‘[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

Abstract

Relatively little work on adoption focuses on the role of social workers. This article gives an account of the conflict between social workers and prospective adoptive parents which developed in Australia in the 1970s, taking as a case study the conflicting roles of adoptive parent advocates and professional social workers within the Standing Committee on Adoption in the Australian state of Victoria. Its overarching concern lies with the historical attitudes of the social work profession towards adoption, both domestic and intercountry, as these have changed from an embrace of both adoption and adoptive parents to mutual alienation. It concludes that the inclusive practice of radical social work could only briefly contain contesting client groups.

From institutional care to life in an Australian family: The experiences of intercountry adoptees

“…Intercountry adoption is an often contentious issue and has at times been highly politicised both in Australia (Fronek and Tilse, 2010; Murphy et al, 2010; Quartly, 2012) and in other countries (Kim and Smith, 2009). Such debates have the potential to overshadow consideration of the needs of those who have already been adopted.…”

Korean Adoption to Australia as Quiet and Orderly Child Migration

“…The Australian intercountry adoption system has been characterized as highly regulated-and sometimes excessively so, according to proponent groups promoting a faster, more efficient, and expanded adoption program (Clair 2012;Fronek 2009). Adoption advocates and parent groups have historically been vocal and campaigned to adopt overseas-born children, often utilising the media to draw attention to their concerns (Quartly 2012). In the 1960s and 1970s, before there were legislative frameworks in place to permit intercountry adoptions, such appeals had an explicitly humanitarian bent.…”

“…The event was highly publicised as the Vietnamese children landed without proper Australian entry visas; Moir had flown to Vietnam to bring the children to Australia personally, after the state of Victoria, where four of the children were planned to be adopted to, refused to approve their adoption applications (Forkert 2012). Another babylift in 1975 lent weight to the view that Australian government red-tape and bureaucracy was harmful for civilian humanitarian efforts to rescue children in crisis (Quartly 2012;Rees 1977). Such condemnations of state welfare and immigration authorities continued to exist throughout the 2000s (Murphy et al 2009).…”