ABC Online - “Adoption double standards rile locals” by Annie Guest

Advocates for adoption want the Government to consider anomalies in the law that seem to give a special advantage to Australians living overseas.

New figures on adoption show that Australians are continuing to adopt more children from overseas countries than at home.

For people living here and adopting overseas there is one set of rules, but if you live elsewhere for a year or more, Australia's adoption laws do not necessarily apply.

Adoption advocates are using the new statistics to renew calls for more liberal laws, including allowing same-sex and single parents to apply.

A Federal Government review is currently underway.

It is well-known that there are many more Australians who would like to adopt children than there are children available for adoption.

But if there is any doubt, the situation is made clear in the latest report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).

Institute Child and Youth Welfare unit head, Tim Beard, says the number of children available for adoption has dropped significantly.

"The number of children overall - not just in Australia but also inter-country - has fallen quite dramatically from a peak of around about 10,000 in the early 1970s," he said.

"Now there's only just over 400 overall. There's a range of reasons and it's quite a complicated set of situations.

"But there's things such as more effective birth control available nowadays than there was say 25 to 30 years ago, also family planning centres and sexual education classes are becoming more prominent.

"There's also changing social views on the ideas of parenthood and raising children. For example, the idea of raising children outside of marriage in Australia nowadays is much more acceptable.

"And also there's the development of things such as IVF."

He says of the 441 children available for adoption, only about 40 per cent were born in Australia.

Foreign country adoptions

Australia has inter-country adoption arrangements with 14 foreign governments, with most of the children coming from four places.

About a quarter are adopted from China, 17 per cent from the Philippines and the same from South Korea, and about 14 per cent are from Ethiopia.

"Since about the mid 1990s we've seen fairly stable trends in those countries," says Mr Beard.

"That's really due to the formal arrangements that we have in place with those countries that have been set up through the policy departments."

However adoptions from Ethiopia were suspended by the Federal Government late last year after concerns about a request from Ethiopia that Australia enter into a formal aid agreement as part of the arrangement.

It has left a lot of prospective adoptive parents very upset.

'Stolen children' scandal

The Government says a review is continuing, as is an examination of arrangements with some providers in India after a scandal over alleged stolen children.

Adoption advocate Trevor Jordan from the group Jigsaw supports the Government's caution.

"While the parents are experiencing a great deal of anxiety, child-centred policy is very important in this area," he said.

"Our experience in the last 10, 20 years of inter-country adoption is that if we don't attend to good process and market forces take over, people will exploit the situation."

Meanwhile, there is another statistic not included in the figures: another 112 children adopted from foreign countries.

That is achieved by people living overseas for at least a year and therefore not being governed by Australian law. It might include same-sex couples or single people.

Mr Jordan says the laws should be more liberal here anyway.

"In places like the US for example same-sex couples and single parents have stepped up to the breach to provide permanent families for those children," he said.

"People make general rules about what's desirable for a family, but if the overall goal is to see that adoption is about finding families for children and not children for families, then we look at our eligibility criteria somewhat differently."

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

Herald Sun - “Non-birth parents can now be named on birth certificates” by Sally Bennett

LITTLE Drew Hardy-Hughes and her two mothers are now legally recognised as a family in Victoria.

Sweeping January 1 changes to the state's reproductive laws mean that non-birth parents can now be named on birth certificates.

Drew's parents Eilis Hughes and Kristen Hardy, of Werribee, were among the first lesbian couples to act on the landmark legislation.

The birth certificate of their two-year-old daughter, conceived using a known donor, will now list Ms Hughes as the birth mother and Ms Hardy as the other "parent".

"Symbolically it's huge," Ms Hughes said. "It says that we are a family unit and no one can dispute that.

"We had to fight to be visible, and it was also insulting to Kristen, who's done all that hard parenting work, for there to be nothing to say that she is a parent."

The victory for the gay and lesbian community sparked outrage last year when it was revealed that all couples seeking fertility treatment would be forced to have police checks once the new laws were enacted. The move, designed to ensure that IVF patients are fit to be parents, was condemned as discriminatory and insulting to couples struggling to conceive.

Other changes to the Assisted Reproductive Act included recognition of "social" as well as "medical" infertility, meaning single women, gays and lesbians can access IVF treatment or commission a surrogate.

The new laws also mean children conceived using donors have the right to find out about their biological heritage once they turn 18. Ms Hughes said the Act was in the best interests of children.

"It's better for a child to know if they were donor- conceived and it's better for a child to have both parents named on a birth certificate," she said.

"Previously we needed a court order to say that Kristen has equal legal responsibility."

