INTRODUCTION

5.1 In this Chapter the Commission presents the results of its inquiry into “the impact of the legislation on birth parents, children surrendered for adoption, adopting parents and the extended families of all parties”. The Chapter is based on a range of sources, notably:

• Submissions made at public hearings held in Sydney and seven country venues
• Written submissions (numbering over 700)
• Telephone submissions (numbering over 300)
• Personal interviews
• Meetings with groups, representing adoption interest groups
• The report prepared for the Commission by MSJ Keys Young (Appendix B)
• A ‘persons found’ study conducted by PARC at the Commission’s request
• Correspondence received by the then Premier, the Hon Nick Greiner, and the then Minister for Health and Community Services, the Hon John P Hannaford, and made available to the Commission
• Non-confidential submissions and evidence provided to the Willis Committee
• Research and other publications.

5.2 The presentation in this Chapter follows the wording of the terms of reference and also attempts to draw together the main conclusions of the Commission relating to issues of particular importance in the present review. In order to respect the confidentiality of individuals, submissions are referred to by number, except in the case of organisations which have indicated that they are willing to be named. Case summaries have been drawn from various submissions. In all, fictional names are used and some unimportant details have been altered.

5.3 Before presenting the Commission’s findings on the operation of the Adoption Information Act 1990, it is necessary to comment on the nature and significance of the various sources used in this Chapter.

Written and oral submissions

5.4 It hardly needs to be said that the Commission learned a great deal from the people immediately involved in the course of one of the most extensive public consultations the Commission has ever undertaken. The opportunity to hear directly, whether in person or in writing, from such a large number of people affected by the Act was invaluable. It has enabled the Commission to learn about the wide range of experiences under the Act, and the equally wide range of opinion about the issues involved. It seems highly unlikely that any significant type of experience, or point of view, has not been expressed somewhere in this invaluable mass of material. The Commission is very grateful to all who made submissions, the vast majority of which were extremely helpful and thoughtful. In particular, those who spoke at public hearings typically displayed considerable courage in speaking publicly about such personal and sensitive matters, and in the vast majority of cases, presented what they had to say with clarity, compassion and restraint.

5.5 The submissions were extraordinarily diverse. Some people spoke of their own experiences while others spoke about second or third hand accounts of the experiences of other people. Some were more concerned to present arguments about the merits of the law than to relate their own experiences, although in some cases, these arguments were supported by anecdotal material about the impact of the legislation. Some submissions were very well informed while others indicated a misunderstanding of some aspects of the law. Some submissions showed a great deal of compassion and understanding of other people’s points of view while others showed more limited insights, and sometimes assumed or stated that other people’s views and experiences would necessarily be similar to those of the person making the submission. Some people simply signed their names to petitions or form letters,¹ while others presented detailed and carefully considered material. Some were speaking about this issue for the first time, while others had given evidence, or engaged in lobbying activities, on one or several previous occasions: some of the material received by the Commission had been also used previously in the debate about this legislation. Many of those who spoke to the Commission used their own distinctive language and way of presenting what they had to say, while others appeared to be reflecting the results of discussions held in one of the several organisations involved in lobbying to preserve or change the law, or in providing advice and support for particular categories of people affected by the Act. Some submissions addressed a large range of issues while others focused on one or two aspects of the law. Some submissions were largely based on personal experiences with the legislation while many others were based on expectations about what might happen as a result of the legislation. The vast majority of those who spoke to the Commission were directly involved in the issues, being an adopted person or otherwise involved in the ‘adoption triangle’, or were involved in administering adoption law or services. A large number of submissions were received from all of the main groups involved in adoption and both from people who were seeking information and from people who were concerned about having information released about them, or being contacted by another party to the adoption.

5.6 The diversity in the form and manner of submissions was matched by the diversity of their content. In each of the categories of people affected by adoption, the Commission heard a great range of experiences and views. In particular, it was clear that within each category of persons affected by the Act, there were those whose concern was to obtain information previously concealed by the operation of the adoption laws and those whose main interest was the protection of what they saw as their privacy from disclosure of such information and the contacts that might be made as a result. Much of the focus, as expected, was on babies surrendered for adoption to unrelated persons, and what was said in this context may not equally apply to adoptions by step-parents, or by former foster parents, or by relatives, or adoptions of older children.

5.7 The richness and complexity of this material makes it important to consider carefully what inferences can properly be drawn from it. Four general characteristics of the personal submissions should be kept in mind. First, people have naturally described their views and impressions at a particular time, although the release of post-adoption information marks a stage in a series of events lasting over time: people’s initial response may be very different from their response some years later.² This point also has implications for the significance of this review, for it is possible, even likely, that the pattern of experiences and views will change over time: the experience of the first year’s operation may be rather different from that of years to come. Secondly, the reactions of the individuals involved are often so various, complex and often ambivalent that it is difficult to characterise them in simple ways. Each person’s experience is unique, and often emotionally highly-charged, and many of those who spoke to the Commission noted how difficult it is for people to share the experiences of others under the adoption legislation. Adoptees, for example, frequently said that it is difficult for them to convey to people who have not been adopted the importance to them of finding identifying information about their origins. Thirdly, the individuals involved in a particular situation might give very different accounts of it, emphasising some matters and omitting or attaching different significance to others. In virtually all the available accounts of experiences, it is necessary to rely on the presentations of one participant in the situation. Even if one assumes that there is no intention to mislead - as seems true in nearly all submissions received by the Commission - rather different stories might have emerged from the accounts of each of the other participants. Fourthly, the process of making submissions and lobbying for law reform tends towards simplification: those seeking to retain or remove the law are tempted to state their own experiences and views in a more simplistic and unequivocal way than they might do in other contexts. Submissions to the Commission are therefore likely to understate the extent to which those affected by the law have feelings that are often ambivalent, and often, even typically, change over time.³

5.8 Partly for these reasons, the experiences and views of those who made submissions may not necessarily reflect the extent to which those experiences and views are held by other members of the adoption community. The fact that a particular view was taken by a certain percentage, say, of birth parents or adoptive parents, may reflect, in part, the effectiveness of lobby groups. The pattern of submissions may also reflect the characteristics of those with particular experiences or points of view. It is possible, for example, that those who oppose the Act might be more vigorous than those who favour it, because they see the review as an important opportunity to influence change, while those who favour it might tend to assume that since the law is in place there is no great need for action. Again, it is possible that those who are concerned to prevent other people knowing about events in the past, or those for whom the experiences have been particularly painful, might be reluctant to put themselves forward. For these reasons, precise conclusions about what has been called ‘the silent majority’ cannot be drawn from the proportion of particular experiences or opinions occurring among those who made submissions.

5.9 It is also difficult to draw clear inferences about ‘the silent majority’ from the statistics (presented in Table 1, Chapter 4) on the exercise of rights under the Act. The number of adoptees and birth parents who have exercised information rights under the Act is clearly fewer than the number who are interested in information or reunions, since, as we shall see later in this Chapter, people who welcome contact are often unwilling to take the first step, and wait for the other person to take the initiative. This seems particularly true of birth mothers. Similarly, the number of vetoes lodged is not an accurate measure of the number of people who wish to prevent contact. We know that some who have lodged vetoes did so in order to exercise a measure of control over the timing and nature of contact, not because they wished to prevent it altogether. Conversely, some who did not want contact may have refrained from lodging vetoes because they objected to the fee, or believed that it would be ineffective. Most obviously, some people may have taken no action because they were among the minority of people who did not know about their rights under the Act (see generally Chapter 3).

5.10 To summarise, the written and oral submissions constitute an invaluable source of information to the Commission about the issues, experiences and views associated with the legislation. Further, the large number of submissions often makes it possible to say, for example, that at least a substantial minority took a particular view. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that the incidence of particular experiences or views among those who made submissions is necessarily the same as it is among other people affected by the Act: claims about the ‘silent majority’, although commonly made in the submissions, are actually very difficult to establish. On some matters, however, reasonable estimates can be drawn from a study of the submissions in combination with other types of evidence, to which we now turn.

The MSJ Keys Young Report

5.11 The report by MSJ Keys Young, which forms Appendix B to this Report, has been described in Chapter 1. The Commission’s understanding of the issues and experiences of people affected by the Act has been greatly assisted by this separate and independent study, which is referred to throughout this Chapter.

Adoption review: ‘Persons Found’ survey

5.12 In a further attempt to provide another useful source of information, at the Commission’s request, PARC⁴ undertook a small study of 41 cases in which contact had been made or attempted, focusing on the experience of the persons who were found. The cases chosen were the first cases involving contact, up to a total of nine, dealt with by each of the six social workers currently on the staff. Workers A, B, C and D had each dealt with nine cases, E with 4, and F with 1. The workers wrote a brief account of each case, based on their notes and recollections and in some cases also based on a follow-up phone call. The workers answered, to the extent that they could, the following questions:

1. How was contact made?
2. How long ago?
3. Did the person found know about the Reunion Information Register/Adopted Persons Contact Register?
4. Did they ever put their name on a register?
5. If they did know about it and did not register, why not?
6. Did they know about contact veto possibility?
7. If they knew, did they think of putting on a veto?
8. If they knew and did not put on a veto, why didn’t they?
9. How would they describe their attitude to the legislation prior to contact? eg fear, didn’t think about it, didn’t know about it.
10. After the contact, how would they describe their attitude to the legislation?
11. In the light of their experiences, did they agree with a law that made it possible for them to be found?
12. Should the law have prevented the other person from having identifying information about them unless they had agreed to it? Yes/no; reasons?
13. Any comments you would like passed on to the Adoption Law Review?

5.13 PARC sent to the Commission the social workers’ summaries of each of the cases, typically half a page or so in length. Although these summaries do not mention names, addresses or other obviously identifying details, it is possible that publishing them in their original form might enable them to be identified by persons already aware of some of the facts. The study will therefore be described here only in general terms.

5.14 The survey addresses a common concern about the legislation, namely that it will have a disruptive or damaging impact on the persons who are found. It is a general characteristic of the literature in this area that the focus is on the persons searching, and to a considerable extent the available research is based on searchers who volunteer to participate in research. These people of course, may not be representative of other searchers. A similar difficulty arises in surveying the experience of persons who have approached PARC for assistance. It is possible that in relevant ways they are different from people who have conducted their searches without any assistance by PARC. By focusing, however, on the persons found, it should be possible to gain an insight into the experiences of this category of persons affected by the Act. There is no evident reason why the persons found as a result of mediation through PARC should be different from persons found by other searchers. The survey thus provides an insight into the elusive ‘silent majority’ about whom there has been so much speculation and assertion in debates about the Act.

5.15 The experiences of the people in this survey are likely to be typical of persons contacted through professionally qualified intermediaries such as PARC. Therefore, this survey should give a reasonably good indication of the usual responses of people contacted through professional intermediaries. While it may not so closely reflect the experiences of those contacted directly, however, it seems unlikely that the experiences of this group would be substantially different from those of the sample. The size of the sample (41) means of course that it would be wrong to attach any precise significance to the results: such surveys can only give a very approximate indication of what the larger pattern might be. Reference will be made to this survey at appropriate points in this chapter.

Ministerial correspondence and submissions to the Willis Committee

5.16 The Commission’s examination of correspondence addressed to the then Premier (Mr Greiner) and the then Minister for Community Services (Mr Hannaford), and of the non-confidential submissions and evidence to the Willis Committee, also assisted the Review. The former contained representations from a number of people who also made submissions to this Review. Most of the latter material related to the period before the Act came into force, and, although it did not bear directly on the operation of the Act, it provided valuable insights into the issues and views that emerged in the preparation of the legislation and its course through Parliament. These insights are of considerable importance in the present review, since as will be seen in Chapter 6, it is important to determine, as far as possible, whether the operation of the Act conformed with the expectations held at the time it was passed.

Research and publications

5.17 Research and publications have assisted the Commission’s review in various ways. In this Chapter, they are mainly used to provide a context for the evidence received, and in some aspects to assist in assessing the experiences of those affected by the Act. Of course, they need to be used with caution. The experiences of people in other places, and at other times, might be significantly different from those of people in New South Wales during the operation of the Act, owing to differences in (for example) the laws, the social background, and adoption practice at the relevant times. It is also necessary to take into account limitations of the evidence used in published accounts: some of it, for example, is based on anecdotal material or small or unrepresentative samples.

BIRTH PARENTS

Introduction

5.18 The evidence showed that the experiences of birth parents varied greatly. Of the birth parents who participated in the review, the majority were birth mothers. Most, but by no means all, had consented to the adoption when they were young and unmarried. In a significant number of cases, the birth parents married, often some time after the child’s birth. In some cases, they were married at the time of the adoption, and for various reasons were unable to care for the child. In some cases the father was closely involved with the mother, and with the decision to have the child adopted, while in others the father was unknown, or was not involved, perhaps because he had no knowledge of the birth, perhaps because he had no interest or accepted no responsibility, perhaps because he was effectively excluded by the mother or her family. Sometimes, the mother consented to adoption only after a period during which she attempted, with varying amounts of support, to care for the child herself. In many cases, the young mother’s family played a large part in the events surrounding the relinquishment. In some cases the mother’s parents provided no support and urged that the child be adopted; in others they provided a great deal of support and encouragement, and urged the mother to make up her own mind about what would be best for the baby.

5.19 The views of birth parents on the legislation also varied widely. The majority of birth parents who made submissions were enthusiastically in favour of the Act, and strongly asserted their rights to information and contact, and the benefits they saw as flowing from this. A significant minority, however, argued that the law should not open up the past: that birth parents had terminated their relationship with the adoptees when they consented to adoption, and had commenced a new life, perhaps with a new family who were unaware of the fact that they had given birth and relinquished the child for adoption. For many of these birth parents, the prospect of meeting the adoptee and revealing the adoptee’s existence to family was daunting. They felt a betrayal similar to that expressed by adoptees and adoptive parents opposed to the legislation.

5.20 A dominant theme amongst birth mothers was that the experience of relinquishment was not of a ‘clean break’ but, on the contrary, was associated with enduring grief and pain. The focus on the act of relinquishment and its consequences was of central importance for these birth mothers, for at least two reasons. First, for many birth parents access to information, and where possible contact with the adoptee, was seen as a major step in the resolution of issues associated with intense grief, in some cases mixed with feelings of guilt and shame. It provided a key to many aspects of the motivations and intentions of birth parents. Others told of their anger at the way they had been treated, their feelings of emptiness and unfinished business. One submission said “relinquishment is like a storm that lasts forever”. It was common for birth parents to say that they wanted the opportunity to explain to the adoptee how it came about that they gave consent to the adoption, and that despite the relinquishment the child had not been unloved or unwanted.

912 Birth mothers have carried their pain silently and often alone: they “harbour deep, unresolved feelings and sharp memories of the bearing and relinquishing of a child” ... By effecting a reunion, they have been ‘given permission’, as it were, to privately and publicly acknowledge the child who was surrendered to adoption. They have been able to ‘come out of the closet’ in the first step towards healing the grief of separation from their children and working through unresolved guilt.

49 I have spent nine years in therapy resolving this issue ... Mine was a tragic loss. My own hard work and humanity have resolved all this for me - along with the help of the Adoption Information Act 1990 - just as I had finally given up hope of ever letting go of a very anguished mystery within, a door opened.

5.21 Second, the evidence about the circumstances in which consent was given is highly relevant to the force of arguments on the extent to which it is now appropriate to treat birth parents as having voluntarily given up all rights to information about, or contact with, the adoptee. Many birth parents argued forcefully that an understanding of the circumstances in which they gave consent showed that it would be unfair for the law to treat them as uncaring, or as having rejected the child, or having forfeited all rights to information or contact.

5.22 As always, there are exceptions: the act of giving consent to the adoption was not necessarily the key issue for all. Some birth parents, for example, expressed their views more in terms of the ordinary wishes of parents separated from their children to learn how they had fared in life, and if possible, make contact with them. Some birth parents, too, lacked the intensity of expression indicated in many submissions. They appeared to have no strong feelings either about contact or about privacy. They wanted to be available if the adoptee wanted them, but did not feel inclined either to apply for the amended birth certificate or to lodge a contact veto. They were content to accept what happened.

5.23 Lack of action, however, did not always indicate a lack of intensity. The Commission has heard from birth mothers who expressed a deep need to see the child, but felt that they had no right to take the first step, or to take action that had the potential to distress members of the adoptive family. Some birth mothers may not have taken advantage of the legislation yet, but appreciate that they have the opportunity to access information in the future.

188 ... the Commission [should] take into account, when looking at statistics on reunions arranged to date ... the fact that an unknown number of birth parents have not acted as yet but who have every intention of doing so at some time in the future and when they feel that a reunion is most likely to be coped with in the context of their own lives.

5.24 The experience of contact and reunions, not surprisingly, also varied greatly. For almost all information recipients, even those who have encountered vetoes or whose discoveries have disappointed them, the exercise has been valuable and has assisted them in coming to terms with the consequences of relinquishment. For some birth parents who are contacted by the adoptee, on the other hand, the experience has been very distressing, although as we shall see for the majority it appears to have been positive or at least acceptable.

Consenting to adoption

5.25 We now turn to a more detailed account of the central themes in relation to birth parents, starting with what emerged as the main focus for many birth parents, the consent to adoption.⁵ The evidence consistently stressed a number of circumstances which seemed common to a great number of birth mothers who consented to the adoption by unrelated adopters of their new-born babies. These circumstances were of great significance to many who made submissions to the Commission.

30 After relinquishing my son in 1969 and, in fact, never touching or seeing him after birth because I was told it would make it harder for me to forget him, I believe nobody can understand the years of guilt and torment a birth mother goes through as she literally “pines” for her lost child ... I never gave up searching and hoping that one day I would be reunited with my child, and in fact the only thing that kept me going sometimes was to realise that he had my genes and was possibly also searching for me with the same intensity.

485 I was sixteen when I became pregnant to my (now) husband, I was so frightened and didn’t tell my parents ... I truly wanted to keep my baby and thought that we would be married and live ‘happily ever after’. But the father of the baby was unemployed and boarding in a room somewhere. Where were we going to live? What were we going to live on? How would we, just children ourselves be able to care for a baby? ... The ‘Social Worker’ stepped in and told me that my only option (if I really cared about my baby) was to give ‘it’ up. This person then went to my parents and told them that it was my wish to relinquish my baby. They didn’t ask me - they had also been convinced it to be ‘the right thing to do’. She then told me it was my parents’ wish that I give the baby up.

My experience at that time was horrendous - what cruelty - to lie ‘open-faced’ to a child already uncertain of proceedings and the future of herself, the man she loved and their beloved baby!

I felt I had no choice! After I was admitted to hospital I went into labour - I was left alone, I asked for my boyfriend and my mother (who had requested they call her so she could be with me) - they refused. Finally the baby was born - they didn’t even tell me that she was a girl until I begged they tell me. I didn’t see her, they took her away immediately. My heart broke - I was helpless, alone and hopeless. I begged to see her - NO ...

My baby was ‘stolen’ from me - I didn’t give her up by choice. The system at that time was criminal. Like vultures they swooped - ‘Go home and forget’, they said. In my heart I never gave my baby away. She was with me always - in my thoughts, my dreams and in my heart...I knew nothing of how my baby was - alive or dead, happy or sad, so many questions, so much heartache, grief and guilt.

105 For ... eighteen years, I had no knowledge of [my son’s] fate, and, contrary to the assurances of the social workers and others connected with adoption, I did not forget about him. Rather, I remembered him frequently and with great emotion. The adoption had a profound effect on me, especially as I was expected to keep it a secret, and “get on with my life”, as if the adoption had not occurred.

5.26 Not all birth parents feel this way. Some, a small minority of those who made submissions to the Commission, described their decision to relinquish the child as a deliberate choice which they wanted to be respected:

805 Some years ago, I gave birth to a child who I decided to have adopted out. I am now married with a family and although my husband knows about my past, my children don’t. I honestly live in fear that my adopted child will one day turn up on the doorstep and that I’ll be forced into a situation where I will have to tell, not only my children, but also other relatives and friends about the whole thing. The prospect of that, and all it implies, really terrifies me ... [W]hen I gave up my child for adoption I accepted the fact that I was giving up my child to another couple for them to bring up as their own. As far as I was concerned I also gave up my rights as a parent at that time and I understand it to be permanent. The adoption was not made on the understanding that “you can love my child as your own, educate it, clothe it, feed it, provide a home for it - but I may choose to come along in 20 years time to claim it back again."

5.27 Although the diversity of individual situations must be kept in mind, the evidence available to the Commission indicates a number of circumstances that were usually associated with consents to the adoption of new born babies to unrelated adopting parents.

5.28 First, birth mothers were frequently young and single. Many would have become pregnant unintentionally, and carried their pregnancy to full term, against the background of a lack of sex education, contraceptives and availability of abortion.⁶

5.29 Second, there was a lack of social and financial support for unmarried mothers. The supporting mothers benefit was not introduced until 1973. For many single mothers, it would have been difficult or impossible for them to manage on their own with a baby unless their own families provided a great deal of assistance. In many cases of children surrendered for adoption, this family support was not available: indeed the families often encouraged the young mother to relinquish the child for adoption. In many cases there was no support available from the fathers: the mothers were discouraged from involving them, or placing their names on the birth certificate; social norms tended to weaken any sense of responsibility that father might feel; some did not know that they were the father, while others refused to acknowledge their paternity.

5.30 Third, the lack of social services such as financial support and child minding facilities was accompanied by a great deal of stigma associated with birth outside wedlock. This stigma attached both to the mother and to the child. For the mother, it was a factor that would inhibit her bringing up the child herself. For the child, it was a stigma that would be capable of causing continuing embarrassment and stress. For both mother and child, adoption was seen as a way of removing this stigma. The birth mother was frequently urged to surrender the child because the child would obtain not only a new family that would be well placed to give the child a desirable and loving home and conventional family, but it would also remove from the child the stigma of illegitimacy. To the extent that the mother was able to conceal the facts, or forget them, the stigma associated with unmarried parenthood would also be lifted from her. Such stigmas would also have been a significant factor in the minds of many of the families of the birth mothers.

5.31 Fourthly, the young mothers were subjected to a great deal of persuasion and pressure to give up their children for adoption. This was presented to them by family members, hospital staff and social workers and no doubt many others, as the best thing to do, especially for the child. Many of them were told, and accepted, that the best way they could express their love and concern for the child was to give the child up for adoption and allow him or her to have a far better childhood, and far better opportunities than the birth mother would be able to provide. In view of the matters mentioned in the previous paragraphs, this advice must have seemed, and to a large extent no doubt was, well grounded. Many birth mothers have said, and there is no reason to disbelieve this, that they relinquished their children for adoption essentially because they thought it was the best thing they could do for their child.

5.32 The final factor was a combination of hospital practices relating to the delivery and birth. The Commission heard of birth parents who were drugged immediately after giving birth and were then transported without their consent to another hospital or convalescent centre where they were completely separated from their child, who had remained at the hospital. Some practices involved a deception of the birth mother: examples included concealing the words on the document of consent or misrepresenting the document, and telling the birth mother, contrary to the fact, the child had died shortly after birth. Another practice, which was employed in at least one major Sydney hospital, was to hold a pillow or sheet over the mother’s body during the delivery so that the child could be removed without ever having been seen or held by the mother. Many of these practices were illegal. They all appear to have been directed to ensuring that the mother did not exercise her right to withdraw her consent, and, in the case of the practices preventing contact between the mother and child, were no doubt designed to prevent any ‘bonding’ between the birth mother and the child. The evidence to the Commission indicated that these practices may well have been successful in preventing the mother from withdrawing consent, but were manifestly unsuccessful in creating an emotional ‘clean break’ between mother and child: their main effect seems to have been to engender in many birth mothers a deep resentment about the experience.

5.33 These factors, while common, did not apply in all cases. Sometimes consents were taken only after careful and thorough counselling. Some mothers may have had the necessary resources and family support to bring up the child, had they cared to do so, but chose otherwise. Some, indeed, may have abused or abandoned the child and the child may have been adopted only after proceedings in which the mother’s consent had been dispensed with. It is not possible to determine with any reasonable precision the proportion of birth mothers who fall in these different categories. We do not have systematic evidence that would enable a judgment to be made about the frequency of particular practices and circumstances over the long period, between 1923 and the mid-1970s, relevant to this review. However it is the Commission’s belief, based on the evidence available, that the majority of birth mothers consented to adoption in the circumstances which led them to see adoption as the only course open to them to serve the needs of their children.

5.34 The Commission’s view of the evidence is similar to that of the Willis Committee, and is supported by a number of submissions⁷, recently published autobiographical material⁸ and research.⁹ A major study conducted in 1984 summarised its findings as follows:

A national study of 213 women who relinquished a first child for adoption when they were young and single found,

(1) The effects of relinquishment on the mother are negative and long lasting.

(2) Approximately half the women reported an increasing sense of loss over periods of up to 30 years, with sense of loss being worse at particular times, eg. birthdays, Mothers’ Day.

(3) For the sample as a whole, this sense of loss remained constant for up to 30 years.

(4) Relinquishing mothers, compared to a carefully matched comparison group of women, had significantly more problems of psychological adjustment.

(5) The major factors which made for worse adjustment to the relinquishment were

• absence of opportunities to talk through feelings about relinquishment
• lack of social supports in dealing with the relinquishment
• most importantly the continuing sense of loss about the child
(6) However, it was not the case that all women who had relinquished a child for adoption reported negative adjustment to relinquishment - there was approximately a normal distribution of outcomes.

(7) The relinquishing mothers expressed a clear view that their sense of loss and problems of adjustment to the relinquishment would be eased by knowledge about what had happened to the child they gave us for adoption.

The research shows clearly that it is inappropriate to view relinquishing mothers as women who have “put the problem behind them”. Nor should they be regarded as callous and heartless in giving their child away - the majority of women felt they had no alternative to the difficult choice they made.¹⁰

5.35 A more recent review of the literature summarised the situation as follows:

The relinquishing parents in the past were told that they would get over the loss of the child quickly, even forget. The mother could shed parenthood like an overcoat and move out into the world as if nothing had occurred. This fiction was quickly realised to be false by the mothers who had relinquished, but most, believing the “experts” to be correct, assumed that their grief and pain was a sign of their own badness or madness. Society, via parents, friends and professionals also told them to forget and not to discuss their relinquishment experience nor their feelings. This advice, in effect, further isolated them from others who had relinquished and from any support and understanding. The myths were perpetuated out of the ignorance, fear and the resultant low self concept that surrounds relinquishment.¹¹

5.36 It is clear that such summaries accurately describe the experiences and attitudes of a large number of birth mothers. It is less clear whether the mothers interviewed in these studies, and the birth parents who gave evidence to the Commission, are representative of relinquishing mothers in general. It should be emphasised that although the research on this matter is often of a high standard, it is based on self-selecting samples, that is, individuals who volunteer to participate in research. It is possible that those birth mothers who participate in such research feel more strongly about the issues than birth mothers who do not, or perhaps they feel differently. It has been stressed above that a small number of birth mothers who participated in this review did regard their consent to adoption as a deliberate act which should make a ‘complete break’, although even in these cases the submissions often indicated that this had been, and continued to be, a painful decision, rather than that the birth mother had succeeded in dismissing the matter from her thoughts and feelings.

5.37 Although there is room for doubt about the precise proportions of birth mothers who consider that they have made a ‘clean break’ and those who have a very different view, the evidence leads the Commission to conclude that for the majority of birth mothers, the decision to sign the forms of consent to adoption was made at a time when they could not be reasonably regarded as being indifferent to the child’s welfare, or as having abandoned the child for selfish reasons of their own. This finding is very helpful in understanding the needs and attitudes of those birth mothers who do seek information. It also shows that there is little justice or compassion in the argument that birth mothers, because they chose to give up their children for adoption, should necessarily be seen as people who have no legitimate interest in the welfare of the child, and no legitimate reason to ask the law to acknowledge and respond to their desire to obtain information about the child and perhaps make contact. On the other hand, it is obviously important that the interests of the significant number of birth parents who do regard their consent as marking a permanent and complete severance between themselves and the adoptees, and wish to conceal this chapter in their lives, should be kept carefully in mind.

Birth parents seeking information or contact

5.38 The submissions indicated that for the vast majority of birth mothers who used it to obtain information, the Act relieved the pain of never knowing if their child was alive or dead, happy or sad, healthy or ill. For many it provided an opportunity to meet as adults the children they had never known and to establish a relationship with them. For the overwhelming majority of the birth parents who participated in the review, this experience was positive. It has allowed them to finally come to terms with the relinquishment and to resolve some of the anguish that they have lived with for so long.

75 [F]or relinquishing mothers who gave up their children to adoption because they did not have the resources available to care for them, the pain of this relinquishment can never be expunged. To go through life not knowing what has happened to their children is an emotional experience difficult to imagine. That some of their anguish and suffering can be alleviated by knowing that when their children are 18 years they will be able to access information about them must be regarded as a basic human right.

70 I hope they never change the law back ; it is HELL on earth not to know if she lived or not. Don’t do to another generation what the law has done to me and so many other mothers and children.

8 For us [birth mother and daughter] finding each other has made our lives complete. Both families have met and enjoy the fact they have extended family. I know not everyone is as lucky my daughter and myself to have found mutual love and friendship, but if we have found happiness and put a lot of guilt and worry behind us, there must be a lot more people who will benefit as well.

5.39 The evidence indicates how satisfactory arrangements can often be made, even in difficult situations:

In Case 2, the birth mother who is in her late fifties had never told her husband, nor her older children, that she had a child prior to the marriage. The daughter met her birthmother and they are in regular contact. However neither families - the birthmother’s nor the adopting parent’s - are aware of the reunions ... The daughter has met her birth father but has agreed to carefully guard his identity and privacy.¹²

5.40 Many birth mothers received no documentation in relation to the adoption, so for some, the amended birth certificate is the only concrete acknowledgment they have of their child’s existence, the only acknowledgment that the baby they relinquished was a tangible being they had lost. One birth mother told the Commission that, until her reunion, she slept with her daughter’s amended birth certificate under her pillow and kept it with her always.

5.41 The evidence consistently indicated that the approach of birth parents seeking information or contact is careful and sensitive to the needs of other parties in the large majority of cases.¹³ This was amply demonstrated in submissions to the Commission:

178 Giving up my son for adoption has meant nearly 18 years of guilt and feeling that something is missing for me ... Personally I am not yet sure whether I will try to make contact with my son as soon as I am legally able to when he turns 18. Perhaps the last thing an 18 year old boy needs or wants is another adult in his life! However, regardless of what I decide to do and more importantly than that, I feel strongly that he has the right to know where he came from. If he is anything like me he will have a great curiosity about his family and where certain physical traits may have been inherited from. More seriously, he may need to know something about our medical history. Or maybe he would just like to know why he was given up for adoption.



I realise that in these situations the adoptive parents may feel they have the most to lose - after all, they have taken on these children and made loving family homes for them where their birth parents have been unable to provide this for them. However ... it is ridiculous to assume that they would turn their backs on the only family that they had ever known and loved ...

5.42 Centacare Adoption Services made the following submission, based on a survey of their clients:

There has been demonstrated an overall sensitivity on the part of birth parents towards the adoptive parents, their position and the bonds between the adoptee and his/her adoptive family. These attitudes and behaviours are often based on:-

(a) The uncertainty as to whether the adoptee knows of his adoption,

(b) A feeling that in some way they are “breaking a promise not to make contact” that was made when signing the consent for adoption, and

(c) A feeling that they are less entitled to the provisions of the legislation.¹⁴

5.43 Quoted comments of birth parents in this survey include the following:

I have made contact with his parents. It is now up to him to decide whether he wants to contact me.

Because of the intrusion contact may have caused into one’s life and the unknown reaction as to the intrusion I felt it would be better to give my daughter time to adjust to the information and breathing space to make a choice whether she wanted contact or not.

If I never see her again I am greatly relieved that she is happy healthy and has led a good life and has been well cared for.¹⁵

5.44 There is considerable agreement among the research studies and in the submissions to the Commission, about the needs and wishes of relinquishing mothers who experience loss and grief associated with the relinquishment of their children.

5.45 First, they want information about the present health and welfare of their children. As stated by MSJ Keys Young, “the information needs tended to be about how their children had fared, what they had become in life, what they looked like as adults etc.” They want to know “[i]f their children are alive or dead, and whether they are happy and secure.”¹⁶

5.46 Secondly, many birth parents who seek information about their adult adopted children also seek the opportunity to make contact with them. Submissions to the Commission indicated that there were a number of reasons for this. Birth parents wanted to see the adoptee for themselves and wanted to hear directly from the adoptee news about their lives and about their feelings towards the birth parent. In part, this was an expression of the birth parents’ general desire to learn what their children had become and how they had fared in life. However, another important aspect for many birth parents is there being an opportunity for them to explain to the adopted person how it came about that they had given consent to adoption. Many birth parents are apprehensive that their children may have been told that their mothers had given them up because they did not want them or had abandoned them and the birth parents wish to assure their children that this was not the case. As stated in the MSJ Keys Young Report:

The angry tone of messages by some children in association with their vetoes makes it clear to their birth mothers that their child believes their birth mother rejected them. The experience of some adoptees of having their adoptive parents tell them their birth mothers hadn’t wanted them indicates that this message is given to some adoptees. This contrast fell sharply with the truth as the birth mothers knew it, that they feel an even greater need to contact their child and explain that they were wanted.¹⁷

5.47 In some cases, perhaps most, the birth parent’s feelings are mixed, and may include considerable guilt or shame about the relinquishment of the child. For a significant number of these parents, it seems, what they want is to obtain their children’s forgiveness or understanding.¹⁸

5.48 Finally, some birth parents may wish to establish some kind of continuing relationship with the adopted person. It is this aspect, no doubt, which poses the most difficulty for adoptive parents, and perhaps for some adopted persons. What emerges with some clarity from the evidence, is that for the majority of searching birth parents, a continuing relationship with the adoptee is a development which they welcome if it happened but is by no means essential. As one submission stated, it would be ‘icing on the cake’.

5.49 An important characteristic of the evidence in this respect is that overwhelmingly, these birth parents do not wish to displace the adoptive parents. Commonly, attitudes to adoptive parents are generous and understanding. The birth parents usually recognise that they cannot and should not attempt to establish with the adoptee the sort of relationship that they might have had if they had brought the child up. Submissions to the Commission indicated that most are very concerned to handle the situation in a way that does not embarrass or offend the adoptive parents, or displace them in the adoptee’s affections. It is common, for example, for the birth parents to worry about whether the adopted person is aware of his or her adoption: they are anxious that their search should not cause a distressing revelation to the adopted person.

5.50 In the Commission’s view, then, the majority of the birth parents who seek information about their children have a very strong desire or need to have up to date knowledge of their welfare and an account of their lives and, often, the opportunity to talk with them. While many of them would hope that such a meeting would lead to a longer satisfying relationship, they typically describe that relationship in terms of ‘friendship’ and in general they recognise that such a relationship may not eventuate. In that event, while they might be disappointed, they would greatly value the information and brief contact and what they have learned from it. Birth parents who have had an opportunity to meet their children and learn about their lives, but have not had the opportunity for that relationship to develop into a continuing one, are likely to be much less distressed than birth parents who have had no opportunity to meet the adoptees at all.

5.51 These comments are not true of every birth parent who seeks information or contact. It seems that a small minority some birth parents do experience a need or desire to take over a parenting role. There may also be some birth parents who behave in ways that are insensitive or harmful to the adopted person and other members of their families. However, the evidence very strongly suggests that such birth parents are very much the exception.

Birth parents opposed to the release of information

5.52 While the vast majority of submissions from birth parents supported the Act, the Commission received a small number of submissions from birth mothers who opposed contact or the release of information.¹⁹ Some argued that birth parents in many cases really did make a free and considered choice to relinquish their babies, and that their decision should now be respected and enforced, by protecting all parties against having access to identifying information. These people, almost without exception women, felt that the Act was re-opening old wounds and bringing back hurtful experiences that they had managed to put behind them. The majority of these women had not told their other children, or in some cases their husbands, that they had relinquished a child, and they felt that if they were forced to do so they would lose their family’s love and respect.

407 Twenty years ago I gave birth. I was promised that nobody would ever find out and so with a lot of effort I got on with my life. Nobody ever knew my secret. I married and my husband and I have four beautiful children. My husband and children have never been told. The law was changed and now all of a sudden my world has been turned upside down. How do you think I felt when I had to fill out a veto and surrender my child a second time? ... If my husband and children ever discover my past I will lose them and right or wrong they are my life and the people who have pushed for changes will be responsible for my death. It may sound melodramatic but that is how it is... For the rest of my life I am worried that someone will contact me and that will be the end of everything I have worked so hard for.

952 I gave up my child for adoption a long time ago because the child was not my husband’s. The trauma that time brought me to the brink of suicide. It has caused me enormous pain ever since, but I know that the decision was the right one to protect the happiness of my husband, my other children and, not least, the child ... I am in danger of losing all that is most dear to me if the past comes to light ... I can’t believe that it will bring happiness to my child to know the circumstances of her birth.

5.53 Some birth mothers, in addition to objecting to the release of information, resented having to pay for their privacy.

151 I am a relinquishing mother. ... I was forced by this law to attend FACS Offices and pay $50 to lodge a veto to ensure what I had always assumed was my right - my right to privacy and my right to deny access to confidential and potentially damaging information ... I object to information of a private nature being given to what is essentially a stranger ...

5.54 Some of the strongest objections to the Act came from a small number of submissions from women whose child was conceived through incest or rape. These women were fearful that despite vetoes, their child would knock on their door and they would be forced to reveal the sexual assault to their family. Like may adoptive parents, these birth mothers feel that the government has betrayed them by removing the secrecy they were promised so long ago.

5.55 There is no denying the intensity of these submissions, and the Commission has given careful thought to meeting the anxieties of these people. Most, it seems, are experiencing continuing stress as a result of trying to maintain the secret; as submission 952 states, “it has caused me enormous pain ever since”. It is important that counselling and support facilities should be available.²⁰ It may be that the anxieties would be eased, in some cases, if the birth parents were aware of the evidence relating to adoptees who search and the usual outcomes of contact: in fact, it seems very rare for contact to lead to abandonment by spouses and other family members. In a number of cases known to the Commission it turned out that a birth parent’s ‘secret’ was already known to members of the family, or even to most of the local community: in such cases the ‘disclosure’ involved not so much the discovery of information as the beginning of a period when the facts could be discussed openly, often to the relief and benefit of the birth parent.

5.56 These comments, however, may be of little comfort to those who are convinced that in their own case the effect of contact would be disastrous. No amount of evidence about other people can establish that in a particular case the result of contact will not, in fact, be as bad as feared. More important, perhaps, the Commission’s impression is that many birth parents who have such fears would be loathe to seek counselling or support. Birth parents in such situations, however, would benefit if they were able to send anonymous messages to the adult adoptees, if they could arrange for the release of information to be deferred for a period such as two months, and if, in a rare case where they had reason to believe that they might be harmed by the adoptee, they could seek an order preventing the disclosure of the information: the Commission recommends all of these measures in Chapter 7.

Birth fathers

5.57 There is great variation in the involvement of birth fathers in the events surrounding the birth and the adoption. Some were fully involved, and may have married the mother either before or after the adoption. Others were uninvolved, and may not even have known that the child was born, or that they were the father. Many refused to take any responsibility for the mother and may even have refused to acknowledge the child as their own. As noted earlier in this Chapter, a number of factors combined to prevent most fathers’ names appearing on the birth certificate.

5.58 Few birth fathers made submissions to the Commission. Perhaps because their names appear infrequently on the birth certificates, the Commission heard very little from birth fathers who opposed the release of information and the possibility of the adoptee making contact. It appears to be the general experience in many jurisdictions that men are less actively involved than women in seeking post-adoption information. However it was clear from the evidence that some birth fathers are very involved, and may very much wish to obtain information about, or to contact, the adoptees. Many have unresolved feelings in relation to the adoption and would like to make contact as a result. Some, as the Willis Committee found, feel very angry about having been disregarded, and having their names omitted from the birth certificate.²¹ Others feel guilty at having ‘abandoned’ the mother and child, and wish to make amends.²²

5.59 Evidence to the Commission indicated that birth fathers may have a range of experiences which may lead them to seek contact, or welcome it when it happens:

Martin, now in his forties, is the father of a 20 year old son. He was denied all contact with his pregnant girl friend during the last months of pregnancy. Martin has always felt a need to know his son and, after constant and prolonged effort did finally succeed in having his name added to the birth registration. He located his son, made the approach to him through the adoptive family and has found warm acceptance. He finds that he has many things in common with his son and his family. Both he and his son acknowledge and respect the birth mother’s refusal of contact of any sort.

Luke, in his twenties, encountered a veto from his birth mother but, because of information recorded for him by his mother at the time of the adoption, was able to contact his birth father. He had been unaware of Luke's existence but has been happy to acknowledge him as his son. He has shown him photos and given him information about his mother with whom he had long lost touch. He offered to make contact with the mother but Luke indignantly refused this offer. He has no wish to compromise his undertaking or intrude into his birth mother’s life.

5.60 Criticisms of the adoption information legislation are often based on claims or assumptions that it will have adverse consequences for birth parents. The Adoption Privacy Protection Group (APPG), for example, wrote to the Commission that:

Unwelcome interference in the life of a relinquishing parent, undermining the stability of a subsequently created family, creates very grave concerns.

5.61 Such apprehensions appear to be associated with a number of assumptions. One is that birth parents would have put the matter out of their minds, and that there would be no problem if it were not for adoption information laws. Another is that due to the guilt and shame associated with birth outside wedlock the birth mothers would want to keep this event secret from others, even close members of their families. Another assumption is that revelation of the facts might be shocking to other members of the family, and indeed destructive to the family.

5.62 There is a striking difference between these assumptions and the view of birth parents that emerged from the Commission’s study of their evidence, and from their face-to-face presentations in interviews and at public hearings. It seems to the Commission, as was suggested in some submissions, that the difference may be partly due to false information given to adoptive parents at the time of the adoption and partly to ignorance of the circumstances in which many birth mothers consented to relinquish their children. The view that birth mothers normally forget, or that they are so ashamed that they value secrecy above all else, may also reflect an acceptance of some of the myths of adoption, and, in some cases, a degree of stereotyping and moral condemnation of birth parents. It is possible, too, that such views are partly influenced by the needs of the some adoptive parents, who may find it more comfortable to see the process of relinquishment as involving a ‘clean break’ from the birth mother.

5.63 No doubt the apprehensions indicated by APPG are true for some individuals. As PARC says, the claim that the Act has caused pain is undeniable.²³ But it is important to determine, as far as possible, what sorts of experiences are commonly encountered when contact is made with a birth parent.

5.64 The evidence strongly suggests that these assumptions are true only in a minority of cases. As mentioned above, experience has shown that it is very rare for birth mothers to be unaffected by the experience of relinquishing a child for adoption. The stigma associated with extra-marital birth is now greatly reduced, and for many birth mothers may not now be a significant influence on their behaviour. In the present climate, it is likely that in many cases birth mothers have already told members of their present families, and that those family members would be understanding and supportive.

5.65 Individual accounts given to the Commission illustrate the diversity of impacts of contact on birth parents.

Rita, now in her 60s, is a birth mother who surrendered 2 children for adoption over a period of 5 years. Each child was placed in a different family. She subsequently married and had more children, although the marriage ended unhappily. She was thrown into a state of near terror and confusion when contacted by Mary, the eldest of four adopted children. She has, however, had a very satisfactory reunion with Mary and has found to her surprise that she has been warmly accepted by Mary's extended family.

Kevin is an adopted man who traced his elderly birth mother. She was living with Jo, an elderly relative. At Kevin’s request, a social worker made contact with the birth mother. The birth mother was initially confused, and gave the letter to Jo who knew nothing of Kevin’s existence. Jo spoke to the social worker and, though shocked to learn of Kevin's existence, was not opposed to contact. The elderly mother was very pleased to meet Kevin. She has however assented to Jo's wish that Jo’s family not be told of Kevin’s true identity.

Mark is an adopted man in his 70's who discovered by chance the whereabouts and identity of his elderly birth mother. This came about through the agency of an acquaintance, Beth, who was compiling a history of his birth family. Beth indicated to the birth mother that her son had been searching for her but that no contact would be made if it were not her wish. The birth mother rang Mark and asked for time to tell her other children. They had in fact already been made aware of Mark’s identity, but everyone felt that the birth mother’s dignity be respected and that she be given the choice. The children reacted with appropriate surprise and acceptance when told of their lost brother. All are delighted with the way things have turned out and are now looking forward to a reunion, involving as well children and grand children.

Lucy is a birth mother who was approached by the daughter she relinquished over 20 years ago. She has met the daughter secretly on one occasion. After the surrender, Lucy went on to marry another man and have a daughter. Neither the daughter nor her husband knew of Lucy's relinquished daughter. Lucy felt “suicidal” and “desperate” fearing the consequences of exposure. She eventually went on to tell first her husband and then her daughter of the relinquishment and a meeting was organised. Some months later Lucy said she still felt fragile but greatly relieved that there were no more secrets in her family. She reported her husband's remark that an invisible wall between them had disappeared.

One adoptee has contacted her birth mother, who did not lodge a contact veto and whose husband and children do not know of the adoptee’s existence. The two are arranging to meet in private. The birth mother is more concerned that the adoptive parents should not be upset in any way, rather than that her own husband and family find out.

5.66 The evidence relating to the impact on birth parents of adoptees’ access to their original birth certificates, and identifying information may be summarised as follows. First, we now have considerable experience in a number of jurisdictions with laws granting to identifying information to adoptees. Studies of experience in these jurisdictions, described in Chapter 6, indicate that for most birth parents contacted by adoptees the experience appears to be a positive one. The two Victorian studies based on random samples are particularly important in this respect.

5.67 Second, those organisations in New South Wales which have been most closely involved in counselling parties affected by the Act strongly support the Act: while they acknowledge that reunion experiences are not necessarily happy, and may on occasion be very distressing, they consider that the benefits far outweigh the detriments. This view is consistent with available surveys, although these are not decisive because it cannot be shown that they are representative.

5.68 Third, the ‘persons found’ survey conducted by PARC at the Commission’s request echoes the results of other studies.²⁴ Of the 41 cases, 12 involved birth parents, all except one being birth mothers. Their experiences were as follows:

Birth parents in 'persons found' survey

Contact experienced as positive/acceptable	8	(67%)
Contact experienced as negative/unacceptable	3	(25%)
Experience equivocal or unknown	1	(8%)
Total Cases	12

[Link to text only version of table]

5.69 Available evidence, therefore, supports the view that for the majority of birth parents who are contacted by adult adoptees, the experience is more positive than negative. In a significant number of cases, however, the experience is unhappy, and the availability of identifying information is disapproved by the birth parent.

Impact of the law on birth parents: conclusions

5.70 The review confirms the results of other recent inquiries and studies on birth parents who have relinquished children for adoption. It shows that most birth mothers consented to the adoption of their children in circumstances where they felt they had little choice. The relinquishment was a source of grief and stress, of varying intensity, that continued through their lives. While some wish to prevent others from knowing of this part of their history, and regard the Act as an invasion of their privacy, the majority are grateful for the opportunity that the law has given them to learn about their birth children, whether this comes about as a result of their own initiative or that of the adoptee. Many birth mothers want to have the opportunity to talk with their children, and explain the circumstances in which they consented to their adoption. While many would be glad if they develop a friendly relationships, few wish to disrupt or displace the adoptive parents or interfere with their lives. For birth mothers, the Act has been beneficial in the majority of cases.

5.71 It seems likely that experience of the legislation in the future will be at least as positive as it has been to date. While many had been thinking about possible reunions for many years, those birth parents ‘found’ in the first year of operation of the Act had little time to come to terms with the reality of contacts. In many ways, this initial period of operation is likely to have been the most difficult. With time, the people immediately affected, and their families, will become better prepared for the consequences of the Act, and post-adoption contact will increasingly be perceived as an everyday occurrence, although it will remain stressful for many.

ADOPTEES

Introduction

5.72 The Commission received written submissions from adoptees, and heard many others at public hearings, in telephone submissions, and in interviews. Their ages ranged from 18 and younger to over 70. Some approached the Commission independently, others (usually the younger adoptees) with their parents. Some shared and echoed the views of their parents, while others said that their views were not shared by their adoptive parents and family, and in some cases that their views were not shared by their adopted siblings (even, in one case, by a twin).

5.73 There is now a formidable literature on the desire of many adoptees to trace their origins.²⁵ Their experiences and needs have been described in autobiographies, research papers and conference presentations, and have been described in the Willis Report. Many of the submissions to the Commission retraced this familiar ground, which the Commission considers does not need to be set out in more detail in this Report. The following comments will focus on aspects of particular importance to the assessment of the Adoption Information Act 1990.

5.74 There is no single ‘adoptee perspective’ of the Act: their views cover a wide spectrum. A clear majority of the adoptees who participated in the review were in favour of the information rights given under the Act, although a substantial minority were critical of the Act insofar as it provided information rights without the prior consent of the persons concerned: these concerns related mainly to the information rights given to birth parents.

5.75 The Commission also received submissions from adoptees whose views fall somewhere in between these two positions. Not surprisingly, adoptees who are not very interested in searching tend not to volunteer for research projects and do not figure largely in the literature. An insight into the attitudes of these adoptees, however, is provided in the MSJ Keys Young Report. They quote such adoptees:

I felt I was happy with my life and didn’t want to do anything. I don’t know the people on the other side - they could be quite nice people ...

I’m a wimp, I guess I’m lazy and a bit fearful of taking on a search. What if I get so far and couldn’t find them? If someone else did the work ...²⁶

5.76 Like other groups, adoptees differed on the merits of the contact veto system. Many adoptees thought that the contact veto system was an appropriate protection for people’s rights, but were also firmly of the view that the law should not go further than this:

354 If [our natural parents] do not want any further contact or involvement past identification, the current law provides to let that be their way out. However, do not let their inabilities to face their actions of the past cause the people who are the results of their previous poor decisions to suffer further by reversing the current legislation or making it more difficult to obtain the data needed to allow us to identify our real selves ...

Awareness of adoption

5.77 There is no reliable evidence on the proportion of New South Wales adoptees who are unaware of their adoptive status. New Zealand evidence cited to the Willis Committee suggested that the figure was as low as 1%. The vast majority of adoptive parents who made submissions to the Commission said that they had told their children of their adoptive status, although a small minority said that they had not done so and claimed that their adult adopted children were unaware of their status. Of course, this is not necessarily so: as is well known, and was reflected in many submissions to the Commission, many adoptees discover accidentally and from sources other than their adoptive parents, that they are adopted. Some adoptees who contacted the Commission learned of their adoption as long as 40 years ago, when they were teenagers. Adoptees at all ages noted in their submissions that their adoptive parents were unaware that the adoptees knew of their adoptive status. The Commission also heard from adoptees who were in their 30s, 40s or 50s when they learned of their adoption: few of them had learned of their adoption as a result of the Act. PARC’s submission, pointing this out, suggested that “[i]t is clear that with or without the change of legislation the concealed adoption will always be a time bomb waiting to explode”.²⁷

5.78 Typically, since the question has never been raised by their parents, adoptees who learn ‘accidentally’ of their status do not mention the subject for fear of upsetting their parents, who may go on believing that the adoptees think that they are the biological children of the adoptive parents. Even where children know of their status, they often respond to cues from their parents indicating that the topic is a sensitive one. This point is frequently noted by researchers. In a recent study, for example, Seale notes that “children who recognise that their parents are uncomfortable when they raise questions about their birth family and their adoption frequently stop asking. They may collude with their adoptive parents in denying their adoptive status and appear not interested in order to prevent hurting their parent’s feelings”.²⁸ The awkwardness surrounding the topic, as well as the inevitability of discovering an adoption, is captured in a number of submissions:

268 All my life I have had a feeling that I was adopted despite my parents making every endeavour to dispute this fact. It was not until I was in my late 30s (1984) that my adoptive father confirmed that my long held feelings were true.

113 I was adopted in 1952, my parents decided never to inform me of my adoptive status. I eventually found out by accident at the age of eight, but have never discussed the topic with my parents, even to this day.

361 I was brought up to believe that my parents were my true flesh and blood , but certain serious situations and occurrences led me to believe from the age of 15, that I was adopted. At that age I could not find out. In fact, unless my “parents” told me, which I knew they would never do, I had absolutely no chance of ever finding out. So big was this secret that all our cousins, aunts, uncles, family friends knew, but I was 33 years old before I gained the courage to write to Youth and Community Services, and find out the truth ... It hurts to think that I may have died without ever knowing. It seems ridiculous that anyone could ever think that we would never find out. I personally think that if anyone had the right to know it was me.

5.79 Submissions to the Commission by adoptive parents who had not ‘told’, therefore, do not necessarily indicate the number of adoptees who do not know of their adoptive status. Of course adoptees who do not know of their adoptive status would not have participated in the review, and it is likely that many of their adoptive parents would be reluctant to do so. However the ‘persons found’ survey,²⁹ and submissions to the Commission, suggest that the number is not insignificant, and may be considerably larger than generally assumed.³⁰

5.80 A number of submissions, particularly from adoptees, urged that adoptive parents should tell their adult adopted children, and this was a strong theme of the Willis Report and the Parliamentary debates. It seems that these exhortations, as well as advice to adoptive parents since at least the 1960s, have had only moderate success, with the result, unfortunately, that adoptees who do not know of their status are unable to exercise their rights under the Act, either to prevent contact by lodging a veto or to apply for information. They are often seen as the most vulnerable people in the operation of the Act, but it seems that in the majority of cases, while the initial revelation triggered by contact from a birth relative may be deeply shocking, these adoptees appear to cope reasonably well.³¹ Some submissions went so far as to suggest that if the Adoption Information Act is informing people that they are adopted, then the Act is having a good impact on adoptees. These submissions argued that it is wrong for a person to not know something so fundamental about themselves, regardless of the good intentions of adoptive parents. It was seen as particularly unfair if the ‘secret’ was known to other family members but not to the adoptee. The Commission’s impression is that most adoptees would agree that they should have the right to know of their status, but at least one adult adoptee, informed as a result of the Act, told the Commission that she would have preferred not to have known, and that her adoptive parents (and more recently her brother, also adopted) were the right people to make this decision.

Adoptees with positive experience of the Act

5.81 A large proportion of adoptees were pleased with the new access to information. Many had long desired contact with their natural families and the Act facilitated this contact. Others had already experienced reunions prior to the Act and were pleased that such reunions would now be easier to achieve for other adoptees.

354 We [adoptees] do not generally see ourselves in our daily routine as “lost” because most of us have come from loving families who we respect and love. However, despite the anxieties, worry and emotion that the actions resulting from this legislative change cause us, we all find that fitting that last piece to the jigsaw of our natural family background, completes our personalities.

With this change in legislation we can now go through life knowing we have “found” our true identity. We can see our real origins that identify our appearances, our attitudes our characters, be they outgoing, reticent, sporting, entertaining tall, short and as well our sexual preferences.

400 I am an adopted person who was reunited with my birth family last September. This event has changed my life. It has given me a longed for true identity. It has made me feel that I am a “legitimate” individual and that I am as good as anybody else. The day I found out I had two brothers, I cried tears of happiness! I consider that I am privileged to have had this experience in life.

906 I am an adopted person, and have recently made contact with my natural mother with wonderful results. I know almost for certain that my search would not be over if it wasn’t for the Adoption Information Act.

115 ... I have been reunited with my birth mother and 4 brothers. Fortunately things have worked out exceptionally well and we have a very close relationship. This is something I have hoped for, for about 20 years and when the law changed it gave me just what I needed.

5.82 For many, particularly those who had been searching before the Act, receiving a copy of the original or amended birth certificate was a positive experience in itself. Often the birth certificate had a significance other than simply identifying the other party to the adoption. One adoptee said, “the day I received my birth certificate, was the very first time in my 38 years that I felt important”. Another said, “[i]t’s hard to explain the sheer excitement of receiving my birth certificate, it gave me a beginning”. To another, receiving her original birth certificate with her birth mother’s name, meant that she could put a name to a fantasy she had held to for over 35 years.

5.83 Even for those who have always known they were adopted, and have looked forward to obtaining the birth certificate, the reality can make a strong impact:

279 I did in fact obtain my original birth certificate. At the time of reading it, I experienced emotions which surprised me. It was a rather eerie experience is probably the best way to put it ... To actually see it in writing, seeing something you knew existed for over 30 years, but had never seen it, was a little scary. Once the shock had worn off, it wasn’t a problem ...

5.84 Receiving original birth certificates was a triumph for an number of adoptees who had attempted to obtain them before the passage of the Act. These adoptees were often incredulous that a government department could deny them information about themselves, particularly if they were into their 40s, 50s and even 60s. They perceived the withholding of personal information as an insult to their ability to manage their own lives, as well as a peculiar form of discrimination against adoptees.

5.85 Most adoptees found the experience of applying for the birth certificates and prescribed information positive and empowering. Some however were frustrated by the delay in receiving prescribed information, particularly if there was ultimately only a small amount available. If the adoptee arranged a reunion, the lack of prescribed information was often unimportant as they could fill in any gaps by asking the birth parent personally. For those who were not successful with a reunion, either because they were met with a veto or the birth parent could not be found, the lack of detail in prescribed information was a considerable disappointment. So too was receiving information on a birth certificate which proved to be false, thus any opportunity to pursue the search for identity and blood relatives was lost.

5.86 The absence of birth fathers’ names from birth certificates also presents a problem for adoptees. Often the birth mother will give the adoptee the father’s name and sometimes help contact him. She may even be married to the birth father, so no problem arises. However, if the birth mother cannot be found, has lodged a veto or simply refuses to tell, the adoptee may have no way of discovering who his or her father is. Instances of this situation cited to the Commission included one adoptee who had been adopted by her natural maternal grandmother. She had known who her natural mother was since the age of 12 but no one would tell her who her father was. Her mother had refused to tell her before she died and although she suspected some people in the small country town she grew up in knew, none of them would tell her either. An elderly cousin said she knew who her father was as well, but told her she may or may not reveal his name before she dies. The adoptee said she had a “great need to know who [she] really is - not just half of it”. She suspected that her father’s name was recorded somewhere but she had never been allowed to access it.³² As she was 56 she could not understand why the information was being denied her and who people were trying to protect. Her natural father was probably dead, as was her mother and adoptive parents. She is aware of the possibility that she may have been conceived through incest.

5.87 Adoptees felt that this situation, and others like it, could be remedied by allowing them access to their adoption files and to Supreme Court records, where their birth father’s name may be recorded. Many were angry that they were again being denied information by adoption officials and government departments, when it was information relating to themselves. This was particularly so for older adoptees. While most adoptees are initially concerned with finding their birth mothers, the search for birth fathers assumed a greater importance at a later stage. As was recognised by the Willis Committee, having made contact with birth mothers, adoptees often want to ‘complete the picture’. Just as they had been frustrated in the past by their search for their birth mothers, they were finding the pattern being repeated in the search for fathers, despite the new legislation. These issues are considered in Chapter 8.

5.88 The Commission was impressed by the generosity and understanding shown by many adoptees to the needs and sensitivities of other people. Many submissions illustrated this, as well as providing insights into the varying experiences and interests of those who sought information or contact. One adoptee describes his experiences on encountering a contact veto lodged by his birth mother as follows:

302 It was frustrating not to be able to make contact, but it was exciting to know that my birth mother was alive and thinking about me. I immediately applied for the brief message she had left for me with the Department of Family and Community Services. This told me that she had had a good relationship with my father; that she was unmarried at the time of my birth; that she had given me up for adoption because she wanted me to have a better home than she could provide; that she wished me well; and that she wanted her privacy protected. I was happy to learn from the social worker who gave me the message that this message was kinder than many she had seen. I was also happy to learn that I was not, for example, the product of a rape or some other tragedy ...

I also wrote a letter addressed to my mother and left it with FACS so that she could collect it if she wished. FACS advised that they could let her know a message was available. In the letter I thanked my mother for persisting with her pregnancy; told her what I had been doing for the last 40 years; assured her of my affection for her; assured her of my concern to avoid embarrassing her; explained my reasons for wanting to contact her; and asked her to initiate further contact either through FACS or directly ...

[The adoptee then engaged in research into the family background, taking careful steps to avoid embarrassing his mother. He learned that she collected his letter, and shortly afterwards she rang him.]

Within minutes we had renewed a contact interrupted forty years ago. My mother had read my letter, judged that its writer was honourable, and decided that direct contact was the appropriate response. Very bravely, I think, she suggested that she visit my wife and I ... We have had several brief meetings and numerous phone conversations and will almost certainly opt for a continuing relationship. My mother had felt confident that I would be well cared for after adoption and that I would not need to seek her out. She did not want her life and reputation disrupted by an unexpected relation ... she is easily able to keep our relationship private, but has yet to decide whether to tell her husband and family about me, and is uncertain whether to tell me about the identity of my father ...

5.89 An adoptee in her 40s wrote:

319 I have gone through all the emotions any other adopted person goes through, at different stages of my life. The resentments of teenage years, the curiosity, the need of medical as well as genetic knowledge as my own children were born and the sheer heartache of wanting to identify myself with my original family. Origins are important to different people at different stages of the individual’s life. I did not realise until my reunion with my natural mother and her (and mine) family how much I was possessing my own children because they were my own flesh and blood. Thank goodness family became a reality and I could mentally let go of the things I should and my whole life seemed to gain more perspectiveness. I had tormented myself for years because of the law of that time and not wanting to intrude in some else’s life. Now I know my natural mother needed to know that I was well and had a good life ... my mum now feels part of my birth after becoming friends with my natural mother ...

5.90 There is considerable discussion in the literature on the extent to which adoptees who seek information about their origins had unhappy family lives, or seek or need some form of therapy. The evidence in submissions to the Commission did not directly bear on these questions. Nevertheless, the Commission’s impression of the large number of adoptees who gave evidence or made submissions was that they were not distinctive in any obvious way, nor did their accounts of their family lives suggest that there was any strong link between unhappy or disturbed life in the adoptive family and the desire to obtain birth information. This impression is consistent with more recent literature, and with the view that the wishes and needs of adoptees should be seen as quite normal and ordinary.³³ They typically want information of practical significance, such as medical information, or they express the sort of curiosity about their biological inheritance that underlies a great deal of recent interest in tracing family history and genealogy. In many cases, of course, the significance of the information and the urgency of the search is greater than for non-adopted people, who already have information about their immediate ancestors and wish to trace family links to earlier generations, or to trace the wider family network. Others wish to do no more than recognise the reality of two sets of parents, and want to know and understand the ones from whom they have so far been separated.

5.91 Some submissions from people critical of the Act expressed scepticism about the phenomenon of ‘genealogical bewilderment’.³⁴ This term, while capturing some aspects of the special experiences of adoptees, should not be treated as if it were a complete account. The term ‘bewilderment’, for example, does not well describe the many adoptees who strongly asserted their rights to information that other people take for granted. The use of this dauntingly technical expression also suggests that there is something pathological, or mysterious, about these adoptees and their wishes. It also seems to have been understood, at least by some critics, as a claim that all adoptees have a similar experience. Nothing could be clearer from the evidence to the Commission than the wide variety of perceptions, attitudes and needs that exist among adoptees. While some feel very intensely that birth information, and sometimes contact with a birth parent, is of the greatest importance in giving them a sense of ‘who they really are’, or in providing ‘the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle’, and some feel that without this information their lives have been incomplete and their functioning limited, others seek information with more of a sense of ordinary curiosity.

5.92 The Commission’s view on this matter is supported by a Victorian study which reported that searching adoptees attending a group interview attached great significance to having the ‘normality’ of their feelings acknowledged:

Confirmation of the normality of needing information and searching was helpful. Many had felt their need to know was a kind of madness peculiar to them. Respondents who had been told they were adopted had sometimes been told not to tell others about their status. For some, this left a sense of shame and humiliation which they expected to carry for life. Much pleasure was expressed in hearing the reasons others searched: “It was my first opportunity to talk to adopted people I didn’t know the need was so great till that day. I felt I wasn’t alone ... I was just the same as everyone else there. It makes you feel as if you could do it ...”³⁵

5.93 The Commission’s impression is that while many adoptees commence by obtaining the birth certificate and only then making a decision whether to go further and attempt contact, most of those who obtain a birth certificate do in fact decide to go further.³⁶ A large number of submissions to the Commission spoke of the benefits felt by adoptees who had obtained birth certificates and information and had made contact with birth mothers or other members of the birth family.

5.94 Centacare in its submission to the Commission included the results of a survey of people who had applied to it for prescribed information. Of 57 adoptees who responded, only one was not in favour of the new legislation. Responses to the survey included the following:-

I think it is an adopted person’s right to find out his or her roots. It was one of the best laws ever brought in.

I was happier that it was going to be easier to obtain the information I feel I am entitled to. I felt I needed to know where I came from and hopefully the circumstances leading to my adoption.

Every person has the right to know their birth parents and especially family history of diseases etc. I think the law is wonderful.

5.95 Adoptees who have not taken advantage of their rights under the Act may also view it in a positive light. Some adoptees said that while they had not as yet applied for their birth certificate or prescribed information, they appreciated having the opportunity to do so in the future. These adoptees, along with those who have applied, were also pleased to have more control over information relating to themselves, instead of the information being completely in the power of government or adoption officials.

5.96 Some adoptees who have had ‘negative’ reunions or learnt information about themselves or their birth family which was distressing, nevertheless expressed support for the Act in quite strong terms. While they had to cope with difficult circumstances or their relationship with their birth parent(s) had not turned out as they hoped, they still believed that access to information was good. Only rarely did the adoptee regret having sought information and contact.

308 I had a face to face meeting with my mother in 1986 - a most unhappy experience for me as my mother made it painfully clear she never wanted to see me again or to have any future contact ...

In my work with Adoption Triangle for the past nine years, I have heard many stories of searching and hoped for contact; some with unhappy endings and some with the happiest endings but most settled down to comfortable relationships. Even with the worst possible scenarios there have always been gains - information, background, identity and a beginning of coming to terms with the grief.

Adoptees who had, or feared, negative experiences under the Act

5.97 The Commission received a number of submissions from adoptees who are unhappy with the new rights to information, and also from adoptive parents stating what they said were the views of their adult adopted children. In some cases the contact has caused distress and disruption to their lives. Most of these people objected to the lack of control they had over their own personal details. That is, they were angry that information about themselves and their adoptive parents would be released against their wishes. Many considered this a breach of privacy.

285 I am a 29 year old adopted person. I feel that it is not fair that I have to pay for my privacy ... Even if I put a veto on, my birth mother can still get my birth certificate and I feel that this is an intrusion into my privacy.

5.98 Others considered it not only a breach of privacy but a threat to their security and peace of mind. Adoptees who had lodged vetoes were particularly angry as they felt that the veto should be able to remove this threat.

128 I payed a mere $50 for my details to be kept my details, so therefore I think that I should be entitled to live my life, without fear of not wanting to answer the door or the telephone, or looking out the window to see an unusual car parked, it’s called “looking over your shoulder”.

5.99 Many adoptees were concerned about the affect the legislation would have on their adoptive parents. They felt that the birth parents’ rights to information breached their adoptive parent’s privacy. Those with older adoptive parents were particularly aware of the stress release of information and contact may cause and were angry that they could not protect their adoptive parents from this.

802 My mother deserves to be enjoying the fruits of raising a fine family - her children and grandchildren. Instead her reward for providing a loving, stable and hardworking home for two unwanted babies is to be pushed closer to death.

5.100 Adoptees who objected to the new access to information, felt that they, as adults, should be able to determine whether information about themselves was released by a government department or adoption agency. They felt angry at their lack of power to prevent the release to birth parents of information about themselves and their adoptive families. Many believed that their birth parents had given up any rights they had when they consented to the adoption. These adoptees felt that their adoptive parents were their real parents and that their birth parents were simply strangers.

5.101 Some adoptees resented being reminded of their adoptive status, and being required to deal with issues arising from it:

I had resolved the matters in my own head ... I never sought any information. The law forced me to think about it again and then to make a response.³⁷

5.102 Adoptees often resented the potential intrusion birth parents could have in their lives. For those at important stages in their development, for example about to do the Higher School Certificate, university exams, entering the workforce, marrying or having children, the appearance of birth parents presented a potential disruption. Some adoptees felt that they simply did not have room in their lives for another whole family, particularly if they were at a stage when they were growing up and breaking childhood ties.³⁸

5.103 It appeared in some cases that adoptees’ hostility to the Act clearly reflected the anxiety and anger displayed by their adoptive parents. In one private interview, an adoptive parent told the Commission that she ‘reassured’ her (handicapped) adopted child, who was said to be terrified of being taken away by the birth parents, by assuring her that if the birth parents arrived she would “set the police on them”.

5.104 Some adoptees who did not want contact were content to lodge a veto and felt secure that they would not be contacted. The majority of adoptees who did not want contact, however, seriously questioned the effectiveness of the veto. They sometimes referred to the veto as a “joke”, because identifying information would still be released. They felt that this would inevitably lead to unwanted contact on the part of a determined birth parent. These adoptees objected to having to pay $50 to protect their privacy when they considered privacy a fundamental right. For all of the above reasons adoptees did not lodge a veto. These adoptees, it seems, do not want contact, but considered the veto an unjustifiably expensive inconvenience.

Impact of the Act on adoptees: conclusions

5.105 Evidence to the Commission confirmed the well established finding that many adoptees feel a great interest in their biological origins. For some, there is a deeply felt need, for others it is more a matter of curiosity. The evidence to the Commission did not suggest that it was only adoptees who had unhappy adoptive homes, or who were in any way pathological, who desired birth information or contact. It did suggest, however, a certain insistency in the desire to find “the missing part of the jigsaw”, to “discover who I am”, (phrases commonly used to try to express the adoptees’ feelings). It also suggested that for almost all adoptees, the need and interest varied over time. It was often strongly felt, for example, when female adoptees had children of their own. Like other researchers, the Commission noticed that the women appeared to be more likely than men to seek information about their birth family.

5.106 It did not seem that adoptees generally wished to replace or disown their adoptive parents; frequently they said that the experience had reinforced their love for their adoptive parents and links with their adoptive relatives. Nor did the adoptees, in the Commission’s view, generally feel angry towards the birth parent, although they often wanted to hear at first hand the reasons why they were relinquished for adoption.

5.107 By no means did all adoptees favour the information rights granted by the Act, however. A substantial minority expressed concerns about privacy, at times echoing arguments and phrases used by their adoptive parents. In many cases, but by no means all, their views were based on anticipated difficulties rather than actual experiences. In most cases, the main focus was on problems anticipated to arise as a result of contact by birth parents, although many of these adoptees shared the view of the Willis Committee that the balance between information rights and protection for privacy should be the same for adoptees and birth parents.

5.108 As one might expect, the expressed attitudes of adoptees to the issues of privacy and information were often similar to those of the adoptive parents, especially in the case of younger adoptees. This was not invariable: in some families different children, even birth siblings adopted into the same family, had very different views.

5.109 The Commission’s inquiry, therefore, indicates that adoptees are generally strongly in favour of their new rights to birth certificates and information about their birth families. A substantial minority, however, are concerned, whether for themselves or their adoptive parents, about the implications of the rights given to birth parents. They differ, too, on whether the contact veto system provides adequate protection against unwanted contact.

ADOPTIVE PARENTS

Introduction

5.110 The views and experiences of adoptive parents formed a large part of the evidence to the Commission. Over 250 written submissions (including form letters prepared by APPG), were received from adoptive parents, and numerous adoptive parents also participated in public hearings and made telephone submissions. The views and concerns of many adoptive parents were reflected in submissions and materials supplied by APPG and other groups. The Commission attended a public meeting at which adoptive parents were well represented, and held lengthy separate meetings with representatives from APPG, and from Central Coast Friends of Adoption. At both of these meetings adoptive parents were very well represented. The Commission also attended a special meeting of the Adoptive Parents Association (APA), and also received a submission from that organisation. In addition, the views and experiences of adoptive parents are considerably discussed in the literature.

5.111 It is clear that many adoptive parents are very concerned about the impact of the Act, and are very hostile to it. As with other categories of people affected by the Act, it is not easy to determine how far those who have made submissions are representative of adoptive parents in general. Adoptive parents who saw the law as violating rights to privacy, and wished to change the law, might be more likely to make submissions than those who were more content with the law, or who were not very interested, especially in the light of the energetic work of the APPG and other similar groups in assisting them to formulate their views and communicate them to the Commission. Nevertheless, a large majority of adoptive parents who made their views known to the Commission were strongly opposed to at least some of the basic principles of the Act, notably the rights given to birth parents. While the level of disapproval may well be lower among adoptive parents generally than among those who made submissions, it seems clear that a great many adoptive parents, probably a substantial majority, are dissatisfied with the Act at least in some important respects.

Adoptive parents hostile to the Act

5.112 The many adoptive parents who were hostile to the Act regarded it as involving a gross violation of their own privacy and that of the adoptees. They resented not being able to prevent personal information about themselves being released to people they consider strangers.

957 I am angry that many items of private information will be available to persons currently unknown to me. The sources of the information are many and varied. The potential for someone who is disinterested in privacy or unfamiliar with what is appropriate in the circumstances is enormous. Excessive amounts of information about my family and myself may be handed over. Privacy is a basic human right that I value highly.

5.113 A persistent theme of these adoptive parents’ submissions is that in supplying information under the Act, the Government is not only violating their privacy but breaking a promise or contract that it made with adoptive parents at the time of the adoption. They were are upset that information they supplied confidentially for the purposes of adopting a child, might be made available for a wholly different purpose, against their wishes. In some cases, they assumed or feared that the information rights under the Act were more extensive than they actually are:

301 The private details supplied by us (on application to adopt children) to the Child Welfare Department in 1967 were supposedly confidential. When the Government decided (who exactly decided?) to hand over all details of adoptions since 1923 to the Benevolent Society (a private charitable institution) what became of our private files? Are they accessible to the ‘Post Adoption Resource Centre’ - presumably formed for this very purpose within the Benevolent Society? Does this mean our financial and health status as well as psychological reports are now open to an unknown number of people not covered by privacy provisions that cover State Government employees?

5.114 Many submissions expressed resentment that government policy had changed so radically in relation to secrecy for adoptions. In their view, in the 1960s parents were assured absolute secrecy.³⁹ They were told that their files were closed, that the birth parents could never discover their names and vice versa. Moreover, they were assured that for the child, the adoptive family and the birth parents, this was the best thing. They were consequently angry that adoption policy seemed to have reversed after they have arranged their lives in accordance with the advice they were given at the time of the adoption.

40 Many years ago when we adopted our children, we were assured by all concerned, the Adoption Agency, the Solicitor, the Child Welfare Department (as it was then called), that our privacy and the privacy of our children and their birth parents was absolutely protected, all relevant papers concerned would be destroyed, BUT by the change in the law, this has all been removed and no matter what is said about vetoes being possible etc ... this is no safeguard to protect our privacy and we feel that no privacy at all remains in our children, the birth parents or our lives. Why was the law allowed to be changed in retrospect? We had believed that from the moment that we adopted our first child, that this child was forever ours, without any interference from anyone, and we cannot understand why this law was altered to allow such invasion of so many folk’s privacy.

398 We were given the assurance that our identity would never be revealed to the natural mother, and without our consent, our daughter would not be able to locate her. We would never have adopted a child if these conditions did not apply.

220 In 1963 my husband and I adopted our eldest daughter. The law at that time assured us that no contact would ever be made by the birth mother, nor were we the adoptive parents ever to contact her and that legally the child was ours. We were told that no surnames would ever be revealed ensuring complete privacy for all concerned. We have kept our side of this agreement but it seems the NSW government can change the rules at whim.

5.115 For adoptive parents who have not told their children that they are adopted, this change in policy posed an agonising dilemma, having to choose between telling their adult children they are adopted or running the risk of the adoptee being informed by an agency, government department or a birth parent or relative.

98 I have never told my daughter that she is adopted, and I know she would be devastated. It was my husband’s dying wish, that she would never know, that he was not her birth father.

903 [W]e have raised two children from the tender ages of 6 weeks of age and 3 weeks of age respectively. They are now in their 30's. Our family have not been told of their adoption as in that era we were advised it was our decision to make. We made the decision that they would be raised as any natural child ... We were assured at the time of these adoptions that by law no access would be possible by birth parents at any time in the future.

447 I am 83 and have two adoptive children, neither of whom know that they are adopted. When these children were adopted back in the 1940s we were advised by the Social Workers, Doctors also the Government authority NOT to reveal this to them as there were sinister connotations with these children ie.

Children of murderers,

Children of prostitutes

Children of people in asylums

Children of unmarried women

etc

so I have never revealed these intimate and personal details to my children and to do this now would not only cause great distress but I feel [it] would be the end of me.

190 When my husband and I adopted our baby son in 1955 we were given absolute assurance that no information would ever be released as to him or our whereabouts, we therefore chose NOT to tell him he was adopted. If it is necessary to change the law to suit a small minority, it should not have been retrospective, and should only apply to adoptions taking place after 1991.

5.116 The retrospective nature of the legislation is obviously a major source of dissatisfaction for these adoptive parents. They frequently said that they did not object to the new access to information provisions applying to adoptions occurring after the Act came into operation, but thought they should not apply to adoptions which had already taken place and which were finalised when a stricter regime of secrecy was in force.

5.117 A frequent theme in the submissions from these adoptive parents was that they had been forgotten, and their efforts in raising the children had not been acknowledged. Some adoptive parents resent what they perceive as the Act’s lack of recognition of their role as parents. They felt that the homes, education, values and love that they have given their children have been ignored and that they are being treated as temporary carers rather than parents. Some thought it unfair that the birth mothers, who they saw as having made no contribution to the children’s welfare, should be given more rights than they themselves, who had raised the children. They saw no advantage to themselves, and no recognition of their needs and perceptions, in the legal change that facilitated a greater flow of information between adoptees and birth parents. Many felt, as some submissions put it, that “the adoption triangle had become two-sided” and that adoptive parents no longer had a place. They felt excluded, in that they could not apply for identifying information under the Act, they could not place vetoes, and they could be left out of a reunion if either the adoptee or the birth parent by-passed them and contacted the other person directly. They felt powerless and discarded.

40 This whole adoption process has become two-sided, with the adoptive parents’ feelings being made to seem inferior. So often after reading reports in the media, we have felt as though we are guilty of some dreadful crime, almost as though we had snatched these children from their mothers’ arms, when all that we did was to open our hearts and our homes within the law to children who otherwise in those days, would be placed in an institution.

398 The child and the natural parents have all the rights. WE have none. We have only done the work, paid the bills and brought up a lovely child as our own. If people were not happy to adopt these children, they would have been fostered out, sometimes going from home to home. We, the adopting parents must have saved the government millions of dollars.

5.118 Many of these adoptive parents were concerned for the security and peace of mind of their children as well as themselves. If their children indicated that they would prefer not to have contact with a birth parent, or objected to identifying information about themselves being released, adoptive parents were concerned that their children’s wishes should be respected. Some adoptive parents indicated that they experienced a sense of frustration and powerlessness, knowing that if the birth parent choses to access the information, contrary to their child’s wish, there is nothing they can do to stop this.

5.119 Many adoptive parents were concerned about the time the access to information provisions come into operation. Eighteen year olds are often about to sit their Higher School Certificate, and their parents felt that having to make a decision about placing a veto or organising a reunion would be a major disruption at that time. Some adoptive parents simply felt that 18 was too young and that their children would not be emotionally mature enough to deal with a reunion or placing a veto, or more generally to make a decision that could affect the rest of their lives.

5.120 Some adoptive parents have experienced difficulty with the Act when their child does not place a veto, but does wish to avoid contact. In this situation the adoptive parents were upset about the prospect of any unwanted direct contact with the child. They found it distressing if they perceived their child as being unnecessarily disturbed by a birth parent.

5.121 Adoptive parents can also find themselves in the position of an intermediary between the adoptee and birth parent, as birth parents often feel that it is proper to contact the adoptive parents first, rather than the child. If the adoptee does not want contact, the adoptive parents can be left with the considerable emotional burden of dealing with the birth parent. The Commission received submissions from adoptive parents whose children refused to answer the telephone when their birth parents called, leaving their adoptive parent to speak to them. If the adoptee no longer lived at home and the birth parent only had the adoptive parent’s address, the adoptive parent would be forced to reply to all mail from the birth parent, explaining why the adoptee did not want contact. This could lead the adoptive parent to resent the birth parent and object to the operation of the Act.

5.122 Overall, adoptive parents who objected to the Act seemed to be suffering from the pressure that is now put on adoptive families to take a positive step in order to maintain the status quo. Many adoptive parents were happy with the Adopted Persons Contact Register because it guaranteed that they would not have to come into contact with their children’s birth parents, unless this was their children’s express desire. Now the only way contact can be prevented is through the veto system which adoptive parents are not entitled to use. They are in this respect entirely dependant on their children’s wishes. Some adoptees do not want to veto and others simply could not be bothered. This can leave adoptive parents feeling vulnerable. Many adoptive parents whose children have placed a veto do not believe the veto will be effective, so that they, too, receive little comfort.

Adoptive parents in favour of the Act

5.123 A significant minority of adoptive parents who made submissions supported the legislation. Often these people have been seeking information on behalf of their children for many years and are pleased that it is finally forthcoming.⁴⁰ It was common for such an adoptive parent to seek contact with a birth parent as a chance to express their gratitude for the opportunity of having the adoptee in the family. Some have watched the anguish and frustration of their children’s searches and are relieved to see these searches end in happy reunions. They perceive that as a result their children are happier and more satisfied people.

477 As adopting parents, we have always felt our children’s parents had a right to know they were well and happy, we have also believed our children had a right to know more of [their] identities and to meet their birth parents if that was mutually desired. We don’t own our children and acknowledge they have another part of their lives, they are entitled to information. We would be very sad if the NSW Adoption Information Act 1990 is altered to bring back the ban on our children’s rights. We feel no threat if our daughter makes contact with her mother, she loves us and nothing will change our love for her.

335 I think that it is wonderful that adopted persons can make contact with their birth families. The relationship with my adopted daughter has been enhanced. It has not affected her father and brothers in any way.

When I asked my daughter how she felt about making contact, she said, “I feel more a whole person. I know why I am the shape I am. I have my mum’s hair and my nose comes from my dad’s family. Nobody has eyes like I have, but grandad thinks that they are my grandmother’s.”

I haven’t had any issues arising from the Act, in relation to which I have needed help. My only complaint is that the legislation should have been introduced years ago - preferably about 1965 ...

868(b) We were contacted by our daughter’s birth mother ... A complete reunion took place soon after that date and during the last twelve months we have established a warm and loving relationship between the two extended families ... Our daughter was astounded [by the birth mother’s contact] and took some time to come to terms with it ... As we all struggled with our emotions at one point, our [adopted] son assured us we would not lose him or his sister. I sense that our daughter has an increased respect and affection for us, following the reunion with her birth mother. Other members of our extended families were each affected differently. My father-in-law was not at all keen on a reunion taking place initially, but was happy after it had happened because he immediately liked our daughter’s birth mother ...

I believe very strongly that adoptive parents who do not tell their adopted children are foolish in the extreme. Arguing that they never expected the law to change is no defence. In effect these people are living a lie by hiding the truth ...

I do think the law should give adoptive parents the right to obtain original birth certificates ... However, I would be most concerned if adoptive parents could veto contact between birth mothers and adult adoptees ...

11 My adopted son has just turned 20, and this week we made contact with his natural sister. I am only sorry it couldn’t have happened earlier ... In April he decided that the only way he could “get his head together” was to find out who he really was, so we set about making an application for his birth certificate ... It is early days yet, but I believe that finding his Mum will be the best thing that ever happened to my son. He hasn’t met her yet, or even spoken to his sister, but hangs on every word we tell him about them. He now realises that his mother was pressured, not rejecting. It won’t affect our relationship. If we don’t know each other by now, and love each other enough to want what is best for each other, then we never will.

5.125 Adoptive parents who are supportive of reunions with the adoptee’s birth family more often than not found that their relationship with their child was strengthened. They found that the experience of searching for and finding a birth family brought them closer together. They discovered that the birth parents would not take their place as parents, but would simply be friends to their adopted children. It is likely in many of these cases the ground for a positive outcome had often been laid during the adoptees’ childhoods. One adoptive parent described the following incident involving an adopted daughter:

335 When in her early teens, she walked into the house one day and said, “What a horrible person my real mother must be, to give me up for adoption”. Then and there, I told her about the stigma of illegitimacy; how it affected both mother and child; how it would have been virtually impossible and socially unacceptable for her mother to have kept her; and that in giving her up for adoption, the mother was thinking of the child’s future welfare, rather than her own.

5.126 Some adoptive parents in favour of the Act expressed dissatisfaction with not being able to apply for information themselves. Often these parents’ children were not interested in searching themselves so there was no likelihood of contact unless the birth parents took the initiative. These adoptive parents often wanted contact to obtain medical information, particularly in relation to mental illness. One adoptive parent who spoke to the Commission had custody of her adopted daughter’s child. The daughter suffered from a schizophrenia and the adoptive mother was seeking information for the sake of her grandchild. She had been denied information on the ground that only her daughter could apply.

Ambivalent attitudes

5.127 A valuable insight into the more complex and ambivalent attitudes of some adoptive parents was provided by the meeting the Commission had with the Adoptive Parents Association, and that Association’s submission.⁴¹ The Association welcomed the Act insofar as it granted information rights to adoptees, but was more ambivalent towards the rights given to birth parents:

It was not envisaged that the law would change to give birth parents rights to information. Adoptive parents and society have been preparing for the access to information by adoptees since the 1970s at least.

Relinquishing mothers know their roots and identity, they do not need to find them, and therefore theirs is not the same need [as adoptees] ... Adoptive parents acknowledge that relinquishing mothers do have grief but this isn’t necessarily cured by the law. They cannot have their babies back and life isn’t fair. Although birth mothers have their sympathy, adoptive parents do not feel that their right to information should be automatic ... The rights of a birth mother should be circumscribed ...

Attitudes to adoption and the other parties to adoption

5.130 Submissions from adoptive parents hostile to the Act often expressed the view, either expressly or implicitly, that there would have been no difficulties or issues to be resolved had the Act not been passed. These parents, it seems, had approached their role as if it were no different from that of other parents. In this approach they had received considerable support from the law, and, it seems, from professional and lay advice. The underlying basis of the adoption selection process and their behaviour as parents was that they should behave exactly as if they were the biological parents.⁴² They saw this as being in the interests of all parties. The child’s interest would be promoted by having an ‘ordinary’ family. The birth mother was seen as someone who had permanently and completely relinquished the child, and would probably not welcome being reminded of this episode in her life, or having it revealed to people who knew her.

5.131 As will be apparent from some of the quotations in this chapter,⁴³ some members of adoptive families showed a degree of stereotyping and moral condemnation of birth mothers, who were perceived as very different types of people from members of the adoptive family. Although this was a feature of a significant number of submissions, especially from those concerned to protect their privacy, it was by no means universal. Many adoptive parents and adoptees, probably the majority, had a more favourable and sympathetic view of birth parents, and one or two adoptive mothers remarked wryly that had it not been for good fortune, they might well have found themselves in the same position.

5.132 Against this background, many adoptive parents saw the new information laws, in effect, as upsetting the natural order of things. They found it difficult to understand why a birth parent would seek information or contact, and considered that those who would do so must be an atypical, and perhaps unbalanced, minority. There appears to be a link between this perception and the view of some adoptive parents that a contact veto would not stop such people from making contact to satisfy their needs. There may also be a link, in some cases, with stereotypes associated with unmarried motherhood: this emerges clearly from submission 447, quoted above. These adoptive parents also tended to see curiosity by their adopted children as reflecting adversely on their performance as parents. Many submissions from adoptive parents stressed that their children were well adjusted, and had experienced very happy and satisfying family lives, and (in consequence) had no interest in seeking information about their birth families. The underlying assumption (which is contrary to much of the evidence to the Commission, and to the views of most modern researchers) appears to be that only adoptees who have not had a good family life will want to seek out their birth family.

5.133 These ideas may also be reflected in some of the arguments advanced by those who see the law as violating privacy rights. In particular, the intense resistance to paying fees for a contact veto may be linked with the view that there is something ‘unnatural’ about providing information rights, and it is unreasonable to expect people to pay for restoring what they see as the natural order of things. They are also relevant to adoptive parents’ attitudes to counselling and support: these adoptive parents are likely to feel offended and threatened by any suggestion that they might benefit from counselling or professional advice. Such a suggestion violates their sense of being an ordinary family, whose main need is to be left alone, both by ‘do-gooders’ and by members of the birth family.

5.134 Such views could naturally affect the children. The submissions and the literature both indicate that in such families adoption can become an awkward or taboo subject, with a tacit agreement between parents and children that it should not be mentioned.⁴⁴ In this situation, silence on the part of the children can be interpreted by the parents as indicating that they are not interested. In some cases this is far from the truth: as noted, many adoptees felt that in order to protect their adoptive parents they should not openly discuss their desire for information. Adoptees spoke to the Commission of soon learning ‘not to ask questions’ about a subject that evidently caused their parents considerable discomfort. Some waited until the adoptive parents had died before taking action;⁴⁵ others did so without their parents’ knowledge. Some of those who discovered they were adopted did not reveal to the parents that they were aware of their adoptive status. On the other hand, in some families adoptees and adoptive parents alike maintain the ordinariness of the adoptive family: see for example the adoptive parent quoted in the MSJ Keys Young Report at B21. As stated in their Report, “the fear of loss following a decision to search can be experienced by both the adopting parents and the adoptee”.⁴⁶

5.135 The difference between adoptive parents who are opposed to or threatened by the Act and those who are not is very striking, and on the basis of the available evidence does not appear to have a clear relationship with such matters as age, or social class. The MSJ Keys Young Report suggests that the difference may be linked to different patterns of family functioning, with members of ‘closed’ families more threatened by the Act than members of more ‘open’ families.⁴⁷ This suggests, for example, that the similarity between the views of some adoptees with those of their adoptive parents may often be better explained by the fact that “members of a closed family share similar attitudes towards outsiders” than by the criticism attributed to some birth mothers that adoptive parents bring pressure on their children, although of course this may also occur, whether consciously or otherwise.

Impact of the Act on adoptive parents: conclusions

5.136 The majority of adoptive parents appear to be strongly opposed to the Act, especially insofar as it gives information rights to birth parents. A sizeable minority, on the other hand, support the Act, but are generally more enthusiastic about the granting of rights to adoptees than to birth parents. Most of the written submissions from adoptive parents opposed to the Act took a strong form. They said that the retrospective operation of the Act was a breach of the ‘contract’ under which they accepted children for adoption, which they saw as guaranteeing that identifying information would not be released. They doubt the effectiveness of the contact veto, and advocate a law under which identifying information is only released where both parties have agreed in advance, or, at least, that the veto should be such as to prevent the release of identifying information. However it was clear that some adoptive parents, probably under-represented in the written submissions, took a more tentative and ambivalent view. They were concerned about the impact of the law on their lives, but saw the strength of the case for establishing information rights.

5.137 The high level of anxiety of so many adoptive parents is not matched by available evidence about the attitudes and behaviour of adoptees and birth parents who seek information, or the outcomes of contacts. While many of the privacy-oriented adoptive parents tend to think of birth parents as unsettled or unstable people who are willing to disrupt the adoptive family to satisfy their own needs, the evidence strongly points to the opposite conclusion. Again, while these adoptive parents see contact as potentially devastating, evidence about actual reunions indicates that in fact it is overall a positive experience for the majority of those who are ‘found’ as well as virtually all those who are searchers.

5.138 It may be that the mismatch between the perceptions of these adoptive parents and the actual situation is linked to a range of attitudes and assumptions some of which were greatly encouraged by the law and practice of adoption at the relevant time. These attitudes and assumptions include the view that treating the adoptive family as if it were the biological family is in the interests of all concerned. It is now known that, unfortunately for these adoptive parents, these assumptions are not generally true: denying the reality of the biological links, and attempting to keep the child’s origins secret, often produces continuing strains and tensions for all the parties. True or not, however, the assumptions may hold a central place in the family lives of these adoptive parents, and some of their children. Changing such attitudes and patterns of behaviour is very difficult, and is resisted by many of these adoptive parents, who have not surprisingly devoted their energies into attempting to change the law, which they see as unnecessary and unfair, rather than adapting to it.

5.139 There is no doubt that the impact of the law on many adoptive parents is harsh, essentially because of the tension created by the information rights, especially as the rights of the birth parents, are fundamentally inconsistent with maintaining a denial of the actual history of the adopted person. That denial takes its most obvious and painful form where the adopted person does not know of his or her adoptive status. But it may also exist, in a less obvious form, where adoptive parents deny the ordinariness of the birth parent’s desire for information about the adoptee, or assume that the birth parent is likely to lack sensitivity and ordinary decency in using the information made available by the Act.

5.140 It seems likely that the anxieties of adoptive parents will ease somewhat over time, as the evidence about the operation of the law becomes more widely known. If the Commission’s understanding is correct, however, this process is unlikely to be swift or complete, for the habits and attitudes built up over time are not easily changed. And there will undoubtedly continue to be accounts of unhappy contacts, and insensitive or disturbed birth parents or adoptees, which will contribute to continuing anxieties on the part of adoptive parents.

5.141 It is obviously desirable to respond to the needs of this large group of angry and anxious people. The question whether the law should be changed is addressed elsewhere: the Commission’s view is that nothing in this review indicates that the Act should be changed in its basic features, but that a number of changes should be made to provide greater protection for those who feel that the Act violates their rights to privacy. These matters are considered in Chapters 6 and 7. The Commission’s recommendations, which are consistent with the basic features of the Act, should provide considerable benefit for people concerned about privacy, although they do not go as far as many would like, because to do so would undermine the Act and cause a great deal of hardship to adoptees and birth parents.

5.142 In the Commission’s view, it is desirable that everything possible be done to make available to those who feel threatened by the Act accurate information about the experiences of other people who have been affected by it. Adoptive parents who have not been able to take the step of telling adult adoptees of their adoptive status might benefit from talking with others who have, and with others whose children have been contacted by birth parents. Some may be assisted by discussions about the benefits and stresses arising from different ways of responding to the challenge of adoptive parenting. Some submissions to the Commission suggested that some adoptive parents may benefit from attention to unresolved difficulties associated with infertility.

5.143 An indication of the possible needs of some adoptive parents is given in a recent publication by a former President of the Adoptive Parents Association of Victoria (APAV):

A person can choose to run away from a challenge. Alternatively the challenge can be viewed as an opportunity, albeit a forced one, to become better informed, to gain new insights with unexpected horizons. Surely it is the role of the adoption community to assist individuals and families to embrace the second view when personally confronted with the somewhat frightening changes in adoption law and practice which began in Victoria in 1984 ...

Even well-informed members of APAV have expressed the same sort of feelings of stress as adoptive parents who somehow were unaware of the changes to the law until it affected them. The feelings are fairly universal ... loss of control, loss of own image, return of grief over infertility and loneliness because no-one understands ...⁴⁸

5.144 As noted earlier, however, many adoptive parents are likely to resist such initiatives. In particular, although PARC and adoption agencies would be well placed to offer counselling, and establish group sessions for adoptive parents, many adoptive parents appear to see them as so identified with development of information rights that they might not be perceived as appropriate sources of support for persons whose main concern is to protect their privacy.

5.145 The Commission recommends that there be further examination of forms of assistance that might be useful and acceptable to adoptive parents of adult adoptees. It may be that their own support groups such as the APA or the APPG, would be willing to assist in such an exercise, and perhaps, with appropriate financial support, to participate in the provision of assistance. In the Commission’s view it would be appropriate for there to be government funding for such initiatives if they are thought to be viable. Although the Commission does not consider that the argument against retrospectivity requires repealing the Act (see Chapter 6) there is a strong case that the Government should support any reasonable measures that can be devised that would assist adoptive parents and others to adjust to changes in law which have indeed involved a major, and for some very painful, change in the ‘rules of the game’ that applied at the time of the adoption.

EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBERS

5.146 The Commission found that the impact the Act had on extended family members varies, partly according to whether they themselves sought information and contact, or had been contacted, or were affected indirectly through other family members. Relatives in the last category were generally influenced by the reaction of the related adoptee, birth parent or adoptive parent to the new law. That is, if an adoptee was strongly in favour of the legislation, his or her family would almost invariably support it, while relatives of those opposed to the legislation, often shared that opposition.

444 My sister was adopted into our family in the 1970s and is regarded as “FAMILY” in every sense of the word. However, she felt threatened when the ADOPTION LAW changed and allowed birth certificates to be issued to relinquishing parents, even though she has lodged a contact veto. Surely it is her right to make the decision whether she wants any of her details released and that of our parents. This is totally an invasion of privacy, how dare my own and my parents private information be made available to Birth Relations of my sister.

5.147 Where contact has actually occurred, as a result of the legislation, some families have not reacted well. This is particularly so if the person directly concerned is no longer alive and never told their family of the adoption. For example, the Commission heard from one woman whose late husband, unknown to her, was a birth father. She discovered this when his adopted daughter contacted her after having accessed her birth certificate. This revelation caused considerable shock as the woman had been married for 46 years and her husband had never mentioned a relinquished child.

5.148 Many reunions however, have had positive ramifications for extended families. The Commission heard many stories of birth parents and adoptees being warmly welcomed into their extended families. At times, the adoptee or birth parent who makes contact will develop a stronger and more rewarding relationship with a different member of the extended family than the person originally sought. These accounts are somewhat similar to the evidence provided in the Tabak study, noted above and discussed more fully in Chapter 6.

5.149 The submissions indicate that other children of birth parents generally react favourably to contact initiated by an adopted birth sibling. For some, especially where the birth parents had married, their long held hopes of ‘completing’ the family were fulfilled when they met their parents’ other child, their full brother or sister. Although it seems that most such reunions have positive outcomes, the Commission heard of a few cases in which the children of the birth parent reacted negatively, and rejected the birth parent. In some cases, the arrival of the adoptee can be seen as something of a threat, especially in displacing the role of the eldest child in the family.

5.150 Relatives who were themselves searching had a different perspective on the Act. They were often frustrated with the legislation as they were invariably denied access to birth certificates and prescribed information. The lack of information rights for relatives has affected many non-adopted siblings of adoptees. Their parents are often dead and they feel that the right to information about a brother or sister should pass to them. These people may have known the child as a baby and have vivid memories of it ‘disappearing’. They may feel a strong need to reunite that person with the family. There is no provision for relatives to ‘inherit’ rights to information under the Act, in spite of the Willis Committee recommendations.⁴⁹

5.151 Some non-adopted siblings whose parents are still alive advocate that they should have a right to information independently of their parents. They believe that as adults they should be entitled to contact their siblings, regardless of their parents’ wishes in relation to a reunion. They feel that their parents should not be able to deny them the opportunity to form a relationship with an adopted sibling, if that is the adopted and the non-adopted sibling’s wish.

5.152 Natural and adoptive grandparents also resent their inability to access information. Grandparents may have custody of their grandchildren, giving them a particular interest in applying for information. One woman who wrote to the Commission had custody of one of her daughter’s children, but the other had been adopted. She wanted to be placed on the Reunion Information Register but was told that she would not be allowed to without her daughter’s permission. She has not spoken to her daughter in three years. In another submission, the parents of a birth father told the Commission how they had grieved for their natural grandchild ever since the adoption. The birth mother was too scared to access information, the birth father was not named on the birth certificate so he could not apply, and the grandparents had no rights at all.

5.153 The varied ramifications of the Act for extended families are well summed up by the submission of a step-mother of two adoptees. The step-mother had acted as an intermediary in an attempted reunion between her step-daughter and her step-daughter’s birth mother. The reunion did not turn out as they had hoped. However, her step-son’s birth sister had made contact with him and a good relationship had formed between the birth sister’s family and the step-son’s (adoptive) family. Her step-son’s wife had also made contact with a child of her father’s, adopted out at birth, of whom she had only recently become aware. The step-mother said of the impact of the Act:

933 All this, as you can imagine, has placed great stress on our family, not least on our fourteen year old [natural] daughter. It is hard for her to categorise family relationships now. Who are her relatives and who are not? It is difficult to explain the difference between a legal sibling and a blood sibling when emotions enter in ... It is all very confusing to a young teenager (and perhaps also to those of us who are older) not to know any more where are the boundaries of one’s family ...

This change in the law means that [birth mothers’] carefully built life, with the putting behind of past mistakes, may come tumbling down. For the families they may have had since, there is a complete over-turning of family relationships and assumptions - and even memories - as they discover depths of hidden secrets in someone they thought they knew. Yet for [our adopted daughter] and other adopted people there is a genetic and emotional void which needs to be addressed in some way. That “one mistake” that someone made resulted in a new life. That new life deserves access to full information and an emotional link with who they are, just as those of us have who are reared in their genetic family.

I am brought to the conclusion that there are no rights or wrongs to this legislation. No matter what is done, there is pain for someone - often for many people - as a lifetime’s secrets are brought to life.

