POINTS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

Inter-racial adoption

1. Should inter-racial adoption be prohibited?

2. If not, should a preference be made for intra-racial placement?

3. If so, how strict should this preference be? Should a child be placed inter-racially if there are no adoptive parents of the same race in the current “pool” of adoptive parents?

4. Alternatively, should the Department and private adoption agencies make special efforts to locate same-race parents for children, through recruitment programs in communities that do not traditionally adopt?

Ethnic heritage

5. What degree of importance should be placed on ethnic continuity in adoption?

6. Is ethnic similarity to a child simply one of the many desirable qualities that adoption workers look for in adoptive parents or is it an indispensable quality?

7. Can the need to be placed in an ethnically similar family be said to override all of a child’s other needs?

8. What lengths should the Department go to to find ethnically similar adoptive parents? If there are no ethnically similar parents in the pool of approved applicants should the Department workers have to search further afield in the way that they might for a special needs child?

9. Should birth parents be allowed to request that their child is not placed with an ethnically similar family?

GENERAL ISSUES

9.1 As noted in the previous chapter, the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that when considering alternative placements for children, including adoption, “due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background”.² On one interpretation this article means that ideally, children should be placed with adoptive parents of the same racial, ethnic, cultural and/or linguistic background as the child’s birth family.

9.2 The Department of Community Services currently aims to provide this continuity to all children they place. The Adoptions Branch tries to maintain a pool of adoptive parents with similar ethnic, cultural, religious and racial heritage to the children who are being relinquished for adoption. If the Department has a number of Greek babies relinquished it will take steps to ensure that there is a number of adoptive parents with Greek heritage waiting in the pool.

9.3 Unfortunately it is not always possible to predict the ethnic, cultural, religious or racial background of children who will be placed for adoption, so that at times there may be not be adoptive parents available of the same background as children needing parents. Further, birth mothers may expressly request that the child not be placed with adoptive parents of the same heritage as the child. Under the Adoption of Children Act 1965 (NSW), a birth parent can express his or her wishes in respect of the religious upbringing of the child³ and he or she, for example, may choose to do this by requesting that the child not be placed with Protestant adoptive parents, although the child’s birth family is Protestant.

9.4 The shortage of adoptive parents of particular backgrounds and birth parents’ wishes in relation to the placement of their children may lead to children being adopted by people of a different ethnic, cultural, religious or racial background.

Definitions

9.5 The distinction between ethnic and racial heritage can sometimes be blurred. For example, ethnic has been defined as “pertaining to or peculiar to a population, especially to a speech group, loosely also to a race”.⁴ Race and ethnicity overlap in the sense that people who are racially different from one another will invariably be ethnically different as well. For example, the Italian and Maori communities in Australia are racially and ethnically distinct. People who are racially similar however, may be ethnically different, for example Sri Lankans and Indians or Irish and Danes. Race could be said to be a broader term than ethnicity, encompassing many ethnic groups. It has been said that:

‘ethnic group’ is a term used more loosely to describe distinctions within races. An ethnic group could be defined in an objective sense as people who share a particular national origin, language, culture and/or religion...[or in a subjective sense as]...’a sense of peoplehood’.⁵

9.6 In the following discussion, racial and ethnic heritage will be dealt with separately. The discussion of racial heritage will cover children who are racially (and usually ethnically) different from a group of prospective adoptive parents. The discussion of ethnic heritage will deal with children who may be the same race as a group of adoptive parents, but whose ethnicity is different.

9.7 Another approach would have been to focus on cultural differences rather than racial or ethnic differences. The Commission’s terms of reference specifically require it to consider the relevance of ‘ethnic and racial heritage’ for the purposes of adoption and this Paper therefore uses this terminology. The Commission would appreciate comment on which terminology is the most appropriate.

RACIAL HERITAGE

Overseas research

9.8 There has been considerable research and writing on inter-racial placements of children in Britain⁶ and North America.⁷ In the late 1960s and early 1970s inter-racial adoption in both Britain and North America was steadily increasing as a result of concerted efforts by social workers to find permanent homes for black children in care. In the early 1970s however, Black social workers began to oppose inter-racial adoptions on the grounds that they were damaging to children and were tantamount to genocide. The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) in the United States stated that:

Black children belong, physically, psychologically and culturally in black families in order that they receive the total sense of themselves and develop a sound projection of their future. Human beings are products of their environment and develop their sense of values, attitudes and self-concept within their family structures. Black children in white homes are cut off from the healthy development of themselves as black people.⁸

9.9 Similarly, in Britain, social workers like John Small⁹ began to argue that the black community had become the ‘donor’ group for white society now that there were fewer white children in need of care. Further, he argued that inter-racial adoption encourages racial-identity confusion and leads black children to “deny the reality of their skin colour and reject people of similar race and colour”.¹⁰

9.10 As a result of these new perceptions of inter-racial adoption, the placement of black children in white homes virtually ceased in Britain and North America. Social workers began to actively recruit black families, acknowledging that at least to a certain extent, the perceived shortage of black adoptive families was more a result of existing adoptive parent assessment procedures than an unwillingness on the part of black families to adopt. Social work practice began to recognise that white, middle class, well-off couples were not necessarily the best adoptive parents that could be found for any child and that a black, single, woman of a lower socio-economic background may be a better adoptive parent for some children.

