Page 4303 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
through the adoptions process may be the most appropriate solution. Some adoptive parents feel that naming the child creates a special bond in the development of their relationship, while some adoptive parents feel that keeping the child’s name allows them connection to their country of birth and cultural identity.
It is important to understand that the legislation does allow this issue to be handled on a case by case basis. For example children adopted from China and the Philippines often have names that are recognised through these communities as being orphans or abandoned children. This, we presume, would act as evidence of exceptional circumstances. We are confident that the court system will ensure that the best interests of the child will prevail.
I would like to thank Mr Barr and his staff and the department for providing my office with information on these matters. In supporting this bill we hope that the children, adoptive parents and birth parents who are involved in adoption processes have their rights respected and that the ACT government will monitor the implementation of the changes to ensure the best interests of the child are maintained.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (10.48): I rise to support the Adoption Amendment Bill 2009. In particular, I commend the clauses of the bill that cover access to information by parties to a past adoption. Whilst the Adoption Act 1993 was progressive at the time, by making some provisions for exchanges of information about the circumstances of birth parents and adult adoptees, there has been a significant expansion of understanding about best practice concerning adoption since then.
The purpose of amendments in the bill relating to access to information is to help children and families to have the necessary knowledge and understanding of their adoption story in order to manage the feelings of loss, grief and joy. Having known some people who have been through this process, I can tell you that there is a veritable kaleidoscope of emotions at play, as one would expect.
The veto provisions of the Adoption Act 1993 provide a legal basis for protecting parties to an adoption from contact with each other. These veto provisions are contained in section 70, objection to contact (veto), section 72, counselling services, and section 73, declaration that contact shall not be attempted.
The original purpose of the contact veto was to preserve the right to privacy and confidentiality of parties to an adoption. The person making an objection to contact could be a birth parent, an adoptive parent on behalf of their child or an adult adoptee. However, by and large, the community have come to accept the concept of open adoption and understand that the intended comfort of a right to privacy has instead often been experienced as a debilitating shroud of secrecy. This is reflected in a progressive decline in the number of contact vetos being lodged—an average of one a year over the last five years.
In the past, a contact veto has sometimes closed the door on an adoptee wanting to find out about the reasons for their adoption, their genetic history and other details about their birth family. Many birth parents have also experienced unresolved grief and loss, not knowing if the child they relinquished a long time ago grew up enjoying a happy family life. The impact of such secrecy has been to leave a sense of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .