ALAS QLD - Adoption, Loss, Adult, Support

35,766 Queensland adoptions from 1945 to1980.

2012-02-18T04:08:00.003+10:00

With the National Principals for overseas adoptions listed on our previous post, we ask,"were there any National Principals in place to protect Australian mothers?"
"Did Australian Mothers not matter?"

1945-1946 Number of adoptions; 852
1946-1947 Number of adoptions; 766
1947-1948 Number of adoptions; 768
1948-1949 Number of adoptions; 879
1949-1950 Number of adoptions; 786
1950-1951 Number of adoptions; 851
1951-1952 Number of adoptions; 860
1952-1953 Number of adoptions; 819
1953-1954 Number of adoptions; 756
1954-1955 Number of adoptions; 662
1955-1956 Number of adoptions; 783
1956-1957 Number of adoptions; 765
1957-1958 Number of adoptions; 771
1958-1959 Number of adoptions; 852
1959-1960 Number of adoptions; 865
1960-1961 Number of adoptions; 814
1961-1962 Number of adoptions; 872
1962-1963 Number of adoptions; 927
1963-1964 Number of adoptions; 1084
1964-1965 Number of adoptions; 1266
1965-1966 Number of adoptions; 1398
1966-1967 Number of adoptions; 1386
1967-1968 Number of adoptions; 1371
1968-1969 Number of adoptions; 1448
1969-1970 Number of adoptions; 1500
1970-1971 Number of adoptions; 1562
1971-1972 Number of adoptions; 1774
1972-1973 Number of adoptions; 1678
1973-1974 Number of adoptions; 1458
1974-1975 Number of adoptions; 1394
1975-1976 Number of adoptions; 1112
1976-1977 Number of adoptions; 1014
1977-1978 Number of adoptions; 660
1978-1979 Number of adoptions; 563
1979-1980 Number of adoptions; 450
Total adoptions;35,766

This research is from Annual report of the Director Dept of Children's Services by J Clarke who has make every effort to provide quality information.

ALAS Asks, "Why has the number of adoptions been shown in a financial year?"

Closing date for inquiry 29th February 2012

2012-02-17T12:01:00.001+10:00

Submissions Received for the Senate Inquiry into Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices.
There are now 410 submissions on line.
If you would like to read the submissions and answers to the Senators questions for the Senate Inquiry, here is the link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/comm_contrib_former_forced_adoption/submissions.htm

National Principals in Adoption

2012-02-17T11:55:00.001+10:00

NATIONAL PRINCIPLES IN ADOPTION

[Amended to incorporate obligations that arise out of Australia s compliance with the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on the Protection of. Children and Cooperation
in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.]

1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1
The interest of the child is the paramount consideration and the child’s fundamental rights are to be
safeguarded.

2.
The age appropriate views or consent of the child are to be sought and freely given to the adoption
arrangement.
3.
Adoption is a service for children not for adults wishing to acquire the care of a child.
4.
Counselling and support services should be available to children and their family.
5.
Adoption is only one of a range of substitute care services available to families.
6.
Within legal parameters as set down in legislation and international treaties, a flexible approach
should be taken regarding any negotiated arrangements supporting an adoption.
7
Adoption arrangements should be subject to a consistent criterion.

8.
Adoption placements are valued as an important resource in providing permanent family care for
(some) children.
9.
Children who cannot be brought up within their birth family, are entitled to grow up in a permanent,
secure and loving, family environment.
10.
A child has the right to be brought up within their birth family, wherever possible.
11.
A child has the right to be considered for placement within the extended family prior to placement
outside its family.
12.
A birth Family has the right to community and government support to allow the child to be
maintained within the family.
13.
The adopted person/birth family, regardless of age, has the right to independent representation
throughout the adoption process.
14.
The child should preferably be placed in a culturally/ethnically appropriate placement. Adoption is
a process regulated by Australian, State or Territory legislation and International treaties.
15.
Adoption is a process regulated by Australian, State or Territory legislation and international
treaties.

16.
The adopted person’s legal status must be enshrined in legislation.
17.
Persons involved in the adoption process should not be discriminated against or disadvantaged by
Australian, State or Territory legislative differences.
18.
The meaning, effect and recognition of adoption orders should be the same regardless of
State/Territory boundaries.
19.
Authorities should provide equitable and accessible services to all parties of adoption on an
individual basis.
20
State/Territory) Central Authorities (or accredited bodies) have responsibility for the matching of
children with adoptive parents

21
Processing of applications reflect and notification of allocations and the 'forwarding of confidential
information will be undertaken by State/Territory Central Authorities (or accredited bodies).

22.
Adoption arrangements by consenting parties, presented to "courts" should be consistent with the
adoption principles.
23.
Birth parents have the right to express their wishes and be involved in the planning for the
placement of their child.
24.
Birth parents have the right to be kept informed of the progress of their child following placement
with adoptive parents. and to have a right of access to the child if this has been agreed to.
25.
Adoptive parents must be assessed and approved through an approved process according to a
consistent criteria as being suitable to adopt.
26. Adoptive parents and children have a right to legal security.
27 Accredited bodies have a role in supporting and educating adoptive applicants.

WHEN IS ADOPTION APPROPRIATE?

1.
Adoption is one of a range of alternatives of legally securing a child's place in the family. An
adoption order should therefore, only be granted if it is considered to be the best option in the
interests of each particular child.
2.
Adoption should not be considered for children in step-families or living with relatives, unless it
can be demonstrated that a lesser order would not serve the needs of the child.
3.
The availability of orders providing permanent alternative care through the Family Court is
recognised and should be subject to the same principles as apply to adoption orders. Both orders
involve the transfer of care and responsibility of children to a third party.
3.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
1.
All persons who are adopted have a right to know they are adopted.
2.
Adult adopted people have a right to identifying information about their biological parents.
3.
A birth parent as a right to information about his or her child.
4.
A birth parent has a right to identifying information on his or her child once the child has reached
legal adulthood under Adoption legislation.
5.
Adopted people and birth parents have the right to state that they do not wish contact and for that
wish to be conveyed to the other party.
6.
Appropriate information and counselling should be available to all parties to an adoption.
4.
OPEN ADOPTION
Open adoption is an adoption arrangement where ongoing contact between the birth parent(s) and their
child occurs following adoption proceedings and is acknowledged in the adoption order.

1.
Openness and honesty in family relationships should be encouraged in all adoptions.
2.
Openness in adoption arrangements should be achieved as far as is possible with a minimum of
welfare or state intervention and should not undermine the parental authority of adoptive parents.
Notwithstanding this, professional support and advice should be readily available to families
involved in open adoption arrangements.
3.
Birth parents if expressing a desire to do so should be involved in the selection of approved
adoptive parents for their child (ren) having regard to the paramount consideration of the needs of
the child(ren).

SERVICES TO RELINQUISHING PARENTS

1.
Prior to the adoption of a child, the informed consent of each person who is legally the parent of
that child should be sought to the adoption.
2.
Prior to taking consent to an adoption the witness should have responsibility to ensure that the birth
parent has been informed about the implications of adoption and about all the alternatives available
to him or her.
3.
Information about the implications of signing consent to an adoption and explaining the time period
and process for revolving consent should be given to relinquishing parents in writing prior to their
signing consents.
4.
No consent to an adoption should be taken prior to the birth of the child concerned nor for a
specified period after the birth.
5.
Counselling/support should be available to birth parents and consenting children throughout the
period of revocation.
6.
Birth parents should be permitted reasonable access to their children during the revocation period.
7.
Birth parents should be allowed to revoke the adoption consent without pressure at any time during
the revocation period and have the child returned to their car as soon as is possible.
8.
Children should not be placed with prospective adoptive parents until after the revocation period
has expired.
9.
Birth parents should be given as much information as possible about the prospective adoptive
parents and be allowed to participate to the greatest extent as is reasonably practical in the selection
of approved adoptive parents for their child having regard to the paramount consideration of the
needs of the child(ren).
10.
Accredited bodies should ensure that appropriate post adoption counselling and support services are
available to relinquishing parents.
6. ELIGlBlLlTY AND SUITABILITY CRITERIA
1 AGE
1 The maximum age difference between the oldest of the applicants and the first child placed in
the family should be 40 years.

2.
In subsequent placements or where there is already a child in the family the maximum age
difference between the eldest of the applicants and the child should be 45 years.
3.
The age criteria should apply to Australian born and intercountry adoptions.

2.
MARRIAGE
1.
Single applicants should be permitted to apply to adopt a child.
2.
Couples in established defacto relationships be afforded the same status by agencies as
married couples and subject to the same assessment of stability.
3.
HEALTH
1.
Applicants for adoption must meet basic health requirements which will not impede their
ability to care for the child. The life expectancy of the parents and their health should be such
that they can parent the child and provide quality care until the child attains independence.
2. The assessment of health should occur prior to any general assessment of suitability as
adoptive parents.
4.
CRIMINAL ABUSIVE HISTORY
1.
Applicants for adoption should be excluded if they have an established record of violent
offences abuse of children or have had a child removed from their care under child protection
legislation.
5.
APPEAL MECHANISMS
1. Parties in the adoption process should have appropriate review and appeal mechanisms
available to them.
6.
PREPARATION OF APPLICANTS
1.
Preparation of applicants prior to adoption by way of information giving and training is a
crucial and integral part of the adoption process, which assists in self-selection, sustaining
placements and reducing disruption of placements.
7.
CO-OPERATION BETWEEN STATES AND TERRITORIES
1.
Central Authorities should co-operate in the exchange of literature on current state
programmes for the continual improvement of their adoption and permanent care
programmes.
8
POST PLACEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

1
Follow up and post placement support are a crucial and integral part of the adoption process.

7.
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
1.
No child should be disadvantaged in securing a permanent family placement because of the lack of
resources to support such a placement.
2.
Children with special needs have the same right as any other child to a secure a permanent family
relationship.
8.
ADOPTION ARRANGEMENTS
1.
All adoption arrangements in Australia should be made through Central Authorities or approved
accredited bodies and in accordance with the relevant legislation.
2.
All children have a right to independent counselling/representation to ensure that they understand
the implications of an adoption that their wishes are being heard and to protect their fundamental
rights in the adoption process.
9.
TRANSFER BETWEEN STATES OF APPLICANTS AND CHILDREN
1.
Applicants for adoption should be treated in a fair and equitable manner when transferring their
application between states/territories and not be unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged by such a
transfer.
10.
DlSPENSATION OF CONSENT
1.
State and territory welfare agencies should exercise the option to dispense with parental consent
only when it has been considered along with other options and considered to be in the best interests
of the child.
11.
STEP PARENT AND RELATIVE APPLICATIONS
1.
Custody/guardianship orders through the Family Court that do not interfere with the biological
relationship to birth parents (and siblings) should generally be sought.
2.
Adoption is not considered to be in the best interests of, or appropriate for children in stepfamilies
or living with relatives unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a guardianship order would not
serve their needs.
Taken from Senate Inquiry.

OUR NEXT MEETING 11th February 2012

2012-02-03T10:15:00.001+10:00

Our next meeting will be at Four Mile Creek Hotel Gympie Road, Strathine.

(Used to be Country Club, Opp Westfield shopping centre.)

Time; 11 30am onwards.
Please contact; Trish Mob 0417 077 159 ASAP.
We need to know numbers for Bookings.

$10 menu available.

All Welcome.

MEETING FOR 14/1/2012

2012-01-14T08:33:00.000+10:00

Our meeting for 14/1/2012 has been cancelled.

New closing date for inquiry 29th February 2012

2011-12-15T08:47:00.010+10:00

Submissions Received for the Senate Inquiry into Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices

If you would like to read the submissions for the Senate Inquiry, here is the link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/comm_contrib_former_forced_adoption/submissions.htm

ADOPTION LOSS ADULT SUPPORT AUSTRALIA INC.

2011-12-11T17:04:00.001+10:00

We are looking forward to an exciting New Year.

Meeting for January 2012

2011-12-11T16:59:00.000+10:00

Our first meeting for the new year will be 14th January 2012.
Please contact; Trish 0417 077 159 for venue.
All welcome.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was devised by 8 countries, one of which was Australia.

2011-12-07T21:19:00.000+10:00

Dr. Herbert Evatt was the leader of the Australian Delegation.
The 8 countries worked from 1945,(after the close of the second world war) till it was ratified by the United Nations in 1948.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.

Now. therefore. The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article I
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race. colour, sex. Language. religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property. birth or other status.
Furthermore. no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent. trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought. conscience and religion: this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 25
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fti.iiy realized.

Article 29
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and -Freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Australia is a signator to all of the Agreements, Conventions, Protocols and Treaties.

Information supplied by Jan Kashin.

Mums call inquiry, compo over adoptions Newspaper article by Christine Retschlag, 16th June 1997.

2011-11-22T15:14:00.004+10:00

MOTHERS forced to relinquish their children to adoption have called for a national inquiry, an apology and compensation.
Janice Benson, convenor of the 6th Australian Conference on Adoption held in Brisbane yesterday, called on Prime Minister John Howard to apologise to all mothers and children separated by adoption.
Ms Benson said an Adopted Persons Trust should be established from which people affected by Australia's adoption policies could have access to financial assistance.
"I believe subcontracting adoption policy and laws to the states was an incredible cop out," she said.
'For the Federal Government to say it is a state issue ... it is a human rights issue.
"Until we have a national inquiry we are not going to get the truth of what happened. The only way for mothers to move forward is for the truth to be told."
Ms Benson said the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission should probe Australia's adoption history.
CHRISTINE RETSCHLAG

IT HAS ONLY TAKEN 14 YEARS TO GET THIS INQUIRY!

(Janice Benson is also known as Janice Kashin.)

Christmas meeting 26th November 2011

2011-11-16T21:11:00.002+10:00

Our last meeting for the year will be our Christmas breakup.
It will be held at The Ox, Oxley Ave Margate. Starting time; 11:30 am
Bookings are required.
RSVP by 24th November 2011.

Please contact Trish; 0417 077 159 or
Marg; 0402 336 480
Please wear Christmas colours and bring a smile.
All welcome.

Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced. Media release 2/11/2011

2011-11-02T22:53:00.000+10:00

The Senate Community Affairs References Committee has decided to seek an extension of time to report on its inquiry into fonner forced adoption policies and practices.
The committee was expected to report on 21 November 2011, but will now seek to report on 29 February 2012.
This inquiry has attracted strong community interest and media coverage.
The committee will use the additional time to gather evidence and speak to more people who have expressed an interest in contributing to the Inquiry.

The committee has not been able to hold a hearing in Tasmania, and now intends to do so, on 16th December.
It also intends to hold a second hearing in Sydney, on 15th December.
The committee believes that evidence given by the Commonwealth requires more detailed scrutiny.
Over coming weeks the committee will be considering archival material from the 1950's to the 1970's, which should shed more light on the Commonwealth's role in past adoption practices.
The committee needs more time to consider the many detailed personal accounts that it continues to receive.
It also will be writing to some states and territories about their adoption information laws, and wants to ensure they have time to respond to the committee's queries.
Senate inquiry site.

ALAS rejects, "Statement of Apology"given by Benevolent Society to Senate Inquiry, 31/10/2011.

2011-11-01T14:16:00.004+10:00

With 200 years experience in, “care of women”, ALAS mothers/ adoptees, believe, the Benevolent Society still does not understand the consequences of their past policies and practices and, the long term effects mothers separated from their babies and their children and the children, and both of our extended families suffered while in Benevolent Society’s, Scarba House and Royal Hospital for Women in Paddington, N.S.W.

Benevolent Society receives funding from Governments for their, Post Adoption Support Qld and Post Adoption Resource Centre N.S.W.

A separate apology for our mothers, our babies, our children and our extended families should have issued.
We believe, the Benevolent Society failed in their duty of care to correct their own wrongs.
The language used in this “statement of apology” we believe, shows that the Benevolent Society has only protected their own interest.

We believe, the Benevolent Society should have listened to their clients who passed through their Adoption Services, their counsellors who hear the horror stories, and groups who sent in information for what would have been accepted in an apology.

We feel we are re-traumatised and our painful experience trivialised.
We believe this apology lacks sincerity and depth.

Urgent action is needed.
If you agree, please send your objection to,
Email: www.bensoc.org.au
Post: PO Box 171 Paddington N.S.W. 2021
Phone:02 9339 8000
Fax: 02 9360 2319

31/10/2011
Statement of Apology
As Australia’s first charity, The Benevolent Society has a long history of supporting the most vulnerable members of our community. It is because of this commitment that we wish to make a public statement of apology about past adoption practices we were associated and involved with.

The Benevolent Society has been involved in the care of women and children for close to 200 years, establishing Australia’s first maternity hospital, the Royal Hospital for Women in Paddington, which we operated from 1905 to 1992, and opening the Scarba Welfare House for Children at Bondi in 1917. The Benevolent Society also ran an adoption service from Scarba House between 1969 and 1975.

While The Royal Hospital for Women had no official role in organising adoptions, we recognise and acknowledge that unmarried women in our care from the 1940s to the 1980s were not always given the care and respect that they needed during this difficult period of their lives and were sometimes coerced to give up children for adoption. We also recognise and acknowledge our involvement in arranging adoptions in the past through the adoption agency we ran at Scarba House.

The Benevolent Society deeply regrets past practices based on policies which, while influenced by societal attitudes of the time, we now know to be deeply flawed and damaging to many unmarried women who gave birth at the hospital.

The Benevolent Society apologises unreservedly for any pain, unresolved grief or suffering experienced by mothers, fathers, adoptees, adoptive parents and their families as a result of the past adoption practices of The Benevolent Society, the Royal Hospital for Women or Scarba Welfare House for Children.

In the context of a society that stigmatised motherhood out of wedlock and did not provide adequate financial, legal and psychological support for unmarried mothers, adoption was widely assumed to be the only possible option for unmarried pregnant women.

We now recognise that great damage has unintentionally been done to people’s lives as a result.

We now understand and acknowledge the deep grief that many mothers experienced after the loss of a child to adoption, and the lack of support available to manage their grief.

Through our extensive work with people affected by adoption over the past 20 years as part of our post adoption support services, we understand the intense shame and secrecy that surrounded past adoptions. What was done cannot be undone but, for many, lifting the burden of secrecy is an enormous relief and an important step towards acknowledging the grief they have carried for so many years.

We have been and still are in the position of being able to offer people affected by past practices specialised support to help them with their lives today. We will help anyone affected by past adoption practices to access assistance and support from the Post Adoption Resource Centre in NSW or Post Adoption Support Queensland. Both services provide telephone support, specialist face-to-face counselling, intermediary services to assist individuals approaching birth relatives, and assistance in accessing adoption records.

We respect the fact that some people may choose not to access services from The Benevolent Society and would be happy to refer them to another appropriate service or counsellor.

We also suggest anyone affected by past adoption practices consider participating in the National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Experiences being conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

These practices were repeated across the country, and we believe the Australian Government has a unique role to play leading the nation in acknowledging these painful mistakes from the past and ensuring they are not repeated. We will continue to advocate for a formal statement of apology from the Commonwealth Government, for better access to specialist counselling and support services throughout Australia and for amendments to legislation to remove the barriers to people accessing adoption information.

We respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered, as part of our commitment to assisting those affected by past adoption practices in their lives today and ensuring the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

How can a second birth certificate for adoptees be a legal document?

2011-10-16T03:17:00.003+10:00

We believe that "make alterations" should be to the original birth certificate and not mean, issue a second birth certificate.
We cannot see any reference to a second birth certificate to be issued.

This transcript has been taken from the Proof Committee Hansard, Public Hearing in Canberra, and relates to birth certificates.
This is part of the Attorney-General's Department statement.

Wednesday, 28 September 2011 Senate Page 5

CHAIR: Before we move off the legislation there are two things I want to ask about in following up from Senator Moore. One of those is the time limit on offences. In 1965, were there any time limits on the offences that were outlined?
Ms Smith: They would have been subject to whatever broader requirements there are for the statute of limitations, but there is nothing in this actual ordinance that puts any time limit on
CHAIR: So we would need to check what the statute of limitations was for the ACT at that time.
Ms Smith: It is outside my area; I am sorry.
CHAIR: Was there one general one across Australia or was there one specific for each state and territory. It is not an area of my expertise.
Dr Smrdel: It is not ours either. What we do not know is how this legislation was affected by, say, the Crimes Act operating in each state and territory at the time.
CHAIR: For the ACT one, which the Commonwealth was responsible for, is it possible to find out what the statute of limitations was at the time and how it interacted with the Crimes Act?
Dr Smrdel: We will talk to our colleagues in the criminal law enforcement branch and see if they can provide us with an answer. I hesitate to provide an answer when they might say they cannot, but we will certainly endeavour to follow up with them.
CHAIR: It is obviously an issue that is of deep interest to many of the people that we have been talking to about this issue.

The second area is birth certificates. One of the big issues is access to data and documentation,, which we have touched on. A lot of the complaints that we have had are around either a second birth certificate being generated with just the adoptive parents' names on them or the first one being altered with the father's name not being put on and the mother's name taken off. So there is one birth certificate but not with the birth mother's name on it. Is that sort of issue dealt with in either the model legislation or the ACT ordinance?
Ms Smith: The legislation with respect to the responsibility of the registrar of births, deaths and marriages relates to registering the adoption order and making alterations to it as prescribed. There is a section which deals with the making of adoption order, the adopted child having the surname of his adoptive parent or parents and the forename as in the adoption order approved on application of the adoptive parents.
(2) Where, before the making of the adoption order, the adopted child has been generally known by a particular surname, the Court may, in the adoption order, order that the child shall have that name as his surname.
(3) Nothing in this section prevents the changing of any name of an adopted child, after the making of the adoption order, in accordance with the law of the Territory.

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE

Page 6 Senate Wednesday, 28 September 2011
So that would be subject to name-change laws.
Senator MOORE: I am sorry; somewhere in that sequence I lost what name we were talking about. Can you do that again? I want to try to follow the name through because it is critical in this inquiry. So the child is born.
Ms Smith: In section 35 of the ACT ordinance, when an adoption order is made:
the adopted child shall have as his surname the surname of the adoptive parent or parents and shall have as his forename or forenames such name or names as the Court, in the adoption order, approves on the application of the adoptive parent or parents.
Senator MOORE: Right
Ms Smith: And further:
Where, before the making of the adoption order, the adopted child has been generally known by a particular surname, the Court may, in the adoption order, order that the child shall have that name
Nothing in this section prevents the changing of any name of an adopted child, after the making of the adoption order
Senator MOORE: That middle bit seems to go back and then forward again. Under the 1965 legislation the adoption order allows the child to be known by the surname of the adoptive parent?
Ms Smith: That is correct.
Senator MOORE: The documentation ceases to have the name of the birth mother and instead has the name of the adoptive family?
Ms Smith: That is correct. ?
CHAIR: That automatically means birth certificate?
Ms Smith: Yes.
CHAIR: changing the birth certificate has changed history and changed reality. That section does not specifically talk about a birth certificate; it talks about changing the name. To me, those are two different things. Birth certificates contain the names of the natural birth parents you were born to, which is different to changing a person's name.
Senator MOORE: There is still a documentation trail. We have had cases where people have had two birth certificates. The original one was somewhere on file and they did not find it until later. Their birth certificate, which they have taken through life, is in their adoptive process—sometimes with correct dates, sometimes not, which is a clerical issue—but, nonetheless, the standard proof of identity which, under our system, is the birth certificate is in the name of the adoptive forename and surname.
CHAIR: If there are regulations that go with the legislation, could you take it on notice to look at that issue? The issue of the birth certificate and access to data has come up repeatedly during this inquiry.
Ms Smith: I can read to you the provision which deals with the process for the registration.
CHAIR: Thank you. What does it say?
Ms Smith: Section 56 states:
The Registrar of the Supreme Court shall cause a memorandum ... of every adoption under this order made by the Court under this Ordinance, and a copy of every order for the discharge of such an adoption order, to be sent to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, who shall—
(a) register it ... in a Register of Adoptions ... and
(b) if it relates to a child whose birth is registered in the Register of Births kept by him, make such alterations
to, or entries in, that register as are prescribed.
CHAIR: The legislation says you can change the birth certificate?
Ms Smith: That is correct
CHAIR: That is the model legislation or the ACT legislation?
Ms Smith: That is the ACT ordinance.
CHAIR: Did that reflect the model legislation?
Ms Smith: I will just check that. We have confirmed that the same provision is in the model bill.
Senator MOORE: We need that legislation to highlight it. That particular clause came out of the discussions around the model legislation in 1964. With respect to what happened before that, we would have to trace through every jurisdiction. But this process in 1964 and 1965 established the process from then on and then each state had to enact their own legislation where, as you say, there could be some variation from state to state. We need to find out with respect to those key clauses what happened.
Ms Smith: Yes.
CHAIR: The process of investigating the legislation is what I want to go to.
Ms Smith: Just to clarify the terminology when I was paraphrasing then, it is the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages which can be altered rather than the birth certificate.
CHAIR: When I want to get my birth certificate or, for example, my sons birth certificate I go to the registrar. Presumably, they look in the register and give me a birth certificate. That is essentially where the birth certificate is derived from, is it not?
Ms Smith: Yes.
CHAIR: If somebody is chasing their birth parents, they go to the register in the various states. The register says that if it has been altered through this process, their adoptive parents are the names that are on the birth certificate. That is certainly the evidence we have received and that seems consistent with what you have just told us.
Ms Smith: That is what the legislation provides. I could not comment on how the individual registries look after their applications for certification.
CHAIR: That is fair enough.

Heartbreak-The Catholic Weekly

2011-10-16T02:35:00.000+10:00

Catholic news from Australia and the world

Heartbreak

Editorial
9 October, 2011

IT IS wise not to judge too quickly and too harshly the conduct of our forbears.
With that wonderful gift of hindsight, grafted to the lens of contemporary mores, the actions of people of yesteryears can seem to us puzzling if not incomprehensible.
In answer to, "How could they have sanctioned this or done that" is: quite simply and understandably given the social environment and thinking of the time.
What is wrong now was, unfortunately, acceptable then.
Such is the case with some of the ways we used educate our children, regard with suspicion people of other faiths, treat indigenous people and the way we dealt with 'the problem' of unwed mothers.

It is this latter group that has received publicity of late.
These women, young as they might have been, were separated at birth from their newborn in actions seen then as in the best interests of both mother and child.
Only now can we really start to appreciate the suffering that this caused to these young women. Only now can we begin to understand that many of their children, too, were hurt badly and are still hurting.

Catholic Health Australia chief Martin Laverty has issued an apology to all involved because, like other institutions of the day, Church-run hospitals participated in this program of separation.
Indeed, the practice of placing the babies of young unwed mothers into adoption was once the policy of governments and organisations across Australia over many decades.

The apology is sincere, and while it cannot rewrite history, coupled with proposals made by Catholic Health Australia, some redress may be made to the people affected.
Included in this is a call to make records more accessible so that mothers and children can be reçnited.
Mr Laverty has also stressed the importance of a setting up a national strategy to support access to post-adoption counselling.
He has also called for all governments to join with the Church body in offering an apology to those who experienced and continue to experience the heartbreak of separation.
At least it's a good start.

Proof Hansard Records from Public Hearings in Canberra.

2011-10-07T10:24:00.001+10:00

Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices.
The proof Hansard records of the Public Hearings held in Canberra have now been posted on the Parliament of Australia Senate Site.
There are three;
22nd September, 27th September and 28th September.

Our next Meeting, 15th October 2011.

2011-10-07T10:15:00.000+10:00

Our next meeting will be held in the home of one of our members, north side.
Time; 12 30 onwards.
Please bring a small plate to share.
For further details,please contact;
Trish 0417 077 159.
Marg; 0402 336 480.
All welcome.

Over 81,000 Attended the Football Grand Final.

2011-10-02T19:22:00.000+10:00

As I looked at the footy grand final,2nd October, the visual of the crowd that was in attendance, I could'nt help but think that, that was less that half the number of the mothers who lost their babies to forced adoption!
Margaret.

Unmarried mums tied to beds, sedated during birth - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

2011-09-30T14:04:00.003+10:00

A parliamentary inquiry into forced adoptions has heard how unmarried
mothers were tied to beds and sedated as they gave birth.

For this article, please click the link below:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/unmarried-mothers-tied-to-beds-sedated-while-giving-birth/3034690
Thanks to Brett and Therese

Time to say sorry for all the broken hearts

2011-09-30T09:26:00.003+10:00

Martin Laverty
September 28, 2011

. Turning back time ... the pain of past adoption practices still lingers. What can be done to mend hearts broken in the past?

Some women live with broken hearts, past practices having taken their babies from them for placement in adoption. Some of those children, now adults, live with broken hearts because they were taken from their mothers and placed in adopted families. Fathers, siblings and other family members have lived with broken hearts because of past adoption practices.

Some Catholic hospitals and health services played roles promoting and implementing the once widespread policy of placing the children of some unmarried young mothers in the care of adoptive parents. To those across Australia who carry broken hearts as a result, I say sorry.

The practice of placing these babies in adoption was the policy of governments over many decades. The practice was carried out in government hospitals, Catholic hospitals and in other formal and informal organisations.

I've had recent contact with many people who have had different experiences of adoption; three of which, while respecting the privacy of the individuals involved, shed light on the different challenges they've faced.

The first is a mother who delivered her two children in a Catholic hospital in the early 1970s, shortly after having stayed in a Catholic home for women to which she was taken by her parents. She describes her births as painful, she describes the removal of her children as heartbreaking, and she struggled in the years afterwards to access the medical and birth records needed to make contact with her two children. That contact is now made. They've done what they can to put their lives together, but the heartbreak remains obvious and there have been periods of darkness.

The second is that of a woman who is still searching for her brother, born in rural NSW in the 1920s. Her situation is one for which there simply may be no solution; she has no records and no system to enable a family reunion, which in all reality could simply be too late.

The third is a man in regional Queensland, seeking his birth records from the early 1960s. It appears his birth was in a public hospital in Sydney, and now approaching 50, this man is trying to put together the jigsaw puzzle of his birth. He does not know his mother, and in turn, his mother does not know him.

Each of these stories is deeply personal, as are the experiences of those touched by past adoption practices. For some, adoption has been positive. For others, tragically, not so.

What can be done to mend hearts broken in the past?

First, some still have difficulty accessing records, despite post-adoption services in all states and territories. The Community and Disability Services Ministers' Conference should establish a national strategy involving all governments and non-government agencies involved in adoption to facilitate access to medical and birth records.

Second, there exists a continuing need for post-adoption counselling, by counsellors with experience in post-adoption care. Again, the Community and Disability Services Ministers' Conference is best placed to develop a strategy to support access to counselling focused on the differing needs of mothers, fathers, adopted children, their siblings and, if needed, the parents who have cared for adopted children.

Third, some mothers continue to have grievances about their birth experience or the consent procedure that led to their child being adopted. Some of these grievances are unresolved. Adoption was and is a legal responsibility of states and territories, and the processes that exist to hear grievances about medical care and consent differ across states. They are complex and difficult to access.

Finally, there is a role for an apology from governments. We have issued our apology in recognition of the role of Catholic organisations. The government of Western Australia has done the same. Others should follow. We would be happy to work with governments in shaping such an apology.

These words here today will not satisfy everyone, as words cannot put broken families back together. These words have not emphasised that for some, adoption has worked well. I'm nonetheless pleased to have been able to make our formal apology to the Federal Parliament, and to now encourage federal parliamentarians to do what they can.

Martin Laverty is the chief executive of Catholic Health Australia. This is an edited version of his address today to the Senate inquiry in Canberra into past adoptions.
Sydney morning Herald.

Thank you Chris for forwardg this to ALAS.

Public Hearing- Canberra, Wednesday 28 September 2011

2011-09-26T17:26:00.001+10:00

Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices

Committee Room 2S1
Parliament House
Canberra

9.00 am - 4.15 pm

Time Witness
9.00 am – 9.45 am Attorney General's Department
9.45 am – 10.30 am Australian Institute of Family Studies
10.30 am – 10.45 am Break
10.45 am – 11.15 am Mr Thomas Graham
11.15 am – 11.45 am Dr Susan Gair (via teleconference)
11.45 am – 12.15 pm Department of Health and Ageing
12.15 pm – 12.45 pm National Archives of Australia
12.45 pm – 1.45 pm Lunch
1.45 pm – 2.15 pm Mrs Janice Kashin
2.15 pm – 3.00 pm Catholic Health Australia
3.00 pm – 3.15 pm Break
3.15 pm – 4.15 pm Community Forum
Taken from Parliament of Australia Senate site

Hickey aploogises to mothers

2011-09-26T17:19:00.001+10:00

The West AustralianSeptember 21, 2011, 5:26 am
DANIEL EMERSON,

Perth Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey has asked for forgiveness for his "insensitive" comments in July about unwed mothers who were forced to give up their babies for adoption in Catholic institutions.

The plea comes as the Catholic Church's Australian medical arm prepares to apologise during a Senate hearing in Canberra next week for the treatment of unwed mothers coerced into parting with their newborn babies in its hospitals.

Catholic Health Australia chief executive Martin Laverty delivered a similar apology in NSW in July.

But his expected apology before the Senate inquiry into former forced adoption policies next week is being hailed as a national gesture.

It will be given to Federal Parliament and broadcast live on the internet.

Archbishop Hickey offended affected mothers after the July apology by saying there was "little evidence" of forced adoption by the Church.

Albany woman Judith Hendriksen, who gave birth in 1973 at St Anne's Hospital in Mt Lawley run by the Catholic Sisters of Mercy and had her daughter adopted against her will, wrote to Archbishop Hickey about her experience.

In his reply to her last month, Archbishop Hickey wrote that he had since read other reports from girls who gave birth at St Anne's "and I am beginning to understand something of their grief".

"Perhaps they (the Sisters) did not believe they had forced anyone, only strongly recommended adoption but I can see for a young girl this would seem like forcing her because it was pressure she could not resist," he said.

"Please forgive me for my insensitivity.

"I know better now."

Experts say that between the 1940s and the early 1980s an estimated 150,000 babies were taken by government and church authorities when unmarried women were prevented from seeing, touching, naming or bonding with their children immediately after birth.

Ms Hendriksen said yesterday that, though Archbishop Hickey's July comments had "re-traumatised a lot of women", she respected him for seeking forgiveness.

Christine Cole, convenor of the NSW-based Apology Alliance which lobbies on the issue, said that Mr Laverty's apology would have international significance.
Ms Cole said that WA had led the nation in addressing the issue after the State Government apologised a year ago to unmarried mothers and their children and families for past adoption practices that separated them.

Catholic Church to Apologise for forced adoptions

2011-09-24T20:29:00.000+10:00

July 25, 20119:18AM
Telegraph.com.au

THE head of the healthcare arm of the Catholic Church says he is prepared to apologise to the victims of forced adoption practices dating back 50 years.

The flagged apology follows an admission by Catholic Health Australia that "a small number" of church-run hospitals and women's homes maintained unwanted adoption practices from the 1950s to the 1970s.

CEO Martin Laverty says he is prepared to front a Senate inquiry to make an expression of sorrow and regret if such an apology brought healing and comfort to the several women who had their new-born babies forcibly removed.

"These practices of the past are no longer tolerated, nor by today's laws, and are deeply regrettable," he said in a submission to a Senate committee investigating the Commonwealth's contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices.

Mr Laverty said his organisation only became aware of the women's experiences in June.

"We acknowledge the pain of separation and loss felt then and now for the mothers, fathers, children, families and others involved in the practices of the time," Mr Laverty said in the submission to the Senate inquiry.

"For the pain that arises from practices of the past, we are genuinely sorry."

In some cases, the adoption practices had "devastating and ongoing impacts" on families.

"There are likely to be people in our community who continue to live with pain and grief as a result of adoption practices of the past," Mr Laverty said.

Catholic Health Australia is prepared to support the setting up of a framework that would allow the victims of forced adoption to get access to personal medical or social work records to help contact lost family members.

It would also support a fund for "remedying established wrongs".

At least 150,000 Australian women reportedly had their babies taken against their will by some churches and adoption agencies.

Juliette Clough said she was just 16 when she was forced to give up her baby boy at a Catholic-run hospital in Newcastle in 1970.

"They just snatched away the baby," she told ABC Radio, adding at the time her ankles were strapped to the bed and she had been "gassed".

"You weren't allowed to see him or touch him, anything like that, or hold him and it was just like a piece of my soul had died, and it's still dead."

Victorias Trade in Babies

2011-09-17T23:22:00.001+10:00

This is the link to the ABC interview.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-16/victorias-trade-in-babies/2903552

OUR NEXT MEETING 13th August

2011-08-03T18:28:00.000+10:00

Our next meeting will be held at;
4 Mile Creek Hotel,
Gympie Rd.,
Strathpine.
It is opposite Westfield Strathpine.
Starting time ;12o'clock.
Lunch menu available.
All welcome.
Contact Trish; 0417 077 159 for more details.

Catholic Church Apology - as seen on 6.30 with George Negus 26/7/11

2011-07-27T10:17:00.000+10:00

Margaret Hamilton (ALAS - Adoption Loss Adult Support) and Kerri Saint (WASH - White Australian Stolen Heritage) were interviewed by Channel Ten's 6.30 with George Negus. To watch the segment please click on the link: http://ten.com.au/630pm-with-george-negus.htm?movideo_m=120422

Our Next Meeting 23rd July 2011

2011-07-12T14:23:00.000+10:00

We have changed our next meeting from the Shorncliffe Hotel to a Northside member's home.
Starting at 12 0'clock onwards.
Please ring Trish; 0417 077 159 or
Marg; 0402 336 480 for details.

New members welcome.
Please bring a plate to share.

Submissions Received for the Senate Inquiry into Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices

2011-07-05T16:53:00.004+10:00

If you would like to read the submissions for the Senate Inquiry, here is the link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/comm_contrib_former_forced_adoption/submissions.htm

Australian Birth Certificates.

2011-07-05T16:49:00.000+10:00

AUSTRALIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATES
Paper prepared by Janice Benson (Kashin) 24th September 1993.

Every Australian born in this country: is issued with a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. It is the most important document to be issued by the Government to a person, and states the most fundamental information about the person
-
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
Mother
Father

It is worth 40 Points if one wishes to open a Bank Account. If applying for a Passport it is an essential prerequisite. Its validity is not questioned.
To date, approximately 250,000 Birth Certificates, issued by the Department of the Registrar General, simply are false.

The Birth Certificate lie, pertaining to the documentation record of Mother and Father, is ignored by State and Federal Governments, who perpetuate the 'myth', decided on by our Colonial forebears, that adoptive parents are the Birth Parents of the people they adopt.

This lie is ratified by lack of interference of successive Federal Governments, unwilling to deal with the untruths of Birth Certificates of adopted people.
The woman who gave birth to the person has been legalistically annihilated.

Her name does not appear anywhere on the Birth Certificate.

She is nullified.

The person, who was not even at the birth, is credited with having been the Birth Mother.

The 'system' perpetuates the lie.
The woman who carried the foetus, and subsequently gave birth, is discriminated against, and the woman whom the State Dep't of Family Services has selected to nurture the child, is, unbelievably, credited with the birth of the child as well!

The original assumptions when this practice began in 1911, are unclear. Possibly Australia was still under the influence of Victorian thinking. But four generations have passed since then.

Mary Daly in 'Pure Lust' says the worst laws are those that pit woman against woman; favour one class of woman over another; discriminate against one woman in favour of another. These laws are designed to keep women unreconciled, and therefore powerless.

JUSTIFIED AND UNJUSTIFIED DISTINCTIONS

3.22 Harmful DISTINCTIONS are DISCRIMINATORY

By leaving the issuing of Birth Certificates to the States the Federal Government turns a blind eye to the interpretation of the word 'mother. 'Mother', on a Birth Certificate, should mean 'that which is the origin of something'.
The law hinders women in achieving their basic human right.
It hinders and prevents women's enjoyment of rights.

3.20 Discrimination is a DENIAL of EQUALITY

Discrimination against the woman who gave birth is a denial of equal enjoyment of rights for all women.

3.19 Discrimination is a DENIAL of HUMAN RIGHTS

The practice of eliminating the names of the birth mother and father from BIRTH CERTIFICATES, denies women and men full enjoyment of human rights.
This practice denies the recipient of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the truth. The BIRTH CERTIFICATE deliberately misleads the adopted persons to think the adopted parents actually gave them birth.

3.11 Approaches to EQUALITY

As there is no comparable male experience to pregnancy and birth, and , as men made the original laws, it is understandable that males were legislating, in areas of which they had no experience, by virtue of their gender.
It is now up to women to demand the truth and eradicate past injustices and current discriminatory practices.

FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

3.8 FEDERAL and STATE Powers
As the Constitution provides that in areas of joint responsibility a Federal Law will override an inconsistent State Law I request, most urgently, that the AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION

a) Examine current practices in the compilation of BIRTH CERTIFICATES in Australia -

FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

b) Eradicate inconsistencies that currently allow the compilation of untrue entries being made on BIRTH CERTIFICATES.

C) Demand the re-instatement of names of the women who gave birth, to be on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE used for OFFICIAL PURPOSES.

d) Demand that in States where Surrogacy is permitted, names of the actual BIRTH PARENTS and DONORS must be on the OFFICIAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Doctors may destroy files after seven years, so the genetic forebears must be recorded on an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT, 'for all time'.

e) Demand that in cases of I.V.F. Births
Doctors must, by law, provide the names of donors progenitors, and Birth Mothers, to be recorded officially on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Doctors may destroy files after seven years, so the genetic forebears must be recorded on an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT, 'for all time'.

All BIRTH CERTIFICATES of adopted people are untrue in two, and sometimes more, fundamental items of information.

I have seen BIRTH CERTIFICATES without a name next to the MOTHER Section; though how aperson was born fifty years ago without a mother one cannot even imagine.
Should the Commission require any further input from myself I am happy to provide examples and any extra information as requested.

Yours faithfully,

Member Adoption Loss Adult Support, Bris.,Q'l'd.
Janice Benson Founder Adoption Triangle ,
Q'l'd Association for Relinquishing Mothers , Q'l'd
Adoption Contact Information
Service , Q'l'd

Our Next Meeting 25th June 2011.

2011-06-07T21:28:00.003+10:00

We would like to thank everyone who came along to our Celebration Luncheon in the Function Room at the Sea View Hotel, Shorncliffe. We shared friendship,good food and a most enjoyable afternoon.

Our June meeting will be in the Function Room,
Sea View Hotel,
Pier St Shorncliffe.

Starting time; 12 O'clock onwards.
RSVP by; Friday 24th June.
(We need to know numbers for our booking)
Phone Trish;0417 077 159 or
Marg; 0402 336 480.
OR
Email; alasqld@alasqld.com

$10 Menu available.
All welcome.

Final Hansard Transcripts

2011-06-07T21:24:00.002+10:00

ALAS has been advised that Hansard publishes final transcript with all changes incorporated approximately 8-10 weeks after a hearing.

Submissions Received but not as yet Published.

2011-06-07T21:14:00.003+10:00

ALAS has contacted the Senate Committee to inquiry about submissions that have not been published as yet.
We have been informed that there is currently a backlog in processing submissions. We are assured that all information that has been received to date will be scrutinised by the committee and published as resources will allow.

Clarifying of What the Western Australian Apology Meant to Most Mothers and Adoptees

2011-06-01T16:58:00.003+10:00

SUPPLEMENTARY TO SUBMISSION 129
SUE MACDONALD

I had the privilege to listen to the Victorian hearing last week, however, I was rather perturbed about statements concerning the disappointment of Western Australian mothers with the W.A. Parliamentary apology.
I feel compelled to enlighten a few people who have negatively commented.

This disappointment is simply not true! This opinion was borne out of a report by the Australian Newspaper with the headline W.A. Mothers Disappointed with Barnett’s Apology.
I WAS THE MOTHER INTERVIEWED BY THIS NATIONAL NEWSPAPER ON THE STEPS OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE the day of the apology. I was asked whether the apology met my expectations. I said that I was disappointed initially with Mr. Barnett’s words but as the apology unfolded in its bi-partisan approach, the apology blossomed and created immense satisfaction and emotional healing for all. Wanting to report the sensationalist aspect of that statement, the reporter honed in on the slight negative and did not report the enormous positives.

I have been in touch with Past Adoption Services on many occasions and been told that the women now approaching them were absolutely thrilled.
The apology had empowered them to come forward and address that part of their lives. This apology has gone a long way in helping them step out of their shadows of toxic shame.
This shame belongs and rightly so, to the perpetrators of the torture endured by them all those years ago. Imagine the healing of the doubts which haunt our children’s’ minds and hearts – living with the idea that they were not wanted and just given away.

I have remained removed from the apology/inquiry debate deliberately since I embarked on this journey two years ago. As a matter of fact, when I first appeared on television I called for both. I believed that both were necessary. I assessed that an apology first with all the publicity it would bring, would give immediate acknowledgement of the wrong that was done to the women and their babies. An apology from such a high place would help our children understand, acknowledge the wrongdoing/suffering, which is the first step in healing trauma, draw Commonwealth Government attention to the issue and finally rebalance the scales of a very one sided public view.

Two years ago I was admonished by the anti-apology campaigners and despite deliberate attempts by them to sabotage THIS POWERFUL HISTORICAL EVENT, myself and a group of wonderful dedicated and courageous women ignored this sabotage and fought on. What came out of this apology is acknowledgement of the TRUTH AND AN ADMISSION BY GOVERNMENT THAT WHAT HAPPENED TO US WAS WRONG.

The W.A. apology was A GIANT LEAP FORWARD in exposing a very dark part of this nation’s history and will serve as a constant reminder not to do this again to women and their children. To undermine its significance with absolute nonsense is to undermine the confidence and belief of the beautiful women and children who SUFFERED AND SURVIVED the torture of being separated at birth.

Proof CommitteeHansard Transcripts

2011-05-26T15:37:00.006+10:00

Proof Committee Hansard Transcripts are all on line now.
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS ONLY THE PROOF TRANSCRIPTS AND THERE ARE MISTAKES IN THESE PROOFS. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/comm_contrib_former_forced_adoption/hearings/index.htm

CELEBRATION MEETING, WEDNESDAY 1st JUNE 2011.

2011-05-17T12:25:00.002+10:00

COME AND JOIN US TO CELEBRATE 21 YEARS OF ADOPTION LAWS CHANGES.

IN 1990, after a long, hard fight over many years, we won our rights to have our ADOPTION INFORMATION.

This gave many of us the chance to reunite with our lost ones.

PLACE; Seaview Hotel
Pier Ave.,
Shorncliffe.
TIME; 11 45 am.

Everyone welcome.

Please wear a happy face, bright happy colours and,LETS BE HAPPY!
This hotel does a $10.00 lunch.
R.S.V.P.; 30th May 2011.
Trish;0417 077 159
Marg; 0402 336 480.
Or email ALAS.

Along with this celebration, we will include, 2 years since our Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital Apology.

The senate Inquiry has been extended

2011-05-15T10:23:00.002+10:00

AUSTRALIAN SENATE
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE
12 May 2011
Media release
Inquiry into former forced adoption practices
The Senate today extended the Senate Community Affairs committee inquiry into the Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies because of the extent and nature of the evidence received and complexity of the issues involved.

"The committee has already received over 300 submissions, but we know there are others who still want to contribute to the inquiry", said committee chair Senator Rachel Siewert.

"This inquiry is very complex, involving many legal, historical and policy issues, and the committee wants to get it right.
The committee simply didn’t have enough time with the June deadline to collect and thoroughly review the evidence".
The committee has received over 300 submissions. Many of these are very detailed, including a large number of accounts that suggest babies were taken for adoption against their mothers' will.
The accounts include reports that women were pressured, deceived or threatened in order to secure signatures on adoption consent forms, actions that may have been in breach of the policies and laws of the time.
The accounts received by the committee date from the 1950s to as recently as 1987.

The committee wants to ensure that everyone who believes they have been affected by past adoption policies and who wants to make a submission to the inquiry will have time to do so.

If you have not previously submitted, but would like to, the committee continues to welcome evidence from new submitters. Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the submissions and potential privacy issues there may be delays in processing and uploading those submissions to the website.

The committee also wants to obtain evidence from institutions and agencies involved in adoption, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s.

The committee will also be seeking detailed evidence from Commonwealth agencies.

The committee is now due to report on 21 November 2011.

ENDS – contact details and inquiry terms of reference follow:
PO Box 6100, Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 3515 Fax: (02) 6277 5706
Email: community.affairs@aph.gov.au Internet: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte
For comment: Senator Rachel Siewert, Chair
Ph 02 6277 3587
For inquiry information: Senate Community Affairs Committee secretariat
Ph 02 6277 3515
Terms of Reference of the inquiry
That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 21 November 2011:

a) the role, if any, of the Commonwealth Government, its policies and practices in contributing to forced adoptions; and
b) the potential role of the Commonwealth in developing a national framework to assist states and territories to address the consequences for the mothers, their families and children who were subject to forced adoption policies.

Our next Meeting Saturday 7th May 2011.

2011-05-01T09:29:00.002+10:00

Our next meeting will be held at;
Cannon Hill Tavern ( formally Cafe 1117)
Southgate Rd,
Cannon Hill.
Time; 12 o'clock.
RSVP Trish; 0417 077 159 by 6th May 2011.

The June Meeting will be Wednesday 1st June at Sea View Shorncliffe for lunch to celebrate the 2nd year of our Royan Brisbane Women's Hospital Apology and also the changes to the law regarding accessing information to adoptions.

More information will be available closser to the date.

Senate Public Hearing Sydney 29th April 2011

2011-04-28T10:43:00.001+10:00

Senate Community Affairs Committees
Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices
Public hearing - Sydney, Friday 29 April 2011
Jubilee Room,
Parliament House
6 Macquarie St
Sydney

9.00 am - 5.15 pm

Time Witness
9.00 am - 9.30 am
Mr Erik Spinney (Submission 133)

9.30 am - 10.00 am
Mrs Gabrielle McGuire (Submission 198)

10.00 am - 10.30 am
International Social Service Australia (Submission 181)

10.30 am - 10.45 am
Break

10.45 am - 11.15 am
Benevolent Society NSW (Submission 191)

11.15 am - 12.15 pm
Origins SPSA Inc (Submission 170)

12.15 pm - 1.15 pm
Lunch

1.15 pm - 2.00 pm
DES Action Australia – NSW (Submission 21)

2.00 pm - 3.00 pm
Apology Alliance

3.00 pm - 3.15 pm Break

3.15 pm - 3.45 pm
Family Inclusion Network of NSW (Submission 70)

3.45 pm - 5.15 pm
Community Forum

Brisbane Senate Inquiry Public Hearing

2011-04-23T10:46:00.001+10:00

SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING PROGRAM

Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Undumbi Room, 5th Floor Parliamentary Annexe
Parliament House, Cnr George and Alice Sts, Brisbane
INQUIRY INTO COMMONWEALTH CONTRIBUTION TO FORMER FORCED ADOPTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

9.00 am - 9.30 am Ms Kathryn Rendell (Submission 184)
9.30 am - 10.00 am Mrs Bernadette Wallman (Submission 175)
10.00am - 10.15 am Break
10.15 am - 11.00 am Link-Up Queensland (Submission 193)
11.00 am - 11.45 am Stolen Generations Alliance (Submission 227)
11.45 am - 12.45 pm Adoption, Loss, Adult, Support (Submission 226)
White Australian Stolen Heritage (Submission 172)
12.45 pm - 1.45 pm Lunch
1.45 pm - 2.45 pm ORIGINS Supporting People Separated by Adoption Inc Queensland (Submission 222)
2.45 pm - 3.30 pm Jigsaw QLD Inc (Submission 188)
3.30 pm 3.45 pm Break
3.45 pm - 5.15pm Community Forum

This can also he heard live streaming by the same link as below.

Public Hearing 20th April 2011 will be streamed live from Melbourne.

2011-04-19T18:39:00.005+10:00

Inquiry into Commonwealth Contribution into Former Forced Adoption
Policies and Practices

Tomorrow's public hearing, 20 April 2011 (Melbourne), will be streamed
live. Please follow the link:

http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/

Further hearings will also be streamed live via this link.

Please note that if you are not able to receive the live streaming, the
transcript of the hearing will be available (usual turnaround of 3-5
days) via the Hansard website:

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/committee_transcript

9.00 am - 9.45 am
VANISH Inc (Submission 160)

9.45 am - 10.45 am
ORIGINS Supporting People Separated by Adoption Inc Victoria (Submission 166)

10.45 am - 11.00 am
Break

11.00 am - 11.45 am
Apology Alliance

11.45 am - 12.15 pm
Mr Michael O'Meara (Submission 137)
Mr Michael Bamfield (Submission 52)

12.15 pm - 1.15 pm
Lunch

1.15 pm - 2.00 pm
Monash University & Australian Catholic University
(Submission 37)

2.00 pm - 2.45 pm
MacKillop Family Services (Submission 86)

2.45 pm - 3.15 pm
Ms Brenda Coughlan (Submission 19)

3.15 pm - 3.30 pm
Break

3.30 pm - 4.00 pm Women's Electoral Lobby Australia (WELA) (Submission 224)

4.00 pm - 5.30 pm
Community Forum

Our Meeting 9th April 2011 is Postponed to 16th April.

2011-04-05T19:30:00.002+10:00

Our southside meeting has been changed to 16th April 2011.
Due to ill health we have changed the meeting date to 16th April 2011.
It wil be at Trish's home.
The same details as the previous post.

Submissions close 31st March 2011.

2011-03-31T13:36:00.003+10:00

This is the last day before submissions close.
For all the submissions that are published, well done to all that have contributed!

Our next meeting, 9th April 2011

2011-03-31T13:32:00.003+10:00

Our next meeting is a south side meeting.
Place; trish's place.
Time 12 o'clock onwards.
Please bring a plate to share.
All welcome.
Please phone Trish for details; 0417 077 159

Submissions Received for the Senate Inquiry into Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices.

2011-02-21T21:17:00.005+10:00

If you would like to read the submissions for the Senate Inquiry, here is the link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/comm_contrib_former_forced_adoption/submissions.htm

Our Next Meeting, 5th May 2011.

2011-02-20T11:27:00.003+10:00

Our next meeting will be a social meeting for lunch.
We have booked the Sea View Hotel, Pier St Shorncliffe.
Time; 11 30am onwards.
For numbers,please phone Trish; 0417 077 159.
All Welcome.

Senate Inquiry has extended the time frame for submissions to 31st March 2011.

2011-02-13T23:17:00.002+10:00

Senate Inquiry into commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices.
This is an opportunity that I and others believe will be a great chance to get
Commonwealth Government action, and interest in our struggle for recognition
of what has been done to us, and many thousands of others; mothers, fathers,
children, siblings, grandparents, aunties, uncles and cousins who were separated
unlawfully, unnecessarily and forever from their families.

Some time ago the 'Australian Apology Alliance' requested Jenny Macklin to raise
past adoption practices with her state counterparts after calls for an apology
or inquiry from women coerced into giving up their babies. This was followed by
an AIFS report generally considered to be utterly inadequate, and encouraged the
Alliance to align with several W.A. mothers who approached Labor politician
David Templeman for support, who together with Dr. Kim Hames, the Deputy Premier
of W.A., brought about the now historical apology.
This West Australian Government Apology has created much interest around the
world; the very first government to ever take such an historical and momentous
action to raise public tolerance and understanding of regret for a cruel social
injustice suffered silently for so long, by so many.

A lot of work, time, tears and frustration have gone into this labour of love
for our stolen children, but due to the other states of Australia's apathy,
this Senate Inquiry will be our chance to right the wrongs of this
blot on Australia's history. But, we need more mothers and everyone affected by
the punitive practices of the past to speak up, tell their stories of the pain
and trauma, but if not for themselves, tell for those who are no longer with
us; the mothers who could not take the pain any more, and all those children
who believed that life was not worth living because their mothers "supposedly
gave them away".

Please encourage all your contacts to put some words together, even if only a
couple of paragraphs - remain anonymous or reveal as much as you want. If
everyone wrote a small submission it would take them years to read there were so
many of us, but sadly many won't or can't, but we can encourage, and help those
who feel they do no know how to, and make this last chance a resounding success
and maybe an 'Australia Wide Apology' might come out of this wonderful
opportunity.

Barbara Maison

Apology Alliance

Special Meeting, Wednesday, 9th Feb 2011.

2011-01-31T15:07:00.003+10:00

Our next meeting will be held om Wednesday 9th February.

It is a northside meeting.

This is for anyone needing help with their submissions for the Senate Inquiry as well as our general meeting.

Submissions can be posted to;
Senate Inquiry into Forced Adoption Policies and Practices,
Department of the Senate,
PO Box,6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/inquiries/index.htm

The submissions need to be received by 28th February, 2011.

Time; 11 o'clock
Please bring a plate to share for lunch.
Contact; Trish, 0417 077 159 for details.
All welcome.

Special Meeting, Wednesday, 9th Feb 2011.

2011-01-31T15:07:00.000+10:00

Do You need Help With a Submission For the Senate Inquire and National Research Study?

2011-01-08T11:32:00.002+10:00

ALAS will hold a special meeting on 22nd Jan 2011 to provide information to Mothers, Children and their Families and to help anyone who wishes to prepare submissions for both the Senate Inquiry and National Research Study.

These submissions are very important and need to be received by 28th February 2011, so we do not have too much time to get our submissions in.

Please bring along some writing material.
Starting time; 12 Mid-day.
Please bring a plate to share.
All Welcome.
Contact Trish;0417 077 159 or
Marg; 0402 336 480 for address details.

Letter to ALAS from the Office of the Hon Jenny Macklin re Senate Inquiry.

2011-01-08T10:43:00.002+10:00

4th Jan 2011.
Please be assured that the Australian Government recognises past adoption practices have longstanding painful consequences for many parents and children. The feeling of grief and loss can last over a lifetime and many women continue to suffer trauma and distress regarding the children they were parted from and the lives they missed.

You may be aware that in August 2009, the Government announced that it would begin an ongoing dialogue with mothers and children affected by past adoption practices.The Government's initial engagement with a number of support groups and affected individuals highlighted that there was no consensus about the way ahead, particulary as the evidence base around issues relating to past adoption practices is contested and the public record is scant.

To address this deficit and provide Government with a stronger evidence base to better understand the issues associated with past adoption practices, the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) undertook a review of exsisting literature and research about past adoption practices. A copy of the review can be found at
www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/families/pubs/Pages/default.aspx.

The Minister attended the Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference in June 2010 where she discussed the AIFS Review, along with the possible next steps. At this meeting, Ministers agreed to a joint National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Practices to be conducted by AIFS over 18 months. AIFS will consult widely in conducting the study.

For further information on the National Research Study, including the Terms of Reference, and to register your interest, please visit the AIFS website at
www.aifs.gov.au/pastadoptionpractices/index.php.

You might also be interested to know that on 15th November 2010, the Senate announced it would be conducting a Senate Inquiry on the Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices, with a report due on 30th April 2011.
For further information regarding the Senate Inquiry, including how to prepare a submission should you wish to do so, please visit;

www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/comm_contrib_former_forced_adoption/info.htm.
The government will consider the outcome of the National Research Study on the Past Adoption Practices, together with the Senate Inquiry, to determine the next steps.

The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is managing a dedicated mailbox, pastadoptionpractices@fahcsia.gov.au. where organisations and individuals can provide information or express an interest in being kept informed on further developments on past adoption practices.

Senior Advisor.

Brisbane Times 24th December 2010

2010-12-24T08:39:00.003+10:00

'Your son is gone. He's with his adoptive parents' Marissa Calligeros
December 24, 2010 -
View the original article on Brisbane Times website: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/lifestyle/your-son-is-gone-hes-with-his-adoptive-parents-20101222-1958a.html

View the Gallery at:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/photogallery/queensland/motherhood-lost/20101215-18xsz.html?selectedImage=0

Motherhood lost
Marg Hamilton has struggled to come to terms with losing a child to a forced adoption. Photo: Dean Saffron

.."The room was blacked out. There were no windows and just one door.

"They tied my hands and feet to the bed. I was in agony. I was screaming out in pain.

"Then there was silence.

Advertisement: Story continues below "No one would have known a baby had been born. But I did."

There, in an isolated delivery room of the Royal Brisbane Hospital, Trish Large's quest to find the son taken from her at birth began.

Trish would be among 250,000 unwed mothers of the "white stolen generation" in Australia.

The young women were drugged, tethered to beds, and never allowed to see their babies.

It was a practice which has been described as 'institutionalised baby farming', whereby babies born to unwed women were forcibly taken from them and illegally adopted to infertile couples.

This was the accepted practice at the RBH for up to five decades from the 1930s.

As she prepares to celebrate Christmas with her family tomorrow, Trish remembers a time when her family was incomplete.

“The nurse told me I was unfit to be a mother ... that I didn't deserve to see my son,” she said.

“My son was whisked away out of the delivery room and I was taken to an unmarried mothers' ward in the hospital.

“I demanded every day to see my son ... for every day that I was in that ward.”

However Trish, at 20 years old with no family for support, was no match for the system.

“The next day my milk came flooding in. So they forced me to wear an extremely tight elastic bandage that covered my entire chest right down to my hips," she said.

“It was so tight I could barely breathe.

“They also gave me the drug stilboestrol to dry my milk, but it also made me very calm and very quiet, just as they wanted me.”

Trish has since learned the drug is used to treat incontinent female dogs.

“The next morning a social worker came in and demanded that I sign an adoption form. When I refused she told me I would be charged with 'seduction' and deported back to England and never allowed in the country again with no chance to see my son,” she said.

The same happened the following morning, and the following.

Finally, the seemingly exacerbated social worker told Trish she could sign a hospital release form and take her son home.

“I was so excited. I thought I had won. I thought I had beat them at their own game,” she said.

“The social worker came with some forms on a clip board and I signed them. Then I sat on my bed and waited and waited for them to bring me my son.

“I sat there until they put another woman in my bed.

“At five o'clock I asked the nurse for the final time when my son would arrive.

“She turned to me and said: 'Your son is gone. He's already gone with his adoptive parents'.”

The following morning Trish – now a desperate mother – went to the Department of Child Services seeking help. Her plight fell on deaf ears.

“So I marched right to the police station on Roma Street and told them my baby had been stolen from me," she said.

“The policeman at the desk said he would need some proof that I had in fact had a baby.

“So I went back to the Royal Brisbane Hospital. I said to the woman at reception, 'I had a baby here, I would like my records'. I gave her me name.

“She said, 'Are you sure you had a baby in this hospital?'

“She said there was absolutely no record of me ever having been admitted to the hospital. And there was no record of my baby being born.”

Two years earlier Margaret Hamilton, now 64, delivered her son in the same ward.

“But I have absolutely no memory of giving birth. I have no idea how my son came into this world,” she said.

“Perhaps it was such a traumatic experience I blocked it out ... perhaps I was drugged.

“I was 19 years old. I was engaged and pregnant, but my fiancé called it off. I was to be a single mother, so I went where all single mothers went ... to a home.”

There, Margaret lived with 50 other young women, all pregnant and unmarried.

“No one asked me what I wanted to do,” she said.

On the May 11, 1966 Margaret was admitted to hospital.

“I was left on a bed in a corridor. I heard another woman scream and I thought, 'Oh I don't want to be like that',” she said.

Then nothing.

“My friends tell me I must have had such a traumatic experience there I have blocked it out. But I can't imagine I would do that,” Margaret said.

“It's not unlikely I was drugged, but I have no medical records.”

Like Trish, Margaret was forced to sign adoption papers, but not before she caught a glimpse of her son in the hospital nursery.

“Yes, I saw him through the window ... but I was never allowed to hold him, or touch him,” she said.

“The adoption was illegal. I was only 19. It was not legal for a woman to consent to adoption until they were 21.

“My son was stolen from me.”

Once Margaret signed the adoption papers she was told she needed to leave the hospital.

“I was expected to return home, return to my job and never speak of it again,” Margaret said.

“I couldn't do that.”

In the weeks following the birth Margaret became increasingly depressed.

“I didn't care whether I lived or died,” she said.

“I would walk across the road without looking, hoping a car would hit me.”

Eventually Margaret could not bear her life in Brisbane.

“The streets were too familiar. Not only had I been abandoned by the man I loved, I had lost my child.”

Margaret moved to Melbourne where she regained some semblance of a normal life.

It was not until she returned to Brisbane, married and with two children, in 1990 that she once again yearned for her lost son.

“I wasn't coping. I had to find him,” she said.

Margaret, like Trish, found an ally in ALAS Queensland – Adoption Loss Adult Support – for mothers searching for their lost children.

One year later Margaret saw her son again for the first time.

“He was not the baby I saw in the hospital. He was a man. He was 25 years old,” she said.

The pair met at a country fair in regional New South Wales.

“There were people everywhere and I was so scared I would miss him," she said.

“Then I saw a man walking across a field. I recognised him by his walk. He has the walk of my family.”

There for the very first time Margaret held her son.

Margaret and Trish are among the fortunate few who have been reunited with their children, but their grief for the babies they lost has never faded.

“The grief never goes away. Adoption is a life sentence,” Margaret said.

She finds comfort remembering walking the streets of Brisbane's CBD when she was pregnant.

“I loved being pregnant, because then my baby was mine and no one could take it from me," Margaret said.

“I love my son, but I still grieve for my baby.”

For this, a formal apology from the federal government is crucial.

Margaret made a personal request to Prime Minister Julia Gillard at a community cabinet meeting at Clontarf, north of Brisbane, last month.

"My name is Margaret Hamilton," she began.

"I'm from ALAS - Adoption Loss Adult Support. There are over 250,000 white mothers who lost their babies to forcible removal at birth by the same past illegal adoption practices as Aboriginal mothers.

"How do you feel personally? Should they receive an apology?"

Ms Gillard replied: "I see in the media - and have heard sometimes face to face - some of the stories of women who face very devastating circumstances of having children taken, or being put under intolerable pressure to relinquish their children, in a different age and a different time.

"So, as a human being, of course you extend your sympathy to anybody who lived through that and through years of not knowing what happened to their child. So I think it's something we can all say, we're sorry that ever happened in Australian history."

Although this was cause of much excitement for Margaret and Trish, this personal “sorry” from the Prime Minister was not enough.

“We want our children to know that we did not give them away. We want them to know that they were loved and wanted,” Trish said.

“We do not want compensation, we just want healing.”

The "white stolen generations" are so-called to distinguish them from the indigenous stolen generations, but their suffering is shared.

Margaret last year received a handwritten letter from an indigenous elder.

"I applaud the Prime Minister's apology to our mob. But what about the white stolen generations that have suffered the same fate," the elder wrote.

"I know many white people who went through the same pain. So why can't the government do it's healing again and apologise to the white stolen generation to bring closure to all this suffering.

"As we walk the same land. Breathe the same air. Drink the same water."

As The Year Comes To An End.

2010-12-23T07:06:00.000+10:00

Sydney Morning Herald: White mothers of stolen children also deserve an apology

2010-12-08T14:20:00.001+10:00

On page 14 of this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, Liz Hannan writes "White mothers of stolen children also deserve an apology" article.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/white-mothers-of-stolen-children-also-deserve-an-apology-20101207-18o7t.html#comments

Copied from the site:
In an attempt to revive her battered image with Queensland voters, Julia Gillard and a dozen ministers and parliamentary secretaries journeyed north last week to convene a ''community cabinet'' in a school hall in the marginal Labor seat of Petrie.

Little was expected of the evening. The Prime Minister's office did not keep a transcript of proceedings. But one exists and, among talk of sustainable fisheries and the $1.15 billion Petrie to Kippa-Ring rail line, was a significant exchange between Gillard and one of the 400 locals on hand.

''My name is Margaret Hamilton,'' she began. ''I'm from ALAS - Adoption Loss Adult Support. There are over 250,000 white mothers who lost their babies to forcible removal at birth by the same past illegal adoption practices as Aboriginal mothers. How do you feel personally? Should they receive an apology?''
Advertisement: Story continues below

The PM replied: ''I see in the media - and have heard sometimes face to face - some of the stories of women who face very devastating circumstances of having children taken, or being put under intolerable pressure to relinquish their children, in a different age and a different time.

''So, as a human being, of course you extend your sympathy to anybody who lived through that and through years of not knowing what happened to their child. So I think it's something we can all say, we're sorry that ever happened in Australian history.''

It was a ''sorry'' heard by few that has since reverberated to broken-hearted middle-aged and elderly women across the land.

These are the mothers of the ''white stolen generations'', so-called to distinguish them from the mothers of the indigenous stolen generations, though their suffering is shared.

In the five decades up to 1982, the newborn babies of these young, unwed women were forcibly removed from them for adoption. Their stories are shocking. They were drugged, tethered to beds, not allowed to see their babies, told they were dead.

Margaret Hamilton had a son taken from her in Queensland. For Christine Cole - the founder of the Apology Alliance - it was a daughter. She says institutions such as Crown Street Women's Hospital in Sydney engaged in institutionalised baby farming, whereby those deemed inferior were taken and assimilated into the middle class.

Cole was 16 when, in 1969, her mother took her to Crown Street, where she was given military-style mind-altering barbiturates in the lead-up to the birth. She never saw her baby daughter's face. After five days on drugs to dry up her milk and sedate her in her grief, she was made to sign adoption papers and sent home.

An apology from the federal government - and to a lesser extent the states - is crucial to women like these two.

NSW held an inquiry more than a decade ago. These women are still waiting for a parliamentary apology, not the statement of public acknowledgment the then treasurer, Michael Egan, gave to Parliament in 2001.

At federal level, a Senate inquiry is under way, with a report due in April, but they fear a repeat of the Bringing Them Home report. It took more than a decade for one of its recommendations, a parliamentary apology to the stolen generations, to occur.

These mothers believe it is cause for hope that the federal government and two states are now led by women. Kristina Keneally knows what it is to labour and give birth to a child she will never know. Two months ago, she spoke publicly about the daughter she delivered in 1999, knowing congenital defects meant she would not survive birth. ''I have a picture of Caroline next to my bed,'' she said. ''She's often the first thing I think about when I get up in the morning and the last thing I think about when I go to bed at night. The person I am today is because I'm Caroline's mother.''

The Prime Minister and premiers should follow the lead of the West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, who, in October, in an Australian first, delivered a parliamentary apology on behalf of state institutions involved in the aggressive adoption practices and government policies that were unsupportive of pregnant, unmarried women. There was no political fallout, no avalanche of compensation claims, only joy and healing for the women whose babies were taken.

Last week's personal ''sorry'' from Gillard, while cause for excitement among the women, is not enough.

When Kevin Rudd examines the flaming wreckage of his prime ministership, he must reflect with satisfaction on the apologies he made on behalf of the nation.

The first, in February 2008, was to the stolen generations. The second, in November last year, was to the forgotten Australians - the half-million Australian children and British child migrants who suffered years of neglect and abuse in orphanages and state and religious institutions.

Some mothers of the ''white stolen generations'' are dead. Others are dying. Many live in despair, still longing for the chance to hold their baby, to see its face, to rewrite their sad history.

They deserve parliamentary apologies. Without delay.

Dec 8th 2010 - Liz Hannan.

25th Federal Cabinet Meeting at Clontarf Beach High School.

2010-12-03T04:45:00.000+10:00

Last night, Thursday 2nd December, I attended the 25th Cabinet Meeting of our Federal Politicians at Clontarf,(near Redcliffe) in Queensland.
Our Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin, Nicola Roxan and many others Ministers were there.
In the forum, I was lucky enough to be selected by Julia Gillard to whom I asked this question on behalf of our group Adoption, Loss, Adult,Support,

"There were over 250,000 white mothers who had their babies forcibly removed at birth by the same past illegal adoption practices as Aboriginal Mothers.

Do you personally feel that they should also receive an apology?"

In front of aproxamately 500 people our Prime Minister answered my question.
Julia spoke of the apology for the Forgotten Generation and The Stolen Generation and said she agreed that Kevin Rudd had done the right thing.

Then Julia APOLOGISED for herself,
and said she was aware of all the women still out there still needing recognition of the suffering they had endured. Julia then passed my question over to Jenny Macklin, who said that she was also aware many women still lived with the grief of loosing their children to past adoption practices.
Jenny spoke of the Senate Inquiry and hoped we would all send in our stories.
I was able to then add that we had many mothers in their 70's and 80's that thought they may not live long enough to hear rhe results of an inquiry, that an apology was what they wanted to let their children know that they "did not give their children away", that they were loved.
Jenny said that she was aware of these older women.

I have been given a contact card so I can speak some more to her advisor.

I would have to say, I was most impressed with the forum and think my question was well answered.

Margaret Hamilton.

Senate Inquiry

2010-12-03T04:40:00.000+10:00

Subject: Your submissions are needed URGENTLY - a Senate INQUIRY re: forced adoption
polices

To all mothers, and adoptees, and families, siblings ... ANYONE ... who has been
affected by the past practices of adoption PLEASE get your stories down, either on
paper and post them in or go online and post online on the website below.
Barbara
of Mothers of a White Stolen Generation
Victoria

"The Apology Alliance wants to formally thank the Greens for their ongoing support.
The Alliance members were well aware that gaining the apology in WA would be a
crucial step in achieving a National Inquiry. The following is an extract from an
email forwarded to the Alliance:

"The Senate has supported an Australian Greens motion for the Community Affairs
Reference Committee to examine the Commonwealth Government's role in forced adoption
polices from the late 1940s the 1980s. Senator Rachel Siewert, Greens spokesperson
for Community Services says the Committee's inquiry is an important step in
addressing the issue of forced adoption and comes in the wake of the WA Parliament's
formal apology to those affected by the policies.
"Today's vote starts to recognise the suffering that so many people have endured as a result of forced adoption policies," Senator Siewert said today."

Alliance members, with the support of the Greens, Liberal and Labor politicians,
lawyers and journalists are hoping to receive apologies from all State and Federal
Governments. Look forward to meeting all you wonderful campaigners in Canberra for
the Federal Apology"

The link below will take you directly to the Senate site and provides all the details

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/comm_contrib_former_forced_adoption/info.htm

At this point they are only taking written submissions. We haven't received much
else to guide us yet and they haven't set any dates for hearing evidence or
called for witnesses.

Submissions should be received by 28 February 2011. The reporting date is 30 April
2011.

The Committee is seeking written submissions from interested individuals and
organisations preferably in electronic form submitted online or sent by email to
community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au as an attached Adobe PDF or MS Word format
document. The email must include full postal address and contact details.
Alternatively, written submissions may be sent to:
Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Below is a link to some useful information that will help anyone wishing to submit
to the inquiry

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/wit_sub/index.htm

Demanding Justice.Christine Cole's daughter was taken in 1969

2010-11-27T01:48:00.000+10:00

Demanding justice ... Christine Cole's daughter was taken in 1969.

Pellegrini Source: The Sunday Telegraph

MOTHERS who were bullied into forcibly giving up their newborns before many had even cradled or seen them are demanding an apology from the NSW Government.

Unethical and unlawful adoption practices were rife in Sydney hospitals, peaking between 1965 and 1975 when more than 36,000 children were taken from their single mothers under duress.

The women were heavily drugged and bullied into signing adoption papers by doctors, matrons and welfare officers.

Most mothers were refused the chance to see or touch their babies, the women's faces covered with pillows by nurses. Others were told incorrectly their babies had died.

The practices that inflicted lifelong trauma and mental illness for mother and child were endorsed by successive governments, and carried out by hospitals and church groups to stamp out illegitimacy by assimilating babies into middle-class society.

Christine Cole, whose daughter was taken from her in 1969, has been working with other mothers to get an apology from the NSW Government. "These practices were illegal and inherent in the system, that has already been established," Ms Cole said.

"The NSW Government has ignored the recommendations made by its own inquiry. They are hoping we [will] all die off."Last month, Western Australia became the first state to apologise to the women of the "white stolen generation", and last week the Senate agreed to hold an inquiry into the Commonwealth's role in forced adoptions.

However, despite a parliamentary inquiry a decade ago into past adoption practices recommending an apology be made, the NSW Government has still failed to say sorry.

"Mothers did not have a choice. If you are a victim of trauma, as we are, you cannot begin to heal unless your experience has been validated. An apology is long, long overdue," Ms Cole said.

More than 200 women from around the country travelled to Perth to hear WA's Parliament "unequivocally and sincerely apologise for fundamentally flawed government policies" on October 19.

Former MP Pat Rogan, who spearheaded the NSW inquiry, said he was "not just disappointed, but angry" that the Government had swept this under the carpet for so long.

"I was delighted to see the [federal] apology to the stolen Aboriginal children, and some Aboriginal mothers said to me it was only right and proper the white stolen babies and their mothers be given a similar apology. The time has come."

Psychiatrist Dr Geoffrey Rickarby, who has treated mothers whose babies were forcibly removed, said most Australians didn't realise the enormity of what happened.

"[The now-closed] Crown Street Women's Hospital [in Surry Hills] had a machine going to take these babies," Dr Rickarby said. "Such serious things were done to these girls by the thousands. They were drugged silly and, immediately after the birth, the baby was taken. The mothers had their faces covered so they could not form a bond with the child.

"At some hospitals the girls were tied to the bed. Most women never quite came to terms with what happened."

He said people working within the authorities often "ordered" babies for themselves and friends, and adoptive parents were poorly screened and rarely rejected.

"All sorts of people were adopting the babies, including mentally ill people, alcoholics and people with gross expectations about what the baby should be," Dr Rickarby said.

The Government had much to apologise for, he said.

"If these women get an apology, they will feel more socially included, and feel that people have compassion for them," he said. "Children will see the circumstances of their adoption, as many believe they were given up by somebody who did not want them, when that is incredibly untrue.

"The Government has a lot to apologise for."

Hospital staff lied and told Robin Turner, 60, her son had died days after his 1967 birth.

Her baby was taken to another hospital, without her permission, and she was told later he had passed away.

"In 1980, I fell pregnant again, and I high-tailed it straight to the pre-term clinic," Ms Turner said. "I could not go through it again. I never married because I am not worthwhile - it has affected every area of my life."

NSW Community Services Minister Linda Burney told The Sunday Telegraph: "The majority of the recommendations from the inquiry into adoption have been implemented.

One of those recommendations was that the NSW Government should 'issue a statement of public acknowledgement that past adoption practices were misguided and that, on occasions, unethical or unlawful practices may have occurred causing lasting suffering for many'.

Thanks to Apology Alliance for this article.

Christmas Party

2010-11-27T01:33:00.001+10:00

We would like to invite you to join us at our Christmas Lunch to be held at "The Ox," Oxley Ave., Margate.
Date; Saturday 11th December 2010.
Time; 12 o'clock.
RSVP by 10th December.
Contact Trish; 0417 077 159 or Marg;0402 336 480.
We look forward to seeing everyone.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING PAUL

2010-11-27T01:25:00.000+10:00

In 1966 when I was born my mother named me Paul.
Five days after my birth, I was stolen from my mother by forced adoption practices in Queensland.
At 12 days old I was given to strangers by Social Workers employed by the Government.

These strangers gave me a new identity and a new name and called me, son.

The government Department, Births/ Deaths/and Marriages then compounded this false identity by issuing a Schedule Birth Certificate which was a legal document consisting of lies.

I then had to live with this false identity.

When I reached the legal age of 18 years, I wondered, “Where were the Social Workers who deemed this to be, in my best interest, where were they to check if this was indeed, “For the best interest of the child”.

No one came to inquire if I was ok, or if I had good adoptive parents.

No one asked me if I wanted or consented to being adopted!

I have lived this false life for over 40 years now.

By taking my identity from me, I have been deprived of;

My name, my true self.
The special bond that exists between a mother and child.
My mother’s love and caring from my birth onwards.
My siblings and my extended family.
The right to my birth name and to enjoy my heritage and for my blood line to remain unbroken.
My children to continue with my heritage and to know who they truly are.
The best and honest interest of the child would have been to stay with his mother.

THIS WAS NOT ALRIGHT THEN AND IS NOT ALRIGHT NOW!

No one in my lifetime has ever asked me, “Was this ok for you?”

I have lived my life as a lie.

Paul’s birth certificate states, Son of Margaret.

These two people, can never officially celebrate Birthdays, Mother’s day, Marriages, Birth of Grandchildren or even Deaths as Mother and Son.

These two people can only be joined on a piece of paper that is the first true Birth Certificate.

Even in death we will not be recognised as mother and son.

I am two people with two birth certificates which both say different things.

MARGARET AND PAUL OFFICIALLY CEASED TO BE
MOTHER AND SON FIVE DAYS AFTER MY BIRTH.
THE GOVERNMENT DEEMED ME, “CHILD OF NO ONE.”

WHO CAN TELL ME HOW I CAN BE LEGALLY RECONNECTED TO MY TRUE SELF?

Comment on "Were These Our Babies"

2010-11-17T08:14:00.000+10:00

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WERE THESE OUR BABIES?":

Health authorities have stressed there was no proven link between SV40
and cancer and have also reassured the public that polio vaccines still
routinely given to all babies were safe and free from the virus and
other known contaminants.

I was received at St Joseph's in 1961, leaving in 1962 and would like
to have this link between SV40 and cancer. I now have cancer

WERE THESE OUR BABIES?

2010-11-16T08:29:00.000+10:00

Polio vaccine tested at orphanages By Gary Hughes
October 25, 2004
The Age.

Vaccine is prepared in 1956.

A Federal Government agency used babies in Victorian orphanages and children's homes to test a new quadruple antigen vaccination, which included polio vaccine possibly contaminated with a monkey virus since linked to cancer.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratory records show the trials were conducted on babies as young as three months in five institutions between December 1959 and early 1961.

Quadruple antigen, containing Salk polio vaccine, was not publicly released until November 1960.

The Age revealed on Saturday that millions of doses of Salk vaccine produced by the then government-owned CSL between 1956-62 were contaminated with a monkey virus called SV40. Researchers have found traces of the virus in a range of human cancer cells, including mesothelioma lung disease.

It is not clear from the CSL records whether polio vaccine used to produce quadruple antigen used in the tests came from contaminated batches.

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has ordered a departmental inquiry into CSL's decision to release contaminated vaccines.

The National Health and Medical Research Council said it would work with federal health authorities to assess the need for more research into possible links between SV40 and cancer.

Health authorities have stressed there was no proven link between SV40 and cancer and have also reassured the public that polio vaccines still routinely given to all babies were safe and free from the virus and other known contaminants.

But a national support group for victims of contaminated medical products yesterday called for a royal commission into CSL.

"The track record of CSL demonstrates the need for a royal commission into all their operations," said Independent Blood Council president Charles MacKenzie.

CSL research records in the National Archives show that 56 babies under the age of 12 months were used in the Victorian vaccine trials.

One baby died of meningitis in August 1960, less than three months after completing a course of three quadruple antigen injections.

The records list the names of the institutions, the names and ages of the babies, the doses given and the results of blood tests done before and after the vaccinations to measure polio antibodies.

The institutions used in the trials were St Joseph's Home in Broadmeadows, Berry Street Foundling Home, Bethany Babies Home in Geelong, Methodist Babies Home and the Children's Welfare Department at Turana, run by the Victorian government.

There is no indication of who gave formal consent for the babies to be used in the trials, which were carried out by CSL's virus research department.

Further development and use of the quadruple antigen, which also provided vaccination against whooping cough, diptheria and tetanus, appeared to have been abandoned during 1962-63. Salk vaccine was replaced with Sabin oral polio vaccine by 1965.

The Age has revealed that in 1997 Victorian children's homes and orphanages had been used by a number of medical and research organisations, including CSL, for trials of a range of experimental vaccines.

The reports led to inquiries by the state and federal health departments, which concluded there was no evidence of any other similar medical trials. Neither report referred to the quadruple antigen trials.

The State Government report, a copy of which has been obtained under freedom of information by Melbourne researcher Brenda Coughlan, found no record of the Department of Human Services providing formal consent for state wards to be used in trials.

The Age's revelations were examined by the Senate's inquiry into mistreatment of state wards, which said in its report in August that it was unclear who was legally responsible for allowing the children to be used. It concluded that any long-term health effects on children used in the experiments were unknown.

The experimental use of quadruple antigen was investigated by a commission of inquiry in 2003.

Rachel David, director of public affairs at CSL, said community attitudes at the time of the quadruple antigen trials in Melbourne were very different.

She said it would have been a logical decision to trial the new vaccinations in such institutions because "lots of kids died of communicable and vaccine preventable disease" in them.

Thanks to Apology Alliance for this information.

Give us back our Baby Story.Weekend Australian Magazine October 30-31, 2010.

2010-11-11T10:48:00.000+10:00

Story by Caroline Overington.
Weekend Australian Magazine, October 30-31, 2010.
On March 31st 2005, a girl was born at a Sydney hospital. Her head was
considered larger than normal. The girl was born with hydrocephalus, or
fluid on the brain. She would need an operation. The parents, Chinese born
Australian citizens held great store in traditional Chinese remedies. They
were suspicious of the western system of medicine. They were suspicious of authorities, after all they had escaped here because of Tiananmen Square!

“Mr Lee” went to the public library to look up hydrocephalus and he was
spooked by what he had read. The website made it plain that his daughter’s
head would have to be cut open and a shunt inserted to drain fluid from
the brain into the abdomen. Mr Lee was full of doubt about the procedure.
He asked the neurosurgeon if his daughter would die if he did not operate.
The surgeon said no but she could suffer from serious complications. As
his daughter was only one day old and her head had already shrunk from
53cm to 48cm he didn’t want the operation on the first day, he wanted to
wait a week.

What happened next was extraordinary.
State welfare services stepped in and took the baby into state care and wheeled her away for surgery.
Her parents never saw her again, but not because she had died.

THE STATE WELFARE SYSTEM NEVER GAVE HER BACK.

This child was removed from her Chinese parents because they did not
consent to an operation on her brain on the first day.

The child was given to foster parents who five years later, 2010, wanted
to call this child their own; but she still had biological parents who had
been fighting to get her back.
An adoption order was placed before Judge George Palmer of the Supreme Court. He is a Father, Grandfather and a devout Catholic.

The adoption of the child was granted to the foster parents.

This is only the outline of the story.
Mr Lee and his wife have three children.
It seems Mr Lee has to prove he is a good parent instead of the court
having to prove he is not!

Here is a reply to “Give us Back Our Baby.”
by Jan Kashin from Apology alliance.

In NSW again we have the State acting as “parents and guardian of newborns.”
At the hospital where the mother gave birth, we have security guards
stopping Mr Lee from taking his daughter home. And do I hear the NSW
Department of Community Services saying, “Everything we have done
has been with the little girl’s “best interest at heart”?

Where have I heard this story before?

Out of the mouths of thousands of young women from the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s,
70’s and 80’s who had been marginalised because they were giving birth and
were not yet married.
They were told the police would be sent after them if they ran away;
shackled to labour ward beds or tied their arms with bandages to the side
of the bed lest they try to see or touch their newborns, hounded them from
nursery windows while they tried to glimpse their babies.

I thought these practices were done with but had a rude awakening on Saturday
morning as I read the plight of Mr Lee, his wife and their three children.

I believe Justice George Palmer has condemned the child to a life of
genealogical bewilderment and anger. Her parents, her brother, sister
and herself are destined for a life of anguish, unresolved grief, loss,
pain, suffering and emotional trauma.

In a word they are all condemned to despair.

To take a person’s baby and to then expect them to rationally appear
before a court while in a state of enraged trauma is part of the adoption
game. Traumatise the parents so they will not be able to think straight
while grief overwhelms them.

“The new marginalized” can now include those not proficient in the
language and laws of their new country- so look out “boat people “asylum
seekers of all nationalities, immigrants of all description, mothers in
detention centres, and those who practice Chinese medicine, you are on
notice.
Could Linda Burney’s Department have your infant in her sights to pick up the shortfall in numbers of newborns for adoption in the State of NSW? We hear complaints about the adoption numbers being so low, but no-one states the reason – we are no longer stealing thousands of newborns from their single mothers.

So will this be the new baby grab? Will this be legalised by the courts; facilitated by the hospitals and enforced by the police? Many unanswered questions!
Why was the baby not returned to her parents five years ago after the operation? She had competent parents who wanted her. The foster parents wanted to adopt her, well her real parents wanted to keep her, what about their rights?
To say the child has got used to her new parents, what a travesty - that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.
One last point there are many children who grow up with a set of parents who separate, how would the community feel if one parent said to the other parent and family you can no longer have contact with your child because it would disturb him or her.
I believe the taken baby and her family, that is five new Australians, will end up costing the Federal Government heavily in medical assistance for the psychological damage it has caused by forcibly separating them, once again with that worn old justification ‘in the child’s best interest’

It is my opinion that Justice Palmer’s ignorance of the damage caused by adoption has created a preventable tragedy.
An immoral practice such as this is NEVER in the victim’s best interest.

Our Next Meeting 13th November 2010.

2010-11-05T17:57:00.000+10:00

Our next meeting will be a northside meeting.
We will have viewing of WA Apologies.
There will also be the written copies of the WA apology available.
Starting time 12 o'clock onwards.
All welcome.
Please bring a plate.
Contact; Trish 0417 077 159 or Marg; 0402 336 480.
Our apologies for cancelling the southside meeting.

Letter from Andrew who was at Parliament to hear the Apology.

2010-10-25T22:23:00.000+10:00

The initial reading by the premier was pretty wet. If anything, it
failed to even meet even my pre-lowered expectations. "I understand
some of you have hurt feelings. We're sorry your feelings got hurt."

But after that it was excellent. If you have listened to the full
speeches I don't need to repeat stuff, but I felt all the important
ground was covered. I especially liked that it was bipartisan, with
speakers from both parties acknowledging that great wrong was done.
Sitting in the gallery you didn't even really know (or care) which
party a speaker was from, which is as it should be.

As you can imagine there was a lot of crying, but with only a couple
of exceptions I was surprised at how little anger was expressed. Birth
mums have more right than anyone to be furious, and I feel very much
for those who were there with us who had to leave when their anger
became too much to bear. But for me and my mum, and I think for most
who were there, it was an incredibly powerful experience not so much
of 'healing' (I hate that word - it has too many echoes of 'getting
over it' and 'moving on') as of opening up, of a weight being lifted
and shared, of what had previously been a private burden being taken
up by a whole community.

I can say that it was far more significant and moving than either my
my mum or I were expecting. Actually being there, in a parliament,
listening to politicians you normally see on television acknowledging
the wrong and the hurt that was done is something everyone touched by
adoption has a right to experience. For those in other states and
countries it is absolutely something worth working for.

I do recommend, however, that you make plans for a bigger than
expected turn out! There was a moment I witnessed where an usher was
physically blocking a mum from getting into the gallery due to a 'lack
of seating' and 'house rules about not standing', and indeed many were
not allowed in and had to listen from an adjacent room. To be invited
to hear an apology and then be stopped at the door is farcical, but
when the apology is for having been treated like you don't matter and
have no rights it becomes deeply and painfully wrong. To be fair, the
usher was just doing his job and more than a little flustered,
everyone was caught unprepared by the number who attended, and a real
effort was made to accommodate everyone as well as possible on short
notice. But I hope it will be handled better next time.

There was one point where a Member who had (I think) been a Pastor
spoke from a religious perspective about forgiveness that generated a
degree of anger, with at least one mum leaving. While I absolutely
respect the importance of religion in many people's lives, and can
understand and even agree with the essence of what this man was
saying, I think religious people need to be very, very circumspect in
speaking to communities that have been directly hurt by individuals
and organisations acting in the name of their religion. Acknowledging
past wrongs is worthwhile, but they should leave it at that and accept
that on these subjects and to these people they need to display a
degree of shame and remorse and not offer 'advice', however good and
well-meaning.

The after-effects have been difficult. The simple fact is that most
people in the community aren't even close to getting it. Even close
friends and family go '"I see that that was important to you, but why
does it matter? What did it achieve?". I think it is unrealistic to
think of this apology as having any direct effect on the public, but
it can still be a bit surreal sometimes when people who know you don't
even mention it - what, do parliamentary apologies happen every day?

Personally, as an adoptee, it had one very difficult emotional result.
While I had long ago accepted the fact that I was not in any sense
'relinquished' or 'given up' or 'unwanted' - my mum and me have been
in contact for five years now - I had compartmentalised that from
thinking of myself as 'stolen'. It is not at all comfortable to think
of my adoptive parents as having raised a child that was stolen. I
suspect many adoptees and adoptive parents will find that a difficult,
if not impossible, thing to face.

Anyway, love and support to you all.

Andrew
Thank you Andrew for taking the time to share your personal experience with us.

Read Speeches from Western Australian Apology

2010-10-25T15:09:00.000+10:00

I've been told that the transcript of the apology is now available on line, which is
great. You can read all the speeches if you want to. Go to the Western Australian
Government web site, Hansard, Daily transcripts:

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/Hansard+-+Daily+Transcripts

and click on the Legislative Assembly for Tuesday the 19th of October. Enjoy!

Thanks Evelyn for the link.

Link to WA Parliament to see the Historic Apology to Unwed Mothers.

2010-10-22T10:05:00.000+10:00

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/temp/examplewqo.nsf/screenListingLA?Openform

If you look down the list on the right hand side of the page 19.10.2010
Afternoon session 1 - then if you use the scroll button and move it almost
to the half way mark at the bottom of the screen you will be at the
beginning of the apology. It was deeply moving.

Thanks Chris for the link.

The left over babies!

2010-10-17T13:15:00.000+10:00

This is the link to an interview in WA. Some of the hospital footage from the past adoption practices is inhuman!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/10/15/3040056.htm

From Origins USA

2010-10-16T16:13:00.000+10:00

Welcome to Origins-USA.org

Western Australia will extend a Parliamentary apology to women and their children affected by its past adoption practices on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. Western Standard Time. Origins-USA applauds Western Australia's recognition of its part in separating mothers and their children, and its acknowledgement of the lifetime adverse affects of adoption.

Comment on our post; "West Australia to apologise to unwed mothers"

2010-10-16T00:44:00.000+10:00

The NSW Inquiry concluded over 10 years ago. Still no apology. Only a
few have read the Final Report of that Inquiry, so the majority of
Australians remain oblivious to want happened to mothers and their
newborns. Many of those making comments rejecting an apology played no
part in obtaining the NSW Inquiry. They were not in the gallery day
after day being re-traumatised by listening to the harrowing accounts
of other mothers, including having to speak out about one’s own
dreadful ordeal – and for what – there was no real acknowledgment at
the end – there was no apology. And if you had been there you would
know the hundreds of women that took the time to go to the Inquiry, and
they came from all over Australia, where very hurt and disillusioned
when no apology was forthcoming. The forthcoming WA apology has opened
up the way for a light to be shined on our issue, for the media to
start taking an interest, for society and our adult children to be
educated. No one is stopping you from campaigning for a national
inquiry – heaven knows gaining this apology may be the impetus for that
occurring. There are many forces working out there against us receiving
any sort of an apology, those that benefited from receiving our
children and those that made financial gains. The National Adoption
Lobby wants to stop any apology because gaining one would be a rallying
call for mothers overseas fighting for their rights. Instead of
fighting against the very people you say you want to help you are
actually working with the forces that want us kept silent. You have no
idea what is going to be said on the day, or who is going to say it.
You have no idea that the illegal practices of the past are not going
to exposed. You don’t have to accept an apology but you insult other
women who do. All of your posts and remarks that you have put all over
the net are being kept – so after the apology – which is usually your
way – you will not be able to take credit for the work of others.

Join With Us On Our Special Day19th October to Commemorate the Western Australian Apology to Mothers and Their Children Separated by Past Adoption.

2010-10-10T12:02:00.000+10:00

We invite you to join with ALAS at the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital to view the permanent display of our framed Historic Apology.

Please bring along a flower which we will then place in the garden in the front of the hospital,under the flags.

We will listen to words by a guest speaker to commemorate this special day.

We will then have one minutes silence to remember all mothers separated from their children by forced adoption practices.

Lunch will be at a convenient place to be decided on the day.

We will meet at the front of the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital under the flags.

11.45 am for a 12 O'clock start.

RSVP; Trish;0417 077 159.
Marg; 0402 336 480.
email;alasqld@alasqld,com

If you are continuing on to PASQ, (see previous post)for the live broadcast, you will need to RSVP PASQ by,12th October,1300 914 819.

Invitation. WA will Apologise to Mothers, Children and their Families Separated by Past Adoption Practices

2010-10-01T15:30:00.000+10:00

Ken Wyatt Thanks Kevin Rudd for his Apology to the Stolen Generation in his Maiden Speech in Parliament

2010-09-29T23:44:00.000+10:00

Alternate WMA version | MP3 download
MARK COLVIN: This evening the nation's first Indigenous Member of Parliament Ken Wyatt has delivered his maiden speech in the House of Representatives.

He's paid tribute to his mother, who was a member of the Stolen Generations and thanked the former prime minister Kevin Rudd who was watching on.

KEN WYATT: When the former prime minister delivered the apology on the 13th of February 2008 in this chamber, I shed tears for my mother and her siblings (holding back tears).

My mother and her siblings, along with many others did not live to hear the words delivered in the apology, which would have meant a great deal to them individually.

I felt a sense of relief that the pain of the past had been acknowledged and that the healing could begin.

Mr Speaker at that point the standing orders prevented an Indigenous response. On behalf of my mother, her siblings, and all Indigenous Australians, I, as an Aboriginal voice, in this chamber say thank you for the apology delivered in the Federal Parliament. And I thank the honourable Kevin Rudd for honouring his commitment to the Stolen Generation.

MARK COLVIN: Ken Wyatt, the nation’s first Indigenous MP, delivering an emotional maiden speech in the Federal Parliament tonight.

ALAS would like to congratulate Ken Wyatt MP on his maiden speech. Ken recognised the importance of an Apology so that the healing could begin.

We hope the Federal Government can do the same for our White Stolen Babies taken from their mothers by forced adoption practices of the past.

ABC interview with Christine cole and Sue MacDonald speaking about the WA Government Apology

2010-09-29T23:31:00.000+10:00

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2010/09/29/3025126.htm?site=perth

Here is the link to listen to this interview.
Congratulations ladies from ALAS.

Timetable for Western Australian Apology 19th October 2010

2010-09-24T08:26:00.000+10:00

Some people outside of Australia have asked me when things are going to take place
on the 19th of October so that they can arrange to acknowledge the apology wherever
they are in the world. The apology is taking place in Perth, Western Australia and
so if you visit the world clock web site you can work out what time it will be where
you are. For those who are interested, this is the plan for the day:

Everyone will meet at the pergola on the southern side of Parliament at 2.00 pm and
then flowers will be laid in the sunken garden for all the children lost to
adoption. At 2.30 there will be a short speech and then one minute's silence will be
observed for all the mothers in Australia and around the world who have lost
children to adoption. At 2.40 everyone will make their way through the main entrance
to the House to hear the apology, which is expected to start at 3.00.

It is likely that the apology will be transmitted live on the government web site at:
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/Legislative+Assembly+-+Live+Broadcast

Please be assured that those of us who are present for this historical event will be
thinking of all of you who are not able to be there.

Thanks Evelyn for the information

Update of Sue MacDonald's interview

2010-09-15T22:14:00.000+10:00

Story went national - this we know.

