I thought adoption was dead in Oz?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Kathy - 18 Dec 2006 19:36 GMT Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Overseas-adoptions-triple-new-report/2006 /12/12/1165685622851.html
Glenys and Bill Gayfer adopted their first two children from the Philippines in 1979, long before celebrities like Angelina Jolie and Madonna raised the profile of overseas adoptions.
In the years since they brought Kate and Michael, now 28, and a third child David, 22, home to Australia, the number of overseas adoptions has tripled, new figures show.
An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report reveals the number of local babies adopted has plummeted and children born overseas now account for three-quarters of all Australian adoptions.
The rise is due in part to the process of overseas adoption becoming a lot more organised and accountable, Mrs Gayfer says.
Adopting children from another country in 1979 was something of a do-it-yourself affair, with the Gayfers forced to spend three-and-a-half months in the Philippines to make it happen.
"It was great because I learned a lot about the Philippines, but it was hard financially and emotionally," Mrs Gayfer said.
"Now there is a set process you go through here and overseas.
"It's been an improvement for everybody involved - birth mothers, children and adoptive parents."
Mrs Gayfer said some countries including Ethiopia and China allowed singles to adopt, and single adoption was growing although it still accounted for only three per cent.
About 95 per cent of adoptions are made by married couples, and the rest by de factos, the report found.
In 2005-06, 576 babies were adopted in Australia, a two per cent decrease on the previous year, and 421 of those were from overseas.
"It's not for everybody, but certainly people are more aware there are children in need of a family who have no alternative," said Mrs Gayfer, an active member of support group Intercountry Adoption Resource Network Australia.
Most children adopted from overseas in 2005-06 were born in Asia, in particular China (28 per cent) and South Korea (24 per cent), while 17 per cent were from Ethiopia.
The sixteenth AIHW Adoptions Australia report shows adoptions fell markedly from a peak of almost 10,000 in 1971-72 to 764 in 1993-94 as fewer Australian mothers put their babies up for adoption.
More effective birth control and improved sex education had reduced unwanted pregnancies, while single motherhood had become more socially acceptable and single parents offered better financial support, reducing pressure on unmarried women to give up their children.
But adoptions have remained relatively stable over the past nine years as overseas adoptions increased, Sushma Mathur from AIHW's Children Youth and Families Unit said.
Evelyne Schilz-Middleton and her husband Richard, who adopted baby Juneau Joo Hyeok from Korea four years ago, said there were some challenges in raising a child who had been adopted from overseas.
"My son looks at me and says, mummy, I've got black hair and you've got blonde hair," said Ms Schilz-Middleton, who is president of the NSW adoptive parent group ASIAC.
"They start to ask questions and it's about talking to them from an early age about the fact they are adopted and sharing a bit of information about their background."
She said there was a lot of focus on the adoption process taking too long, and some families did experience difficulties particularly when the arrangements with a particular country changed overnight.
And celebrities who skipped the normal process - such as Madonna adopting a baby from Malawi in two weeks - could give overseas adoption a bad name, she said.
"But it's really someone else from another country entrusting their children to us, so we need to put that into context," she said.
Kathy
BitterHarvest - 18 Dec 2006 23:45 GMT > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > Kathy It is. They're referring to intercountry adoptions, not locals.
Kathy - 18 Dec 2006 23:53 GMT > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report > > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > It is. They're referring to intercountry adoptions, not locals. Of course, I realize this.
You've been know to go on and on about how newborn adoption is so very alive in The US.
It really isn't any different than what goes on in Oz.
Kids from foster care continue to linger, and couples who desire to adopt newborns go the International route.
Or don't you agree?
Kathy
BitterHarvest - 19 Dec 2006 03:22 GMT > > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report > > > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > Kathy No I don't agree. It's the statistics and procedures that differ between both countries. What is allowed in the US would be forbidden for legal reason here. And the figures bear out my argument. In Aus, according to this article there were 155 local adoptions in Aus last year. That would include all local adoptions not only infant ones.
The population of the US is 15 times that of Aus (which is 20 million). So if you multiply our figures by 15 it gives you the adoption figures that the US should have if our adoption practices were applied in the US. 155 x 15 = 2,325 adoptions annually. Instead, the US has well over 100,000 adoptions occurring annually. That's a huge variation by anyone's standards. And there is no reason for that discrepancy given that both countries are considered to be countries of relatively equal wealth pro rata of population.
