Preventing another National Apology: the case for adoption

The Wood Report (2008), commissioned to report on the New South Wales Department of Child Safety, highlights that 330,000 reports were received by the department in that year. Of the 330,000 reports only 7500 families accounted for fifty percent of these reports, that is, twelve percent of the families accounted for fifty percent of the reports. On average each of these 7500 families where reported twenty times within the year.

Kristan Dooley, the Managing Director Woman’s Forum Australia, through her involvement with the research by Dr Greg Pike, Director of the Adelaide Centre for Bioethics and Culture Members, Adoption Rethink published in late 2014 advocates for early permanency. Further she indicates that there is evidence suggesting permanency into open adoptive situations within six months of the required removal from an at risk situation results in the best outcomes for the child in the majority of cases.

Early intervention in these extreme cases that takes up fifty percent of the resources of the Australian Child Safety departments could enhance long term outcomes. Further, the resultant effect would be to free up resources for services within the remaining eighty eight percent of families.

Adoption levels in Australia are almost zero. An inquiry report titled ‘Overseas Adoption in Australia’ produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Human and Family Services in 2005 found that adoption as a stable and safe alternative was being underutilised. When considering the inquiry Dr. Sammut notes ‘Based on the international evidence comparing adoption to family preservation and foster care, the inquiry concluded that at-risk children who are removed early, speedily, and permanently have better outcomes than children who are removed later and cycled through multiple temporary foster placements and failed family reunions. Adoption for children protection purposes promotes child welfare because, as studies have shown, it produces better outcomes for abused and neglected children by providing them with the certainty and stability of a permanent family’.

If Australia was to achieve the same level of adoption rates as a percentage per population as the UK or America the required level adoptions each year would be approximately 3000 and 5000 respectively. The same inquiry ‘Overseas Adoption in Australia’ also suggests that the outcomes of these countries practices have been significantly better that those achieved through the current Australian system.

It is important that parental custody rights are subordinate to the rights of children to be protected from harm. With community support, consistent and relevant data collection, logical research-based independent decisions and community education, real cultural change to include early permanency towards the most at risk Australian children can be achieved.

It is Dr. Sammut’s statement, ‘It is not that the system removes children into care too quickly that drives expense and complexity up, but rather leaving them with abusive and neglectful families too long, which causes greater damage and generates a need for additional services to help children recover from the effects of maltreatment’ which aptly portrays the reason that cultural change is essential.

This change is necessary before we have another forgotten generation of Australian Children that another government will have to make a national apology for.