Victorian Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages spokeswoman Erin Keleher, said the department was delighted it can recognise rainbow families. "It's on the vanguard of social change," she said.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

Sydney Morning Herald - “Gay Adoption Ban to Stay” by Brian Robins

THE State Government has decided not to allow same-sex couples to adopt, ignoring a parliamentary inquiry that said changing the law would ''ensure the best interests of children''.

The Government said yesterday there was insufficient community support to justify new legislation on the topic.

Groups representing same-sex couples denounced the decision, saying an opportunity to redress discrimination had been missed.

''There are very deeply held, divergent views on this issue and that is why a decision on this matter will not be taken at this stage,'' the Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney, said yesterday.

Kellie McDonald, of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, said the decision was ''extremely disappointing''. ''If the NSW Government's primary concern was the interests of the children, it would rectify the discrimination of the NSW Adoption Act,'' she said. ''I'm not sure what more can be done.''

The director of the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, James McDougall, said his organisation had argued to the committee that children, ''particularly children of families without legal recognition, wanted this change''.

Judy Brown, of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said ''to suggest that same-sex couples may not adopt is, on the basis of all the evidence available, patently discriminatory and simply highlights ignorance and bigotry''.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

Sydney Morning Herald - “Dark cloud to fertility act's silver lining” by Jen Vuk

Preposterous demand for police checks has been met by silence.

A NEW era in Victoria's assisted fertility legislation is about to dawn. From January 1, single Victorian women and lesbian couples will be able to access IVF in their home state rather than having to travel north for treatment.

The Assisted Reproductive Treatment (ART) Bill, which will also allow male gay couples access to IVF by surrogates, was passed in December last year, and arrived on the back of recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission to bring the state's assisted reproductive treatment regulation into line with NSW, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and the ACT.

For those it assists in becoming parents there's no denying the act's silver lining. It has the potential, as researchers Giuliana Fuscaldo and Sarah Russell argued last year, to legitimise "the idea that biology alone does not define parenthood".

Now for the dark cloud. The act also requires all Victorians jumping on to the IVF carousel to undergo police checks and child protection order checks. As Dr Lyndon Hale, director of Melbourne IVF, told the ABC recently: "The argument forwarded by the Government is that this is Government funds that are being used to help these people get pregnant and therefore they require extra checking."

How is it that the colour of money can make even the most complex of moral issues suddenly seem so black and white?

What's truly intriguing here isn't that the police checks were passed in Parliament, virtually unchallenged (save by the Greens), but that they appear the result of a perfunctory statement made by the commission that "people with convictions for serious sex or violence offences or had children taken from their care should not have access to IVF".

Sorry to lower the tone folks, but … duh! I mean, who in their right mind would support a system that facilitates even one person with a history of sexual violence to become a parent?

Police checks have long been in place for people wishing to adopt here and abroad, and are there for one reason and one reason alone: the protection of children.

But there's not a scrap of evidence - statistical or anecdotal - to suggest that couples who embark on the financially and emotionally taxing process of trying for

a baby constitute even the tiniest minority of child abusers.

Up until now, if an aberrant case were to present, it would have quickly been referred to a clinical ethics committee, but as pioneering fertility doctor Professor Gab Kovacs makes clear: "There have not been a series of IVF children mistreated. There have not been a whole lot of criminals who've been having children."

There are, however, a whole lot of regular, everyday Victorian women seeking treatment, by some estimates about 7000 every year.

And you'll find many more blogging about their fears, hopes, joys and disappointments on online parenting forums, such as Fairfax's essentialbaby.com - where news of the police checks understandably generated something of an emotional tsunami.

The frustration isn't limited to patients. As Dr Mac Talbot, from Monash IVF, says: "Couples can, and will [undergo them], if they really have to. I mean, they've already put up with so much. But I can't help thinking that, not only is it unjust, it's such a waste of time, money, resources and paper."

A paper jam occurred as far back as July, the original enactment date for the regulation. Due to a lack of infrastructure to cater for the increased number of checks, the date was moved to November.

Can the Department of Human Services now handle what some believe could be up to 3000 child protection order checks at a time? Only time will tell.

But it doesn't look good. In Britain, in 2005, ''unnecessary paperwork'' and a groundswell of public opposition sounded the death knell for criminal record checks in association with fertility treatment.

Closer to home, in South Australia, police checks for those undergoing assisted reproductive treatment were found to be impossible to administer and ineffective. They were quietly dropped from legislation.

So what's the alternative? The indefatigable Sandra Dill, from support and advocacy group ACCESS, tells me the onus should always be on the patient.

In South Australia, patients sign statuary declarations (as recommended by the commission) - although she doubts the efficacy of this in protecting children.

Seen through the prism of protecting the innocent, the act has merit, but its reasoning is flawed. On the one hand, it acknowledges that sexual orientation has no bearing on the calibre of a person's parenting; on the other, it clearly discriminates against infertile couples.

If we were really serious about acting in the best interest of children, then we'd demand everyone start undergoing police checks well before they took baby home from hospital.

It's highly unlikely, though, isn't it? Not to mention preposterous. Legislation of this kind would surely be met by a chorus of opposition. So why the silence now?

Jen Vuk is a freelance writer.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

Sydney Morning Herald - “Court upholds parenting orders for lesbian partner” by Kim Arlington

TIMING is crucial when it comes to artificial insemination - at least as far as family law is concerned.

The issue was highlighted when an estranged lesbian couple went to the Federal Magistrates Court in a dispute over parenting orders relating to a three-year-old girl.

The women - given the court-ordered pseudonyms of Ms Aldridge and Ms Keaton - were living together when Ms Aldridge gave birth to the girl in 2006.

They had begun an intimate relationship in 2001 and three years later started attending a fertility clinic together. Before the child was conceived by artificial insemination with donated sperm, Ms Keaton signed consent forms for Ms Aldridge to undergo the procedure. Ms Keaton stayed with her in hospital after the baby's birth and they shared her home in Sydney's inner west for nine months afterwards. But after arguments about parenting, Ms Aldridge moved out with the child late in 2006.

Ms Keaton sought court orders that she be declared a parent of the child and given equal shared parental responsibility for her.

The court found in February that she was not a parent as defined in the relevant legislation, which hinged on the timing of conception. To qualify under the Family Law Act, Ms Keaton had to be the mother's de facto partner at the time of the artificial conception, and the court heard the women only moved in together the month before the child's birth.

The Chief Federal Magistrate, John Pascoe, found Ms Keaton was not the mother's de facto partner at the key time. However, he found she was concerned with the girl's care, welfare and development. He ordered Ms Aldridge have sole parental responsibility for the girl but that she also spend time with Ms Keaton.

Ms Aldridge appealed to the full court of the Family Court, arguing the orders were unnecessary because she was the child's only parent.

The appeal was dismissed last week. The full court found that the original decision recognised Ms Keaton played ''an important role, akin to a parent, in the child's life for a significant period of months after her birth''. The three appeal judges, including the Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, were satisfied the child's best interests had been taken into account.

 

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

ABC Online - “Surrogacy should not be open to gays: Family Association” by Katherine Spackman

The Australian Family Association (AFA) says Queensland government plans to allow gay couples to access altruistic surrogacy is not supported by the wider community.

Last week the State Government introduced the legislation which is expected to be debated next year.

A Galaxy Poll commissioned by the association reportedly indicates nine out of ten people believe children should be raised by a mother and father.

AFA Queensland Branch spokesman Michael Ord says traditional family unit should be preserved.

"The problem is that children have the best opportunities in life with a mother and a father," he said.

"Same sex couples can't naturally have children ... that relationship is not a natural relationship in the sense of being able to bring children into life in a natural way and that's all about self-interest really and its not in the best interest of children to be in that situation."

The State Government has introduced legislation to legalise altruistic surrogacy.

The Opposition has introduced its own bill, but it outlaws surrogacy for homosexual couples.

Parliament has risen for the year and the bill won't be debated until next year.

Attorney-General Cameron Dick has told Parliament commercial surrogacy will remain a criminal offence.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

ABC Online - “Lesbian Mothers get Retrospective Recognition”

Tasmania's Legislative Council has voted unanimously to make the legal recognition of lesbian co-mothers retrospective to 2003.

The vote followed the unanimous acceptance to legally recognise two mothers on a birth certificate.

The law was originally rejected in 2003 when gay and lesbian couples were first recognised in Tasmanian law.

Rodney Croome from the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group said it is an important step forward.

"It means those children will now have the benefits which include of course greater legal, emotional and financial security of having two legal parents, both of them mothers, rather than just one legal parent, that has been the case up until now which of course has been their biological mother."

Windermere MLC Ivan Dean said not only would the law recognise parents who are supporting children without legal obligation, but it would also streamline the adoption process.

"Rather than go through the costly process, the drawn-out process of applying for adoption and doing it that way, and going through the Family Court, they will now be able to make the application to the registrar and if they can satisfy the register of their significant relationship, then it will be a fairly easy process for them to be included," he said

[Source: Original Article]

Read More