Re: foster children. I just read a tragic article about careleavers being the loneliest people on the planet, as once they leave the care system they have no connection to any family at all. It doesn't happen in Aus anymore as foster childen in care maintain regular contact (usually fortnightly) with their family members where possible and so the family connection is not broken. Save in exceptional cases. That way, once the child reaches adulthood and can no longer be under the control of the State, he goes home or at least has maintained his relationship to his family. And of course, like the US, few people want to adopt older children, which is one of the reasons TPRing of children in care is not as severed as it is in the US. Best to keep connections to dysfunctional families than to have no familiy at all. That's not to say older children are not occasionally adopted by their foster parents when the familial relationship is unredeemable. BTW, I saw that article on line, will try to find it and repost it here if you like.
As far as family separation goes, Aus now works on prevention rather than cure.
Di
Julia - 19 Dec 2006 08:37 GMT >> > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report >> > > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] >control of the State, he goes home or at least has maintained his >relationship to his family. I wish that was true, Di, but IMO we face the same problems in Oz with care leavers. Nobody delays restoration until a child is 18 and ages out of care, unless that child will not been safe at home. When this is the case those children are often so conflicted in their relationships with parents that moving back to the family home as an adult is no more a viable option than it was when they were younger.
Children who age out of our care system are frequently on their own. Case workers try to help care leavers access public housing and receive a small one-off payment to help them get established, but it is really tough on these kids.
>And of course, like the US, few people >want to adopt older children, which is one of the reasons TPRing of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >As far as family separation goes, Aus now works on prevention rather >than cure. Oz is heading for a crisis situation. In the past 6 years the number of notifications of child abuse/neglect have doubled. The rate of children in care has also steadily increased. There were 23,695 children in out-of-home care in 2005, a 9% increase on the previous year. From 1997 to 2005 there was a 60% increase nationally in the number of children on care and protection orders. We have steadily increasing numbers of children in the care system and fewer and fewer foster carers available.
Julia
> Di Jackie - 19 Dec 2006 13:37 GMT >Oz is heading for a crisis situation. In the past 6 years the number >of notifications of child abuse/neglect have doubled. The rate of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >increasing numbers of children in the care system and fewer and fewer >foster carers available. I am really glad you are here.. Julia..
Have a wonderful holiday..
Jackie
BitterHarvest - 20 Dec 2006 00:09 GMT > >> > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > I wish that was true, Di, Which part of what I said isn't true Julia?
but IMO we face the same problems in Oz
> with care leavers. Of course we do. That's not in dispute.
Nobody delays restoration until a child is 18 and
> ages out of care, unless that child will not been safe at home. That wasn't in dispute either. I am referring to those children whose parents had their parental rights terminated for the duration fo the child's childhood. This issue was, as I said that "save but in exceptional circumstances" even those children maintain in regular contact with their family members so as not to sever all ties.
When
> this is the case those children are often so conflicted in their > relationships with parents that moving back to the family home as an > adult is no more a viable option than it was when they were younger. But in many cases their relationship is restored, but on an adult basis, even though the child doesn't necessarily live with their parents, as it is with adoption. And unlilke our past foster care system which severed all ties to the family, even though the child is not adopted, foster children can and do maintain contact with family members these days. Perhaps not all, but most. Like I said.
> Children who age out of our care system are frequently on their own. > Case workers try to help care leavers access public housing and > receive a small one-off payment to help them get established, but it > is really tough on these kids. Yes it is tough on these kids.
> >And of course, like the US, few people > >want to adopt older children, which is one of the reasons TPRing of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Julia How many of those 23,695 children in out of home care were under care and protection orders? Taking into consideration that around 50% are in the care of family members, a numbers are in care due to birth disabilities, mental health problems etc. The vast majority being temporarily in care from anything to a few weeks to a few years, until reunification has been achieved.
When I was a Committee member on the NSW Committee on Adoption and Permanent Care between 1993 and 2001, I was informed that there were 500 children aged up to 17 years who could not be restored to their familes and so were technically available for adoption. NSW has the largest population of all states and consists of over 1/3rd of our population.
So how many children are we talking about at a national level who actually are available for adoption? And moreover, how many people are applying to adopt them?
As to the shortage in foster carers: as it is the state who removes the children, it is the States responsibility to provide alternative care to these children. If there is a shortage of foster carers then it is up to the state to recruit more and to do that they will need to up the carers fees significantly to make becoming a foster carer a more attractive proposition to those who might feel so inclined. In fact I recently read that NSW was considering paying foster carers a professional wage instead of the paltry stipend they receive to cover the costs of rearing the child. I agree. There should be an income for them above the costs of the child. With today's cost of living not too many people can afford to be altruistic and work for nothing. Those days are gone.
