Page 3626 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Consent given before at least 28 days, I believe, is to be avoided. Many birth mothers have testified that they were urged to give up their babies before they were ready. I would venture to say that such a serious decision cannot be reached within a period shorter than 28 days. Now that we are learning more and more about postbirth blues, postnatal depression, the health benefits of breast milk and long-term dysfunction as a result of severance made too early, we ought to ensure that under no circumstances should consent be made too early. Rather, we ought to err on the side of the child being older than grant consent any earlier. So, that is the first issue that I think needs consideration.
The second issue that needs consideration, I believe, has to do with subclause 46(1), which reads:
Upon the making of an adoption order, the adopted child acquires the domicile of the adoptive parents at the date on which the adoption order was made and after that date the child's domicile shall be determined as if the child had been born in lawful wedlock to the adoptive parents.
Subclause 46(2) reads:
The domicile acquired under subsection (1) by an adopted child shall for all purposes be deemed to be also the child's domicile of origin.
Does this mean that the Government intends to perpetuate a lie that will inevitably be found out when the adoptee, who is no longer a child, receives information on his or her origins? Or is it simply a mechanical system of ensuring citizenship rights for adopted children? Surely the Government is not intending to continue the past mistakes of deceiving a human being and encouraging adoptive parents to collude. I have a question over that. Madam Speaker, I support the Bill in principle very strongly, but there are some areas that I have questions about and those are the ones that I am going to raise.
The next matter that I wish to deal with is subparagraph (b)(ii) of subclause 55(2), which states:
the Director or the principal officer of a private adoption agency has, before the adoption in that other country, agreed to the placement of the adopted child with the adoptive parents and the child is placed in accordance with the conditions of approval of the adoptive parents;
That indicates that there are some conditions set by the adoptive parents. I think that that is not the intention of the clause. The intention of the clause seems to me to require words something like "placed on". Perhaps it should read, "the conditions of approval placed on the adoptive parents". Perhaps this is correct in terms of drafting, but it certainly is not plain English. It could be read to mean conditions placed on the parents.
Madam Speaker, I can manage to draw attention to these matters in spite of the very short time that I have had to deal with this Bill, thanks to the fine work done by Tina van Raay on my behalf. Subclause 56(i), I think, has been dealt with in general terms by Mrs Carnell, but I will make a comment. We need to have evidence and sound reasons as to why supervision of overseas adoptions, after
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .