Internal Working Document of the Queensland Department of Families given to Lily Arthur by a Departmental Worker witnessed by 2 other people. 22^nd February 2002.

This document, circa 2001, was in response to the Final Report “Releasing the Past” handed down by the NSW Standing Committee on Social Issues - Adoption Inquiry 1950-1998 in December 2000. It shows that the State was well aware of past adoption fraud and continues to conceal the fraud and the known damage of it’s past unlawful practices

1. Overview of significant issues identified in Releasing the Past

Releasing the Past (the report) documents past adoption service delivery systems, individuals' experiences of past adoption service delivery systems, the legal and ethical standards that applied during the period under consideration and the short and long-term effects of adoption and the support needs of people affected by adoption.

The report acknowledges that evidence provided by witnesses, the majority of whom were critical of past practice, may not reflect the views of relinquishing parents who did not seek to give testimony. It also recognises that there are many people who relinquished a child who feel that they made the right decision and did seek to participate in the Inquiry.

The Committee received submissions and heard evidence from a small number of women affected by past adoption seeking financial compensation. The Committee reports that reparations for past practices should include material and non material measures including access to appropriate counselling, free access to records, acknowledgment and apology and the public disclosure of past practices. It also reports that it would be more appropriate to provide funding to increase access to counselling and research that provides ongoing support to people affected by adoption than to provide it to individuals.

1.1 Context for considering adoption practice in past decades

The report provides a context for understanding adoption practice in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s by examining the social values and attitudes toward women, the mothering of children and the family unit that generally existed in those decades. It also identifies how attitudes toward unmarried mothers changed in the 1970s and the resulting changes, which occurred in adoption legislation, policy and practice from the mid-1970s to the present.

The report provides detailed descriptions of the adoption experiences of all parties to adoption and quotes from witness statements, which identify events and incidents characteristic of the adoption experience in past decades.

1.2 Effects of past adoption

The paucity of post adoption services and the general lack of knowledge about the short and long-term effect of adoption on birth parents' future well-being in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are identified in the report.

The report concludes that many parents, mostly mothers, who relinquished a child for adoption, particularly in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, have been disadvantaged and suffered in the long-term.

The report acknowledges that many mothers who relinquished their children for adoption were denied their rights and did not uncaringly give away their children. These rights included their right to see their child after the child's birth, to name their child, to receive information about options which may have enabled them to parent their child or to be informed that they could revoke their consent within a specified period of time.

The Committee found that there was a critical need to identify measures and provide increased funding to assist people affected by past adoption practice and to document, research and publish information about the experiences of birth parents and the experiences of people separated by adoption, being reunited.

1.3 Public acknowledgment of misguided past practices

The Committee recommends that the New South Wales Government issue a statement publicly acknowledging that past adoption practices were misguided and on occasions unethical or unlawful and resulted in lasting suffering for people affected by adoption. It also recommends that Departments, private agencies, churches, hospitals, professional organisations and individuals involved in adoption practices be encouraged to apologise to people who have suffered as a result of past adoption practices.

1.4 Current administration of contact vetoes

The Committee identified that current contact veto arrangements in New South Wales may be overly restrictive as they do not take into account the possibility that the desire for a veto may change over time.

In New South Wales the Adoption Information Act 1990 established a system of contact vetoes for adoptions. The New South Wales Adoption Act 2000 retains provisions for contact vetoes to be lodged with no period of renewal; hence all vetoes remain in place indefinitely. However, the new Act allows for the Director General to approach a person who has refused contact under a contact veto to ask whether they wish to confirm, cancel or vary the contact veto.

The Committee recommends that, because a contact veto can be highly distressing for some people, and research shows that a proportion of people when asked do not wish to renew their contact veto, a system should be established in which vetoes are regularly reviewed or automatically cancelled after a period of time unless an optional renewal is exercised.

The Committee identified that the administration of contact vetoes in New South Wales should be reviewed with a view to establishing procedures for periodic review, renewal and/or cancellation of contact vetoes

The Committee found that there is a need for States and Territories to collaborate to achieve national consistency in legislative provisions concerning contact vetoes and information that may be accessed by people affected by adoption.

2. Recommendations

The twenty recommendations made in the report relate to:

• improving post adoption information services and developing resources to assist professionals and individuals.

• increasing the funding provided to community agencies to support people affected by adoption, including people in rural and remote areas and indigenous people.

• establishing a grants program for support groups, counselling services and to investigate the effects of past adoption practices and issues surrounding reunions.

• reviewing legislative provisions to enable contact vetoes (referred to as objections in Queensland legislation) to be reviewed periodically and to establish procedures for renewal and/or cancellation of contact vetoes.

• improving services to people accessing information in relation to their adoption by waiving application for identifying adoption information fees and providing all relevant information from adoption files at the time identifying adoption information is provided .

• issuing statements publicly acknowledging that past adoption practices were misguided and statements of apology for practices which may have caused lasting suffering.

• the need for the New South Wales Minister for Community Services to liaise with other States and Territories to establish uniform law and procedures in relation to contact vetoes (referred to as objections in Queensland legislation) and the need for the New South Wales Attorney- General to collaborate with other States and Territories to achieve greater consistency in adoption information legislation and procedures across Australia.

Implementation of the Inquiry's recommendations in New South Wales would require:

• the Department of Community Services to significantly increase funding to the Post Adoption Resource Centre, which operates in that State, to develop resources and provide greater access to services for people living in rural and remote areas of the State

• the Department of Community Services to review the funding provided to Link Up New South Wales to ensure that current funding is sufficient to provide services to Indigenous people affected by adoption

• the Department of Community Services to fund support groups and to provide funding for projects related to counselling, training, research and writing on the impact of adoption and funding for a major independent research project on the reunion process and effects of adoption

• the Department of Community Services to provide funding to collate, collect, edit and publish comprehensive accounts of mothers' adoption experiences

• the Minister for Community Services to establish a public education campaign relating to past adoption practices to make it clear that many of the mothers who gave up their children to adoption were denied their rights and did not uncaringly give away their children

• the Minister for Community Services and the New South Wales Attorney-General to collaborate with other States and Territories to achieve greater consistency in adoption information legislation, including the administration of vetoes, and procedures across Australia.

3. Relevance of the Inquiry's findings within the Queensland context

The provisions of adoption legislation and the delivery of adoption services in Queensland from 1950 to 1998 were very similar to those operating in New South Wales at the same time.

The Department has received a number of written statements from birth mothers expressing issues similar to those reported by witnesses to the New South Wales Inquiry.

Birth mothers have stated that at the time of signing an adoption consent in Queensland they were not advised of options which would have enabled them to make the decision to keep their newborn baby, being instead encouraged to sign an adoption consent.

They have also reported negative experiences while resident in church affiliated maternity homes and when interacting with hospital staff and while receiving medical services. Grievances of this nature are commonly reported by birth parents who signed consents from the 1960s to the middle of the 1970s

To date the Department has assisted birth mothers seeking to come to terms with their adoption experience by providing limited support, where possible access to identifying information about their adopted children, now adults, and by providing copies of documents, such as the adoption consent and written records of interviews.

In many instances birth parents and adult adopted persons being able to make contact with each other has helped to resolve matters for both parties.

Issues surrounding the taking of adoption consents and the treatment of unmarried mothers in Queensland by both hospital staff and departmental officers continue to be raised by some women.

It is apparent that a number of women who consented to the adoption of a child in Queensland in the 1960s and 1970s have suffered significant trauma as a result of their adoption experience.

4. Implementation of key recommendations from the New South Wales Inquiry within the Queensland context

4.1 Resources and funding for training, support and counselling services and research

Few resources exist in Queensland to assist people affected by past adoption practice to understand their experiences, locate and make contact with birth relatives or prepare for reunions.

The Department recurrently funds two services for people affected by adoption (Jigsaw Queensland Inc and Association for Adoptees Queensland Inc) for $5,917 and $6,203 respectively. These organisations do not receive recurrent funding from any other source and have the capacity to provide support to only a small number of individuals affected by adoption.

A number of small community groups, operated on a voluntary 'self help' basis also provide some support for individuals affected by adoption. The quality and appropriateness of the information and support provided by these groups varies.

Although the information, support and research needs identified in Releasing the Past exist in Queensland, there are no additional funds available for the development of resources, the provision of support and counselling services or to research past and current adoption experiences of people affected by adoption in Queensland.

4.2 Provision of post adoption support services in Queensland

Under the provisions of the Adoption of Children Act 1964 the Department is responsible for providing, upon application, identifying information to eligible adults affected by adoption and associated information held on departmental records.

Many people seeking information also require counselling and support to assist them to come to terms with issues associated with their adoption experience. Most commonly, people request assistance with making contact with a birth relative and to prepare for a possible reunion or with coming to terms with being denied access to information because they are subject to an objection to the release of identifying information.

Short-term assistance is provided to clients who require support in relation to their application for information, however this is resource intensive and the Department does not have the capacity to meet the demand for such support.

The Department does not have the capacity to provide on going counselling services to adults affected by adoption orders made in Queensland. Many people seeking assistance are left unsupported because they are unable to afford services from a psychologist, psychiatrist or private counsellor.

In the 1999-00 the Department received 957 applications for identifying information from adults affected by adoption orders made in Queensland. Over the same period, the Department received more than 9,000 telephone calls from people seeking information and/or support and counselling in relation to post-adoption issues.

In comparison with other states such as New South Wales, people who have been affected by adoption in Queensland have limited opportunities for accessing community based post- adoption support and counselling services.

Information obtained from the Post Adoption Resource Centre (PARC) in New South Wales, a community-based service auspiced by the Benevolent Society of New South Wales indicates that its primary source of funding is the Department of Community Services (DOCS). DOCS provide approximately $320,000 in recurrent funds for five full-time equivalent positions.

The Committee found that PARC required a substantial increase in funding to enable an adequate response to be provided to meet the information and support needs of people affected by past and current adoptions in New South Wales. Specific recommendations identify the need for additional funding to be made available to PARC and/or other community based services in New South Wales to provide or co-ordinate services to people affected by adoption .

The services currently provided by the Department in Queensland, which are limited to providing identifying adoption information to eligible adults and some short-term support to a small number of people experiencing significant distress associated with their adoption experience, are insufficient to provide responses in keeping with those identified by the Committee as being critical.

The recurrent funding (totalling $12,120) provided to community agencies providing services to people affected by adoption in Queensland, is also insufficient to provide responses in keeping with those identified by the Committee as being critical.

4.3 Information release and objection (veto) provisions

Queensland's legislative provisions relating to the release of identifying information to adults affected by adoption differ significantly from the provisions of legislation in other States and Territories.

In other States and Territories ( except South Australia) birth parents and adopted person are entitled to receive identifying information about each other when the adopted person attains 18 years of age, regardless of when the adoption order was made. Birth parents and adopted person (except those in Victoria) are able to lodge (or to veto) the release of identifying information. The duration of a veto varies between States and Territories

In South Australia birth parents and adopted persons may lodge time-limited vetoes to the release of identifying information. For example, an eligible person may lodge a veto which remains in effect for five years, unless revoked. The person may use the time to consider the implications of making contact, to seek counselling and to discuss the adoption with other family members who may not be aware of the past adoption. The person may choose to revoke the contact veto prior to the expiry of five years, to allow the veto to expiry after five years or to renew the contact veto for another five-year period.

Queensland's Adoption of Children Act 1964 (the Act) was amended in 1991 to make it possible to release identifying adoption information, in certain circumstances, to eligible people affected by adoption orders made in Queensland. It was also amended to make provision for objections, which are similar to vetoes contained in legislation in other States and Territories, to be lodged in certain circumstances.

The Act makes different provisions for the release of information depending on whether an adoption order was made before or after June 1991, the date of the amendment.

Birth parents who sign an adoption consent after June 1991, and persons who are adopted after June 1991, have an unqualified entitlement to receive identifying information about each other, once the adopted person reaches 18 years of age.

The Act makes no provision for birth parents who sign an adoption consent after June 1991, and persons who are adopted after June 1991 to object to the release of identifying information or to object to contact with the other party.

Birth parents who signed an adoption consent prior to June 1991, and persons who were adopted prior to June 1991, can receive identifying information if the other party to the adoption has not lodged an objection to the disclosure of identifying information.

Birth parents who consented to the adoption of a child before June 1991 I and adults who were adopted before June 1991 I who do not want eligible birth relatives to receive information about them, or to make contact with them, are provided under the Act with the option to:

• lodge an objection to the other party to the adoption making contact; or

• lodge an objection to contact and to the release of information to the other party to the adoption.