> > Di Julia - 20 Dec 2006 10:49 GMT >> >> > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report >> >> > > [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] >How many of those 23,695 children in out of home care were under care >and protection orders? In 2005 there were 25,065 children on care and protection orders, up from 15,718 in 1997 (60% increase). It is impossible to equate this with the number of children in state care as some children may be on a number of different orders in any year, or may remain on one order for years. "The increase in the number of children on care and protection orders is attributed to a greater awareness of child abuse and neglect but also to the cumulative effect of the growing number of children who enter the child protection system at a young age and remain on orders until they are 18 years of age. Departmental analyses across the states and territories indicate that children are being admitted to orders for increasingly complex factors associated with parental substance abuse, mental health and family violence."
>Taking into consideration that around 50% are in the care of family >members, a numbers are in care due to birth disabilities, mental [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >actually are available for adoption? And moreover, how many people >are applying to adopt them? IMO there are many children in long term foster care who could be adopted by their current carers, if such an option was promoted. If these children have contact with their birth families this wouldn't need to change. A 10 year old moved in to our street in mid 06 and my daughter was delighted to find out this girl was also adopted, so they've since become good friends. She had been in several foster placements by the time she was 4 or 5, and her siblings were in different homes. She now has a permanent family but also stays in contact with her birth family. A few weeks ago she brought her bio sister for a swim at our place as they were spending the weekend together. This girl has an anchor in her adoptive family but still maintains contact with her original family members.
>As to the shortage in foster carers: as it is the state who removes >the children, it is the States responsibility to provide alternative [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >too many people can afford to be altruistic and work for nothing. Those >days are gone. I would love to see this introduced, but there hasn't been an increase in the welfare sector in real terms for many years and it isn't likely to happen soon, especially with the current callous pollies who couldn't give a fig.
They have to realise that the days of mums staying at home and extending their parenting by taking in a few foster children, as we did ourselves 10 years ago, has all but disappeared. Even for children with high and complex needs there isn't the equivalent of a basic salary available to encourage families to care long term for these children.
Julia
> > > >> > Di BitterHarvest - 20 Dec 2006 18:32 GMT > >> >> > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report > >> >> > > [quoted text clipped - 201 lines] > orders for increasingly complex factors associated with parental > substance abuse, mental health and family violence." I'd say the new laws that make it an offence to smack your kids had something to do with it as well. That new law has allowed adolescents to run riot and take no notice of their parents, as all those TV current affairs shows show. Those parents are beside themselves and here is the State paying those children to remain disobedient and live on the streets with their mates. The State has effectively crippled parents capacity to discipline their children....making the State itself the negligent parent. After removing the parents power they then accuse them of neglect when their kid runs riot . While I dont agree with corporal punishment myself, there are times when psychological discipline just doesn't work on some kid, and times when the kid could do with a good clip over the ear, or at least the threat of it.
> >Taking into consideration that around 50% are in the care of family > >members, a numbers are in care due to birth disabilities, mental [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > these children have contact with their birth families this wouldn't > need to change. What good purpose would adoption serve for those kids? What good reason would there be to legally alter the child's identity and legally sever him from his family so that he is no longer legally related to anyone in his actual family? What purpose would it serve to sever him forever from his ancestral lineage, his siblings, his cousins and grandparents? Do you really think those foster carers would want to rear other people's children for free (given that adoption cuts off the funding in all but those cases of children with severe disabilities) when they're already complaining about the paltry stipend they receive from the State for acting as foster carers?
A 10 year old moved in to our street in mid 06 and my
> daughter was delighted to find out this girl was also adopted, so > they've since become good friends. She had been in several foster [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > together. This girl has an anchor in her adoptive family but still > maintains contact with her original family members. But what did her adoption do that permanent placement can't just as effectively achieve? Sure she is a kid now but when she grow up and realises that she is not legally related to her siblings, and in legal terms cannot in fact refer to them as her siblings, it might become another matter altogether. As an adoptee she cannot even be buried in the family plot, because she is not legally related to her sibs or any other member of her own family anymore. Even in death she is forever in a foreign field. And I for one find that a tragedy beyond belief.
> >As to the shortage in foster carers: as it is the state who removes > >the children, it is the States responsibility to provide alternative [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Julia
> > > > > > > >> > Di Julia - 20 Dec 2006 21:07 GMT >> >> >> > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report >> >> >> > > [quoted text clipped - 249 lines] >paltry stipend they receive from the State for acting as foster >carers? In the ACT our govt offered to continue paying the foster care payment to long term families who wanted to adopt the child in their care but were considering not doing so because they would lose the weekly allowance.
