[caths1964]

On another thread, I mentioned about Australia and their adoption practices and wondered about the exact reasons why domestic infant adoption is at such a low rate out here.

There seem to be quite a few theories:

1) Good financial support for single mothers.
2) Helpful assistance for those who wish to keep their child but aren't sure how.
3) Reaction against Australia's bad record in the 60s/70s (probably the worst in the world).
4) No prebirth matching or private agencies.
5) High abortion rates, according to some people.

Possible answers:

1) One reason given for Australia and NZ's adoption rates dropping so suddenly in the early 70s is because of knowledge about the unmarried mothers pension becoming more widespread. Apparently, it did exist beforehand but hardly any one was told about it.
2) In South Australia, this is the following policy:

In South Australia, the recognition of the impact of past adoptions has resulted in changes to current adoption policy, which mean that there are no longer any adoptions of older children, no adoptions by family members (including step-parent adoptions) and no adoptions without consent. In fact, there are very few adoptions at all in South Australia at the present time. There are also no orphanages and no abandoned babies. Over the last thirty years, numbers of adoptions have dropped dramatically and in the last few years there have been only three or four Australian-born children adopted per year in South Australia. Numbers of children adopted from other countries into South Australia have also reduced and are expected to decrease further in future.

If a mother approaches the relevant government department in South Australia and states that she is expecting a child and has concerns that she may not be in a position to raise that child, she will be asked what it is that would prevent her from providing a home for her child. If her need is housing, then housing will be sought. If her need is financial support, then financial support will be sought. If her need is parenting skills, then the teaching of parenting skills will be offered. If there is a problem which is likely to separate a mother and her child, it is that problem that needs to be tackled. The child is not the problem. It is the social situation into which the child is arriving which may pose problems. A mother and child constitute a family. If adoption is even being considered then it means that there is a family in difficulties.

In the rare circumstance where the mother decides to proceed with an adoption, the selection of prospective adoptive parents does not begin until after the baby has been born, after the consent to adoption has been signed and after the revocation period has expired. Only then is an approach made to prospective adopters. This is in recognition of the fact that it is considered unprofessional and unethical to expect a mother to make a decision regarding the future of her child during the pregnancy and also to ensure that the mother's vulnerability is not exploited at any time.

3. Not necessarily a bad thing to be wary about going back to the old days. They "meant well" back in those days but you know the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
4. Private adoption and pre birth matching are illegal in Australia. All adoption is done through foster care, with a mother considering relinquishment being given a minimum of 6 weeks to think about it after the birth before adoption will even be considered by officials. Prior to that time the mother receives unbiased counselling aimed at getting her to parent her child. See also no. 2

5. I will attach a link to abortion rates around the world. It seems that the US does have a higher rate of abortion than the US (about 24% in Australia, 28% in the US). If you have a look at individual states in the US, the ones with big cities in them (NY, LA, Miami) have much higher abortions rate than Australia. The more rural states have lower rates than Australia.

Abortion statistics and other data

What do others think? Why do you think this works in Australia and do you think it can work in the US? If not, why not?

To me, I feel that Australia is at a stage where adoption is about finding a family for a child not the other way around like it was in the 60s/70s.

Please note: I am talking about DOMESTIC INFANT ADOPTION ONLY! Foster care adoption is a different kettle of fish and I am in two minds about whether guardianship or adoption of older children is better but this thread isn't about foster care/adoption, it is purely about domestic infant adoption.

[crick]

I really go back and forth on this issue, because the one main point I come back to is "my" rights. The right of the mom to be in charge of her body, decisions regarding her body, pregnancy, and of course her child.

I personally think I'd rather choose a parent for my child. I also would not appreciate counseling to convince me EITHER way. It is not "Unbiased" if it is aimed at any one option. It seems that Australia has almost a coercion to parent when seen that way, kwim?

What I do like about Australia's way is that things are very clear so everyone knows from the start how it will go. Even if one doesn't like the process, they at least know exactly what to expect. I like that it's the same across the board. One of the things that gets very confusing in the U.S. are the different laws involved varying from state to state. That is a big issue.

There IS help in the U.S. for those that need assistance and certainly there are more women that choose to parent than choose to relinquish. Just like your government, if a person approaches a relevant office for assistance, they will often receive that assistance.

Just my first few thoughts on that. I'm curious though...what is the process like for the father? Do they have the right to raise their child if mom doesn't want to or cannot?

[MamaS]

I had just finished reading this article, and wondered why the couple did not adopt. You answered my question - it is next to impossible.

Couple with three sons abort twin boys after IVF... and they will try again for a baby girl as their first daughter died | Mail Online

It sounds like this couple will soon be in the U.S. getting the daughter they want - one way or another!

[caths1964]

Originally Posted by crick

I really go back and forth on this issue, because the one main point I come back to is "my" rights. The right of the mom to be in charge of her body, decisions regarding her body, pregnancy, and of course her child.

I personally think I'd rather choose a parent for my child. I also would not appreciate counseling to convince me EITHER way. It is not "Unbiased" if it is aimed at any one option. It seems that Australia has almost a coercion to parent when seen that way, kwim?

What I do like about Australia's way is that things are very clear so everyone knows from the start how it will go. Even if one doesn't like the process, they at least know exactly what to expect. I like that it's the same across the board. One of the things that gets very confusing in the U.S. are the different laws involved varying from state to state. That is a big issue.

There IS help in the U.S. for those that need assistance and certainly there are more women that choose to parent than choose to relinquish. Just like your government, if a person approaches a relevant office for assistance, they will often receive that assistance.

Just my first few thoughts on that. I'm curious though...what is the process like for the father? Do they have the right to raise their child if mom doesn't want to or cannot?

Admittedly, Crick, South Australia does have the toughest laws in Australia on adoption. I do think if you wish to place your child for adoption in the other states, it is probably easier. I know in NSW you also get to chose the parents as well if you so wish but AFTER you have given birth. I think no. 4 on my list is partly the reason it is still quite low, i.e. there are no private agencies (well actually there are accredited agencies which seem to be long standing charity organisations that are the official agencies for adoption) or prebirth matching. In NSW all people considering adoption for their baby are given this to read:

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docs...rthparents.pdf

We have just had a bizarre case here in Australia where an international level water polo player has been charged for murdering her 2nd child (no-one knows what happened to the child, to be honest, no body has been found) - the two children on either side were placed for adoption with no real hassles as far as I can see so it is obviously not that hard to do if you want (place child for adoption that is). If after all the counselling etc, a woman wants to place her child for adoption, then that is fair enough.

Tegan Lane case - Keli Lane case

One of the reasons I brought this up is because there is a group of people that are hoping to start up Crisis Pregnancy Centres in Australia in the hope that less women will abort and instead place their child for adoption. I am not sure if you are a woman who has gone to a Crisis Pregnancy Centre in the US, whether you are given all options like 1 and 2 without bias.

In regards to last sentence, I think the family is encouraged to help look after child, including paternal side (I will have to look into that more when I get home).

[crick]

I think family is a big element we often might not consider and really does affect what a person decides to do.

I'll have to read the articles tomorrow when I'm less tired, but will catch up. I also did want to say I didn't mean to imply we don't have biased options offered here. LOL! Oh lordy...we do. Obviously not everyone but yanno, it is of course slanted to certain choices depending on where one goes for "advice". I was just commenting on the part where the woman is "encouraged" to parent in Australia and offered counseling to that effect. To me it's still coercive, just to a different choice and therefore I don't know if that's "better" or not.

[caths1964]

Originally Posted by MamaS

I had just finished reading this article, and wondered why the couple did not adopt. You answered my question - it is next to impossible.

Couple with three sons abort twin boys after IVF... and they will try again for a baby girl as their first daughter died | Mail Online

It sounds like this couple will soon be in the U.S. getting the daughter they want - one way or another!

And you really think they are the right sort of people to be adopting? Aren't you appalled that they aborted their twin boys because they wanted a girl?

[usisarah]

I am appalled that this couple would abort a baby just because of its sex. To me that's like saying, well if it's a boy, it's not a human life that we want to preserve, but if it's a girl, it is a human life we want to preserve. Maybe I'm not understanding their mentality correctly.

[mymotherssacrifice]

This seems like an instance where laws created to make it easier for women to keep children and protect the union of "family" may in a way have backfired creating more cases of abortion. I do wonder how these laws impact women who are unable to have children and are due to these laws unlikely to be able to adopt a baby?

The story of the mother that aborted her twin sons to hold out for ttc a daughter seems so sad to me. I would question the emotional impact on these children and any future child. I have 4 sons and would love to have a daughter, but I can't imagine going about it that way.

[caths1964]

Originally Posted by mymotherssacrifice

This seems like an instance where laws created to make it easier for women to keep children and protect the union of "family" may in a way have backfired creating more cases of abortion. I do wonder how these laws impact women who are unable to have children and are due to these laws unlikely to be able to adopt a baby?

The story of the mother that aborted her twin sons to hold out for ttc a daughter seems so sad to me. I would question the emotional impact on these children and any future child. I have 4 sons and would love to have a daughter, but I can't imagine going about it that way.

Actually, abortion rates are lower in Australia than in the US (24% Australia, 28% US).

Did you read the entry further down where there is a "mandatory" information sheet about adoption. You will find that it discusses adoption and parenting very fairly. Adoption is freely available in most of Australia but is not a choice that the majority of unmarried mothers wish to take because they have other options. They of course do have options in the US as well.

Also, I know many people feel that in the US, adoption rates dropped suddenly because of Roe and Wade. Here, the figures dropped suddenly when the unmarried mothers pension became widely known about. So I don't necessarily think it is an abortion vs adoption thing.

Anyway, the best way to reduce abortion is not to make someone go to term but to educate them so they don't get pregnant in the first place.

[MamaS]

Originally Posted by caths1964

Actually, abortion rates are lower in Australia than in the US (24% Australia, 28% US).

Anyway, the best way to reduce abortion is not to make someone go to term but to educate them so they don't get pregnant in the first place.

Could you please give your source for the figure of 28%? I searched several areas - some "neutral" and some obviously biased - and found figures of 18% to 23% for the US as a whole with the rate dropping annually. I am not implying that 18% is acceptable, but perhaps an indication that the US is doing something right?

The 2011 Statistical Abstract: Family Planning, Abortions

[caths1964]

Originally Posted by MamaS

Could you please give your source for the figure of 28%? I searched several areas - some "neutral" and some obviously biased - and found figures of 18% to 23% for the US as a whole with the rate dropping annually. I am not implying that 18% is acceptable, but perhaps an indication that the US is doing something right?

The 2011 Statistical Abstract: Family Planning, Abortions

If you saw my first entry, you will see there is a link to abortion figures. It was hard to find the overall US figure, so I will link to page.

Percentage of United States women who have had abortions

To be honest, I don't think 24% and 28% are that different and I was not knocking the US, it is just that you can hardly say that abortion figures in Australia are ouot of control compared with US. You will also notice that states that had big cities like NY and California have higher abortion rates than rural states.

By the way, even Hugh Jackman's wife, who is very much into getting Australia to increase International adoption, thinks that Australia has it right re domestic adoption.

The truth is, perhaps Australia and NZ just have a different type of culture when it comes to adoption. NZ abortions rate are higher in the areas with larger cities and tourist areas. Australian rates seem to be similar in each state (each state has a reasonable sized city). Northern Territory has a rate of 4% though the figure is a bit suspect.

[Dickons]

About the Roe vs Wade being the 'cause' of decline in adoption rates...it may have been ONE factor but another factor was that in 1972 a court case finally allowed ALL UNMARRIED women to be prescribed the birth control pill...stop and think about what it was like for unmarried men and women prior to that to get any form of birth control. Then add on that the stigma of unmarried mothers also started to decline rapidly - a completely new set of societal rules were developing...unmarried couples openly lived with each other in the 70's...

What Roe vs Wade did was stop/cut down the illegal abortions from happening. Doctors stopped seeing the steady stream of women coming to them after the illegal abortions - infected, bleeding, torn apart, septic...instead those who would choose abortion had their abortions performed properly in sanitary conditions by trained doctors...

I think with Australia the key is taking the profit out of the picture and creating a level playing field with someone without a stake in the matter calling the shots.