Under the provisions of the Act, objections may be revoked. However, they remain in place indefinitely unless they are revoked. This means that a birth parent or an adopted person, who is subject to an objection, cannot receive identifying information even upon the death of the person who lodged the objection.

The Committee recommended that the administration of contact vetoes in New South Wales be reviewed because they are overly restrictive and cause significant distress to some people subject to a contact veto. The administration of objections, as prescribed in Queensland's legislation, is much more restrictive than the administration of contact vetoes in any other State or Territory.

In Queensland the distress caused by objections is compounded because people subject to an objection to contact and the release of identifying information are prohibited from accessing identifying information as well as being unable to make contact with their birth relatives.

4.4 National consistency in legislation provisions for information release

The Committee's recommendation that States and Territories collaborate to achieve greater consistency in legislative provisions relating to information release and vetoes would be problematic within the current Queensland context.

The provisions of the Adoption of Children Act 1964 which do not entitle all adopted persons to receive identifying information and enable birth parents and adopted persons to lodge a permanent objection to both contact and the release of identifying information is unique to Queensland. These provisions, as they are currently prescribed, would need to be addressed before consideration could be given to achieving national consistency with provisions relating to the duration of contact vetoes.

4.5 Application for identifying information fee

The Committee recommends that adopted persons and birth parents should have an entitlement to receive identifying information and that fees associated with accessing identifying adoption information should be removed.

The Adoption of Children Regulation 1999 prescribes that people applying for identifying information must pay a $50 application fee. The fee is

waived if the applicant is in receipt of a Commonwealth Government income subsidy or experiencing financial hardship

Many people applying for identifying information in Queensland have indicated that the requirement to pay a fee to obtain information about the circumstances of their own birth or their child's adoption is insensitive and offensive. Although the fee waive provision is generously applied, people affected by adoption view the fee as inappropriate and as reported by the Committee in New South Wales, are sometimes deterred from making application because of the cost involved.

An amendment to Queensland's Adoption of Children Regulation 1999 would be required to remove the requirement for adults who have been adopted and birth parents who consented to a child's adoption to pay a fee to receive identifying information.

5. Conclusion

The Inquiry was inclusive and undertook a comprehensive investigation of the social and legal context in which adoption services were delivered in New South Wales between 1950 and 1998. The findings relating to service provision and the treatment of unmarried mothers in the 1960s and 1970s are broadly applicable within the Queensland context as model adoption legislation existed throughout Australia, including new South Wales and Queensland, and service delivery systems operating in both States were similar.

The Committee identifies the interrelated roles the Department of Community Services and the Department of Health (and their predecessors), major church organisations, the institution of the family and changing social values have played in the development of adoption legislation and services. Although the Committee found evidence of misguided and flawed adoption practice, responsibility for such practice was not attributed to any individual source or cause.

Financial compensation for individuals affected by past adoption practice was not recommended. Appropriate reparations for past practices identified by the Committee included funding to increase access to counselling, funding for research, free access to records and public acknowledgment, apology and disclosure of past practices.

Witness statements and issues raised in submissions received by the Committee in New South Wales reflect reports consistently made to the Department of Families in Queensland by a small number of birth parents who consented to the adoption of a child in the 1960s and 1970s.

From information available to the Department it appears that the Committee's discussion of misguided adoption practice in past decades and of the expressed needs of people affected by past adoption practice accurately describes the Queensland experience.

The need to enhance the availability and quality of services provided to people affected by past adoption practice and to research adoption outcomes for children and families identified by the Committee has also been identified by the Department of Families in Queensland.

The number of people affected by past adoption practice in Queensland is less than the number of people affected by past adoption practice in New South Wales. People affected by past adoption practice in New South Wales have had access to a government funded community agency, which employs professional staff and provides high quality services, for over ten years.

People experiencing distress due to past adoption practices in Queensland have not had access to a level of service comparable with that provided in New South Wales in the last decade.

In order to achieve outcomes similar to those recommended in New South Wales, legislative provisions concerning objections and information release would need to be reviewed, appropriate community infrastructure would need to be developed and increased recurrent funding would need to be provided. Attention to these three elements would enable the provision of an adequate response to meet the needs of people affected by past adoption practice in Queensland.