Is faster and easier adoption necessarily better?
|
Version 0 of 1. Last week Tony Abbott, flanked by the actor Hugh Jackman and his wife, adoption advocate Deborra-Lee Furness, announced that the government would be taking steps to make it "much, much easier" for Australian couples to adopt from overseas. He spoke of "the millions of children in orphanages overseas who would love to have parents", adding that "thousands of those, maybe even tens of thousands of those could come to Australia. And we need to make it easier for that to happen". Abbott promised speedy action, guaranteeing change within 12 months. He announced the formation of a taskforce to report in March on immediate steps "to make intercountry adoption easier and faster for Australian couples". He also reported that his government was "considering capping the length of time agencies have to process adoption applications to make it easier and faster for couples to adopt domestically and from overseas". But is faster, easier adoption better adoption? My colleagues and I have recently completed a study titled The Market in Children: Stories of Australian Adoption and for historians, the scene on the steps of Kirribilli House evoked a strong sense of déjà vu. Abbott has a long history as a promoter of adoption, notably as an alternative to abortion. In 2005 he introduced to the Australian public the son he had relinquished to adoption 27 years earlier – living proof of the virtues of the adoption solution (the man later turned out to be the child of another man). The year 2005 also saw Bronwyn Bishop’s parliamentary inquiry into overseas adoption in Australia. The inquiry produced a detailed set of recommendations intended to speed up the process of adoption by removing bureaucratic roadblocks internationally and within Australia. As a result, responsibilities are more clearly assigned. State welfare departments are responsible for the placement of children and the assessment of intending parents. The federal attorney general has the job of making sure that all adoptions are compliant with international standards, a responsibility which covers the process both in Australia and in the country of adoption. Paradoxically this has resulted in a highly-regulated regime, and new delays for people wanting to adopt. Given the government’s distaste for market controls, Abbott’s new taskforce may be intended to undo some of this regulation. This would fly in the face of recent revelations of corruption in the intercountry adoption market: of orphanages selling children without consent of their parents, and worse, instances of criminal gangs kidnapping children for overseas adoption. Children adopted into countries like America and Australia have been claimed by parents from whom they were stolen. The process of checks and verification governing overseas adoption is necessarily slow because the chances of malpractice are high. The adoption process also moves slowly within Australia. The major factor delaying applications remains the assessment which prospective parents are required to undergo. Abbott’s promise to make adoption "much, much easier" can only work by limiting this assessment. Intending parents have never welcomed the scrutiny of social workers; it suggests that one might not make a good parent, and this is more than some people can bear. But the best interests of the child demand a full assessment of those seeking to adopt, and often some training in the particular skills needed to bring up children with special needs. To arbitrarily limit this process cannot benefit the children involved. Our research has shown that adoption is always a market trading in the commodity of children. This is the case notwithstanding the commitment of people advocating adoption to the welfare of children. Whenever market forces are allowed free reign under the guise of benevolence, the risk is that the interests of the silent partner in this interaction – the child – will be assumed rather than acknowledged, and often ignored. The history of adoption is a cycle of good intentions, uncritically accepted, producing sometimes fraught outcomes for those who are adopted. At a time when governments across Australia have all delivered apologies to victims of past adoption practices, it seems unwise to be advocating policies which, however well meant, run the risk of producing similar damage to people in the future. Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |