Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Empty adoptions' apology is based on half-truths

By Brendan O'Reilly - posted Monday, 25 March 2013


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.

Advertisement

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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

35 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brendan O’Reilly is a retired commonwealth public servant with a background in economics and accounting. He is currently pursuing private business interests.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Brendan O'Reilly

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 35 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy