“Forced Adoption” in the Australian Story of National Regret and Apology*

Abstract

7 Barbara Maison circulated a copy of the questionnaire that she had submitted to FAHSCIA to members of the Apology Alliance. 8 Evelyn Robinson, a post-adoption activist, reports receiving a notice and invitation to attend the apology in Canberra which was later retracted (interview with Robinson by Denise Cuthbert, September 2010).

‘[W]e Find Families for Children, Not Children for Families’: An Incident in the Long and Unhappy History of Relations between Social Workers and Adoptive Parents

“…Adoptive parents opposed this reform, blocking it sometimes for decades in a battle which demonised the social work profession (Murphy et al ., 2009). Despite social work commitment to open adoption, groups of adoptees and mothers joined in opposition to a profession which they saw as tainted by past injustices (Cuthbert and Quartly, forthcoming 2012).…”

Apologies for Forced Adoption Practices: Implications for Contemporary Intercountry Adoption

“…In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised on behalf of Australia to the Stolen Generations, Aboriginal and Islander peoples who as children endured forced separation from their families and communities, and to the families who lost their children (Fejo-King, 2011). In 2009, the Forgotten Australians and Lost Innocents, former forced imperial child migrants and institutionalised children, received an apology from the Prime Minister for the sufferings, abuse, and lifelong harm many have suffered as a result of past policies which removed them from their families, their birth countries, and communities (Cuthbert & Quartly, 2012). These confirmatory acts and recognition of past abuses have been deemed essential for processes of reconciliation and healing for persons affected.…”

“…Australia's apologies to the Stolen Generations, the Forgotten Australians and Lost Innocents, have inspired activism by adults affected by adoption within Australia and adults in many countries who were adopted internationally as children (Cuthbert & Quartly, 2012;Edwards, 2010;Fejo-King, 2011;Fronek, 2012). At the same time, these apologies have been criticised for failing to move beyond rhetoric by translating regret into tangible and appropriate action for those affected people (Short, 2012).…”

“…At the same time, these apologies have been criticised for failing to move beyond rhetoric by translating regret into tangible and appropriate action for those affected people (Short, 2012). As noted by Cuthbert and Quartly (2012), there is a strong tendency in Australian apologies delivered to date to draw clear lines between the past practices for which apologies are made and present practices, as if an apology is sufficient to mark a ''new chapter'' in history and practice with respect to child removal. In the current debate on an apology for the harm caused by forced adoptions, the ''pastness'' of practices that necessitate regret is highlighted in the terms of reference and the title of the Australian Senate's 2011 inquiry into past forced adoption practices.…”

“…This critique focuses specifically on how the recognition of harms caused by past actions expressed within the current apologies has implications for intercountry adoption, the dominant form of nonrelative adoption in contemporary Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2011). A critical perspective on past, present, and future adoption practices explores adoption through the lens of social work values and ethics, and research-generated knowledge that includes historical perspectives (Australian Association of Social Workers [AASW], 2010; Cuthbert et al, 2010;Cuthbert & Quartly, 2012). This focused analysis of prevalent assumptions, both popular and professional, on the subject of intercountry adoption reveals ethical and value concerns for social work that require rigorous debate and a focus on developing ways to address these tensions in practice.…”