INTRODUCTION

7.1 One of the most distinctive features of recent thinking and practice in adoption is the view that adoption law should not facilitate deception or secrecy, but should promote honesty and openness. This mode of thinking developed from research into the long term effects of adoption and the needs of consumers of adoption services. Research and experience, both in Australia and overseas, shows that this is in the best interests of the child and should, therefore, be encouraged.

7.2 The Commission endorses the position that adoption placements should provide for openness. The issue for consideration in this chapter is not, therefore, whether there should be openness at all in adoption, but the extent to which “open adoption” practices should be implemented in the legislation and the manner in which this should be done.

7.3 It is important to distinguish between adoptions in which openness is a part of the arrangement from the start, and the quite different situation where openness is created in relation to people who have gone through an adoption at an earlier time when adoption was characterised by secrecy. This second situation is dealt with by the Adoption of Information Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Adoption Information Act”) and it is not necessary to deal further with it here. The present discussion is concerned with the question as to what extent and in what manner openness should be a feature of new adoptions.

DEFINING OPENNESS IN ADOPTION

7.4 Although submissions received by the Commission were all opposed to secrecy and deception in adoption, there was wide variation in defining what constitutes openness in adoption. It has long been accepted that it is highly desirable for adopted children to be told at an early age about their adoptive status and to be told in general terms some characteristics of their birth families and the circumstances of their adoption. However, in more recent times “openness” has gone considerably further than this.

7.5 In submissions to the Commission, the term “open adoption” was used variously to refer to situations such as the following:¹

• adoptive parents who recognise and are comfortable with the fact that the adoptee is also a member of his or her birth family and are able to discuss the adoptee’s loss and other issues surrounding the adoption with the adoptee;
• a simple exchange of information and photographs between the birth parents and the adoptive parents, that may or may not involve the adoptee;
• the situation where the birth parents select the adoptive parents from agency profiles and have an initial meeting with them, which may or may not be followed by subsequent exchanges of information and photographs or actual contact;
• informing the birth parents if the child’s placement has broken down and involving them in developing a new case plan for the child;
• informing the birth parents if the child dies;
• intermittent contact between birth parents and the adoptee, either ad hoc, depending on requests of the adoptee or the birth parents, or defined, such as on birthdays or at Christmas; and/or
• situations where a close relationship develops between birth family and adoptive family that is somewhat more informal.

7.6 Each of the situations above provides a snapshot of the way in which an open adoption arrangement may work at a particular time, rather than describing fixed categories of open adoption. The openness of an adoption may change and develop in accordance with the changing needs of the parties involved. Birth families and adoptive families may change residence. Adoptees may feel the need for different levels of contact throughout their lives. Adoptees who have experienced trauma before or during separation from their birth family may need a period of attaching to their adoptive parents before they are able to benefit from contact with birth parents. Children who are adopted when they are older may have quite different short and long-term needs with regard to contact, particularly if they have developed relationships with members of their extended birth family.

7.7 The conclusion reached in many of the discussions held with the Commission was that there needed to be some degree of flexibility in open adoption arrangements, so that people could design an arrangement that they felt comfortable living with on a day-to-day basis.² Allowing for flexibility also acknowledges that individual children will have differing needs at various times in their lives. It would be difficult, and would not serve the changing needs of individual adoptees, to prescribe a rigid form of openness in adoption.

CURRENT PRACTICE

7.8 The following excerpt from the submission of Barnardos Australia demonstrates the level of openness that already exists in practice:

Since its inception in 1985, Barnardos’ Adoption program, has endorsed the philosophy of “open adoption” with all the children in the program having a detailed Life Story Book, being fully aware and informed of their birth family members, having photographs and, in most situations, having physical contact with significant birth family members on an ongoing basis. In the past 9 years, Barnardos has finalised 52 adoption orders through the Supreme Court with the mean age of the child at the time of the adoption order being 9 years. For those referred to the Adoption Program, the greater majority have contact arrangements, agreed to by all parties, as part of the adoption application. The Court appears to view these arrangements positively. The only instances where ongoing contact has not occurred have been where birth family members decline contact or cannot be found. It is Barnardos’ experience that contact arrangements continue satisfactorily for many years after the finalisation of the adoption order and are seen by all parties as beneficial to and in the best interests of the child.³

We found that open adoption worked well provided that Barnardos offered a great deal of support to all parties and the adoptive families were willing to put both time and effort into maintaining contact. Overall, open adoption was seen as beneficial and an integral part of many placements ... It appears that successful open adoptions demand more of the agency and adoptive families. For positive contact the onus falls on the adoptive family to initiate and maintain contact if the open adoption is to be successful.⁵

7.10 Centacare Catholic Community Services (Adoption Services) also involves birth parents in the selection of adoptive parents, organises a regular exchange of letters, photos and gifts between some families and has helped to establish face-to-face contact in some cases. These practices appear to have worked well.⁶

7.11 In the period from January 1993 to June 1994, every birth parent who placed his or her child for adoption with Centacare elected to participate in the selection of adoptive parents. Of the 24 placements made during this period, 20 have involved at least one meeting between birth parents and adoptive parents, with all parties indicating a desire for ongoing contact.⁷

7.12 A commitment to openness in adoption has become one of Centacare’s criteria for selecting suitable adoptive parents, as well as comprising a significant component of the preparation of prospective adopters. Ongoing workshops, support groups and seminars are offered to all parties to the adoption, including interested members of the extended families of prospective adopters. Centacare has also produced Life Story Books for pre-school and school age children, “which in many cases include a substantial contribution by birth parents”.⁸

7.13 It has also been the experience of the Anglican Adoption Agency, over the last ten years, that changes promoting openness and honesty have long term benefits for all involved, but most importantly for the adoptee. For over ten years, adoptive parents have been expected to provide the agency with photographs and information to be forwarded to birth parents.

DISCUSSION PAPER 34

7.14 DP 34 set out the arguments for and against introducing the concept of openness into adoption legislation.⁹ It was the Commission’s provisional view that the case for openness in adoption was strong and that the arguments against it were not persuasive. The trend in open adoption has resulted from an accumulation of adoption knowledge and wisdom and the experience of adoption workers and participants over the past thirty years or more. The consensus is that adoption needs to be more open and honest about adopted children’s dual parentage.

7.15 The Commission proposed that:

• the legislation should support the policy of open adoption as there were clear benefits not only for adoptees, but for adoptive parents and birth parents; and
• the legislation should create a system of adoption in which a package of orders and arrangements could be tailored to meet the needs of each child.¹⁰

Examples were given of existing and proposed systems from the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Victoria, England and Wales.

7.16 The Commission invited comment on:

• whether it was correct to approach adoption legislation on the basis that, as far as possible, deception and secrecy should be avoided; and,
• the extent to which the law should actively implement or encourage openness, as distinct from creating a framework that relies heavily on the judgment of adoption workers and the other adults involved.

SUBMISSIONS AND RESPONSE

General attitudes

7.17 Submissions received in response to DP 34 unanimously supported the concept and promotion of some form of openness in adoption. However, many were concerned about the practical implementation of openness and its effect on individual privacy. One submission expressed a typical reservation in this way:

I believe openness in adoption is good, long overdue, and fundamentally necessary for the well being of the children and of both the families, however I also am a firm believer in the right to privacy for all parties to an adoption.¹¹

7.18 Submissions drew attention to a point often made that open adoption be seen not as a cure for any grief or loss felt in adoption but as a means for each of the parties involved, including the child, to deal with his or her grief or feelings of loss in a way which benefits the adoptee.¹² Some submissions also commented on the difficulties experienced within the current system of open adoption.

Difficulties experienced with open adoption

7.19 The Commission received several submissions from birth mothers who had met the adoptive parents prior to placement but now had no contact with or information about their children and who felt distressed by this. They wished at least to know that their child was well and that the placement was working. Adoption agencies have all noted cases where adoptive parents have initially agreed to some form of open adoption but have then refused any form of contact once the adoption order has been made. It is difficult for adoption agencies to predict whether adoptive parents will maintain open adoption arrangements, even when they have originally indicated their willingness to do so.

7.20 Reneging on agreements for openness occasionally still occurs, even though the ability of adoptive parents to accept birth parents and to be prepared for open adoption is now an important factor in the selection and preparation of adoptive parents.¹³ Arrangements for contact and exchange of information are most frequently made after the child has been placed with the adoptive parents, rather than before.¹⁴ This means that birth parents have a far more limited ability to contribute to and influence the decision-making process, despite the fact that they will be a party to it.¹⁵ They may also find that they are limited by the particular practices of their adoption agency when it comes to resolving conflicts over openness.¹⁶

7.21 Some submissions from birth parents indicated that they had not felt in control of the decision-making process that led to the adoption of their child. Even where birth parents had selected the adoptive parents from agency profiles, some felt that they had been allowed to proceed through the adoption without really understanding how their parental relationship with the child would cease. In such cases, they found participating in open adoption and being referred to as “special person” instead of “mother” or “father” to be distressing, particularly if they disagreed with the parenting style of the adoptive parents.

7.22 The Anglican Adoption Agency noted that some birth parents cannot cope with seeing the child thriving under the care and attention of the adoptive parents:

This is often the case with parents of children with disabilities who have tried to care for the child and have eventually relinquished him/her two or more years later. They may experience access as humiliating but can often see value in contact and are more comfortable with corresponding by letter.¹⁷

7.24 Open adoption can also be very difficult for birth parents and adoptive parents in acting as a constant reminder of loss or of infertility. It may strike deep into feelings of inadequacy as a parent or person.

Summary of conclusions reached in submissions

7.25 The vast majority of submissions concluded that the present practice of open adoption, despite its difficulties, is a major improvement on the former approach of surrounding adoption with secrecy. Some significant areas highlighted in the submissions were as follows:

• To what extent should adoption legislation support the practice of open adoption? The effect of the making of an adoption order requires the amendment of birth certificates with the concealment of information about birth parents that this entails; thus it is perceived that current legislation is failing to endorse current practice.¹⁹ Some social workers feel that legislative backing would help them convince the parties involved of the value of openness in adoption and that it would reflect the important status of this principle in the current practice of adoption.
• It is important to accept that openness may not work in all cases. The success of an open arrangement is dependent to some extent on good counselling and support and requires each of the parties to be emotionally capable of participating. Open adoptions will encounter the same difficulties as any other complex family relationship; each of the parties may desire more or less involvement than they receive. Any legislative statement would therefore need to be flexible.
• A structure for resolving any conflict that may arise between the parties to an open adoption should be provided. Present agreements for openness can become obsolete or unsatisfactory to any of the parties to the agreement, leaving them without a formal process for re-negotiation.²⁰

7.26 The discussion which follows considers some specific measures to address areas of concern in the practice of open adoption.

LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT FOR OPEN ADOPTION

7.27 This section reviews a number of legislative schemes for openness. The most notable of these is the scheme for negotiated adoption plans provided for in the Adoption Act 1994 (WA).

The Adoption Act 1994 (WA)

7.28 The Adoption Act 1994 (WA) provides that an adoption plan is to be negotiated, if possible, between the birth parents who have consented to the adoption, the prospective adoptive parents and, if the Director-General believes it to be appropriate, a child’s representative.²¹ The Act sets out some matters that may be provided for in the adoption plan but does not set out any requirements as to content. The plan may be to the effect that there will not be any exchange of information or contact.²²

7.29 Schedule 2, entitled “rights and responsibilities to be balanced in adoption plans”, sets out rights and responsibilities of adoptive parents, birth parents and the child, divided into the four stages of the adoptee’s life, namely: infancy; childhood; adolescence; and adulthood. Persons who negotiate an adoption plan are to have regard to these rights and responsibilities.²³

7.30 The Director-General is required to provide assistance and mediation services to persons in the process of negotiating an adoption plan.²⁴ If the Director-General is of the opinion that no adoption plan can be agreed upon, he or she may allow further time for the selection of an adoptive parent or for the negotiation process,²⁵ apply to the Court for an order regarding any disputed matter that is preventing agreement to the adoption plan,²⁶ place the child with other suitable prospective adoptive parents,²⁷ or cause notice to be given that it is not possible or desirable to place the child for adoption.²⁸

7.31 Adoption plans must also be entered into where the child is to be adopted by a step-parent or a person who has had, for at least three years, the daily care and control of the child and the responsibility for making decisions concerning the daily care and control of the child.²⁹

7.32 Except in certain situations, in which the Court can dispense with the requirement for an adoption plan,³⁰ an order for adoption cannot be made unless the Court approves the provisions of the adoption plan.³¹ Where the plan has been approved by the Court, any breach of the provisions of the plan means that the Court may order the parties to participate in a mediation process,³² enforce a provision of the plan as if it were an order of the Court,³³ or punish the person breaching the provision for contempt.³⁴

7.33 Certain persons can apply to the Court to vary the adoption plan.³⁵ If the Court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances since the plan was approved, and that the proposed variation adequately balances the rights and responsibilities of the parties as mentioned in Schedule 2, then the Court can allow the variation to the plan.³⁶

7.34 The Adoption Act 1994 (WA) implemented recommendations of the Report of the Western Australian Adoption Legislative Review Committee. In considering the appropriate path for New South Wales to take, it is useful to keep in mind several of the recommendations made by the Western Australian Committee. These were as follows:

• that agreements must ensure that the child’s interests are paramount, placement of the child with the most appropriate adoptive family is not compromised and the child belongs to a secure family system without interference;³⁷
• that adoptive parents have the right to bond with and rear the child without interference and have the right to family privacy;³⁸ and
• that the Negotiated Adoption Agreement be sufficiently flexible to remain developmentally appropriate to the growing child and able to meet the changing needs of the other parties.³⁹

7.35 Two important points have emerged from the experience in Western Australia. First, and obviously, the agreement will be more likely to succeed if it is one with which all parties are completely satisfied.⁴⁰ Secondly, the parties must recognise the need for change over time:

To recognise in law the continuum of options is to allow for responsive decisions in relation to what arrangement is in the best interests of the child. Flexibility in open arrangements recognises that with any relationship there may arise the need to re-negotiate the terms of the agreement. It further recognises that flexibility in arrangements supports the principle that each child be treated individually and as having his or her own special needs.⁴¹

Models for open adoption agreements from other jurisdictions

7.36 Several child welfare agencies in Illinois in the United States have systems for negotiation of open adoption agreements.⁴² Foster parents and birth parents, or any other relatives, meet with a representative of the agency that has responsibility for the child. If open adoption is agreed upon, the details are drafted into a written agreement, such as locations for future contact, the means and nature of correspondence and the involvement of the child welfare agency. All parties are informed that the agreement is subject to the needs of the child and should be altered in accordance with those changing needs. Adoptive parents, as the legal guardians and day-to-day carers of the child, are considered the appropriate parties to indicate that circumstances require a change to the original agreement.⁴³

7.37 The agreement is negotiated prior to completion of the adoption. This program has also recognised the need for children to be included in discussions as far as possible and that a guardian ad litem or separate representative of the child needs to be included in negotiations to represent the child’s interests.⁴⁴

7.38 A Canadian review by a Special Committee recommended that the adoption legislation in Ontario be amended to allow rights of access to coexist with an adoption order, although not in relation to step-parent adoptions. The proposed amendment took the following form:

The Court shall not make an order for contact under subsection 2 unless the Court is satisfied that:

(a) It is in the best interests of the child to be adopted and to maintain ties with members of his or her birth family.

(b) There is a meaningful relationship between the child and the proposed contact person, and a disruption of that relationship is likely to be detrimental to the child. Regard should be given to the child’s physical, mental and emotional development, and the child’s views and preferences, where such can be ascertained.

(c) Where there is a prospective adoptive family, the prospective adoptive parents consent to the contact order.

(d) The proposed contact person accepts that the child will be adopted.

(e) The contact person and the prospective adoptive parents, if any, are committed to placing the needs and the stability of the child as a first priority, and to making genuine efforts not to undermine the implementation of the contact order.⁴⁵

Submissions and response in relation to a legislative scheme of agreements for openness

7.39 Many submissions gave support generally to a legislative scheme of agreements for openness and to the Western Australian scheme in particular.⁴⁶ The benefits noted were as follows:

• The agreement could easily be attached to the Order for Adoption and would be made by the parties rather than imposed by the Court.
• Any difficulties in negotiation could be mediated by the agency that made the placement.
• The possibility of intervention by the Court could motivate efforts to conciliate any dispute.⁴⁷

7.40 One submission suggested that the birth parents and the adopted parents could draw up a parenting plan, along the lines of s 63C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):

dealing with the child’s residence, contact with the birth parents, education, religion, name, health, communication between parents and carers and what is to happen on the death of a parent ... This would allow an arrangement tailored to the particular circumstances of the people involved and tailored to meet the individual needs of the child.⁴⁸

7.41 The New South Wales Committee on Adoption and Permanent Family Care advocated that:

a prescribed form agreeing to participating in the interchange of information be part of the consent/adoption agreement documentation for both the birth parents and the adoptive parents.⁴⁹

The advantages and disadvantages of a legislative scheme

7.42 The question that needs to be answered in this chapter is whether legislation should be used to impose a system of compulsory agreements for openness that create enforceable rights in the parties to the agreement.

7.43 A resolution of this issue must proceed on the understanding that the unique needs of the parties involved make it obvious that the legislation should not specify what particular arrangements should be made; this should be worked out among the parties according to the circumstances of each particular case.

7.44 The main disadvantage of a legislative scheme is that it creates rights to openness that can be enforceable in a court. A court order enforcing a provision of an adoption agreement could foreseeably place strain on the adoptive family, on the birth parents and/or on the relationship between the two, impacting negatively on the child. It is true, however, that if parties are required first to pursue mediation channels in the event of a dispute, in the majority of cases potentially damaging litigation may be avoided.

7.45 A further argument against providing for open adoption agreements in the legislation is that it is not the role of legislation to regulate family life in this manner. It is more appropriately an area of social work and of voluntary consensus between the parties to the adoption.

7.46 The advantages of a legislative scheme can be summarised as follows:

• Legal regulation ensures that all parties’ interests, in particular the child’s, are protected. The Court can be given the power to make a variety of orders relating to contact, depending on the needs of the particular child, and all parties can be given the opportunity to be heard.
• The agreement for openness would be before the Court when it makes its decision as to whether the adoption will be in the best interests of the child.
• Parties may be more likely to regard the agreement for openness as a serious aspect of the adoption and not just as an agency requirement which they must meet in order to have a child placed with them.
• Although parties can enter into voluntary agreements they then do not have access to a legislative structure for resolving any conflicts which may arise.
• A legislative right to openness is an acknowledgment that adoption has changed and that it is now considered appropriate to include provision for openness in any adoption placement.

Conclusion

7.47 While the Commission recognises that there are a number of forceful arguments in favour of a legislative scheme for open adoption agreements, the Commission has concluded that these are overwhelmed by the undesirability of creating legally enforceable rights in the context of such family relationships. Therefore, the Commission does not recommend that there be a legislative scheme for open adoption agreements.

7.48 However, the Commission supports a system of voluntary agreement as to openness in an adoption.

RECOMMENDATION 61

The parties to the adoption should reach agreement as to openness prior to the placement of the child with the adoptive family.

RECOMMENDATION 62

In applying for an adoption order, the parties must present to the Court their agreement for openness in the adoption. Prior to making an adoption order, the Court must be satisfied that the proposed arrangements are in the child’s best interests and are proper arrangements in the circumstances.

TELLING ADOPTEES OF THEIR ADOPTIVE STATUS

7.49 Even if legislation does not dictate what ought to be in an agreement for openness, the question arises separately as to whether adoptive parents should be required to tell their child of his or her adoptive status.

7.50 Current research and the overwhelming majority of submissions suggest that it is the “right” of the adopted child to know of his or her adoptive status and that the adoptee should be provided with this knowledge and information at an appropriate time. Some submitted that that this should be enshrined in legislation and should be part of a written and signed agreement prior to the making of the adoption order.⁵⁰ Submissions also supported the notion that children need ongoing information and that provision of this should be required by legislation.⁵¹

7.51 Informing the adoptee that he or she is adopted is an important aspect of openness in adoption. Withholding this information from the adoptee can cause pain and confusion, or worse, if the child later learns this information from other sources. It is the current practice of DOCS and the private agencies to educate adoptive parents about the value of telling their children they are adopted. The ability to deal with this issue is also a relevant part of the procedures for assessing and approving adoptive parents. However, there continue to be some cases where adoptive parents have later been reluctant to tell the child of his or her adoptive status. There is very little that social workers can do at this stage to change the decision of the adoptive parents.

7.52 Perhaps some otherwise reluctant adoptive parents would tell their children about their adoption if this was a legislative requirement and not just the request of the adoption agency. However, creating a legal obligation to inform, and a concomitant right in the adoptee to be informed, would also create a right to seek legal redress if the adoptive parents failed to tell their child of his or her adoptive status. Taking legal action against the adoptive parents for their failure to inform would obviously create less than ideal conditions for the adoptive family.

7.53 Such information needs to be imparted to the child sensitively, by adoptive parents who feel comfortable in their role and can support the adoptee in coming to terms with any feelings of grief or loss. In these circumstances, a system of enforceable legislative rights is unlikely to be of benefit to the adoptee. Therefore, the Commission does not recommend that a procedure for ensuring a child is told of his or her adoptive status be implemented in law.

7.54 The proper domain for ensuring that the adoptee is informed of his or her adoptive status in a manner appropriate to his or her age is through education, both in preparation of applicants for adoption and in post-adoption support programs. The issue would also be a factor in assessing applicants’ suitability to adopt. Ultimately, responsibility for informing adoptees should rest with DOCS or the private agency and the adoptive parents, not with legislative provisions.

7.55 At any rate, adoptive parents would be aware that after their adopted child turns 18, members of the child’s birth family may make contact under the Adoption Information Act, even if the child has not been told of his or her adoptive status. This may have the effect of a deferred legislative enforcement.

INVOLVING BIRTH PARENTS IN PLACEMENT BREAKDOWN

7.56 If a breakdown in an adoption placement occurs the question arises as to whether legislation should require that birth parents be informed. A number of birth parents, who had discovered that a breakdown in their child’s adoption placement had occurred, indicted to the Commission that they would have liked to have been told and involved in placing the child in a new family. Some of these birth parents indicated that had they known of the breakdown at the time it occurred, they would have been able and willing to resume care of the child. Some argued that birth parents should be informed of any change of status of the adoptive family.⁵²

7.57 Similar views were put to the Adoption Legislative Review Committee in Western Australia. The Committee’s recommendations for reform included the establishment of an Adoption Information Exchange. In the event of an adoption breakdown, the Committee recommended that the child’s birth parents be informed of the breakdown through the services of the Adoption Information Exchange, and that their ability to participate in decision-making be considered. This procedure would not be followed if the birth parents had explicitly excluded contact.⁵³

7.58 Form 6 in Schedule 1 of the Adoption Regulation is a form to be used in conjunction with the signing of consent to the adoption of a child and allows for birth parents to make certain requests in relation to the placement of their child, and other matters. The birth parent can request that DOCS or the private adoption agency inform him or her should they become aware that the child he or she relinquished for adoption is no longer in the care of the adoptive parents. “No longer in the care” obviously covers a breakdown in the adoption placement.

7.59 As with other requests made by birth parents when consent to the adoption is given, it is made clear to the birth parents that the Director-General will make every effort to accommodate those requests but there can be no guarantee of compliance.

7.60 The Commission cannot recommend that legislation go further than this for similar reasons that a legislated scheme for open adoption cannot be recommended. If legislation created a right in the birth parents to be informed of an adoption breakdown then that right would be enforceable at law. It is appropriate that, if practicable and in the child’s interests, the birth parents be given this information. However, it is not appropriate that the birth parents be permitted to take action against DOCS or the agency for a failure to impart the information, given that parental responsibilities have been relinquished voluntarily and after proper consideration.

7.61 It is also a matter for DOCS or the agency to consider whether it is in the child’s best interests to involve the birth parents in future plans for the care of the child following an adoption breakdown. This may well be desirable, and the Commission encourages consideration of this. However, again, the Commission does not consider it appropriate for legislation to create an enforceable right for such subsequent involvement.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

The present law

7.62 When a person is adopted, the order for adoption is transmitted to the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages, and that office prepares a new birth certificate.⁵⁴ This new certificate is known as an “amended” birth certificate. Whilst this has not always been the case, the amended certificate is now indistinguishable from the birth certificates of people who have not been adopted.⁵⁵ Occasionally, there may be a feature of an adopted person’s birth certificate which can alert the trained eye, such as a time delay between the date of birth and the date of registration.

7.63 The amended certificate gives the child’s name as determined in the order of adoption, and the true date and place of the birth. It sets out the names, occupations, ages and places of birth of the adoptive parents under the categories of “mother” and “father”. It sets out the date and place of the adoptive parents’ marriage. It also lists, under the category “previous children of relationship”, any children of the adoptive parents who were born before the date of birth of the adopted person. The amended certificate is created from information contained in the memorandum of adoption received by the Registry.

7.64 The original birth certificate, which normally includes the name of the birth mother and sometimes that of the birth father, is not destroyed but is retained within the registry, although access to it is strictly limited. It is not generally released by the Registry except under the provisions of the Adoption Information Act. If the original birth certificate is released under this legislation, it is not available for official use as a birth certificate. It bears a certification in the following terms: “superseded by a later record and issued under the Adoption Information Act 1990. Not for Official Use”.

7.65 The key provisions under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) in relation to adoption are as follows:

• Under s 23 of this Act, adoption orders must be registered and, pursuant to s 24, this is done by entering the particulars of the adoption order into the register.
• Section 25 of the Act requires the Registrar to note a reference to an adoption order in the entry relating to the birth of the adoptee.
• Section 48 provides that in supplying information extracted from the register, the Registrar must, as far as practicable, protect the persons to whom the entries in the register relate from unjustified intrusion on their privacy.
• Section 49 provides that the Registrar may issue a certificate certifying particulars contained in an entry.
• Section 52 makes it clear that the ability of a person to have access to, or receive certification of, information on the register is subject to the provisions of the Adoption Information Act.

7.66 The Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) repealed the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1973 (NSW) and has introduced greater flexibility into the registration and retrieval of information, whilst expressly protecting privacy. It is apparent from Part 8, Division 4 in particular that the Act has introduced the concept of “registrable information”, with a right to certification of particular entries on the Register.

7.67 Under s 43 of the previous Act, where a birth certificate was required, a certified copy of, or a certified extract from, an entry in the Register was issued which amounted to a copy of the relevant page from a bound book. Section 49 of the new Act does not refer to “certified cop[ies] or extract[s]” but rather refers to the “issue of certificate[s]”. Section 49 gives the Registrar the power to issue a certificate certifying particulars contained in an entry. A certificate can certify one, some or all particulars contained in an entry. This greater flexibility in how information can be provided, combined with the computerisation of the Registry’s records, enables the Registry to produce a document which can be tailored to a person’s particular needs.

7.68 At present, however, when application for a birth certificate is made a standard form of certificate is issued. No system of being able to “pick and choose” the form of the certificate has been implemented.

Discussion Paper 34

7.69 The information to be provided on the birth certificate of the adoptee has become a central issue in promoting openness in adoption. In DP 34 the Commission presented five alternative solutions to the issues which arise in relation to birth certificates. The alternatives were:

1. retain the present system;
2. supplement the present system by registering a separate document, a certificate of adoption, which would include pre- and post-adoption information;
3. remove the obstacles to adoptees using their original birth certificate, so that in any situation they would be able to choose which certificate to use;
4. combine the birth information and adoption information so that adoptees would only have one birth certificate, which would contain both birth and adoption details; or
5. provide that no new birth certificate should be issued upon the making of the adoption order.

7.70 The Commission made the provisional recommendation that birth certificates be retained in their current form with the accompanying registration of an adoption certificate that would record all the details of the child’s birth parents and adoptive parents and the date of the adoption (Option 2). This option was felt to achieve the best balance in the debate in which some people emphasised the importance of honesty and others emphasised the importance of privacy. Although it would not completely remove the misleading nature of the birth certificate, the birth certificate would express the important legal truth that the parental rights and responsibilities had been transferred to the adoptive parents, and the child had been accepted as a member of their family.

Submissions and response

7.71 Submissions to DP 34 continued the debate about the apparently competing values of honesty and privacy. Submissions raised the point that the current birth certificate has created the illusion that the child has ties to only one set of parents and that this is contrary to the spirit of openness in adoption:

The major evidence of legal fiction is in the amended birth certificate which is issued after a child’s adoption, and in the lack of access to information about the child’s birth family.⁵⁶

The right of a child to knowledge of his/her status and background should be recognised in the Act. This right would be further recognised by the removal of the legal fiction created by the current amended “birth” certificate.⁵⁷

The reality of adoption is that increasingly the majority of children placed are older and it is important that their adoptive status is acknowledged. Furthermore, in terms of consistency and to challenge any notion that an adoptive status is stigmatising or inferior, then all birth certificates of all adoptive children should state their status.⁵⁸

7.72 Having the acknowledgment of adoptive parents on the birth certificate was also felt to be a necessary legislative amendment to meet the needs and rights of children who are adopted:⁵⁹

It would present a truthful and comprehensive record, and should be available to all parties. The extract could be defined as presenting date and place of birth, adoptive parents, and the name by which the adoptee is known. This would then be indistinguishable from other children’s birth certificate[s] and would give the privacy required when presentation of [a] birth certificate is necessary in childhood.⁶⁰

7.73 There was some disappointment expressed that the option of the combined birth information and adoption information, with use of extracts to protect privacy, had been rejected because, in many circumstances, a full birth certificate is still required. Submissions called for the amendment of legislation requiring the use of full birth certificates to allow for the use of extracts.

7.74 Other submissions supported Option 2 because it would provide adoptees with information about their birth parents and their adoption but would not infringe the adoptee’s right to privacy:

This would mean that because we have openness in adoption we could talk to the children and they could have the extra document but still use the ordinary birth certificate (just like all their peers). They would not be discriminated against because of their adoption.⁶¹

7.75 Some adoptive parents also felt that the information on the adoption certificate would be extremely beneficial for their children to have, particularly in situations where there was no ongoing contact between the two families. Adoptive families would be able to refer to the child’s birth parents by their first names:

Our son L, for instance, would love to know his birth parents’ surnames and dates of birth. We would not be wishing to use this to contact them but rather to give L a feeling of knowing where he has come from. And with the birth dates it would then be possible to especially remember his birth parents on those days. The information would help L come to terms with who he is and where he has come from.⁶²

7.76 A further option emerged from submissions to DP 34. This option would retain the current system of birth certificates except where both the adoptive parents and the birth parents consent to an amended birth certificate showing the additional birth information. The content of the birth certificate would then be another matter to discuss at the time of placement, when plans for contact and exchange of information are being made. Even if the adoptive parents and birth parents consented to the birth certificate showing full information, the adoptee would still be able to request a printed certificate, showing only the details of the adoptive parents, if this was desired.

7.77 The disadvantage of this option is that the adoptee, who has the greatest interest in what form the birth certificate should take, does not participate in the decision. As the adoptee becomes older he or she may disagree with the decision taken largely on his or her behalf. Some may feel unhappy revealing his or her adopted status to anyone requiring presentation of the certificate. Others may feel unhappy that the certificate does not accurately reflect the circumstances of their births.

Conclusion

7.78 Increasingly in our society, a birth certificate is required to be produced to prove one’s legal identity. “Birth certificate” has perhaps even become a misnomer as its use as an identity document overtakes its role as a record of birth information. Accordingly, one of the principal roles of the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages is to issue a document, on which interested parties can rely, which certifies a person’s legal identity. The Registry has expressed the concern that any system of birth certification of an adoptee must not give the adoptee the opportunity of presenting two different legal identities. The Commission shares this concern, which led it to reject Option 3.

7.79 Certainly, it is unsatisfactory for a document to portray that a child was born to two people when this is in fact not true. What is true is that the child became a child of those people by an order of adoption. The seemingly simple cure to this deception is to produce a “birth certificate” which shows the actual birth information or, alternatively, a document which gives a complete picture of birth and adoption details. It is clear, however, from the submissions and from the above discussion that the cure is not simple. Primarily, the document must, as pointed out above, show the person’s true and current legal identity. An adoptee’s legal identity is that given to him or her under the Adoption Order. Hence, it is not an option for the adoptee to choose to use his or her original birth certificate as this would not certify to the world at large his or her true and current legal identity. It would be necessary for the adoptee to change by deed poll his or her name from the adopted name to the birth name.

7.80 The Commission has concluded that the only practicable solution to the present unsatisfactory system is along the lines of Option 2.

7.81 As is discussed above, the effect of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW), in conjunction with computerisation of the Registry’s records, is that it is now possible to hold all the pre- and post- adoption information on the register and to produce a printed birth certificate showing whatever amount of information is desired. It is possible, therefore, for the Registry to produce a document from its computer records which combines on the one certificate information about the child’s birth, birth family, adoption and adoptive family.

7.82 The Commission recommends that adoptees have the option of applying for a birth certificate in one of two forms. The first form would be exactly as amended birth certificates are currently issued for adoptees, showing details of the adoptive parents and adoptive siblings, if any. This certificate would be, as it is now, indistinguishable from the birth certificates of non-adoptees. The second form would be divided into two sections. The top section would show details of the birth parents and any birth siblings. The bottom section would show details of the adoptive family and the date of adoption. The Commission sees no reason why an adult adoptee could not be in possession of both forms of certificate as the adoptee’s legal identity is apparent from either. Nor does the Commission see any reason why the form showing details of both families would need to be for information purposes only or endorsed “for information only” or “not for official use”. Again, if an adoptee presents this form of the certificate, it is clear to the reader that the person’s current legal name is the one given on the making of the Adoption Order.

RECOMMENDATION 63

Adoptive parents of children under 18 years of age and adult adoptees should have the option of applying for a birth certificate in one or both of two forms:

• The first form should be exactly the same as the amended birth certificate which is currently issued for an adoptee, showing details of the adoptive parents and adoptive siblings, if any.
• The second form should be divided into two sections. The top section should show details of the birth parents and any birth siblings. The bottom section should show details of the adoptive family and the date of adoption.

Further issue: adoptive parent who dies before the making of the adoption order

7.83 There have been several cases in New South Wales where one adoptive parent has died in between the time that the child is placed with the adoptive parents and the time the Adoption Order is made. As it is clearly not possible for the Court to make an order in favour of a person who is deceased, the unfortunate result is that the child is adopted by, and has, only one legal parent. Adoptive parents may feel that a blank space next to the category of mother or father on the child’s birth certificate may cause embarrassment. Most of all, the child will not have evidence of the deceased prospective adoptive parent’s decision to become the child’s parent.

7.84 In the case of biological children, if a father dies before the birth of the child, it is possible to have the father’s name recorded on the birth certificate posthumously. However, a birth certificate is a record of information whereas an order for adoption is a transfer of legal parental rights and responsibilities to named individuals, who must be in existence at the time the order is made.

7.85 In these situations, a solution could be found in noting the deceased adoptive parent’s intention to adopt the child on the birth certificate in the space where that particular parent’s name would have appeared had the order for adoption been made in his or her name.

RECOMMENDATION 64

Where one of two joint applicants to adopt dies before the making of the Adoption Order, the surviving adoptive parent should have the right to apply to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages for a notation as to the deceased’s intention to adopt the child to be entered on the child’s amended birth certificate.

FACILITATING OPENNESS

7.86 There are a number of practices which agencies can follow which have the potential of increasing the chances of a successful open adoption. These are as follows:

• allowing birth parents to participate in the selection of adoptive parents;
• encouraging adoptive parents and birth parents to meet prior to placement; and
• providing certain post-adoptive services.

7.87 Another factor, rather than a practice, which can affect the success of open adoption arrangements is the extent to which birth parents have made a fully informed decision to relinquish their child and have a realistic understanding of what adoption will mean for themselves and for the adoptee.

Allowing birth parents to participate in the selection of adoptive parents

7.88 As discussed above, DOCS and each of the private adoption agencies routinely involve birth parents in the selection of adoptive parents by discussing with them the sort of people they would like to adopt their child and by allowing them to peruse at least two or three non-identifying profiles selected by the social worker from the agency’s pool of adoptive parents which most closely accord with the birth parents’ expressed wishes. If they are not happy with the profiles shown to them, they may (and often do) request to see further profiles. If a birth parent still cannot choose an adoptive parent after being shown a number of profiles, DOCS discusses with that birth parent whether he or she truly wants to go ahead with the adoption. Being shown profiles of applicants can be an effective way of testing whether the birth parent can envisage, and accept, his or her child being cared for by someone else.

7.89 A survey of one agency, which involves birth parents in the selection of adoptive parents in this way, showed unanimous support for the program.⁶³ The participating birth parents felt that having a voice in the selection of the adoptive parents gave them a sense of control and helped them define their role in relation to their child. Some birth parents also submitted to the Commission that this service had helped them come to terms with their loss in the long term.⁶⁴ Adoptive parents often felt a greater control over their part in the adoption process by being able to create their own profiles. Being selected by the birth parent also gave them increased confidence to parent the child.

7.90 However, social workers had some criticisms of the process. The way in which social workers could become drawn into ‘selling’ adoptive parents, particularly those who did not present well on paper, was perceived as a disadvantage of the practice. Also, the lack of conformity in the way profiles were written was seen to present difficulties. Despite these criticisms, the Commission endorses the present practice of allowing birth parents to peruse a number of suitable profiles of applicants.

7.91 The Adoption Regulation has formalised birth parents’ involvement in the selection of adoptive parents to a certain extent by providing that the Director-General is to make all reasonable efforts to place the child in conformity with the birth parents’ wishes as to religious upbringing, ethnicity or the domestic arrangements of the adoptive parents.⁶⁵ The implications of this, and the need to discuss with birth parents that it may not always be possible to accommodate their wishes, is discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

Encouraging adoptive parents and birth parents to meet prior to placement

7.92 Adoptive parents have submitted to the Commission that an initial meeting with the birth parents helped lessen or eliminate their fears about open adoption, particularly fears concerning demands of the birth parents and fears that a birth parent may try to take the child from them. Most reported that the initial meeting increased their ability to regard the child as “theirs”, especially where there was clear approval of them by the birth parents.⁶⁶ Research, not surprisingly, has established that it is crucial to the success of an open adoption that the adoptive parents have a positive attitude towards the arrangement for openness.⁶⁷

7.93 A study of the experiences of seventeen adoptive families who had entered into an open adoption arrangement looked at the meetings between adoptive and birth parents.⁶⁸ Most of the birth parents understandably approached the initial meeting with the adoptive parents with trepidation. However, all experienced it as a good chance to discuss expectations for the adoption and to resolve issues, including future contact. All birth parents reported feeling relieved and reassured about the adoptive parents:

A number reported that the meeting had helped them to re-evaluate the choice between adoption or keeping the child, and given them peace of mind with the adoption decision.

After the meeting had taken place, birthmothers reported that their anxiety about signing consent to adopt had been considerably reduced. One respondent reported:

“I felt so badly about having to go and sign a piece of paper giving away my own child. It felt just like changing ownership papers of a car. It seemed so rejecting. How would the child ever understand? After I met the adoptive parents I felt I was no longer going to sign my baby away, but was doing something which was really important for all of us. I knew I would really miss her but at least I knew she was going to be really loved and cared for. I would at least know where she was and how she is getting on in life. She will know that I loved her so much that I did not want to lose contact with her and did not want her to grow up feeling rejected and an outcast.”⁶⁹

7.94 The Commission supports the practice of the agencies in encouraging birth parents to meet with the adoptive parents they have selected from the agency files. Obviously, the parties need to be adequately prepared and supported before undertaking such a meeting in order to gain optimum benefit from the opportunity.

The provision of adequate post-adoption services

7.95 The majority of parties to an adoption, at some point at least, need the mediation and support skills of an appropriately qualified person or agency. This is particularly so at the start of an open adoption when the parties are establishing appropriate forms of relating to each other. But agencies may also be needed to help the adults involved respond to the changing needs of the adoptee. New parties may need to be factored into the agreement as time passes, such as a birth parent’s new partner.⁷⁰

7.96 Providing these services, which include facilitating the exchange of photographs and letters, is a growing component of post-adoption support. Centacare Catholic Community Services recommended that adoption agencies continue to provide a high level of education, counselling and support to all parties with regard to the need for and value of openness in adoption.⁷¹

7.97 Barnardos Australia indicated that during 1993/94, 30 out of 74 children (40.5 per cent) involved in its adoption program required ongoing support from professional staff. This support was seen as critical for two reasons. First, the children referred to Barnardos are described as “hard to place” children because of behavioural difficulties, often involving a history within the welfare system. Post-adoption support is necessary to aid families in their decision to parent these children. It is also seen as vital in facilitating contact between the child and his or her birth family.⁷²

7.98 A study of birth parents’ feelings about open adoption reveals the complex relationships between the parties to an open adoption arrangement. Some birth parents in this study described feelings of panic when letters were not received on time, periods of anger at seeing their child raised by someone else, uncertainty as to what to write in letters and fears of writing the wrong thing, thereby jeopardising contact.⁷³ Feelings of insecurity can result in misinterpretation of the actions of the other party, giving rise to tension between the parties. Each of these examples highlights the need for close and ongoing support from the adoption agencies:⁷⁴

As in foster care, access often needs continuing mediation or facilitation. While the goal is an arrangement directly between the parents, many want worker involvement initially and for some years after placement.

If the preferred contact is by letters and photos this too is usually mediated initially by the Agency. Open adoption is a growing component of post-adoption services.⁷⁵

7.99 Mediation by an agency can be used to resolve conflict over arrangements for openness that cannot be resolved by the parties themselves.⁷⁶ The advantages of mediation by an independent agency or post-adoption resource centre is that some distance is put between the issue of contact and the issue of the ability to parent the child.

7.100 It has been suggested that birth parents should have separate representation by social work services or voluntary sector organisations in negotiating an agreement for openness.⁷⁷ However, the danger in involving organisations outside of the adoptive agency is that an adversarial approach may be created. Perhaps it may be appropriate for the adoption agency to involve more than one social worker in the negotiation process, such as the social worker who has had involvement with the birth parents and the social worker who has dealt with the adoptive parents.

RECOMMENDATION 65

Agencies should continue to devote resources to post-adoption support, including provision of mediation services by appropriately qualified workers.

Birth parents’ understanding of the adoption

7.101 Submissions and consultations with adoption workers revealed that it is crucial that birth parents understand that the adoption of their child will extinguish their parental rights and responsibilities. They will no longer be the child’s parental carer. Birth parents need to be prepared for the parent-child relationship between the adoptive parents and the child and the fact that a child’s need to, or interest in, seeing a birth parent may vary throughout his or her childhood. Agencies reported that the best results with open adoption were achieved where arrangements were flexible enough to meet the growing needs of the child and where birth parents recognised the adoptive parents as the child’s psychological parents.⁷⁸

7.102 It is particularly valuable for an older child to know that his or her birth parents are accepting and approving of the adoptive arrangement. This allows the child to attach to the adoptive parents and stimulates the positive aspects of open adoption arrangements for all parties. Obviously, birth parents need to feel genuinely that they have made the right decision in placing their child for adoption before they will be able to give the child the reassurance he or she needs.

7.103 Further discussion and recommendations in relation to this issue can be found in Chapter 5.

OPENNESS AND INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

7.104 Openness in adoption is equally important for children who have been adopted from overseas. Australia also has international obligations to facilitate as much openness as is possible in an intercountry adoption. These obligations arise under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and International Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The issue of openness in the context of intercountry adoption is dealt with in Chapter 10.

FOOTNOTES

1. “Ruth McRoy (Adoption and Fostering Vol 15 No 4 at 103) has identified 33 subcategories in levels of openness in her American research, confirming the complexities of defining ‘open adoption’”: New South Wales Department of Community Services Submission (5 September 1994) at 7.

2. Barnardos Australia Submission (26 July 1994).

3. Barnardos Australia Submission (26 July 1994).

4. Barnardos Australia Submission to Issues Paper 9 (6 September 1993). The research project was undertaken by a student placement at Barnardos Australia Adoption Program, 1991: C Raffo and L Johnson Open Adoption: Research on the Views of Children, Adoptive Parents and Birth Parents (November 1991) at 14-16. This paper appeared as Appendix 1 to the submission. See also L Moggach “Openness: Changing Practice, Changing Perceptions” in Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Adoption Conference Has Adoption a Future? (Post Adoptive Resource Centre, Sydney, 1995) 403.

5. Raffo and Johnson at 14-16.

6. Centacare Catholic Community Services (Adoption Services) Submission (11 August 1993).

7. M Barnes “Perspectives from the Experience of Centacare Adoption Services” in Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Adoption Conference Has Adoption a Future? 394 at 396.

8. Barnes at 396.

9. New South Wales Law Reform Commission Review of the Adoption of Children Act 1965 (NSW) (Discussion Paper 34, April 1994) at para 4.45-4.55.

10. NSWLRC DP 34 Chapter 4, Proposals 5 and 6.

11. E Berzins Submission (27 July 1994).

12. See, for example, T Blanton and J Deschner “‘Biological Mothers’ Grief: The Post-adoptive Experience in Open Versus Confidential Adoption” (1990) 49 Child Welfare 525.

13. Anglican Adoption Agency Submission (26 August 1994).

14. M Van Keppel “Openness in Adoption: Birth Parents and Negotiated Adoption Agreements” (1991) 15 Adoption and Fostering 85.

15. Van Keppel.

16. Van Keppel.

17. Anglican Adoption Agency Submission (26 August 1994).

18. B and F Peterie, Submission (14 July 1994).

19. Van Keppel “Openness in Adoption: Birth Parents and Negotiated Adoption Agreements”.

20. Van Keppel.

21. Adoption Act 1994 (WA) s 46.

22. s 46(2).

23. s 46(5) and 55(2).

24. s 47.

25. s 49(a) and (b).

26. s 49(c).

27. s 49(d).

28. s 49(e). Such notice would be given under s 30.

29. s 55.

30. s 73.

31. s 72(1).

32. s 72(2)(a)(i).

33. s 72(2)(a)(ii). Under this section the Court can exercise its powers under s 47, 48 or 53 of the Family Court Act 1975 (Cth).

34. s 72 (2)(b). The Court can punish the contempt by exercising its powers under s 88 (2), (4) or (5) of the Family Court Act 1975 (Cth).

35. s 76(4).

36. s 76(4). An adoption plan that is varied in this manner is then enforceable under s 72(2): s 76(5).

37. Western Australia - Adoption Legislative Review Committee Final Report: A New Approach to Adoption (February, 1991) Recommendation 49, para (2) at 85.

38. Western Australia - Adoption Legislative Review Committee Final Report Recommendation 49, para (3).

39. Western Australia - Adoption Legislative Review Committee Final Report Recommendation 49, para (4).

40. Van Keppel “Openness in Adoption: Birth Parents and Negotiated Adoption Agreements” at 81-90.

41. Centacare Catholic Community Services (Adoption Services) Submission (11 August 1994).

42. C Amadio and S Deutsch “Open Adoption: Allowing Adopted Children to ‘Stay in Touch’ with Blood Relatives” (1983) 22 Journal of Family Law 59 at 84.

43. Amadio and Deutsch at 84.

44. Amadio and Deutsch at 86.

45. M Berstein, D Caldwell, G Bruce Clark and R Zisman “Adoption with Access or ‘Open Adoption’’’ (1992) 8 Canadian Family Law Quarterly 283 at 294.

46. G Robinson Submission (26 July 1994); CONCERN for People with Infertility Problems NSW Inc Submission (2 August 1994).

47. Post Adoption Resource Centre on behalf of the Benevolent Society of New South Wales Submission (5 August 1994).

48. National Children’s and Youth Law Centre Submission (29 July 1994). Provision for similar agreements, called “child agreements”, already existed under the Family Law Act prior to amendments to s 63F.

49. New South Wales Committee on Adoption and Permanent Family Care Submission (30 August 1994).

50. E Berzins Submission (27 July 1994).

51. Barnardos Australia Submission (26 July 1994).

52. L Harvey Submission (2 August 1994). Pursuant to the Adoption Information Regulation 1996 (NSW), once the adopted person is 18 years or older, the birth parent is entitled to receive from DOCS or a private adoption agency various pieces of information including as to the marriage or death of the adopted person: cl 8.

53. Western Australia - Adoption Legislative Review Committee Final Report Recommendation 48, para (4). See also the discussion at 83.

54. Under s 24 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) the Registrar registers the memorandum of the adoption order sent to the Registry under s 61 or 63 of the Adoption of Children Act 1965 (NSW).

55. The Registry has striven to achieve this uniformity believing this to be in the adoptee’s best interests. For example, some adoptees have been refused British passports even though one of their adoptive parents are British citizens. The British High Commission has been alerted to their adoptive status by the form or appearance of the adoptees’ birth certificates.

56. Barnardos Australia Submission (26 July 1994).

57. New South Wales Department of Community Services Submission (5 September 1994).

58. New South Wales Committee on Adoption and Permanent Family Care Submission (30 August 1994).

59. Barnardos Australia Submission (26 July 1994).

60. Anglican Adoption Agency Submission (26 August 1994). See also the Post Adoption Resource Centre on behalf of the Benevolent Society of New South Wales Submission (5 August 1994).

61. B and F Peterie Submission (14 July 1994).

62. B and F Peterie Submission (14 July 1994).

63. A Fish and C Speirs “Biological Parents Choose Adoptive Parents: the Use of Profiles in Adoption” (1990) 49 Child Welfare 129.

64. L Harvey Submission (2 August 1994).

65. Adoption of Children Regulation 1995 (NSW) cl 33 and 34.

66. M Iwanek A Study of Open Adoption Placements (New Zealand, 1987) at 28-29.

67. J Fratter “Voluntary Agencies’ Experience of Making Permanent Family Placements With Contact” in J Fratter, J Rowe, D Sapsford and J Thoburn (eds) Permanent Family Placement: A Decade of Experience (BAAF, London, 1991). See discussion of this study in M Adcock, J Kaniuk and R White Exploring Openness in Adoption (Significant Publications, England, 1993) at 8.

68. Iwanek A Study of Open Adoption Placements at 21-22.

69. Iwanek at 22.

70. See, for example, the results of birth family profiles in R McRoy, H Grotevant and K White Openness in Adoption: New Practices, New Issues (Prager, New York, 1988) at 87-108.

71. Centacare Catholic Welfare Services (Adoption Services) Submission (11 August 1994).

72. Barnardos Australia Submission (26 July 1994). See also Post Adoption Resource Centre on behalf of the Benevolent Society of New South Wales Submission (5 August, 1994). This submission makes the point that much of the anxiety experienced by adoptive families with regard to reunions could have been diminished if they had had access during the adoptee’s childhood, or during certain critical phases, to specialised counselling or support.

73. Iwanek A Study of Open Adoption Placements at 25-26.

74. See for example P Stogdon and G Hall “Some Thoughts on Open Adoption” in Adcock, Kanuik and White Exploring Openness in Adoption at 74.

75. Anglican Adoption Agency Submission (26 August 1994).

76. A Burnell “Open Adoption: a Post Adoption Perspective” in Adcock, Kanuik and White Exploring Openness in Adoption at 88.

77. Burnell at 87.

78. For example, Anglican Adoption Agency Submission (26 August 1994).