Received: Tuesday, 7 September, 2010, 9:54 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2010/03/05/2838001.htm?site=perth
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-adoption-apology-an-australian-first-20100907-14z3e.html
http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia-to-apologise-over-adoptions/story-e6frfkvr-1225915397597
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-adoption-apology-an-australian-first-20100907-14z3e.html
http://www.vanish.org.au/?q=node/14
http://news.9msn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7957572
http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Lists/Statements/DispForm.aspx?ID=133968
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/6889508/state-to-apologise-for-harsh-adoption-acts/
http://www.theage.com.au/national/decades-on-pain-of-forced-adoption-lingers-20100219-oly4.html
http://cedartrees.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/apology-adoption-abduction/
http://hoydenabouttown.com/20100305.7302/wa-government-to-apologise-for-abusive-illegal-adoption-system/
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sound Bytes and References
SOUND BYTES AND REFERENCES: NB: This is not about adoption.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Christine A. Cole BSc.(Psy) Soc Hon LLB GDL
The Federal government has already admitted that there is a white stolen generation
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia: Overseas Adoption in Australia: Report on the inquiry into adoption of children from overseas House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services November 2005 Canberra"The stigma associated with forced adoption practices in the past leading to the 'stolen generation' (both Indigenous and non indigenous mothers and children)" (p.2).
JM: What do you say to the fact that some mothers say there is a ‘white stolen generation’?
GR: It’s true … there is a white stolen generation as well as a black one. And if you look at the white generation numbers, there is a lot more of the white generation that were stolen than the black generation.
JM: Why then would it not be recognised?
GR: Oh, I think it is, in a way, but people do not want to open the door … it is almost too big a problem to deal with … if people had of opened the door to somebody proving that illegal things were done, it would have opened up a huge lot of problems for the Crown Law Department ... to undo a whole lot of things that happened … they want it to go away … it is a complication they could do without.
JM: You mean it is an inconvenient truth?
GR: It is an inconvenient truth …
(Extract from an interview with Dr Geoff Rickarby, 9 August 2007)
Gair, S. Missing Voices About a Foreign Place: Exploring midwifery practice with midwives who cared for single mothers and babies for adoption in Queensland (1960-1990). Journal of Inderdisciplinary Gender Studies Vol 10, 2, 2006/2007
(p.58) "Bernoth (1999) and Olsen (2004) identify that the moral bullying of Australian single mothers resulted in a 'white' stolen generation."
Children were kidnapped at birth
Chisholm Testimony NSW Inquiry into Past Adoptions
Whilst mothers and babies were falsely imprisoned
Chisholm as above
Drugged and traumatised then forced to sign consents -
Dr. Geoff Rickarby Testimony NSW Inquiry
many mothers, if they did not sign consents, were told their babies had died
(Elphic: 2000, p. 44; Report 21: 2000, p. 227; Report 22: 2000, pp. 145-146; Cheater: 2009, p. 182; Critchley: 2006, p. 113)
Damage was well known from the 50’s: The Report noted that:
“It is very desirable, however, both for the child’s physical health and for the mother’s psychological well-being that there should be greater facilities for unmarried mothers to keep their children with them for up to three months after birth….[and] that a document signifying the consent of a mother shall not be valid unless the infant is at least six weeks old when the consent is given, was intended to ensure that children below that age were not placed for adoption…we found little disagreement with the view that it is preferable for a child not to be taken away from his mother before the age of six weeks (Report of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children: 1954, pp. 14-15).
In Australia in "1958 the Special Committee on Native Matters warned that `removal of a child from his mother at an early age can cause serious psychological and mental disturbances'. This warning was ignored” (WA Government submission page 26 cited in HREOCR Chapter 7).
WA child welfare Dept run a propaganda campaign that the babies of unwed mothers were unwanted - this was to make adoption palatable to society - as society would never have condoned the forced removal of newborns from their mothers.Dr. Rosemary Kerr The Appeal of Blue Eyes
Justice Richard Chisolm – Review of the Adoption of Children Act. Report No.69. He stated that the practices were illegal.
Cathleen Sherry, Lawyer and legal academic involved in the same Review Act., when it was conducted early 1990’s – wrote:
What these individual women were describing were not isolated incidences with atypical doctors and social workers: rather their experiences revealed systemic violations of human rights. The treatment they received from doctors, social workers, charitable organizations and government depts. violated their right to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, free from discrimination, free from arbitrary interference with the family, as well as their right to be entitled to special protection as mothers
Chris Cole – reference from the book Releasing the Past:
“A primary principle of international law is that a child has the right to be brought up in its family of origin. This principle was supposed to have been followed in Australia. Further, a single mother was, and is, allowed by law and common human decency to have the right to see, hold and feed her infant. She had the right to name her child and to have unfettered access to her baby in the maternity hospital. When a child is born to a single mother, it is not subject to adoption legislation; its mother is the legal guardian and has the same rights as any other mother. Legally, the Adoption Act does not come into operation until the mother signs a ‘consent to adopt’ form and then only if the consent is informed and taken without duress or coercion. Separating a mother from her child, or placing pillows or sheets to obstruct the view she has of her baby at the birth in order to facilitate an adoption was, and continues to be, classed as coercion and is therefore illegal. Injecting mothers with drugs to dry up their milk immediately after the birth, without their permission, was and is illegal and deems to presume that the mother has already signed a ‘consent to adopt’ form. Dr. Geoff Rickarby has stated that the act of injecting a mother with stilboestrol immediately after the birth constitutes a major assault as mothers were not informed that this would occur and the routine ‘consent to necessary procedures’ that patients sign on being admitted to hospital would not cover the consent to have their milk dried up by an injection.
A mother was supposed to be warned of the ‘dire psychological consequences’ that could result because of her decision to relinquish her child. She was also supposed to be advised of all means of financial assistance available to her to assist her to keep her child. It was only after all alternatives to adoption and means of available support had been explored, and if the mother continued to insist on adoption, that the papers were brought to her to be signed. No decision was supposed to be made prior to the fifth day after the birth or if the mother was distressed. If the mother was not definite in her decision, she was legally entitled to leave the hospital with her baby and to make the decision weeks or months later.
INTERNATION LAW: Two fundamental principles in international adoptions (1960) were that:
careful consideration should be given to all possible alternatives before a child is removed from his own relatives for adoption,
and
parents should be warned of the legal and psychological consequences
that might result from adoption. These principles were re-stated in Australia by the Minister for Child Welfare (1961):
… the child must be protected from unnecessary separation from his own family and that there should be no attempt to persuade the natural parents to place the child.
Many mothers were given large doses of drugs prior to and after the birth, often right up until they signed the ‘consent to adopt’ form. Some of the drugs used were: sodium amytal, chloral hydrate and sodium pentobarbitone; all of which are mind-altering barbiturates. The curtailing of mothers’ rights and the above coercive practices meant that by 1972 there were nearly 10000 babies adopted by non-relatives in Australia. This extraordinarily high number of adoptions was a social aberration that did not occur before the 1960s and rapidly declined with the rise of the women’s movement in the early 1970s. Christine Cole -Reference from the book Releasing the Past.
Report 22 NSW Standing Committee on social issues. - NSW Inquiry into Past Adoption Practices
7.61 Mothers argued that the practice denied their legal rights as guardian of the child, explained above, the Health Commission stated that the mother was the legal guardian of the child until the signing of the consent form. Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her from having access to the child prior to the consent “would not have been authorized.”
7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully.
Recommendation 17
The departments, private agencies, churches, hospitals, professional organizations and individuals involved in past adoption practices should be encouraged to issue a formal apology to the mothers, fathers, adoptees and their families who have suffered as a result of past adoption practices.
*************************************************************************
It is only when the suffering of those most directly damaged by a socio-cultural disaster are heard that there is any opportunity for a Nation to evaluate a malign aspect of its own development. In the instance of the thousands of Australian young mothers who lost a baby to adoption in the latter half of the last century, the distress and consequences are little known because they were dealt with one by one, and, at the time, mostly isolated from their family, partner and friends.
Geoffery A. Rickarby MB BS FRANZCP MANZAP Member of the Faculty of Child Psychiatry RANZCP(A PSYCHIATRIST WHO HAS SEEN ALL ASPECTS OF ADOPTION OVER 35 YEARS) reference from the book “Releasing the Past.
Conclusion – Chris Cole
During the NSW Inquiry (1998-2000) into past practices in adoption, representatives of an Indigenous group that facilitates re-uniting Indigenous mothers with their stolen children gave evidence. They stated that Indigenous mothers were brutally separated from their infants at the birth. Those babies were subsequently adopted or fostered out. The removal of their children was undertaken by the same social workers and medical staff (in the same institutions and under the same laws), who were involved in the theft of white babies. They further stated that there was a common theme between the black and white stolen generations. For instance, Indigenous mothers told them of the use of pillows and sheets to obstruct their view of their baby at the birth with the intention to interrupt bonding, and of being forced to sign consents before allowed to leave hospitals while under the influence of drugs: the same procedures used to gain white mothers’ babies. There has never been any question that these families are part of the stolen generation – and thankfully they have been apologized too – the loss of these mothers and their families has never been dismissed as social mores or explained away by statements such as the mothers did not have recourse to financial benefits.
Furthermore it is now well established that money had been available to assist single mothers to keep their babies since 1912. From 1923 onwards single mothers were given the same financial assistance as deserted wives. The different outcome for single mothers though was that there was no Governmental push to remove the babies of deserted wives or widows – the reality was that white single mothers without family support, orphaned or migrant were preyed upon, our rights extinguished and for that we want and deserve an apology. NB this not about adoption – this is about how our children were stolen at birth, without our consent, this is a human and civil rights crime against mothers’ and their babies and should be acknowledged as such.
Christine A. Cole BSc.(Psy) Soc Hon LLB GDL
MEDIA CONTACT:
Christine A. Cole BSc.(Psy) Soc Hon LLB GDL
The Federal government has already admitted that there is a white stolen generation
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia: Overseas Adoption in Australia: Report on the inquiry into adoption of children from overseas House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services November 2005 Canberra"The stigma associated with forced adoption practices in the past leading to the 'stolen generation' (both Indigenous and non indigenous mothers and children)" (p.2).
JM: What do you say to the fact that some mothers say there is a ‘white stolen generation’?
GR: It’s true … there is a white stolen generation as well as a black one. And if you look at the white generation numbers, there is a lot more of the white generation that were stolen than the black generation.
JM: Why then would it not be recognised?
GR: Oh, I think it is, in a way, but people do not want to open the door … it is almost too big a problem to deal with … if people had of opened the door to somebody proving that illegal things were done, it would have opened up a huge lot of problems for the Crown Law Department ... to undo a whole lot of things that happened … they want it to go away … it is a complication they could do without.
JM: You mean it is an inconvenient truth?
GR: It is an inconvenient truth …
(Extract from an interview with Dr Geoff Rickarby, 9 August 2007)
Gair, S. Missing Voices About a Foreign Place: Exploring midwifery practice with midwives who cared for single mothers and babies for adoption in Queensland (1960-1990). Journal of Inderdisciplinary Gender Studies Vol 10, 2, 2006/2007
(p.58) "Bernoth (1999) and Olsen (2004) identify that the moral bullying of Australian single mothers resulted in a 'white' stolen generation."
Children were kidnapped at birth
Chisholm Testimony NSW Inquiry into Past Adoptions
Whilst mothers and babies were falsely imprisoned
Chisholm as above
Drugged and traumatised then forced to sign consents -
Dr. Geoff Rickarby Testimony NSW Inquiry
many mothers, if they did not sign consents, were told their babies had died
(Elphic: 2000, p. 44; Report 21: 2000, p. 227; Report 22: 2000, pp. 145-146; Cheater: 2009, p. 182; Critchley: 2006, p. 113)
Damage was well known from the 50’s: The Report noted that:
“It is very desirable, however, both for the child’s physical health and for the mother’s psychological well-being that there should be greater facilities for unmarried mothers to keep their children with them for up to three months after birth….[and] that a document signifying the consent of a mother shall not be valid unless the infant is at least six weeks old when the consent is given, was intended to ensure that children below that age were not placed for adoption…we found little disagreement with the view that it is preferable for a child not to be taken away from his mother before the age of six weeks (Report of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children: 1954, pp. 14-15).
In Australia in "1958 the Special Committee on Native Matters warned that `removal of a child from his mother at an early age can cause serious psychological and mental disturbances'. This warning was ignored” (WA Government submission page 26 cited in HREOCR Chapter 7).
WA child welfare Dept run a propaganda campaign that the babies of unwed mothers were unwanted - this was to make adoption palatable to society - as society would never have condoned the forced removal of newborns from their mothers.Dr. Rosemary Kerr The Appeal of Blue Eyes
Justice Richard Chisolm – Review of the Adoption of Children Act. Report No.69. He stated that the practices were illegal.
Cathleen Sherry, Lawyer and legal academic involved in the same Review Act., when it was conducted early 1990’s – wrote:
What these individual women were describing were not isolated incidences with atypical doctors and social workers: rather their experiences revealed systemic violations of human rights. The treatment they received from doctors, social workers, charitable organizations and government depts. violated their right to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, free from discrimination, free from arbitrary interference with the family, as well as their right to be entitled to special protection as mothers
Chris Cole – reference from the book Releasing the Past:
“A primary principle of international law is that a child has the right to be brought up in its family of origin. This principle was supposed to have been followed in Australia. Further, a single mother was, and is, allowed by law and common human decency to have the right to see, hold and feed her infant. She had the right to name her child and to have unfettered access to her baby in the maternity hospital. When a child is born to a single mother, it is not subject to adoption legislation; its mother is the legal guardian and has the same rights as any other mother. Legally, the Adoption Act does not come into operation until the mother signs a ‘consent to adopt’ form and then only if the consent is informed and taken without duress or coercion. Separating a mother from her child, or placing pillows or sheets to obstruct the view she has of her baby at the birth in order to facilitate an adoption was, and continues to be, classed as coercion and is therefore illegal. Injecting mothers with drugs to dry up their milk immediately after the birth, without their permission, was and is illegal and deems to presume that the mother has already signed a ‘consent to adopt’ form. Dr. Geoff Rickarby has stated that the act of injecting a mother with stilboestrol immediately after the birth constitutes a major assault as mothers were not informed that this would occur and the routine ‘consent to necessary procedures’ that patients sign on being admitted to hospital would not cover the consent to have their milk dried up by an injection.
A mother was supposed to be warned of the ‘dire psychological consequences’ that could result because of her decision to relinquish her child. She was also supposed to be advised of all means of financial assistance available to her to assist her to keep her child. It was only after all alternatives to adoption and means of available support had been explored, and if the mother continued to insist on adoption, that the papers were brought to her to be signed. No decision was supposed to be made prior to the fifth day after the birth or if the mother was distressed. If the mother was not definite in her decision, she was legally entitled to leave the hospital with her baby and to make the decision weeks or months later.
INTERNATION LAW: Two fundamental principles in international adoptions (1960) were that:
careful consideration should be given to all possible alternatives before a child is removed from his own relatives for adoption,
and
parents should be warned of the legal and psychological consequences
that might result from adoption. These principles were re-stated in Australia by the Minister for Child Welfare (1961):
… the child must be protected from unnecessary separation from his own family and that there should be no attempt to persuade the natural parents to place the child.
Many mothers were given large doses of drugs prior to and after the birth, often right up until they signed the ‘consent to adopt’ form. Some of the drugs used were: sodium amytal, chloral hydrate and sodium pentobarbitone; all of which are mind-altering barbiturates. The curtailing of mothers’ rights and the above coercive practices meant that by 1972 there were nearly 10000 babies adopted by non-relatives in Australia. This extraordinarily high number of adoptions was a social aberration that did not occur before the 1960s and rapidly declined with the rise of the women’s movement in the early 1970s. Christine Cole -Reference from the book Releasing the Past.
Report 22 NSW Standing Committee on social issues. - NSW Inquiry into Past Adoption Practices
7.61 Mothers argued that the practice denied their legal rights as guardian of the child, explained above, the Health Commission stated that the mother was the legal guardian of the child until the signing of the consent form. Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her from having access to the child prior to the consent “would not have been authorized.”
7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully.
Recommendation 17
The departments, private agencies, churches, hospitals, professional organizations and individuals involved in past adoption practices should be encouraged to issue a formal apology to the mothers, fathers, adoptees and their families who have suffered as a result of past adoption practices.
*************************************************************************
It is only when the suffering of those most directly damaged by a socio-cultural disaster are heard that there is any opportunity for a Nation to evaluate a malign aspect of its own development. In the instance of the thousands of Australian young mothers who lost a baby to adoption in the latter half of the last century, the distress and consequences are little known because they were dealt with one by one, and, at the time, mostly isolated from their family, partner and friends.
Geoffery A. Rickarby MB BS FRANZCP MANZAP Member of the Faculty of Child Psychiatry RANZCP(A PSYCHIATRIST WHO HAS SEEN ALL ASPECTS OF ADOPTION OVER 35 YEARS) reference from the book “Releasing the Past.