This is part of the story of what one family has been through in the past eighteen months. It is not everything - how do you describe the mixed emotions of a step-by-step search, of hope, rejection, anger, further hope, of anguish as we see the pain, misery, hope of someone we love, of shock in discovering extra people who had not even entered into our thought processes, confusion, acceptance, pain, delight. How do you explain the extraordinary paradox in relationships which has meant that as we encourage [our daughter] to find her birth mother, in a way opening ourselves to potential risk, our relationships within our family have grown and deepened.

CONTACT AND REUNIONS

5.154 Each story of contact or reunion, attempted or achieved, is different, but some generalisations can be made.⁵⁰ Experiences of reunions are complex, diverse, and almost invariably emotional. They typically go through stages. The initial contact is likely to be highly charged, after which the relationship changes: in some cases, it dwindles, in others, it develops. Contact typically involves other family members, and the various interactions that follow provide one reason why it is impossible to describe the ‘normal’ reunion.⁵¹

Intermediaries

5.155 The use of intermediaries (often referred to as ‘mediators’) was the subject of much comment. Many submissions emphasised the value of making contact through experienced and sensitive intermediaries, such as PARC, Adoption Triangle, and other organisations and individuals. Some searchers who made contact directly said that with hindsight they could see that it might have been better to have someone make the approach on their behalf. Fear of rejection was common, both on the part of birth parents and adoptees.⁵² Skilled intermediaries often provided valuable lines of communication before contact was made, enabling the parties to learn of each other’s attitude to making contact and sharing information. The evidence indicates that most people are willing to accept the level of relationship the other wants, although they may be disappointed, and really want something more (or perhaps less).

5.156 The majority of searchers who used intermediaries to make contact believed that this was the best approach. They felt that it reduced the initial shock to the person being contacted and gave them some breathing space to decide what they wanted to do. A number of people who made direct contact also supported the use of intermediaries, stating that while direct contact worked for them, they would not advise it for others. Most felt that intermediaries should not be compulsory however, as people should have the power to decide what is best for them. They felt that for too long adoption has been an area where the main players have been told what to do by social workers and bureaucrats and that it was time they controlled their own lives.

Counselling and support

5.157 Lack of counselling was a concern to many people dealing with information about adoption, particularly in country areas. Many people were relying on self-help groups which, while providing considerable support, did not always have the resources to help everyone in need. PARC provided valuable counselling and advice but was not accessible to people throughout the State. Some searchers indicated that PARC’s 008 number was difficult to get through to, but this could have been a result of an initial rush to obtain information.

5.158 Counselling and support may be crucial to people involved in a reunion. Family and friends often cannot provide the necessary support, either because they have no experience, or they are too much involved in the situation themselves. Impartial advice from an experienced adoption worker can assist with decisions, such as the next appropriate step, or the wording of a letter. Counselling can provide a forum for exploring feelings and anxieties, especially with others in similar situations. Adoptees have reported feeling uncomfortable speaking of adoption issues with their adoptive family, and also of believing that no one shared their feelings.

5.159 Counselling and support may not be available to many people: some because of their own reluctance to use it, others who are restricted by geographical isolation. As noted earlier in this chapter, some people (including adoptive parents) are averse to counselling because they believe it would signal a weakness or abnormality in themselves. A professional person to confide in could afford relief for all people who feel anxious about adoption issues. It is important that appropriate and acceptable support services are available to all members of the adoption community.

5.160 Skilled intermediaries also provided information and counselling, which in many cases helped people prepare for a range of possible outcomes. A number of submissions to the Commission complained that the media presented only ‘happy stories’ of reunions, and others that it presented only ‘disaster stories’. Certainly there were examples of both. Overly pessimistic expectations can produce unnecessary anxiety, and overly optimistic expectations can, as remarked in the MSJ Keys Young Report, “set people up for disappointment and failure if they fall short”.⁵³ It does not follow that counselling, or the use of intermediaries, should be made compulsory. Compulsion would be resented by some, and is arguably not an efficient use of scarce resources. Although there is room for difference of opinion on this question, and different jurisdictions have provided different answers to it, nothing in the Commission’s inquiry suggested that the Willis Committee was in error in leaving counselling, and the use of intermediaries, as a matter for the judgment of the parties themselves.⁵⁴

Reunion experiences

5.161 It is clear from the evidence that experiences do range (sometimes among different participants in a particular reunion) between great joy and relief to extreme distress and disruption.⁵⁵ In the Commission’s view, however, relatively few reunions fit entirely into either category. The complex and ambivalent feelings possible even in ‘successful’ reunions are neatly expressed by a 37 year old woman three years after a reunion with her birth mother, who said:

I had a happy adoption and I love my adoptive parents, I love my birth mother with whom I have had a good reunion, why do I feel so confused?

5.162 Reunions involve a mixture of emotions for all concerned, with some members of the families welcoming the experience, some others wishing it had never happened, and others ambivalent or uninvolved. These ‘mixed’ reactions, which tend to be difficult to describe and are not the most useful to cite in the course of lobbying for or against the Act, probably represent the majority of cases.

5.163 The range of experiences and reactions has already been illustrated earlier in this chapter, but the following brief accounts may be useful at this point:

Ruth, an adoptive mother, told of Jenny, her 21 year old daughter being contacted by her 42 year old birth mother, Sarah. Ruth recognised Jenny's need to know of her origins but wondered where she herself would now fit in. Her distress centred on her anxiety that Sarah may try to take over. She feared losing her cherished daughter and didn’t know how she should react to the friendship Sarah and Jenny seemed to be establishing.

June, an adoptee in her 20s found her birth mother and made contact. June’s adoptive mother could not accept the situation and began making phone calls to the birth mother, abusing her.

Karl, an adoptee in his late thirties, suffered neglect and abuse in an adoptive family. The much longed for reunion with his birth mother found a neurotic and demanding woman wanting to maintain contact but unwilling to acknowledge Karl to her existing family. The pressures of the situation were such that he was unable to carry on his work. He says that with the support of his wife and participation in a group he has, in the course of a year, emerged with a new and confident sense of identity and self-worth. He has resolved many issues with his birth mother and adoptive family and plans now to move into a new area of employment.

5.164 Some adoptees have not reached a stage in their life when they need to make contact themselves, but do not want to discourage contact if their birth parents desire it. Some adoptees, like birth parents, will not search for fear of rejection. They may believe that if their birth parents ‘did not want them’ once, they will not want to know them now. Some adoptees may desire contact, but do not search for fear of hurting their adoptive parents. Many older adoptees indicated that they would never have searched while their adoptive parents were still alive.

5.165 For adoptees and birth parents in any of the above categories, contact may be anything from joyous to traumatic. It seems that however and whenever the initial contact is made, it will always involve considerable emotional upheaval. Initial reaction is usually shock and it can take time for people to adjust and decide if they want to continue the relationship. For those who were not expecting contact, this decision can be difficult, particularly if they are placed in the situation of having to tell family members of an adoptee or birth parent’s existence. In other cases, the person contacted may have actually been waiting for the contact to be made. One birth mother, when rung by an adoption agency and asked “Do you know why we are calling?”, immediately replied “Yes. Where is she?”.

5.166 Submissions indicated that the process of making contact was often seen as commencing an unpredictable chain of events which were likely to change substantially the lives of those involved. People affected said, for example, that “life would never be the same again” after contact, that “you can’t put the clock back”, that it is an “irrevocable step”. This is clearly so in some cases, although the significance of the effects, and their duration, varies from case to case. Reunions often lead to complex readjustments in the family relationships of the parties, especially when it is attempted to limit the extent of the disclosure. MSJ Keys Young reported that one adopted woman who was prevented by a veto from contacting her birth mother made contact with a half sister, who was ignorant of the adoption:

... they both presumed the mother (who is now widowed) is protecting herself in relation to the second family by the veto. The second family, in turn, is experiencing difficulty in keeping the new “auntie” a secret from the mother lest she be upset. Oh what tangled webs we weave ...⁵⁶

5.167 In a small number of cases, the Commission heard of insensitive and intrusive behaviour following contact. One birth mother, for example, complained of harassment by members of the adoptee’s family, involving constant phone calls and “emotional blackmail”.⁵⁷ Similarly, an adoptee said that contact was exciting at first but had become difficult to live with; she found the “intrusion into her life” of the birth parents difficult to handle, wished it had never happened.⁵⁸ There is a lack of evidence, of course, about the long-term impact of contacts resulting from the 1990 Act, but those who complain of a recently experienced unwelcome contact often speak in strong terms, referring, for example, to feeling “desolated”, and of experiencing adverse effects on their personality, their health and their ability to cope with ordinary life. There were also some statements to the effect that contact had accelerated some deaths, broken up marriages, and disrupted families. For these people, the perceived effects of contact on the lives of these people were the opposite of those experienced by the larger number of people for whom obtaining information and making contact were positive, and who spoke of the extensive benefits that the experience brought to their lives.

5.168 Detailed study would be required in order to understand fully the extent of such difficulties in any particular case, and the connections between the range of events and personalities involved. In some cases the adverse consequences might be linked with other causes. In some the seriousness of the consequences may reflect the extent to which the persons contacted had elected to base their self-esteem and relationships with others on the hope that the facts relating to events in their past would never become known. In others, the consequences will be attributable more simply to insensitive or gross behaviour by one or more of those involved. While the actual occurrence of such events appears to be uncommon, such events are widely feared. The Commission has treated these submissions very seriously, and has attempted to respond to the problems posed by such cases in its recommendations for increased protection for privacy, set out in Chapter 7.

5.169 PARC’s view of the complex and varied experience of contact and reunions, which is consistent with the evidence to the Commission, is stated as follows:

The claim that the Adoption Information Act causes pain is undeniable. What is overlooked or goes unacknowledged by those making this claim, is that adoption is based in loss and grief - the loss by the adopted person of birth parents and the connection to genetic roots, the loss by the birth parents of their child and the opportunity to create a normal parental relationship with the child, for most adoptive parents the loss of genetic continuity, of giving birth to the child of their relationship and seeing that child develop to maturity. Pain is inextricably interwoven into the institution and process of adoption. Earlier adoption legislation tended to accept the assumption that the placement of a child and the making of the Order of Adoption provided a neat and conclusive solution to the problems of all three parties - it did not provide for the possibility of there being ongoing needs.

It has became increasingly clear over the years that, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, for all three groups, adopted people, birth parents and adoptive parents, there remains unfinished business. For some people the inability to deal with these issues because of lack of access to information has been the cause of such deep seated bitterness and frustration that it overshadows their whole life. For others it has been a source of chronic pain, bearable but debilitating ...⁵⁹

Attempted reunion involves considerable personal risk, the risk of rejection, the risk of discovering adverse and distressing information, the risk of acquiring unanticipated responsibilities. Even “successful” reunion carries its own costs for individuals and families in terms of old sorrows relived, adjustments to be made, new relationships accommodated. The potential gains in terms of personal growth and enhancement of the quality of life are undoubted. Arriving at that goal can however involve a prolonged and painful journey. There will inevitably be some who regard the experience as a negative one and who see themselves as being worse off as a result. These latter constitute a minority of our clients ... ⁶⁰

The ‘persons found’ survey

5.170 The ‘persons found’ survey, described in the Introduction to this chapter, is also relevant in assessing the evidence about contact and reunions. It is useful to divide the cases into very general categories, namely cases where the result of the experience for the person found appears to have been either positive or at least acceptable, cases where the consequences have been negative or unacceptable, and cases where the results are equivocal or unknown. On this approach the results of the survey are as follows:

Contact experienced as positive/acceptable	27	(66%)
Contact experienced as negative/unacceptable	8	(19.5%)
Experience equivocal or unknown	6	(14.5%)
Total Cases	41

[Link to text only version of table]

5.171 This small survey must be treated with caution. The judgment on whether the contact is experienced as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ (obviously very broad categories) represents the Commission’s opinion based on the brief case studies provided by PARC. Nevertheless, it has the advantage of focusing on a random group of persons found through PARC, and should give at least a rough indication of the likely reactions of other people with whom contact is made as a result of the Act. The results are consistent with the opinions of experienced post-adoption counsellors, and with other evidence examined by the Commission. They are also consistent with research in other jurisdictions, including Victoria which is reviewed in Chapter 6.

5.172 The survey indicates that for the majority of persons found as a result of the Act, at least where a professional intermediary is involved, the experience is a positive one, although it is negative for a substantial minority, probably somewhere between 15-30%. Other evidence indicates, as would be expected, that the experience of the searchers is overwhelmingly positive: very few regret having searched, even where their discoveries fall short of their hopes. Overall, therefore, on the basis of the submissions to the Commission, evidence from other jurisdictions, and the present survey, it can be said with some confidence that the early experience of the birth parents and adopted persons affected by the Act is positive, although for a significant minority, perhaps about 10-20%, it is negative.

IMPACT OF CONTACT VETOES

5.173 The contact veto system received a great deal of comment, as was to be expected, and indeed desired, by the Commission. Its importance as a statutory mechanism designed to protect privacy was well understood. The Commission had specifically invited comments on the contact veto system, and in particular the degree of compliance with it, in the Issues Paper, press releases and advertisements.

5.174 The administration of the contact veto system is discussed in Chapter 4, and its place as a ‘basic principle’, and arguments about its desirability, are considered in Chapter 6. This section discusses the evidence received by the Commission about the impact of the contact veto system on people affected by it.

Level of acceptance

5.175 Many people regarded the contact veto system as a fair and workable resolution of the potential conflict between rights to information and concerns about privacy. This appeared to be the majority view among those who made submissions made to the Commission, and was strongly supported by virtually all those professionally involved in adoption.

5.176 The system was however regarded as unsatisfactory by a large number of people, especially adoptive parents but including some adoptees and birth parents. At the heart of the opposition was the view that the system was wrong in principle, because identifying information should not be made available without the consent of the person concerned. Another important theme of the criticism was that the system would not be effective. These two views were closely linked to more specific matters, in particular resentment about the necessity to attend personally when lodging a veto, and having to pay fees. It was often suggested that many people who were very concerned to prevent contact would not lodge a veto because of their strong objections. It may be that in some cases this was a convenient rationalisation for not having lodged a veto because of a simple failure to take the appropriate steps, or a calculation that a payment of $50.00, or personal attendance at a Department of Community Services office, was too high a price to pay to avoid the risk of unwanted contact. It seems likely, too, that in many cases the decision may have been based on the view, which as shown below is incorrect, that most information recipients would ignore a veto. Nevertheless it is probably true that resentment about aspects of the veto system, rather than an indifference about contact, accounts for the failure of a considerable number of people to take what might otherwise seem to the obvious and relatively painless step of lodging a veto to avoid or regulate contact.

5.177 A small minority of submissions argued that the system imposed undue restrictions on information recipients, and that there should be no legal restrictions on contact flowing from the receipt of birth certificates or information obtained under the Act. These submissions suggested that there was no need for legal enforcement when compliance would come from a desire to respect the vetoer’s wishes, that it deprived those affected of the right to freedom of association, and that there is a moral obligation on birth parents and adoptees to allow the other person at least one face-to-face meeting.

Level of compliance

5.178 The expectation of Parliament (noted in Chapter 6) was that there would be a high level of compliance with vetoes, although there may well be some breaches. A strong theme of critics of the Act, both before and after it came into operation, was that the system would be ineffective and vetoes would frequently be breached. The level of compliance was clearly seen by all parties as a key issue in the inquiry. As mentioned earlier, the Commission received a large number of submissions, in many forms, including confidential interviews, in which many people spoke of the most intimate personal matters, in some cases bitterly criticising the Act. Every effort was made to ensure that the Commission was made aware of any breaches. The Adoption Privacy Protection Group (APPG) and some other organisations provided support and advice for people who wished to complain about the Act, and brought to the Commission’s notice a number of cases in which the behaviour of information recipients was seen as intrusive and unfair.

5.179 In the result, at the end of the review period the Commission had satisfactory evidence of only one case of an arguable breach, in the following account of a birth mother who made contact with her son who had lodged a veto:

... she had a friend of hers approach the young man. The friend indicated that she, his mother, was waiting nearby for a brief meeting if he wished. If he truly did not want contact she would go away and that would be that. He, not surprisingly, could not resist the chance to see what his birth mother looked like and the result was a meeting. It seems that he had lodged the veto in response to the wishes of his parents. There has subsequently been quite amicable contact with the birth mother while the adoptive parents remain unaware.

5.180 There were rumours of breaches, and one or two people claimed they knew of breaches of a veto in another family,⁶¹ but this was the only case of which details were provided to the Commission. Also, some people alleged the there had been a breach in cases where there was none: for example, where a Departmental officer informed a veto lodger that there was a message left for him or her; or attempted contact by a birth relative who obtained the birth certificate before lodgment of the veto (and therefore was not technically bound by it); or contact with adoptive parents, but not with the adoptee who lodged the veto.

5.181 The absence of evidence of any other clear case of breach of the vetoes applying to the release of 225 certificates is remarkable. It does not follow, of course, that there have been no other breaches. APPG, in discussions with the Commission, suggested that some people who felt that their privacy had been invaded would not feel able to make submissions to the Commission because to do so would be a painful experience and might possibly expose them to further unhappy experiences. This is possible, but as mentioned, a significant number of people who did feel that their privacy was at risk, or had been invaded, made very forceful submissions. There were also some anonymous submissions, but none alleged breach of a veto. It seems highly likely that if there had been a significant number of breaches they would have come to the Commission’s notice, either through such bodies as PARC or APPG, or directly.