D

[usisarah]

It would be interesting to see the rates of DIA in industrialized countries and compare them...as in compare the rates between countries like the US that have almost all DIA done through private agencies vs countries like Australia (and Canada?) that have all adoptions go through the govt. I'm not trying to start the 'coersion' debate, but you can't deny that a lot (maybe even most) eparents don't get unbiased counseling when thinking about placement here. (And I also agree that counseling that tries to convince an emom to parent isn't unbiased either, but if you have to have a bias, I think that's the one I would prefer) I personally think the level of unbiased counseling required would make a difference on the numbers of DIA in different countries, but I don't have any evidence to back that up.

[caths1964]

Originally Posted by usisarah

It would be interesting to see the rates of DIA in industrialized countries and compare them...as in compare the rates between countries like the US that have almost all DIA done through private agencies vs countries like Australia (and Canada?) that have all adoptions go through the govt. I'm not trying to start the 'coersion' debate, but you can't deny that a lot (maybe even most) eparents don't get unbiased counseling when thinking about placement here. (And I also agree that counseling that tries to convince an emom to parent isn't unbiased either, but if you have to have a bias, I think that's the one I would prefer) I personally think the level of unbiased counseling required would make a difference on the numbers of DIA in different countries, but I don't have any evidence to back that up.

Sarah, the following figures are from Wikipedia (also included link)

Adoption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Table 2: Adoptions, Live Births, and Adoption/Live Birth Ratios are provided in the table below (alphabetical, by country) for a number of Western countries
Country Adoptions Live Births Adoption/Live Birth Ratio Notes
Australia 270 (2007–2008)[52] 254,000 (2004)[53] 0.2 per 100 Live Births Includes known relative adoptions
England & Wales 4,764 (2006)[54] 669,601(2006)[55] 0.7 per 100 Live Births Includes all adoption orders in England and Wales
Iceland between 20-35 year[56] 4,560 (2007)[57] 0.8 per 100 Live Births
Ireland 263 (2003)[58] 61,517 (2003)[59] 0.4 per 100 Live Births 92 non-family adoptions; 171 family adoptions (e.g. stepparent). 459 international adoptions were also recorded.
Italy 3,158 (2006)[60] 560,010 (2006)[61] 0.6 per 100 Live Births
Norway 657 (2006)[62] 58,545(2006)[63] 1.1 per 100 Live Births Adoptions breakdown: 438 inter-country; 174 stepchildren; 35 foster; 10 other.
Sweden 1044(2002)[64] 91,466(2002)[65] 1.1 per 100 Live Births 10-20 of these were national adoptions of infants. The rest were international adoptions.
United States approx 127,000 (2001)[66] 4,021,725 (2002)[67] ~3 per 100 Live Births The number of adoptions is reported to be constant since 1987.

(And I also agree that counseling that tries to convince an emom to parent isn't unbiased either, but if you have to have a bias, I think that's the one I would prefer)

I tend to agree. I certainly think counselling shouldn't be biased but at least if emom is encouraged to parent and then finds she isn't able to, adoption is still an option. If the emom is encouraged to place for adoption, that is a final step. Again though, I definitely agree counselling should be as unbiased as possible.

There have been a couple of ladies who have posted on the birthmothers forums who were originally going to place and then for some reason didn't (in one case, I think it was the boyfriend who stepped in) who have now said that though they found it hard at the very beginning, have never regretted parenting their child. So circumstances and feelings do change and it can be worth having that bit of time first with the newborn child so one can really understand how they feel. If they feel still feel unable to parent, then they can place their child for adoption then. By the way, I am not saying this is an option that should be forced on anybody.

[caths1964]

Originally Posted by Dickons

About the Roe vs Wade being the 'cause' of decline in adoption rates...it may have been ONE factor but another factor was that in 1972 a court case finally allowed ALL UNMARRIED women to be prescribed the birth control pill...stop and think about what it was like for unmarried men and women prior to that to get any form of birth control. Then add on that the stigma of unmarried mothers also started to decline rapidly - a completely new set of societal rules were developing...unmarried couples openly lived with each other in the 70's...

What Roe vs Wade did was stop/cut down the illegal abortions from happening. Doctors stopped seeing the steady stream of women coming to them after the illegal abortions - infected, bleeding, torn apart, septic...instead those who would choose abortion had their abortions performed properly in sanitary conditions by trained doctors...

I think with Australia the key is taking the profit out of the picture and creating a level playing field with someone without a stake in the matter calling the shots.

D

Thanks Dickons.