Conclusion – Chris Cole
During the NSW Inquiry (1998-2000) into past practices in adoption, representatives of an Indigenous group that facilitates re-uniting Indigenous mothers with their stolen children gave evidence. They stated that Indigenous mothers were brutally separated from their infants at the birth. Those babies were subsequently adopted or fostered out. The removal of their children was undertaken by the same social workers and medical staff (in the same institutions and under the same laws), who were involved in the theft of white babies. They further stated that there was a common theme between the black and white stolen generations. For instance, Indigenous mothers told them of the use of pillows and sheets to obstruct their view of their baby at the birth with the intention to interrupt bonding, and of being forced to sign consents before allowed to leave hospitals while under the influence of drugs: the same procedures used to gain white mothers’ babies. There has never been any question that these families are part of the stolen generation – and thankfully they have been apologized too – the loss of these mothers and their families has never been dismissed as social mores or explained away by statements such as the mothers did not have recourse to financial benefits.
Furthermore it is now well established that money had been available to assist single mothers to keep their babies since 1912. From 1923 onwards single mothers were given the same financial assistance as deserted wives. The different outcome for single mothers though was that there was no Governmental push to remove the babies of deserted wives or widows – the reality was that white single mothers without family support, orphaned or migrant were preyed upon, our rights extinguished and for that we want and deserve an apology. NB this not about adoption – this is about how our children were stolen at birth, without our consent, this is a human and civil rights crime against mothers’ and their babies and should be acknowledged as such.
Christine A. Cole BSc.(Psy) Soc Hon LLB GDL
Birth Certificate reads: "Baby; Unknown
On Tuesday,14th September 2010, we had the previllidge of witnessing a mother give her baby his name.
NOTHING TOO STRANGE ABOUT THAT!
This baby is now 35 years old.
A young teenage mum was told she could not name her baby, the reason for this was, she was unmarried.
Many hospitals and court registars took it upon themselves to deny a mother her right to name her baby.
Adoptees grew up with the knowledge that the mothers couldn't be bothered naming them,THEY WERE WRONG.
Yesterday here in Queensland, this couragous and determined mother had her right to name her baby fulfilled.The baby has always had a name but it wasn't officially recognised.
We do not know if it is another "first" but with the help from Births/ Deaths/ and Marriages, this mother had her son's name placed on his original Birth Certificate.
We were told that it is a case by case decision to amend a Birth Certificate but it is not impossible.
CONGRATULATIONS MUM, YOU DID IT!
NOTHING TOO STRANGE ABOUT THAT!
This baby is now 35 years old.
A young teenage mum was told she could not name her baby, the reason for this was, she was unmarried.
Many hospitals and court registars took it upon themselves to deny a mother her right to name her baby.
Adoptees grew up with the knowledge that the mothers couldn't be bothered naming them,THEY WERE WRONG.
Yesterday here in Queensland, this couragous and determined mother had her right to name her baby fulfilled.The baby has always had a name but it wasn't officially recognised.
We do not know if it is another "first" but with the help from Births/ Deaths/ and Marriages, this mother had her son's name placed on his original Birth Certificate.
We were told that it is a case by case decision to amend a Birth Certificate but it is not impossible.
CONGRATULATIONS MUM, YOU DID IT!
Monday, September 13, 2010
18th September Meeting
Our September meeting is a northside meeting.
We will be celebrating the Western Australian Apology to be delivered in parliament 19th October at 4pm western Australia time.
Please bring a plate.
All welcome.
Please ring; Trish, 0417 077 159
Marg, 0402 336 480
We will be celebrating the Western Australian Apology to be delivered in parliament 19th October at 4pm western Australia time.
Please bring a plate.
All welcome.
Please ring; Trish, 0417 077 159
Marg, 0402 336 480
Friday, September 3, 2010
Unmarried Mums get State Apology
Unmarried mums get State apology
DANIEL EMERSON, The West Australian September 1, 2010, 6:32 am
The State's apology to unmarried mothers illegally separated from their babies under
harsh adoption practices is set to happen within weeks.
WA is to become the first State or Federal government worldwide to admit hospital
and welfare authorities were wrong to immediately separate mothers from their babies
after giving birth out of wedlock. Mothers from around Australia keen to hear the
apology have been told it will be delivered in Parliament on October 19.
Experts say tens of thousands of WA babies were adopted illegally when their
unmarried mothers were prevented from seeing, touching, naming or bonding with their
children immediately after birth between the 1940s and the early 1980s.
Health Minister Kim Hames said the exact format of the apology was still being
finalised but it would be "to unmarried mothers of adopted children who were
adversely affected by past adoption practices".
Christine Cole, of the NSW-based Apology Alliance, said it was also important for
the Government to say sorry to the children taken. "They were denied their family of
origin and the culture of that family," she said.
DANIEL EMERSON, The West Australian September 1, 2010, 6:32 am
The State's apology to unmarried mothers illegally separated from their babies under
harsh adoption practices is set to happen within weeks.
WA is to become the first State or Federal government worldwide to admit hospital
and welfare authorities were wrong to immediately separate mothers from their babies
after giving birth out of wedlock. Mothers from around Australia keen to hear the
apology have been told it will be delivered in Parliament on October 19.
Experts say tens of thousands of WA babies were adopted illegally when their
unmarried mothers were prevented from seeing, touching, naming or bonding with their
children immediately after birth between the 1940s and the early 1980s.
Health Minister Kim Hames said the exact format of the apology was still being
finalised but it would be "to unmarried mothers of adopted children who were
adversely affected by past adoption practices".
Christine Cole, of the NSW-based Apology Alliance, said it was also important for
the Government to say sorry to the children taken. "They were denied their family of
origin and the culture of that family," she said.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Forms From Child Safety, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital and St Mary's Home for Unmarried Mothers, Toowong Brisbane Available to Me In 1991.
Questionaire
EXPECTED CHILD FOR ADOPTION
Mother;
Full name;
Married or Single;
Is she living in a defacto association?
Age;
Usual occupation;
Education standard;
Hair; Eyes; Complexion;
Height; Build; Nationality;
Address;Previous Address;
When and where is she to be confined;
FATHER;
Name if devulged; Married or single;
Age; Occupation;
Hair; Eyes; Complexion;
Height; Build; Nationality;
Any known hereditary traits;
Any previous children;
Special interests;
REMARKS:
CHILD;
Name; Date of Birth;
Birthweight; Colouring;
REMARKS;
On My Questionare; My Remarks said "Nice Girl"
On My Child's Remarks; said,Heavy Physio to feed, dated 5 days after his birth.
My Child's custody was 12 days after he was born.
On the top Left hand side of my form was marked, M11 (I believe this was a grading of my child. Top of the range babies was blue eyed blond, M1, The M was for Male)
THE NEXT FORM.
HISTORY FOR INVESTIGATION
This is addressed to The Director, State Childrens Department.
Date; (Mine was one day after birth)
MOTHER;
Name in full; Age;
single or married; Religion;
Address prior to birth; Nationality;
Address in future; COLOURING AND BUILD Hair; Eyes; Complexion; Height; Usual weight;
Known as;
Occupation;
Parents Names;
CHILD;
Name; Sex;
Born at; Date; Hospital;
Birthweight;
Condition of Health;
Particulars of any other children if any;
PUTATIVE FATHER;
Name; Address; Age; Nationality;
Occupation; Married or single; COLOURING AMND BUILD; Eyes; Hair; Complexion; Height; Build;
Employed by;
Financial standing;
Will he support child.
(the consent taker wrote her own remarks)
REMARKS;
(This is from my own form;)
Baby for adoption.
M15 Room 8 by window on right hand side. Baby born on .....1966 at 8 20am.
The 3rd Form;
QUEENSLAND
THE ADOP[TION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 1964.
FORM OF GENERAL CONSENT BY PARENT OR GUARDIAN TO ADOPTION ORDER.
I will try to copy this form and will post it on the blog soon.
From the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital I was able to receive only limited paperwork.
Index Card from baby cot;
Line of Entry of Birth;
Registration of Birth/Death/ illegitimate child.
I was at St Mary's Home Toowong Brisbane.
The only record from there was my admission form.
It was signed by Assistant Matron; M.Roby.
I would be interested to hear if there are any more forms that I am entitled to have now.
Marg
EXPECTED CHILD FOR ADOPTION
Mother;
Full name;
Married or Single;
Is she living in a defacto association?
Age;
Usual occupation;
Education standard;
Hair; Eyes; Complexion;
Height; Build; Nationality;
Address;Previous Address;
When and where is she to be confined;
FATHER;
Name if devulged; Married or single;
Age; Occupation;
Hair; Eyes; Complexion;
Height; Build; Nationality;
Any known hereditary traits;
Any previous children;
Special interests;
REMARKS:
CHILD;
Name; Date of Birth;
Birthweight; Colouring;
REMARKS;
On My Questionare; My Remarks said "Nice Girl"
On My Child's Remarks; said,Heavy Physio to feed, dated 5 days after his birth.
My Child's custody was 12 days after he was born.
On the top Left hand side of my form was marked, M11 (I believe this was a grading of my child. Top of the range babies was blue eyed blond, M1, The M was for Male)
THE NEXT FORM.
HISTORY FOR INVESTIGATION
This is addressed to The Director, State Childrens Department.
Date; (Mine was one day after birth)
MOTHER;
Name in full; Age;
single or married; Religion;
Address prior to birth; Nationality;
Address in future; COLOURING AND BUILD Hair; Eyes; Complexion; Height; Usual weight;
Known as;
Occupation;
Parents Names;
CHILD;
Name; Sex;
Born at; Date; Hospital;
Birthweight;
Condition of Health;
Particulars of any other children if any;
PUTATIVE FATHER;
Name; Address; Age; Nationality;
Occupation; Married or single; COLOURING AMND BUILD; Eyes; Hair; Complexion; Height; Build;
Employed by;
Financial standing;
Will he support child.
(the consent taker wrote her own remarks)
REMARKS;
(This is from my own form;)
Baby for adoption.
M15 Room 8 by window on right hand side. Baby born on .....1966 at 8 20am.
The 3rd Form;
QUEENSLAND
THE ADOP[TION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 1964.
FORM OF GENERAL CONSENT BY PARENT OR GUARDIAN TO ADOPTION ORDER.
I will try to copy this form and will post it on the blog soon.
From the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital I was able to receive only limited paperwork.
Index Card from baby cot;
Line of Entry of Birth;
Registration of Birth/Death/ illegitimate child.
I was at St Mary's Home Toowong Brisbane.
The only record from there was my admission form.
It was signed by Assistant Matron; M.Roby.
I would be interested to hear if there are any more forms that I am entitled to have now.
Marg
Monday, July 5, 2010
Evolution of Adoption Practices in Australia since 1896
As recorded in the Hansard Records of Parliament Debates of both Victorian and W.A. Parliaments.
Original Reasons For Adoption Laws.
The original reason for adoption laws was to place "deserted" children in "good" homes rather than life in institutions:this was seen as a great saving to the State and one to be encouraged.
Legislation was thought necessary so that when children were adopted they could not be taken from the adopters by the natural parents.
The child retained the right to its own name, the name of the adopted father being added "in addition to the proper name of the child."The child was also not deprived of its property rights and continued to be able to inherit from its natural parents.
In 1896 Western Australian Adoption of Children Act was contained in only four pages and it was not untill 1921 that secrecy provisions were introduced at the request of adoptive parents.
They objected strongly to the child retaining its own name and were even refusing to adopt unless the child bore "their name and their name only." (p.811 Hansard. 20thSept.1921) that "the past should be wiped out completely."(p.809) and that the child "shall be bought up as their own child, unemcumbered by any other name whatever." (p.693 Hansard. 8th Sept1921.)The child's right to its Surname was removed in 1921 and to its christian name in 1949.
The State wanted "by every means to encourage the adoption of children" as it was considered "for the benifit of the children themselves as well as for the State." (p.852 Hansard. 21st Sept.1921,)
Amounts were quoted in both States of savings in costs to the State through adoption.In Victoria, in 1928 Mr. Slater quoted from a 1927 report of the State of the N.S.W. Minister for Education (Vol.176.pp.674 of 7th August 1928)that
"As each child would have cost the State for its maintenance 26 pounds per annum, the saving effected to the State for the children adopted is nearly 300,000pounds for 14 years." which he put forward as a reason in favour of the Adoption of Children Act which he was introducing to parlaiment.
A Mr. McFarlane in the Victorian Legislative Assembly on 26th Sept.1928said (Vol.177.pp.1869 Hansard)
The whole object of the bill is to get the adopted child from its natural parents and prevent it from ever going back to them."
In 1921 the W.A. Parliament, again request of the adoptive parents began the closing of the records by proventing the adopted child from obtaining a copy of its own Birth Certificate.This was so the ADULT/CHILD might not find out that it was illegitimate or adopted, if it had not been informed by its adoptive parents.
The Government of the day considered that (pp.811 Hansard.20th Sept.1921.)
"People should be afforded an opportunity to protect the secrecy of the child's origins and to let it appear before the world as though it were their own."
Apart from wishing the child to appear before the world as their own, adoptive parents and politicians also desired to prevent "sticky-beaks" and "busybodies" from searching the records for "malicious purposes." It was for those reasons that provisions were made to close the records.
Prospective in-laws however, were not considered "inquisitive people" comments of the Hon.A.J.H.Saw reflects the attitudes and values of the time (pp.811 Hansard W.A. 20th Sept.1921)
"I maintain that a parent whose son or daughter is engaged to marry one of these people is entitled to know something of that person and whose son or daughter that person happens to be. A child born of vicious, drunken or criminal parents may have been taken into a respectable family and been given the name of the family. In the course of time that child may perhaps want to get married. I do not think anyone of us here would allow a daughter or son to marry such a child if we inquire into the heredity of the child and found out the conditions under which it was born."
One might reasonably ask what about the adoptees right to privacy, no-one spoke about the "paramount importance" of the child in this instance.
So the original reasons for closing the records was secrecy from illegitimacy and from the world and as a consequence the child was eventually deprived of its rightful name and heritage.
Original Reasons For Adoption Laws.
The original reason for adoption laws was to place "deserted" children in "good" homes rather than life in institutions:this was seen as a great saving to the State and one to be encouraged.
Legislation was thought necessary so that when children were adopted they could not be taken from the adopters by the natural parents.
The child retained the right to its own name, the name of the adopted father being added "in addition to the proper name of the child."The child was also not deprived of its property rights and continued to be able to inherit from its natural parents.
In 1896 Western Australian Adoption of Children Act was contained in only four pages and it was not untill 1921 that secrecy provisions were introduced at the request of adoptive parents.
They objected strongly to the child retaining its own name and were even refusing to adopt unless the child bore "their name and their name only." (p.811 Hansard. 20thSept.1921) that "the past should be wiped out completely."(p.809) and that the child "shall be bought up as their own child, unemcumbered by any other name whatever." (p.693 Hansard. 8th Sept1921.)The child's right to its Surname was removed in 1921 and to its christian name in 1949.
The State wanted "by every means to encourage the adoption of children" as it was considered "for the benifit of the children themselves as well as for the State." (p.852 Hansard. 21st Sept.1921,)
Amounts were quoted in both States of savings in costs to the State through adoption.In Victoria, in 1928 Mr. Slater quoted from a 1927 report of the State of the N.S.W. Minister for Education (Vol.176.pp.674 of 7th August 1928)that
"As each child would have cost the State for its maintenance 26 pounds per annum, the saving effected to the State for the children adopted is nearly 300,000pounds for 14 years." which he put forward as a reason in favour of the Adoption of Children Act which he was introducing to parlaiment.
A Mr. McFarlane in the Victorian Legislative Assembly on 26th Sept.1928said (Vol.177.pp.1869 Hansard)
The whole object of the bill is to get the adopted child from its natural parents and prevent it from ever going back to them."
In 1921 the W.A. Parliament, again request of the adoptive parents began the closing of the records by proventing the adopted child from obtaining a copy of its own Birth Certificate.This was so the ADULT/CHILD might not find out that it was illegitimate or adopted, if it had not been informed by its adoptive parents.
The Government of the day considered that (pp.811 Hansard.20th Sept.1921.)
"People should be afforded an opportunity to protect the secrecy of the child's origins and to let it appear before the world as though it were their own."
Apart from wishing the child to appear before the world as their own, adoptive parents and politicians also desired to prevent "sticky-beaks" and "busybodies" from searching the records for "malicious purposes." It was for those reasons that provisions were made to close the records.
Prospective in-laws however, were not considered "inquisitive people" comments of the Hon.A.J.H.Saw reflects the attitudes and values of the time (pp.811 Hansard W.A. 20th Sept.1921)
"I maintain that a parent whose son or daughter is engaged to marry one of these people is entitled to know something of that person and whose son or daughter that person happens to be. A child born of vicious, drunken or criminal parents may have been taken into a respectable family and been given the name of the family. In the course of time that child may perhaps want to get married. I do not think anyone of us here would allow a daughter or son to marry such a child if we inquire into the heredity of the child and found out the conditions under which it was born."
One might reasonably ask what about the adoptees right to privacy, no-one spoke about the "paramount importance" of the child in this instance.
So the original reasons for closing the records was secrecy from illegitimacy and from the world and as a consequence the child was eventually deprived of its rightful name and heritage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)