5.182 The Commission’s conclusion is that there is good evidence only of one incident which can plausibly be regarded as a breach of a veto, and that it is highly unlikely that there have been more than a very small number of breaches. Compliance with the veto system is therefore very high indeed. It is not easy to think of other laws which have such a high level of compliance. This finding is entirely consistent with other evidence to the Commission, as well as the findings of research expressed in the literature, which overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that the vast majority of birth parents, like the vast majority of adoptees, seek information or contact in a way that is sensitive and responsible. The MSJ Keys Young study also reported that all the adoptees and birth parents who participated in that study and were subject to a veto indicated that they would comply with it.⁶²

Impact of vetoes

5.183 It is clear that many people seeking a birth certificate are very apprehensive that they might encounter a veto, and to encounter one is often “a bitter blow”.⁶³ For an adoptee it can feel like a second relinquishment. For the birth mother is can also feel like a painful and condemnatory rejection. The subject is fully discussed, with examples, in Appendix B at B25-B27. The most painful experience is clearly where the veto is not accompanied by a message. Messages mean a great deal indeed to the information recipients, even if they are brief. Messages partly serve to convince the information recipient that the veto was really intended, and, more obviously, often include precious information, for example that the veto lodger is happy and in good health.

5.184 A number of people who made submissions commented that it was often important for information recipients to hear the refusal of contact in some direct form from the other person;⁶⁴ especially in the case of young adoptees, birth parents often wished to be assured that the veto reflected the adoptee’s true wishes.

5.185 Among those who made submissions to the Commission there were different levels of understanding of the severe impact of contact vetoes on recipients. Some seemed to treat the lodgment of a veto as routine, and were puzzled, or outraged, by any suggestion that it should be accompanied by an interview or other procedure. One adoptee expressed this feeling succinctly:

I had resolved matters in my own head ... I never sought any information ... The law forced me to think about it all again and then to make a response.⁶⁵

335 The Contact Veto is cruel, degrading and evil and I am wholly opposed to it. Every woman who ever surrendered a child for adoption owes that child the courtesy of one polite and helpful interview. Every adopted person owes their birth mother the same right.

5.187 In some cases, however, the contact veto is seen by both parties as a reasonable adjustment of their respective interests in information and privacy, and many vetoes are accompanied by helpful and compassionate messages. It seems likely that this is one reason for the very high compliance rate.

5.188 The lodgment of a veto may also be a stressful experience. It is possible that mixed emotions underlie some of the resistance of some who oppose any fees or procedures relating to the veto. At such a time, when the veto lodger may feel resentful at having the whole matter brought up, attempts to give advice or information may be resented. An insight into the feelings of some veto lodgers and their families is given in Appendix B, where an adoptive parent is reported as saying:

The change in the legislation has completely altered our family life. We always had a happy family life and our son didn’t want to know ... My younger daughter then got upset and asked if they were going to take her away. It’s all my wife and I talk about any more ....⁶⁶

Uses of the veto system

5.189 It is apparent that the contact veto system is sometimes used for purposes other than simply preventing contact. As mentioned, messages left with vetoes are often very important. Further, already a significant number of vetoes have been later removed, and even more have been varied to allow for a meeting, or exchange of information. Not uncommonly, vetoers’ personal circumstances change, or they change their feelings in relation to contact. They may be pleased that the other person cared enough to search, they may be pleasantly surprised by letters left for them by the searcher or they may simply have decided that their initial fears were unjustified. The Commission heard from several adoptees whose birth mothers had rescinded vetoes and developed good relationships with their children. A birth mother who met a veto wrote to the Commission saying,

88 [M]y daughter has placed an objection on my having any contact with her. This I respect. So as not to upset her elderly parents we have contact only by correspondence ... All parties are happy with this arrangement.

5.190 The veto system is sometimes, and increasingly, used not to prevent contact but to regulate it. The veto lodger may wish to arrange for the contact to be made in a way that will not come to the notice of other members of the family. This flexible use of the veto system was anticipated by the Willis Committee, who wrote that it should be “a fluid structure and contain as much information relating to the reasons and the time-frame of the contact-veto as possible”.⁶⁷ The proposed Adoption Information Exchange, recommended by the Commission in Chapter 7, is therefore consistent with the views of the Willis Committee, and represents a development of the present practice.

Conclusions

5.191 The contact veto system has been perhaps the most controversial aspect of the legislation; those opposed to the granting of unconditional information rights have frequently argued that it would be ineffective in protecting privacy. The evidence indicates the opposite: compliance with the veto system is remarkably high, with evidence of only one plausible breach emerging from the Commission’s inquiries. It is likely that compliance is due to the eagerness of information recipients to comply with the wishes of the other persons, combined with the futility of non-compliance with them than to the penalties. However, the legal significance of the veto appears to play a part: not so much because of the fear of penalty, but because it represents a formal public determination that the wishes of persons who lodge vetoes should be respected.

5.192 The evidence strongly indicates, therefore, that the contact veto system has been extremely effective, and that, contrary to expectations of many critics of the Act, the combination of rights to information with a prohibition on contact where this is requested has been a remarkable success.

IMPACT ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLE

5.193 The impact of adoption on Aboriginal people has been a leading concern in adoption law since the first national conference in 1976, which included what was to be a very influential seminar relating to, and mainly conducted by, Aboriginal people.⁶⁸ The tragic history of these laws, under which many children were separated from their families and communities, is now well known and documented.⁶⁹ The Willis Committee paid careful attention to this issue.⁷⁰ The Commission heard from Aboriginal people at a public hearing and received a submission from Link-Up, an Aboriginal organisation that works with Aboriginal adults who were separated from their natural families and communities under child welfare or adoption laws, and, prior to 1969, laws relating to the ‘protection’ of Aboriginal people.⁷¹ The legislation has a special importance for Aboriginal people who have been adopted into non-Aboriginal families, for in addition to the aspects that apply to other adoptees, it allows them to rediscover their Aboriginality. The information rights created by the Act were welcomed by Aboriginal people who participated in the review, though not necessarily by the adoptive families, especially in cases where the adoptees discovered their Aboriginal descent only as a result of the Act.

5.194 Link-Up had experienced difficulties with certain aspects of the legislation, in particular the limited nature of prescribed information. The lack of access to foster children’s files (a question addressed in Chapter 4) relating to children who were subsequently adopted presents problems for many Aboriginal adoptees. The limited amount of information on extended family is equally difficult owing to the “cultural importance of grandparents and aunts and uncles in the Aboriginal kinship structure”.⁷²

5.195 The issue of unacknowledged birth fathers, raised elsewhere in the Report, also presents specific problems for the Aboriginal community. Link-Up had experience of a birth father who was not on his adopted son’s birth certificate and, it was assumed,⁷³ could not obtain information himself or be traced by the adoptee. The father was practising traditional aspects of Aboriginal culture and needed to pass ancestral information onto the adoptee, his only son.

5.196 Aboriginal birth mothers in contact with Link-Up were particularly concerned with the flow of non-identifying information while the child was under 18. This is an issue which needs to be addressed for all adoptees and one which the Commission deals with it in Chapter 8. It is particularly important for Aboriginal adoptees whose birth mothers are very concerned that their children know their ancestral origins. The “knowledge of original heritage can assist the child in their transition to adulthood and provide a sense of identity and can also prevent future anxiety and confusion”.⁷⁴ Clearly this is an important consideration for the small number of Aboriginal adoptees still under 18.

5.197 The Willis Committee concluded that the legislation it proposed “would cater to a very large degree for the expressed interests of the Aboriginal community in NSW”, and the Commission agrees with this. The Committee went further, however and made recommendations for particular provisions relating to Aboriginal adoptees. These were that appropriate Aboriginal organisations be accredited by the Department of Community Services to provide counselling and other adoption-related assistance to Aboriginal parties to adoptions, and that the Director-General be given discretion to waive age qualifications for access to identifying information for Aboriginal adoptees in circumstances of special need, and in that connection that the Director-General seek advice from qualified representatives of appropriate Aboriginal organisations.

5.198 The Commission understands that FIS has been in contact with Aboriginal organisations and that suitable arrangements are being made for their participation in the arrangements for access to information. There were no suggestions from Aboriginal people that these arrangements were not satisfactory. As to the second matter raised by the Willis Committee, the Commission recommends in Chapter 8 that there should be a general discretion to release information in special circumstances. It also recommends that in the guidelines relating to that discretion, attention should be drawn to the special importance of information for Aboriginal parties to adoption, and to the desirability of consulting with Aboriginal organisations about providing access to that information.

MULTICULTURAL ASPECTS

5.199 The review produced little discussion, and virtually no debate, relating to multicultural aspects.⁷⁵ Clearly in some cases, as with Aboriginal adoptees, access to information will be important in allowing people to place themselves within a cultural or other group in the community. It may be, too, that attitudes to contact and information will vary among different groups. However nothing that emerged in the course of the suggested that the Act has not functioned satisfactorily in such cases. Some concern was expressed for the future, however, as the greater number of persons adopted from overseas countries from the mid 1970s on become entitled to information under the Act. Problems in obtaining such information were foreshadowed, and the operation of the legislation in these cases should be kept under review.

1. One form letter used in submissions commenced “I am writing to express my concern/dismay/horror/unease/outrage about the Legislation enacted in 1990 regarding adoption ...”.

2. PARC Submission at 2.

3. Both these points were emphasised in the submission by PARC.

4. The Post Adoption Resource Centre is described in Chapter 4.

5. The law provides that in some cases, such as child abuse or abandonment, the consent of a parent may be dispensed with by order of the court. Very few submissions, however, involved such cases, whose number is not known.

6. One birth mother concerned that the Act would uncover her past wrote “I was young and just looking for somebody to love me and look after me, I did not want baby’s [sic]but I did not know how to prevent them ...”

7. NSW Committee on Adoption Submission at para 5.1.4.

8. See L Harkness Looking for Lisa (Century Hutchinson, Sydney, 1991); K Inglis Living Mistakes (George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1984); J Shawyer Death by Adoption (Cicada, Auckland, 1979); P Bouchier, L Lambert, J Triseliotis Parting with a Child for Adoption: the Mother’s Perspective Discussion Series 14 (British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London, 1991); D Howe, P Sawbridge, D Hinings Half a Million Women: Mothers Who Lose Their Children by Adoption (Penguin, London, 1992).

9. For a useful recent review, see F O’Dea and S Midford Adoption Legislative Review: Access to Adoption Information Research Paper No 1 (Department of Psychology, University of WA, 1989).

10. R Winkler and M Van Keppel Relinquishing Mothers in Adoption: Their Long-Term Adjustment (Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, 1984).

11. O’Dea and Midford at 21.

12. Mercy Family Life Centre Submission at 3. The Centre submitted that its cases pointed to “the readiness of people to respect the privacy of another, to seek professional counselling and to gradually think through their decision. The Centre feels that there are enough safeguards in the Act for the privacy of an individual to be protected without limiting the other party to information about their birth origins as given in the birth certificate.”

13. Centacare Submission at 11; Obstetric Social Workers Group Submission at para 2.1.2.

14. Centacare Submission at 9.

15. Centacare Submission at 9.

16. O’Dea and Midford at 23.

17. Appendix B at B26-7.

18. As stated in the MSJ Keys Young Report, “contact with their birth child, for many, is essential in healing that loss”: Appendix B at B26.

19. The Willis Committee heard evidence from 116 birth mothers, all except one (who wrote anonymously) supported opening up access to birth records: Willis Report at 42.

20. Mercy Family Life Centre Submission at 7. The Submission recognised the pain and dilemma faced by these birth parents, and recommended the provision of counselling services to assist many of the birthmothers “to resolve and complete an unfinished chapter of their lives”. It considered that the veto system offered adequate protection for their rights.

21. See eg the birth father quoted in Appendix B at B 17.

22. PARC Submission at 15.

23. PARC Submission at 3.

24. This survey is described in the Introduction to this chapter.

25. See eg J Triseliotis In Search of Origins: the Experiences of Adopted People (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1973); L Harkness Looking for Lisa (Century Hutchinson, Sydney, 1991); D Brodzinsky and M Schechter (eds) The Psychology of Adoption (OUP, USA, 1990); C Valentine and P Slaytor Down the Track (NSW Committee on Adoption, Paddington, 1990); P Toynbee Lost Children: the Story of Adopted Children Searching for their Mothers (Hutchinson, London, 1985).

26. Appendix B at B19. Apparent laziness may however be associated with the stress of searching. See B25, where an adoptee says “it’s all so emotional and I have to rev up for it ...”. Resentment about what the adoptee has been told about the birth parent may also be a factor: see the adoptee quoted at B22 as saying “we were dumped”.

27. PARC at 13.

28. R Seale “An Examination of the Experience of 18 Adoptive Parents Whose Adult Adopted Children Have Had a Reunion” (University of New South Wales, Master of Social Work Project, 1992) at 29, citing J Small “Working with Adoptive Families” (1987) Summer Public Welfare at 33.

29. Of the 27 adoptees who were “found”, as many as six had not known of their adoptive status.

30. See Susan Tabak Self Search: A Program for Adult Adopted Peersons (Community Services, Victoria, 1990). In this study twenty eight of the 100 adoptees surveyed had not told their own children of the adoptees’ adoptive status, and a further 6 had told only some of their children. Some did not want to tell their children while their adoptive parents were alive, for fear that it would affect the children’s acceptance of the adoptive parents as grandparents.

31. PARC Submission.

32. As the adoption occurred pre-1953 the Department’s adoption files would have been destroyed. There would however be Court files still in existence.

33. See E Haimes and N Timms Adoption, Identity and Social Policy: The Search for Distant Relatives (Gower, Aldershot, 1985).

34. The term was coined by H J Sants in “Genealogical Bewilderment in Children with Substitute Parents” (1964) 37 British Journal of Medical Psychology 133.

35. Tabak at 17.

36. It is quite possible that a changing social climate will affect the number of adoptees who go on to seek contact with members of the birth family. It seems likely that given the considerable erosion of prejudice against unmarried mothers and children born outside marriage, increasingly publicity of recent times given to post-adoption reunions, and increasing knowledge of the legislation, attempts by adoptees and birth parents to make contact will become increasingly common, and increasingly seen as ‘normal’ behaviour.

37. Appendix B at B21.

38. Appendix B at B24-5.

39. The extent to which the law protected secrecy is discussed in Chapter 2.

40. See also Appendix B at B22-23.

41. The submission was given by telephone, and the quotations used are based on notes taken at the time.

42. As stated in the APA submission, “Generally parents were told you should feel entitled to see the child as yours”.

43. See eg submission 113, quoted above.

44. One submission from adoptive parents stated that they had advised their children “that our solicitor had been instructed to make their adoption papers available to them if they wished to see them, without further reference to us. We have never asked and have never been told whether they availed themselves of this offer.” They went on to say that they were not aware whether there had been a reunion between any of their children and their birth parents.

45. See below at B22, where an adoptee is quoted as saying “I didn’t feel secure enough to offend my adoptive parents by looking”.

45. Appendix B at B22.

47. Appendix B at B23-24.

48. J Hale “Support for Adoptive Parents” in P and S Swain (eds) To Search for Self: The Experience of Access to Adoption Information (Federation Press, Sydney, 1992) at 70.

49. This problem is discussed in Chapter 8.

50. See generally Appendix B at B28-B30.

51. MSJ Keys Young make the interesting suggestion that reunions between siblings or half-siblings tend to be more “successful” than other reunions: Appendix B at B28.

52. One adoptee who encountered a veto (submission 400) spoke of the “devastation of a second rejection”.

53. Appendix B at B29.

54. The issues relating to counselling are carefully considered in the Willis Report at 57-61.

55. An example of the latter is described at B29.

56. MSJ Keys Young Report, Appendix B at B25.

57. Submission 760.

58. Submission 801.

59. PARC Submission at 3.

60. PARC at 2.

61. See eg the second-hand account of a possible breach referred to in Appendix B at B27.

62. Appendix B at B27.

63. PARC Submission at 9.

64. This point is also made in the PARC Submission at 10. See also the MSJ Keys Young Report, Appendix B at B25.

65. Appendix B at B21.

66. Appendix B at B21.

67. Willis Report at 54.

68. See E Sommerlad “Homes for Blacks: Aboriginal Community and Adoption” in C Picton (ed) Proceedings of the First Australian Conference on Adoption, Committee on the First Australian Conference on Adoption (Clayton, 1976) at 160.

69. See eg C Edwards and P Read (eds) The Lost Children (Doubleday, 1989).

70. See Willis Report at 67-69.

71. See generally Australia. Law Reform Commission The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws (Report 31, vol.1, 1986).

72. Link-Up Submission at 2.

73. As indicated in Chapter 8, the law is not quite as narrow as this, but is widely perceived to be.

74. Link-Up Submission at 3.

75. A Submission from the Ethnic Affairs Commission included considerable information about multicultural aspects, but did not suggest any changes in the Act.