape - reaction of Justice Richard Chisholm - previous head of NSW Law Reform Commission Adoption Review Board).
Adoption Reviews Australia wide seem to be concentrating on the superficialities of adoption reform rather than the legalities
I have included extracts from a paper presented at the Australian National Adoption Conference held in Sydney on August 29-31 1994.
specifically aimed at NSW, this information may well pertain to all Australian states and was chaired by the NSW Law Reform
Commissions now president, Mr Hennessy.
" A seminar held in February 1967, to implement the Adoption of
Children Act 1965, bringing together 314 representatives of
every hospital, maternity home and family agency from around
the State of N.S.W. outlining the procedures of the new
Adoption Act has been the source of much of my information.
(The Act, refers to the Adoption of Children Act 1965)
This new Act was primarily implemented to wipe out technical
differences between the rights of adopted children between
different States, and, with the prohibition of independent
adoptions, other than private family arrangements, safeguards
were implemented which would protect the unwed mother and her
child from duress and undue influence by what was then known
as black market agents profiteering in unscrupulous baby
Except in cases of abandonment or neglect, nowhere in the Adoption Act
dictates that the interests of the child are best served by being removed
from it's natural mother at birth.
The responsibility of adoption workers was the placement and care of a
child deprived of his natural family. It is not, and never has been the
responsibility of the adoption worker to actually deprive the child of
his family. And yet, adoption practices were implemented to do just that.
What the law indicates is that only after a mother has surrendered her
child for adoption by having signed a consent to adoption form, then and
ONLY then, does the State take over the responsibility of looking after
the childs best interests.
Needless to say, Adoption Workers misinterpreted their understanding of
the law and somehow decided it was their duty to speak on behalf of the
child (specifically the infant) inferring it was their responsibility to
decide on the babies future. (Vol 20 Aust Journal of Social Work Feb 67-
Their own words demonstrate that adoption workers merely used the child
as a tool for adoptions true purpose, unexposed as it was.
To quote Mary McLelland, spokeswoman for the Australian Association of
Social Workers 1967;.... "The Social workers concern is with
childlessness or infertility, but the particular area of competence is,
not in it's treatment, but in assessment or resolution of the effects on
the marital relationship of the couple"....She goes on further to say;
"The ultimate objective of Adoption is
such a planned change, through
helping to make a family where before one did not exist"....."But before
the placement can be made there are other minor or contributory changes
in the social functioning of various individuals where the social workers
part is well defined".... and that is..."The natural parents must
resolve, if possible, conflicts about
the surrender of the child".
Quite clearly, the success of securing marital harmony and healthy social
functioning of white married society, was dependent on ensuring the
availability of a continuous crop of desirable babies. Their destiny
sealed, earmarked to fulfilling the needs of strangers, our babies were
merely used as a means of providing a cure for the marital problems of
Social Workers were delighted that the prohibition of independent
adoptions would mean a greater number of unwed mothers being
channelled into the waiting claws of
the new system via, by now, well
rehearsed and poorly trained adoption
case workers, planted effectively
within hospitals, maternity homes
and family agencies. These new
arrangements would mean that practices would be implemented, which
could reap a crop large enough to satisfy the frenzied demand for babies.
The following 6 years (1967-73) would
be known in social work circles as
the bumper adoption era.
The skyrocketing statistics of this period was no coincidence, but a
direct result of the adoption industry systematically denying the
unwed mother all options and alternatives available to her by law, and
using methods of such inhumane, emotional violence, and physical abuse
in the labour ward - all designed
to remove the mothers sense of
entitlement to her own child, and, being
so outside the legal interpretation
of the law as to bring into question
the validity of thousands of adoption
consents as a consequence.
Procedures in place negating the need for any legal representation of the
unwed mother allowed a breeding ground for such abuses of the Act.