> A 10 year old moved in to our street in mid 06 and my >> daughter was delighted to find out this girl was also adopted, so [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >But what did her adoption do that permanent placement can't just as >effectively achieve? It provided the emotional security of knowing she was no longer "in care" and that she is legally secure. Some children do live with fear of being moved by the state when this has already happened several times in their lives, and are comforted by knowing their current family are now legally committed to them and no outsider can step in and decide they'd be better off elsewhere. That was one hell of a big issue to my oldest son.
Permanent placement can be a misnomer. Adoption is the only form of legally irreversable placement. Permanent placement/guardianship can be reviewed and reversed by a court, so can be contested. Permanent care orders expire when the child turns 18, and give no rights of inheritance.
>Sure she is a kid now but when she grow up and >realises that she is not legally related to her siblings, "Siblings" includes brothers and sisters in an adoptive family. Do you not think it can be an issue to children that they are growing up in a family they consider theirs, but to whom they are not legally related and who do not share the same name?
It seems to me this argument cuts both ways. The person removed from their original family may long to be legally related to their original family or may long to be legally related to their current family. You are leaning towards one because of your world view and I am leaning the other way because of my world view.
What applies in any given situation, however, will depend only on the view of that individual and whether they see "family" as being the one raising them or the one they were born into. There is no mechanism that will allow them to be legally related to both families, though both adoption and permanent care can try to retain a commitment and a connection.
>and in >legal terms cannot in fact refer to them as her siblings, it might >become another matter altogether. As an adoptee she cannot even be >buried in the family plot, because she is not legally related to her >sibs or any other member of her own family anymore. Can you concede that she may consider "her family" is her adoptive family?
I don't know that my kids ever give a thought to whose family plot they may one day join, but "family" in our home includes birth and adoptive. "Brother" and "sister" includes full bio siblings within our adoptive family and remaining in their original family, half bio siblings in their original family, adoptive siblings in our family and step-brothers and sisters by adoption. "Family" is a pretty loose term these days and IMO it is up to the individual to define for themselves.
Julia
>Even in death she >is forever in a foreign field. And I for one find that a tragedy [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >> >> > Di Dad - 20 Dec 2006 22:43 GMT > On 20 Dec 2006 10:32:14 -0800, "BitterHarvest" > > <patrice...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: < snip >
> >But what did her adoption do that permanent placement can't just as > >effectively achieve? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and decide they'd be better off elsewhere. That was one hell of a big > issue to my oldest son. It was HUGE to my son as well. So much so that eight weeks after placement in our home, he became deeply distressed at the mere sight of packed luggage. On the morning we were supposed to catch a flight to Disneyworld, we found him hiding underneath some clothes in the corner of his closet, quietly sobbing because he thought he was going to be displaced yet again. It didn't matter that we had shared the Disney trip plans with him repeatedly. Who could blame him? He had five foster placements in as many years.
The adoption finalization hearing was more than a simple legal formality. It represented permanence, both to my son and us as his new parents. Dad
rkbose@pacific.net.sg - 21 Dec 2006 03:44 GMT > > IMO there are many children in long term foster care who could be > > adopted by their current carers, if such an option was promoted. If [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > serve to sever him forever from his ancestral lineage, his siblings, > his cousins and grandparents? It would provide them with stability and a sense that someone wants them enough to have them as their son or daughter. I was reading a story of a couple of sisters who were taken into care as infants. As they grew older, the foster parents thought of adopting them, but didn't because they older girl was very bright and they expected the State would pay for her to go to college - which they could not have afforded. She never reconciled herself to this, even though they explained it to her, and eventually moved out of their house. At this, the family did adopt the younger daughter. The older girl finally found a different family to adopt her as a teenager. She wanted a family, a home to come back to during college holidays, someone she could bring her fiance and later children to visit with. Not just people who raised her when she was a child.
Ancestry is well and good. Relatives are wonderful when they act as relatives. When they don't, the lineage becomes tangential to one's life.
>Do you really think those foster carers > would want to rear other people's children for free The point of adoption is the child is no longer "other people's children." That's why people are willing to raise their adopted children at the same cost as their non-adopted ones, while they probably would need to be paid to care for "other people's children."
> As an adoptee she cannot even be > buried in the family plot, because she is not legally related to her > sibs or any other member of her own family anymore. Even in death she > is forever in a foreign field. And I for one find that a tragedy > beyond belief. What are the rules about this in Oz? Does the State determine who is buried where?
Surely anyone can be buried in the family plot if they buy space there, or their family does? So if the birth-parents of someone reserve space for him or her in the family plot, why can't the b-son or b-daughter be buried there?
What happens in the case of a woman who is widowed? Does she have to be buried in her husband's family plot or her natal family plot? Which one is a foreign field for her?
Jackie - 21 Dec 2006 12:40 GMT >As to the shortage in foster carers: as it is the state who removes >the children, it is the States responsibility to provide alternative [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >too many people can afford to be altruistic and work for nothing. Those >days are gone. In the US this will become a money making private business.. if adoption domestic infant adoption is stopped.. In my opinion as always..
Jackie
Marley Greiner - 21 Dec 2006 16:33 GMT >>As to the shortage in foster carers: as it is the state who removes >>the children, it is the States responsibility to provide alternative [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jackie It already is a money maker.
Marley
Kathy - 21 Dec 2006 18:14 GMT > >>As to the shortage in foster carers: as it is the state who removes > >>the children, it is the States responsibility to provide alternative [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It already is a money maker. It seems that whenever one wants to discuss what a money maker newborn private adoption is they are met with well, ya know, adoption workers and attorneys don't work for free. Well, no duh.
At least in my lifetime, I would like to see private adoption banned in all 50.
Kathy
Jackie - 22 Dec 2006 00:22 GMT >>>As to the shortage in foster carers: as it is the state who removes >>>the children, it is the States responsibility to provide alternative [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >It already is a money maker. Makes me sick..
Jackie
Kathy - 19 Dec 2006 19:46 GMT > > > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report > > > > [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > > Di That's not what I have been reading, Di. Your foster system is a mess, more and more children are stuck in legal limbo... so tell me again about the Aussie cure? And btw, what is forbidden in the Australia that is not forbidden here?
155 adoptions in your country when there are how many kids waiting for homes, is what? What is the ratio of adoptions last year to the ratio of kids stuck in your foster care system? 155 adoptions is a drop in the bucket when one considers that your foster system is broken.
Kathy
Julia - 19 Dec 2006 20:44 GMT >> > > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] >about the Aussie cure? And btw, what is forbidden in the Australia >that is not forbidden here? There are some fundamental differences in our approaches to adoption, which even as an adoption supporter make me cringe when I see magazines like Adoptive Families or visit adoption.com.
Here there is no advertising for potential birth mothers or adoptive parents. No lawyers or facilitators are allowed to be involved. Private adoptions are not allowed by law either within Australia or by Oz citizens elsewhere - so to adopt from overseas you have to either be resident in the overseas country for over 12 months for a reason other than adoption, or you have to adopt with the approval of your state government adoption authority. Adoptive parents cannot be involved in an adoption before the baby is born and the revocation period is over, so no potential adoptive parents at the hospital for the birth. Adoption is an option still available but discouraged, and women are strongly encouraged to consider all other options including adequate welfare support to enable them to keep and raise their child.
Also access to information for adult adoptees and birth family members is a given, though states vary in their responses to vetoes.
Julia
>155 adoptions in your country when there are how many kids waiting for >homes, is what? What is the ratio of adoptions last year to the ratio >of kids stuck in your foster care system? 155 adoptions is a drop in >the bucket when one considers that your foster system is broken. > >Kathy Kathy - 20 Dec 2006 22:39 GMT > >> > > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report > >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > Also access to information for adult adoptees and birth family members > is a given, though states vary in their responses to vetoes. Sounds wonderful to me, Julia.
Thank you for a glimpse. :-)
Kathy
> >155 adoptions in your country when there are how many kids waiting for > >homes, is what? What is the ratio of adoptions last year to the ratio > >of kids stuck in your foster care system? 155 adoptions is a drop in > >the bucket when one considers that your foster system is broken. > > > >Kathy BitterHarvest - 20 Dec 2006 00:19 GMT > > > > > Overseas adoptions TRIPLE: new report > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > > That's not what I have been reading, Di. Your foster system is a mess, With 600,000 US children in care at any given time, so is yours.
> more and more children are stuck in legal limbo.. As opposed to your figures ours is a piddle in a puddle.
. so tell me again
> about the Aussie cure? And btw, what is forbidden in the Australia > that is not forbidden here? Julia has pretty much answered that.
> 155 adoptions in your country when there are how many kids waiting for > homes, is what? They're not waiting for homes. or at least the vast majority aren't. There wouldn't be any waiting for homes if there were adopters wanting them. but alas they are too old to be of interest to all but the very few. They have not so much aged out of the system but have aged out of the adoption proposition.
What is the ratio of adoptions last year to the ratio
> of kids stuck in your foster care system? 155 adoptions is a drop in > the bucket when one considers that your foster system is broken. You assume too much.
> Kathy
|
|
|