How can a second birth certificate for adoptees be a legal document?

We believe that "make alterations" should be to the original birth certificate and not mean, issue a second birth certificate.
We cannot see any reference to a second birth certificate to be issued.

This transcript has been taken from the Proof Committee Hansard, Public Hearing in Canberra, and relates to birth certificates.
This is part of the Attorney-General's Department statement.

Wednesday, 28 September 2011 Senate Page 5

CHAIR: Before we move off the legislation there are two things I want to ask about in following up from Senator Moore. One of those is the time limit on offences. In 1965, were there any time limits on the offences that were outlined?
Ms Smith: They would have been subject to whatever broader requirements there are for the statute of limitations, but there is nothing in this actual ordinance that puts any time limit on
CHAIR: So we would need to check what the statute of limitations was for the ACT at that time.
Ms Smith: It is outside my area; I am sorry.
CHAIR: Was there one general one across Australia or was there one specific for each state and territory. It is not an area of my expertise.
Dr Smrdel: It is not ours either. What we do not know is how this legislation was affected by, say, the Crimes Act operating in each state and territory at the time.
CHAIR: For the ACT one, which the Commonwealth was responsible for, is it possible to find out what the statute of limitations was at the time and how it interacted with the Crimes Act?
Dr Smrdel: We will talk to our colleagues in the criminal law enforcement branch and see if they can provide us with an answer. I hesitate to provide an answer when they might say they cannot, but we will certainly endeavour to follow up with them.
CHAIR: It is obviously an issue that is of deep interest to many of the people that we have been talking to about this issue.

The second area is birth certificates. One of the big issues is access to data and documentation,, which we have touched on. A lot of the complaints that we have had are around either a second birth certificate being generated with just the adoptive parents' names on them or the first one being altered with the father's name not being put on and the mother's name taken off. So there is one birth certificate but not with the birth mother's name on it. Is that sort of issue dealt with in either the model legislation or the ACT ordinance?
Ms Smith: The legislation with respect to the responsibility of the registrar of births, deaths and marriages relates to registering the adoption order and making alterations to it as prescribed. There is a section which deals with the making of adoption order, the adopted child having the surname of his adoptive parent or parents and the forename as in the adoption order approved on application of the adoptive parents.
(2) Where, before the making of the adoption order, the adopted child has been generally known by a particular surname, the Court may, in the adoption order, order that the child shall have that name as his surname.
(3) Nothing in this section prevents the changing of any name of an adopted child, after the making of the adoption order, in accordance with the law of the Territory.

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE

Page 6 Senate Wednesday, 28 September 2011
So that would be subject to name-change laws.
Senator MOORE: I am sorry; somewhere in that sequence I lost what name we were talking about. Can you do that again? I want to try to follow the name through because it is critical in this inquiry. So the child is born.
Ms Smith: In section 35 of the ACT ordinance, when an adoption order is made:
the adopted child shall have as his surname the surname of the adoptive parent or parents and shall have as his forename or forenames such name or names as the Court, in the adoption order, approves on the application of the adoptive parent or parents.
Senator MOORE: Right
Ms Smith: And further:
Where, before the making of the adoption order, the adopted child has been generally known by a particular surname, the Court may, in the adoption order, order that the child shall have that name
Nothing in this section prevents the changing of any name of an adopted child, after the making of the adoption order
Senator MOORE: That middle bit seems to go back and then forward again. Under the 1965 legislation the adoption order allows the child to be known by the surname of the adoptive parent?
Ms Smith: That is correct.
Senator MOORE: The documentation ceases to have the name of the birth mother and instead has the name of the adoptive family?
Ms Smith: That is correct. ?
CHAIR: That automatically means birth certificate?
Ms Smith: Yes.
CHAIR: changing the birth certificate has changed history and changed reality. That section does not specifically talk about a birth certificate; it talks about changing the name. To me, those are two different things. Birth certificates contain the names of the natural birth parents you were born to, which is different to changing a person's name.
Senator MOORE: There is still a documentation trail. We have had cases where people have had two birth certificates. The original one was somewhere on file and they did not find it until later. Their birth certificate, which they have taken through life, is in their adoptive process—sometimes with correct dates, sometimes not, which is a clerical issue—but, nonetheless, the standard proof of identity which, under our system, is the birth certificate is in the name of the adoptive forename and surname.
CHAIR: If there are regulations that go with the legislation, could you take it on notice to look at that issue? The issue of the birth certificate and access to data has come up repeatedly during this inquiry.
Ms Smith: I can read to you the provision which deals with the process for the registration.
CHAIR: Thank you. What does it say?
Ms Smith: Section 56 states:
The Registrar of the Supreme Court shall cause a memorandum ... of every adoption under this order made by the Court under this Ordinance, and a copy of every order for the discharge of such an adoption order, to be sent to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, who shall—
(a) register it ... in a Register of Adoptions ... and
(b) if it relates to a child whose birth is registered in the Register of Births kept by him, make such alterations
to, or entries in, that register as are prescribed.
CHAIR: The legislation says you can change the birth certificate?
Ms Smith: That is correct
CHAIR: That is the model legislation or the ACT legislation?
Ms Smith: That is the ACT ordinance.
CHAIR: Did that reflect the model legislation?
Ms Smith: I will just check that. We have confirmed that the same provision is in the model bill.
Senator MOORE: We need that legislation to highlight it. That particular clause came out of the discussions around the model legislation in 1964. With respect to what happened before that, we would have to trace through every jurisdiction. But this process in 1964 and 1965 established the process from then on and then each state had to enact their own legislation where, as you say, there could be some variation from state to state. We need to find out with respect to those key clauses what happened.
Ms Smith: Yes.
CHAIR: The process of investigating the legislation is what I want to go to.
Ms Smith: Just to clarify the terminology when I was paraphrasing then, it is the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages which can be altered rather than the birth certificate.
CHAIR: When I want to get my birth certificate or, for example, my sons birth certificate I go to the registrar. Presumably, they look in the register and give me a birth certificate. That is essentially where the birth certificate is derived from, is it not?
Ms Smith: Yes.
CHAIR: If somebody is chasing their birth parents, they go to the register in the various states. The register says that if it has been altered through this process, their adoptive parents are the names that are on the birth certificate. That is certainly the evidence we have received and that seems consistent with what you have just told us.
Ms Smith: That is what the legislation provides. I could not comment on how the individual registries look after their applications for certification.
CHAIR: That is fair enough.

Heartbreak-The Catholic Weekly

Catholic news from Australia and the world

Heartbreak

Editorial
9 October, 2011

IT IS wise not to judge too quickly and too harshly the conduct of our forbears.
With that wonderful gift of hindsight, grafted to the lens of contemporary mores, the actions of people of yesteryears can seem to us puzzling if not incomprehensible.
In answer to, "How could they have sanctioned this or done that" is: quite simply and understandably given the social environment and thinking of the time.
What is wrong now was, unfortunately, acceptable then.
Such is the case with some of the ways we used educate our children, regard with suspicion people of other faiths, treat indigenous people and the way we dealt with 'the problem' of unwed mothers.

It is this latter group that has received publicity of late.
These women, young as they might have been, were separated at birth from their newborn in actions seen then as in the best interests of both mother and child.
Only now can we really start to appreciate the suffering that this caused to these young women. Only now can we begin to understand that many of their children, too, were hurt badly and are still hurting.

Catholic Health Australia chief Martin Laverty has issued an apology to all involved because, like other institutions of the day, Church-run hospitals participated in this program of separation.
Indeed, the practice of placing the babies of young unwed mothers into adoption was once the policy of governments and organisations across Australia over many decades.

The apology is sincere, and while it cannot rewrite history, coupled with proposals made by Catholic Health Australia, some redress may be made to the people affected.
Included in this is a call to make records more accessible so that mothers and children can be reçnited.
Mr Laverty has also stressed the importance of a setting up a national strategy to support access to post-adoption counselling.
He has also called for all governments to join with the Church body in offering an apology to those who experienced and continue to experience the heartbreak of separation.
At least it's a good start.

Proof Hansard Records from Public Hearings in Canberra.

Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices.
The proof Hansard records of the Public Hearings held in Canberra have now been posted on the Parliament of Australia Senate Site.
There are three;
22nd September, 27th September and 28th September.

Our next Meeting, 15th October 2011.

Our next meeting will be held in the home of one of our members, north side.
Time; 12 30 onwards.
Please bring a small plate to share.
For further details,please contact;
Trish 0417 077 159.
Marg; 0402 336 480.
All welcome.

Over 81,000 Attended the Football Grand Final.

As I looked at the footy grand final,2nd October, the visual of the crowd that was in attendance, I could'nt help but think that, that was less that half the number of the mothers who lost their babies to forced adoption!
Margaret.

Unmarried mums tied to beds, sedated during birth - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

A parliamentary inquiry into forced adoptions has heard how unmarried
mothers were tied to beds and sedated as they gave birth.

For this article, please click the link below:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/unmarried-mothers-tied-to-beds-sedated-while-giving-birth/3034690
Thanks to Brett and Therese

Time to say sorry for all the broken hearts

Martin Laverty
September 28, 2011

. Turning back time ... the pain of past adoption practices still lingers. What can be done to mend hearts broken in the past?

Some women live with broken hearts, past practices having taken their babies from them for placement in adoption. Some of those children, now adults, live with broken hearts because they were taken from their mothers and placed in adopted families. Fathers, siblings and other family members have lived with broken hearts because of past adoption practices.

Some Catholic hospitals and health services played roles promoting and implementing the once widespread policy of placing the children of some unmarried young mothers in the care of adoptive parents. To those across Australia who carry broken hearts as a result, I say sorry.

The practice of placing these babies in adoption was the policy of governments over many decades. The practice was carried out in government hospitals, Catholic hospitals and in other formal and informal organisations.

I've had recent contact with many people who have had different experiences of adoption; three of which, while respecting the privacy of the individuals involved, shed light on the different challenges they've faced.

The first is a mother who delivered her two children in a Catholic hospital in the early 1970s, shortly after having stayed in a Catholic home for women to which she was taken by her parents. She describes her births as painful, she describes the removal of her children as heartbreaking, and she struggled in the years afterwards to access the medical and birth records needed to make contact with her two children. That contact is now made. They've done what they can to put their lives together, but the heartbreak remains obvious and there have been periods of darkness.

The second is that of a woman who is still searching for her brother, born in rural NSW in the 1920s. Her situation is one for which there simply may be no solution; she has no records and no system to enable a family reunion, which in all reality could simply be too late.

The third is a man in regional Queensland, seeking his birth records from the early 1960s. It appears his birth was in a public hospital in Sydney, and now approaching 50, this man is trying to put together the jigsaw puzzle of his birth. He does not know his mother, and in turn, his mother does not know him.

Each of these stories is deeply personal, as are the experiences of those touched by past adoption practices. For some, adoption has been positive. For others, tragically, not so.

What can be done to mend hearts broken in the past?

First, some still have difficulty accessing records, despite post-adoption services in all states and territories. The Community and Disability Services Ministers' Conference should establish a national strategy involving all governments and non-government agencies involved in adoption to facilitate access to medical and birth records.

Second, there exists a continuing need for post-adoption counselling, by counsellors with experience in post-adoption care. Again, the Community and Disability Services Ministers' Conference is best placed to develop a strategy to support access to counselling focused on the differing needs of mothers, fathers, adopted children, their siblings and, if needed, the parents who have cared for adopted children.

Third, some mothers continue to have grievances about their birth experience or the consent procedure that led to their child being adopted. Some of these grievances are unresolved. Adoption was and is a legal responsibility of states and territories, and the processes that exist to hear grievances about medical care and consent differ across states. They are complex and difficult to access.

Finally, there is a role for an apology from governments. We have issued our apology in recognition of the role of Catholic organisations. The government of Western Australia has done the same. Others should follow. We would be happy to work with governments in shaping such an apology.

These words here today will not satisfy everyone, as words cannot put broken families back together. These words have not emphasised that for some, adoption has worked well. I'm nonetheless pleased to have been able to make our formal apology to the Federal Parliament, and to now encourage federal parliamentarians to do what they can.

Martin Laverty is the chief executive of Catholic Health Australia. This is an edited version of his address today to the Senate inquiry in Canberra into past adoptions.
Sydney morning Herald.

Thank you Chris for forwardg this to ALAS.