9.11 Not all adoption workers or members of the adoption community accept that inter-racial adoption is inappropriate. There is research that reveals that inter-racial placements can be successful. One American study on self-esteem of inter-racially adopted children found that “there were no differences in overall self-esteem between the sampled inter-racially and intra-racially adopted children”.¹¹ Other studies have found that inter-racially adopted children develop just as well as intra-racially adopted children and do not necessarily experience the identity problems that those opposing inter-racial adoption predict.¹² Further, proponents of inter-racial adoption argue that a prohibition on inter-racial adoption discriminates against non-white children. They claim that children will be forced to stay in institutions or foster care while a same race family is found for them, even though there may be white families wanting to care for them.¹³

Inter-racial adoption in New South Wales

9.12 The North American and British research is relevant to Australia insofar as Australia, like Britain and North America, is a country with a dominant white culture where racism is still a significant problem.¹⁴ As a result, placing a non-white child with a white family may have negative consequences for a child. It may prevent the child from developing a coherent and positive sense of self, it may alienate the child from his or her birth community and it may prevent the child developing skills to deal with racism if he or she encounters it.¹⁵

9.13 Social workers in Australia have, to a certain extent, accepted the validity of overseas research on the placement of children with racially different families. As stated above, the Department of Community Services will give preference to adoptive parents of the same racial background of the child the Department is seeking to place. Department social workers have indicated to the Commission however that it is not always possible to place children with racially similar parents. In particular, the Department has difficulty placing Maori and Islander children with Maori and Islander adoptive parents.

9.14 It would be possible for the Department to actively recruit more non-Anglo Celtic adoptive parents and insist that children are only placed with families of similar racial backgrounds. These efforts have been made in Britain through organisations such as New Black Families, a special Unit established in 1980 to find Black families for children in London.¹⁶ Such a scheme, however, would make it increasingly difficult for couples applying to adopt. The number of children available for adoption would be reduced even further by removing the possibility that some children may be placed inter-racially. On the other hand, if it is accepted that adoption is not a service for infertile couples, then this should not present a problem. If the purpose of adoption is to find the best possible homes for children, then perhaps the principle of placing children with families of the same racial background should be adhered to in all circumstances.

Questions to consider

• Should inter-racial adoption be prohibited?
• If not, should a preference be made for intra-racial placement?
• If so, how strict should this preference be? Should a child be placed inter-racially if there are no adoptive parents of the same race in the current “pool” of adoptive parents?
• Alternatively, should the Department and private adoption agencies make special efforts to locate same-race parents for children, through recruitment programs in communities that do not traditionally adopt?

ETHNIC HERITAGE

9.15 Less research has been done specifically on ethnic heritage of adopted children. Research on racial heritage is relevant to ethnic heritage as the distinction between racial and ethnic heritage can be blurred. As has been discussed in the definition section above, people who are racially different are usually ethnically different as well. Further, the experience racial minorities have of dominant cultures may be similar to the experience of ethnic minorities within those cultures. As a result, inter-ethnically adopted children may experience some of the same difficulties as inter-racially adopted children.

9.16 Discussions of ethnicity in adoption are complicated by the fact that many children and parents in Australia are ethnically mixed. A child may have Greek, Italian and Malaysian heritage because his or her birth mother is Greek and Italian and his or her birth father is Malaysian. Similarly, prospective adoptive parents may have a mixed ethnic heritage with the husband coming from an Egyptian family and the wife from Thailand. “Matching” couples with children could be extremely difficult.

9.17 Rather than approach ethnic heritage on the assumption that children must be placed with families who have precisely the same ethnic heritage as the child, perhaps the issue could be dealt with by identifying the reasons why children should experience continuity in their ethnic upbringing and then use these reasons as a placement guide. This may be preferable to setting hard and fast rules.

9.18 Perhaps the strongest argument in favour of ethnic continuity in adoption is that ethnic heritage is a valuable part of every person that needs to be recognised and fostered. At birth, each child has the opportunity to participate in the culture of the ethnic group in which he or she has been born. This opportunity is something positive and valuable and it should not be effectively denied by removing the child from his or her ethnic community. A child’s ethnicity should be protected by adoption and a good placement is one that will foster a child’s understanding and appreciation of his or her ethnicity. This understanding and appreciation is likely to be attained in an ethnically similar family, that would expose a child to his or her ethnic group’s culture, religion, language and way of life in the same way as the child’s birth family would.

9.19 A subsidiary argument in favour of ethnic continuity arises in relation to the Adoption Information Act 1990 (NSW). This Act opens up the possibility that children may meet their birth families when they are adults and form relationships with them. With this in mind, it may be desirable to place children with ethnically similar families so that they do not feel alienated from their birth families in later life. Aboriginal people placed with non-Aboriginal families as children sometimes comment on the difficulty and stress they experienced relating to birth families who are culturally different from themselves.¹⁷ Similarly, children whose birth family is Turkish, for example, may face cultural and language barriers when attempting to relate to birth family as adults, if they were placed with an Anglo-Australian family as children.

9.20 The moves in favour of open adoption provide a justification for placing children with families of similar ethnic heritage. If adoptive parents are likely to have contact with birth parents during the adoptee’s childhood, it may help if birth parents and adoptive parents have similar ethnic backgrounds so that they better understand each other and their attitudes to child-rearing and adoption.

• The difficult question in relation to ethnic continuity in adoption is what degree of importance should be placed on it?
• Is ethnic similarity to a child simply one of the many desirable qualities that adoption workers look for in adoptive parents or is it an indispensable quality?
• Can the need to be placed in an ethnically similar family be said to override all of a child’s other needs?
• To what lengths should the Department go to find ethnically similar adoptive parents? If there are no ethnically similar parents in the pool of approved applicants should the Department workers have to search further afield in the way that they might for a special needs child?
• Should birth parents be allowed to request that their child is not placed with an ethnically similar family?

9.21 All of these questions need to be addressed and weighed against each other before legislative guidelines could be drafted.

CONCLUSION

9.22 Continuity of racial and ethnic heritage in adoption is generally accepted to be important. Indeed, continuity of racial heritage has been deemed so important in Britain and America that children are rarely inter-racially adopted. In Australia, a preference principle is usually applied in practice so that where possible, children will not be adopted inter-racially or inter-ethnically. The effectiveness of this preference principle may be questioned. The Commission would appreciate any comments on the issues and questions raised above with a view to recommending legislative guidelines in relation to ethnic and racial heritage.

1. The literature also uses the terminology transracial and inracial. The Commission in this Discussion Paper has preferred to use the inter-racial and intra-racial.

2. Article 20(3).

3. Section 21(1)(c)(i)(b).

4. The Macquarie Dictionary (The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, Sydney 1982).

5. A Parkin and J Summers “Ethnic Groups and Aborigines” in D Woodward, A Parkin and J Summers Government, Politics and Power in Australia (3rd ed, 1985) at 283.

6. L Raynor Adoption of Non-White Children in Britain (Allen and Unwin, London, 1970); J Small “Ethnic and racial identity in adoption within the United Kingdom” (1991) 15(4) Adoption and Fostering 61; J Small “New Black Families” (1982) 6(3) Adoption and Fostering 35; O Gill and B Jackson “Transracial Adoption in Britain” (1982) 6(3) Adoption and Fostering 30; C Hammond “BAAF and the placement needs of children from minority ethnic groups” (1990) 14(1) Adoption and Fostering 52.

7. R J Simon and H Altstein Transracial Adoption (John Wiley & Sons, Sydney, 1977); R J Simon and H Altstein Transracial Adoption: A Follow Up (Lexington Books, Massachusetts, 1981); R J Simon and H Altstein Transracial Adoptees and their Families: Study of Identity and Commitment (Praeger, New York, 1987); R McRoy, L Zurcher, M Lauderdale and R Anderson “Self-Esteem and racial identity in transracial and inracial adoptees” (1982) 27(6) Social Work 522; J Rosenthal, V Groze and H Curiel “Race, Social Class and Special Needs Adoption” (1990) 35(6) Social Work 532; T Glynn “The Role of Race in Adoption Proceedings: a Constitutional Critique of the Minnesota Preference Statute” (1993) 77(4) Minnesota Law Review 925; T Perry “Race and Child Placement: The Best Interests Test and the Cost of Discretion” (1991) 29(1) Journal of Family Law 51.

8. National Association of Black Social Workers Position Paper (1972) cited in T Perry “Race and Child Placement: The Best Interests Test and the Cost of Discretion” (1991) 29(1) Journal of Family Law 51 at 112, note 209.

9. Former Project Director of New Black Families, a unit established in South London in 1980 to find Black families for Black children in care.

10. J Small “Transracial Placements: conflicts and contradictions” in S Ahmed, J Cheetman and J Small Social Work with Black Children and their Families (Batsford, London, 1986) at 83, 84.

11. R McRoy, L Zurcher, M Lauderdale and R Anderson “Self-Esteem and racial identity in transracial and inracial adoptees” (1982) 27(6) Social Work 522 at 525.

12. Shireman and Johnson “A Longitudinal Study of Black Adoptions: Single Parent, Transracial and Traditional” (1986) 31 Social Work 172 cited in J Mahoney “The Black Baby Doll: Transracial Adoption and Cultural Preservation” (1991) 59(3) University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 487 at 492; Simon and Altstein (1977), (1981), (1987).

13. Mahoney at 498.

14. Australia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission State of the Nation: A Report on People of Non-English Speaking Background (Canberra, 1993) at 252-256. See generally Australia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Racist Violence: Report of the National Inquiry into Racist Violence In Australia (AGPS, Canberra, 1991).

15. In relation to this last point, see C Edwards and P Read The Lost Children (Doubleday, Sydney, 1989) at 34.

16. J Small “New Black Families” (1982) 6(3) Adoption and Fostering 35.

17. See C Edwards and P Read at xxi-xxii.