Empty adoptions' apology is based on half-truths

With the political shenanigans over the federal Labor leadership overshadowing other news, I wonder how many people have bothered to read details of the National Apology for Forced Adoptions passed "on behalf of the Australian people"?

The apology had the support of both sides of Parliament, followed related apologies by some state governments, and was broadly praised in the media. Official apologies have become fashionable these days. The Catholic Church had previously apologised for "past adoption practices", and the Rudd Government had earlier apologised to both the Stolen Generations and to British child migrants.

Being of retirement age, I remember the era being talked about, and I know people directly affected by past adoption practices. While aspects of these past practices can validly be criticised, the extent of revisionism and the implied criticism of those administering past adoptions simply goes too far.

I have no problem condemning the forced removal of a child from a caring capable parent, especially if the removal verges on kidnapping. I do have a problem with apologies made in the name of all Australians, that are based on pious half-truths (or distortions of history), and wrapped up in no responsibility and continued legal absolution for those apologising.

The most recent apology process appears to involve widespread misinformation or amnesia concerning the numbers that were actually "forced", the motives of those now alleged to have acted improperly, and the social conditions and values of the time.

That well known sponsor of political correctness, the ABC (see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/catholic-church-apologises-over-forced-adoptions/2808672), claimed that "it is believed at least 150,000 Australian women had their babies taken against their will by some churches and adoption agencies between the 1950s and 1970s". The figure of "at least 150,000 forced adoptions" has been regularly quoted by other complainants.

Available statistics indicate that total adoptions peaked at just under 10,000 per annum in Australia during the early 1970s, and for most of these decades the number was much less (see http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/factssheets/2012/fs201202/fs201202.htm). It is thus clear that we are asked to believe that nearly all adoptions from the 1950s to the 1970s were forced, based on misguided ideas, and not in the best interests of the child.

To quote the official apology:

• The Parliament ... apologises for policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies.
• The mothers were betrayed by a system that gave no choice.
• We say sorry 'to each of you that were adopted or removed, who were led to believe your mother had rejected you'.
• We don't like to admit we were mistaken or misguided.
• What we see in the mirror is deeply shameful and distressing.
• This story had its beginnings in a wrongful belief that women could be separated from their babies and that it would all be for the best.

The historical reality is that, in the era referred to, across much of the developed world (not just Australia) having a child out of wedlock was widely regarded as a symptom of "loose morals" and acutely shameful (though we now know that "bad girls" are not always the ones to get pregnant). Pregnant single girls in those days generally received limited family support and often were sent away prior to giving birth. The resultant babies, if they remained un-adopted, were tainted as "illegitimate" or "bastards", terms that had very particular legal and insulting meanings back then.

There were no single parent pensions in those days, child care centres were rare, and abortion was generally illegal and regarded as immoral. Consequently, most single mothers faced a virtually impossible task in raising a child on their own (most likely in poverty). Instead they had two main options: a "shotgun" wedding (boyfriend permitting) or adoption. Where the former was not an option, in most (but not all) cases, the mother, for months prior to giving birth, would have been anticipating an eventual adoption process.

I dispute the assumption in the official apology that relinquishing mothers were regarded by the community as having rejected their adopted child. There was a deliberate policy in many cases of preventing the bonding of an unmarried mother with her newly born child in order to avoid increasing the subsequent pain following adoption. The relinquishing mother, in placing her child for adoption, was not rejecting her child but instead was generally regarded as doing what she could to give her child a better chance in life. Adoptions closely following birth were also generally considered better for the child than adoption later in life.

The (debatable) suggestion inherent in the apology is that adoptions were not in the best interests of both the mother and the child. Society at the time certainly thought that they were (and this explains, but does not excuse, cases where unmarried mothers were pressured to give up their babies for adoption). The language of the apology goes further and suggests that that past policies were "misguided" and those responsible should recognise that their actions were "deeply shameful and distressing".

Adoption agencies (many of them Church affiliated) not only filled a gap not serviced by government or families but undeniably also enjoyed the broad support of the community in what they were doing. (The churches provided social support in this and other areas long before the State ever intervened.) Many provided the only available refuges for girls rejected by their families, who faced also being ostracised by their local community. They also helped fill a void in the lives of otherwise childless couples, who by and large treated their adopted children as they would a natural child.

The then system delivered, at low cost to the taxpayer, generally good outcomes for adopted children. They were to be raised in a loving home with two married adoptive parents, where the financial circumstances were generally much better than the child otherwise could have expected. The adopted child thus was generally afforded improved economic opportunities and a stable loving home. Unlike their counterparts among removed Indigenous children and those affected by child migrant schemes, adopted children avoided the far worse fate of an upbringing in an institution.

No one can deny the obvious negatives, particularly the personal loss of the breaking of the bond between natural parents and child. There were undoubtedly significant abuses of the system and some cases where adoptive parents behaved badly. Notwithstanding these, the system broadly worked, though clearly it served adoptive parents and the adopted child better than the relinquishing mother. To some this was "God's punishment".

Today's values involve billions being spent annually on income and other support for much increased numbers of unmarried mothers so they can keep their children. The fact that nearly all unmarried mothers keep their children suggests a belief that single parents are now much better off.

There is a social cost. In our major cities unmarried mothers are now disproportionately concentrated in low status suburbs dominated by public housing, and the social outcomes for their children are generally recognised as far worse than for the children of married parents. Among Western countries, those with high levels of such support tend to have the highest rates of illegitimacy (over 50% in Sweden and very high in most Nordic countries) so that it would seem that "compassion" has contributed to the size of the problem. There are also now virtually no children available for local adoption in Australia (only 45 nationally in 2010-11), though abortion is likely to also be a big influence.

Overall, the "tough love" adoption practices, that largely ended in the mid 1970s, had their problems but do not deserve the extent of condemnation they have officially received in the Apology. Future generations, I believe, will treat this apology with an element of disdain for reasons related to exaggeration, historical inaccuracy and failure to appreciate the social context of that time. One could also speculate that aspects of the apology represent a "free kick" at the churches from a historically unsympathetic left side of politics, while the churches are still down from the effects of sexual abuse scandals.

For my part I believe that, whatever the merits of either approach to sole parenthood and adoption, the entire issue underlines the importance of effective contraception, planned parenthood, and a responsible attitude to sexuality.