It was a time of severe negligence and blatant disregard of the Adoption
Act on the part of the entire Social Welfare system in collusion with the
That any Social Worker actually bothered to read the Adoption Act and its
offences, or for that matter, their very own journals and Manuals of
Practices is severely questionable. (ref.vol 20 A.J.of S.W + Man
of Adop Pracs 1971)
It wasn’t until 1976 that the Health Dept of N.S.W. smelled a rat, but it
took another 6 years to distribute a warning to every hospital within the
state that they were contravening the Adoption Act on either mental
health or legal grounds.
It was also the first time anyone had bothered to question why almost all
adoption consents in N.S.W. were being taken whilst the mother lay
bleeding and sedated in her hospital bed, when by law she could have
taken the baby home and given herself time to make alternative
arrangements. This was but one option systematically denied the unwed
Most significantly, Section 31b of the Adoption Act states; An adoption
consent may prove invalid under the terms of the Adoption of Children act
1965 if the mother has been subject to duress or undue influence.
Refusing the mother permission to see or handle her child prior to
signing the consent, or putting obstacles in her way of asserting this
right, may readily be interpreted as duress if the validity of a consent
is being contested...In the same context any comments or actions by staff
members which the mother could see as pressure to persuade her to place
her baby for adoption run the risk of later bearing the legal
interpretation of duress. Anyone found in these circumstances to have
exerted "undue pressure" is liable to prosecution under 51 of the act.
The law also states that a mother is the sole legal guardian of her baby
and remains so until a consent to adoption is signed. She therefore has
the rights of access to her child as any new mother would and cannot
legally be denied this.
How did thes law protect the unwed mother when most had pillows or sheets
To discover the massive case work studies on the effects of adoption on
the child - available since 1943 and referenced in university social work
literature is reprehensible and certainly smacks of negligence toward the
emotional health of the child if not child abuse.
Perhaps the most telling of all comments for the unwed mother was by the
well known Leontine Young, whose unresearched theories about unwed
mothers bought about the cruel and barbarous "Clean Break Theory" in
adoption practice as we know it today, In her paper "Is Money our
Trouble", Young stated her concerns in 1953 about:
"The tendency growing out of the demand for babies to regard
unwed mothers as breeding machines....by people intent
securing babies for quick adoption".
The sacred cow that adoption became, began at a time whereby the
collective social conscience, in an effort to alleviate any guilt about
sanctioning the permanent removal of a child from it's natural mother,
colluded with the help of well designed social propaganda to believe that
adoption was in the childs best interest as the mother, they deemed, did
not want her child.
The unwanted child theory was then introduced to help adoptive parents
feel comfortable in taking another woman’s baby, as the belief was that
the adoptive mother could not effectively parent the child without a
sense of entitlement.
Once the baby had disappeared forever, the concept of relinquishment was
so at odds with Mother Nature herself, that society had to condemn the
de-babied mother as being less than human for doing what was socially
expected of her, and so, in order to protect their collective guilt the
mother was condemned into eternal silence.
The collective amnesia of the unwed mother seemed to indicate that all
was well with adoption and she had indeed forgotten what had been done to
her. The truth in fact being that, she had not been silenced by stigma
and guilt as was socially required of her, but rather, it is now being
acknowledged in psychiatric circles that her silence has been the direct
result of an attempted adaptation to an unbearable loss, being so outside
the realms of normal human endurance, as to have caused her to suffer
severe mental health disorders such as
psychic splitting, much the same
way as the mind of the child incest abuse victim splits off from reality
in order to survive her trauma, incorporating
post traumatic stress
disorder, psychogenic amnesia, multiple personality disorder, severe
dissociative disorders, long term pathogenic grief, learned helplessness
disfunction and major depression, all this as a direct result of such
severe trauma associated with such a
Many mothers have stated how:
" Argentina's political adoption process of putting a bullet
through her head once the baby had been born, might
been kinder, instead of being condemned to the eternal
in never knowing where her baby is".
I question how any civilised Government could legally be allowed to
sanction, promote and continue to implement such an inhumane policy as
that of closed adoption, without having been legally obliged as part of
their duty of care, to take into consideration the vast amounts of
professional case work studies so readily available, which indicate that
adoption causes severe mental health disorders in women who relinquish a
child, and major psychological disturbances in many adopted children.
I also question why adoption workers have not, and are still not, as part
of their duty of care, being made to acknowledge their professional
responsibility in informing the mother of the possible risk of grievous
harm to both her own and her child’s mental health, if adoption is being
to clause regarding vetoes.
proposal to recommend both information and contact vetoes against birth mothers further perpetuates the bias and fear held
toward mothers who were on the whole, little more than children at the time of
relinquishment and who are still being held responsible and punished for societal and familial decisions made on their behalf
by adults who are still unable to be honest about facing up to their involvement in this mass exploitation of young mothers'
a little humanity needs to seep into the adoption concept.
be more natural and healing for a mother than to finally see her firstborn child and know that he/she is alive and well and
to be able to finally be able to heal her child’s pain and anger by being able to let him
she did love him, thus helping to alleviate the child's sense of abandonment and loss.
could be more natural than wanting to know the woman who gave birth to you?
tragic and unnatural that the myths, lies and fears which are the foundation stones of the closed adoption system are still
being perpetuated in the guise of lifetime vetoes as protection to people so emotionally damaged by a closed adoption system
that knowledge of their very existence fill them with such fear.
the emotional cost demanded by closed adoption is too high.
we are too ideal to have anticipated any level of equality in adoption reform when nothing has ever been equal in the adoption
must remember, and what seems conveniently forgotten, is that the natural mother was often little more than a child herself
at the time of surrender where adoptive parents were secure, mature adults who placed their orders for another woman’s
child, complained when they had to wait too long to get their needs met, and were willing to benefit from a young mothers
tragic situation at a time when she was caste out, deserted by both her family and the child’s father, coerced and bullied
into believing it was in her babies best interest to be given to strangers she wasn't allowed to meet (do you know of any
mother who would 'willingly' give her baby to a stranger for even an hour? ) and yet, because of her situation she had no
choice but to accept such an inhumane arrangement which defies and contravenes the very fabric of motherhood and mother nature
- which is revered in every other living species on earth.
is little wonder that many birth mothers have suicided or are dying from illnesses caused as a result of irresolvable despair
at an early age.
it is that social workers made naive young mothers believe that infertile couples would be ever so grateful to finally receive
a much desired child and it would be selfish to deprive such wonderful people of such happiness.
that gratitude now?
it is nowhere to be found.
is directed only toward the social workers who found a child for them, and to whom they again turn for protection against
the mother through the insistence of the introduction of a dreadful veto system.
be blatantly clear that if a child had been raised with love and with a loving perception of his/her birthmother their bond
would be so great, no-one, not even the birthmother could threaten their family unit and there would be no need for the placing
of a veto. This in turn would help the birth mother find some peace and perhaps finally come to terms with her loss, in knowing
that her child had been happy and had not suffered.
tell us that if the birthmother meant nothing to the child, meeting her would mean no more and be no frightening than being
introduced to a stranger in the street.
placement of a veto indicates is that the child has been raised in a less than ideal manner which has instilled fear, anger
and hatred into the child (such negative emotions could not possibly be seen as having been in any child’s best interest)
and certainly indicates a family dynamic which should be viewed with suspicion.
It is little
wonder that society is now bearing witness to the catastrophic suffering left in the wake of the closed adoption era.
what happens when mankind interferes with Mother Nature - Gods Master Plan.
on behalf of:
As the closed
adoption system has drawn to a closed through the knowledge that it has caused such unnecessary suffering to those locked
into its claws,
who is now
responsible for those children under 18 year of age who are still in the system?
And is the
govt who controls these policies prepared to take responsibility for their emotional health in light of the knowledge it now
possesses and will those same children be given retrospective access to knowledge and contact with their natural families
prior to turning 18. In other words will your government be making legislation on open adoption retrospective?