Reuters have asked for copy so gone international.

Phone calls have been received from OTHER STATE GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE RESEARCHING
POSSIBLE APOLOGIES !!!!!!!!!!!

Here are the links to publications of WA Apology

2010-09-15T21:55:00.000+10:00

Received: Tuesday, 7 September, 2010, 9:54 AM

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2010/03/05/2838001.htm?site=perth

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-adoption-apology-an-australian-first-20100907-14z3e.html

http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia-to-apologise-over-adoptions/story-e6frfkvr-1225915397597

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-adoption-apology-an-australian-first-20100907-14z3e.html

http://www.vanish.org.au/?q=node/14

http://news.9msn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7957572

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Lists/Statements/DispForm.aspx?ID=133968

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/6889508/state-to-apologise-for-harsh-adoption-acts/

http://www.theage.com.au/national/decades-on-pain-of-forced-adoption-lingers-20100219-oly4.html

http://cedartrees.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/apology-adoption-abduction/

http://hoydenabouttown.com/20100305.7302/wa-government-to-apologise-for-abusive-illegal-adoption-system/

Sound Bytes and References

2010-09-15T21:44:00.000+10:00

SOUND BYTES AND REFERENCES: NB: This is not about adoption.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Christine A. Cole BSc.(Psy) Soc Hon LLB GDL

The Federal government has already admitted that there is a white stolen generation
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia: Overseas Adoption in Australia: Report on the inquiry into adoption of children from overseas House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services November 2005 Canberra"The stigma associated with forced adoption practices in the past leading to the 'stolen generation' (both Indigenous and non indigenous mothers and children)" (p.2).

JM: What do you say to the fact that some mothers say there is a ‘white stolen generation’?

GR: It’s true … there is a white stolen generation as well as a black one. And if you look at the white generation numbers, there is a lot more of the white generation that were stolen than the black generation.

JM: Why then would it not be recognised?

GR: Oh, I think it is, in a way, but people do not want to open the door … it is almost too big a problem to deal with … if people had of opened the door to somebody proving that illegal things were done, it would have opened up a huge lot of problems for the Crown Law Department ... to undo a whole lot of things that happened … they want it to go away … it is a complication they could do without.

JM: You mean it is an inconvenient truth?

GR: It is an inconvenient truth …

(Extract from an interview with Dr Geoff Rickarby, 9 August 2007)

Gair, S. Missing Voices About a Foreign Place: Exploring midwifery practice with midwives who cared for single mothers and babies for adoption in Queensland (1960-1990). Journal of Inderdisciplinary Gender Studies Vol 10, 2, 2006/2007
(p.58) "Bernoth (1999) and Olsen (2004) identify that the moral bullying of Australian single mothers resulted in a 'white' stolen generation."

Children were kidnapped at birth
Chisholm Testimony NSW Inquiry into Past Adoptions

Whilst mothers and babies were falsely imprisoned
Chisholm as above

Drugged and traumatised then forced to sign consents -
Dr. Geoff Rickarby Testimony NSW Inquiry

many mothers, if they did not sign consents, were told their babies had died
(Elphic: 2000, p. 44; Report 21: 2000, p. 227; Report 22: 2000, pp. 145-146; Cheater: 2009, p. 182; Critchley: 2006, p. 113)

Damage was well known from the 50’s: The Report noted that:
“It is very desirable, however, both for the child’s physical health and for the mother’s psychological well-being that there should be greater facilities for unmarried mothers to keep their children with them for up to three months after birth….[and] that a document signifying the consent of a mother shall not be valid unless the infant is at least six weeks old when the consent is given, was intended to ensure that children below that age were not placed for adoption…we found little disagreement with the view that it is preferable for a child not to be taken away from his mother before the age of six weeks (Report of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children: 1954, pp. 14-15).

In Australia in "1958 the Special Committee on Native Matters warned that `removal of a child from his mother at an early age can cause serious psychological and mental disturbances'. This warning was ignored” (WA Government submission page 26 cited in HREOCR Chapter 7).

WA child welfare Dept run a propaganda campaign that the babies of unwed mothers were unwanted - this was to make adoption palatable to society - as society would never have condoned the forced removal of newborns from their mothers.Dr. Rosemary Kerr The Appeal of Blue Eyes

Justice Richard Chisolm – Review of the Adoption of Children Act. Report No.69. He stated that the practices were illegal.

Cathleen Sherry, Lawyer and legal academic involved in the same Review Act., when it was conducted early 1990’s – wrote:
What these individual women were describing were not isolated incidences with atypical doctors and social workers: rather their experiences revealed systemic violations of human rights. The treatment they received from doctors, social workers, charitable organizations and government depts. violated their right to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, free from discrimination, free from arbitrary interference with the family, as well as their right to be entitled to special protection as mothers

Chris Cole – reference from the book Releasing the Past:
“A primary principle of international law is that a child has the right to be brought up in its family of origin. This principle was supposed to have been followed in Australia. Further, a single mother was, and is, allowed by law and common human decency to have the right to see, hold and feed her infant. She had the right to name her child and to have unfettered access to her baby in the maternity hospital. When a child is born to a single mother, it is not subject to adoption legislation; its mother is the legal guardian and has the same rights as any other mother. Legally, the Adoption Act does not come into operation until the mother signs a ‘consent to adopt’ form and then only if the consent is informed and taken without duress or coercion. Separating a mother from her child, or placing pillows or sheets to obstruct the view she has of her baby at the birth in order to facilitate an adoption was, and continues to be, classed as coercion and is therefore illegal. Injecting mothers with drugs to dry up their milk immediately after the birth, without their permission, was and is illegal and deems to presume that the mother has already signed a ‘consent to adopt’ form. Dr. Geoff Rickarby has stated that the act of injecting a mother with stilboestrol immediately after the birth constitutes a major assault as mothers were not informed that this would occur and the routine ‘consent to necessary procedures’ that patients sign on being admitted to hospital would not cover the consent to have their milk dried up by an injection.

A mother was supposed to be warned of the ‘dire psychological consequences’ that could result because of her decision to relinquish her child. She was also supposed to be advised of all means of financial assistance available to her to assist her to keep her child. It was only after all alternatives to adoption and means of available support had been explored, and if the mother continued to insist on adoption, that the papers were brought to her to be signed. No decision was supposed to be made prior to the fifth day after the birth or if the mother was distressed. If the mother was not definite in her decision, she was legally entitled to leave the hospital with her baby and to make the decision weeks or months later.
INTERNATION LAW: Two fundamental principles in international adoptions (1960) were that:

careful consideration should be given to all possible alternatives before a child is removed from his own relatives for adoption,

and

parents should be warned of the legal and psychological consequences

that might result from adoption. These principles were re-stated in Australia by the Minister for Child Welfare (1961):

… the child must be protected from unnecessary separation from his own family and that there should be no attempt to persuade the natural parents to place the child.

Many mothers were given large doses of drugs prior to and after the birth, often right up until they signed the ‘consent to adopt’ form. Some of the drugs used were: sodium amytal, chloral hydrate and sodium pentobarbitone; all of which are mind-altering barbiturates. The curtailing of mothers’ rights and the above coercive practices meant that by 1972 there were nearly 10000 babies adopted by non-relatives in Australia. This extraordinarily high number of adoptions was a social aberration that did not occur before the 1960s and rapidly declined with the rise of the women’s movement in the early 1970s. Christine Cole -Reference from the book Releasing the Past.

Report 22 NSW Standing Committee on social issues. - NSW Inquiry into Past Adoption Practices

7.61 Mothers argued that the practice denied their legal rights as guardian of the child, explained above, the Health Commission stated that the mother was the legal guardian of the child until the signing of the consent form. Justice Richard Chisholm agreed that the mother remained guardian of the child until she gave consent and that preventing her from having access to the child prior to the consent “would not have been authorized.”

7.62 The Committee therefore believes that the practice of denying a mother access to her child prior to the signing of consent was unlawful. Those professionals who contributed to the process where access was denied were clearly acting unlawfully.

Recommendation 17

The departments, private agencies, churches, hospitals, professional organizations and individuals involved in past adoption practices should be encouraged to issue a formal apology to the mothers, fathers, adoptees and their families who have suffered as a result of past adoption practices.
*************************************************************************

It is only when the suffering of those most directly damaged by a socio-cultural disaster are heard that there is any opportunity for a Nation to evaluate a malign aspect of its own development. In the instance of the thousands of Australian young mothers who lost a baby to adoption in the latter half of the last century, the distress and consequences are little known because they were dealt with one by one, and, at the time, mostly isolated from their family, partner and friends.
Geoffery A. Rickarby MB BS FRANZCP MANZAP Member of the Faculty of Child Psychiatry RANZCP(A PSYCHIATRIST WHO HAS SEEN ALL ASPECTS OF ADOPTION OVER 35 YEARS) reference from the book “Releasing the Past.

Conclusion – Chris Cole
During the NSW Inquiry (1998-2000) into past practices in adoption, representatives of an Indigenous group that facilitates re-uniting Indigenous mothers with their stolen children gave evidence. They stated that Indigenous mothers were brutally separated from their infants at the birth. Those babies were subsequently adopted or fostered out. The removal of their children was undertaken by the same social workers and medical staff (in the same institutions and under the same laws), who were involved in the theft of white babies. They further stated that there was a common theme between the black and white stolen generations. For instance, Indigenous mothers told them of the use of pillows and sheets to obstruct their view of their baby at the birth with the intention to interrupt bonding, and of being forced to sign consents before allowed to leave hospitals while under the influence of drugs: the same procedures used to gain white mothers’ babies. There has never been any question that these families are part of the stolen generation – and thankfully they have been apologized too – the loss of these mothers and their families has never been dismissed as social mores or explained away by statements such as the mothers did not have recourse to financial benefits.

Furthermore it is now well established that money had been available to assist single mothers to keep their babies since 1912. From 1923 onwards single mothers were given the same financial assistance as deserted wives. The different outcome for single mothers though was that there was no Governmental push to remove the babies of deserted wives or widows – the reality was that white single mothers without family support, orphaned or migrant were preyed upon, our rights extinguished and for that we want and deserve an apology. NB this not about adoption – this is about how our children were stolen at birth, without our consent, this is a human and civil rights crime against mothers’ and their babies and should be acknowledged as such.

Christine A. Cole BSc.(Psy) Soc Hon LLB GDL

Birth Certificate reads: "Baby; Unknown

2010-09-15T17:43:00.000+10:00

On Tuesday,14th September 2010, we had the previllidge of witnessing a mother give her baby his name.
NOTHING TOO STRANGE ABOUT THAT!
This baby is now 35 years old.
A young teenage mum was told she could not name her baby, the reason for this was, she was unmarried.

Many hospitals and court registars took it upon themselves to deny a mother her right to name her baby.
Adoptees grew up with the knowledge that the mothers couldn't be bothered naming them,THEY WERE WRONG.

Yesterday here in Queensland, this couragous and determined mother had her right to name her baby fulfilled.The baby has always had a name but it wasn't officially recognised.
We do not know if it is another "first" but with the help from Births/ Deaths/ and Marriages, this mother had her son's name placed on his original Birth Certificate.
We were told that it is a case by case decision to amend a Birth Certificate but it is not impossible.
CONGRATULATIONS MUM, YOU DID IT!

18th September Meeting

2010-09-13T21:22:00.000+10:00

Our September meeting is a northside meeting.
We will be celebrating the Western Australian Apology to be delivered in parliament 19th October at 4pm western Australia time.

Please bring a plate.
All welcome.
Please ring; Trish, 0417 077 159
Marg, 0402 336 480

Unmarried Mums get State Apology

2010-09-03T17:13:00.000+10:00

Unmarried mums get State apology
DANIEL EMERSON, The West Australian September 1, 2010, 6:32 am

The State's apology to unmarried mothers illegally separated from their babies under
harsh adoption practices is set to happen within weeks.

WA is to become the first State or Federal government worldwide to admit hospital
and welfare authorities were wrong to immediately separate mothers from their babies
after giving birth out of wedlock. Mothers from around Australia keen to hear the
apology have been told it will be delivered in Parliament on October 19.

Experts say tens of thousands of WA babies were adopted illegally when their
unmarried mothers were prevented from seeing, touching, naming or bonding with their
children immediately after birth between the 1940s and the early 1980s.

Health Minister Kim Hames said the exact format of the apology was still being
finalised but it would be "to unmarried mothers of adopted children who were
adversely affected by past adoption practices".

Christine Cole, of the NSW-based Apology Alliance, said it was also important for
the Government to say sorry to the children taken. "They were denied their family of
origin and the culture of that family," she said.

Forms From Child Safety, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital and St Mary's Home for Unmarried Mothers, Toowong Brisbane Available to Me In 1991.

2010-07-18T19:07:00.000+10:00

Questionaire
EXPECTED CHILD FOR ADOPTION
Mother;
Full name;
Married or Single;
Is she living in a defacto association?
Age;
Usual occupation;
Education standard;
Hair; Eyes; Complexion;
Height; Build; Nationality;
Address;Previous Address;
When and where is she to be confined;
FATHER;
Name if devulged; Married or single;
Age; Occupation;
Hair; Eyes; Complexion;
Height; Build; Nationality;
Any known hereditary traits;
Any previous children;
Special interests;
REMARKS:

CHILD;
Name; Date of Birth;
Birthweight; Colouring;
REMARKS;

On My Questionare; My Remarks said "Nice Girl"
On My Child's Remarks; said,Heavy Physio to feed, dated 5 days after his birth.
My Child's custody was 12 days after he was born.

On the top Left hand side of my form was marked, M11 (I believe this was a grading of my child. Top of the range babies was blue eyed blond, M1, The M was for Male)

THE NEXT FORM.

HISTORY FOR INVESTIGATION
This is addressed to The Director, State Childrens Department.
Date; (Mine was one day after birth)
MOTHER;
Name in full; Age;
single or married; Religion;
Address prior to birth; Nationality;
Address in future; COLOURING AND BUILD Hair; Eyes; Complexion; Height; Usual weight;
Known as;
Occupation;
Parents Names;
CHILD;
Name; Sex;
Born at; Date; Hospital;
Birthweight;
Condition of Health;
Particulars of any other children if any;

PUTATIVE FATHER;
Name; Address; Age; Nationality;
Occupation; Married or single; COLOURING AMND BUILD; Eyes; Hair; Complexion; Height; Build;
Employed by;
Financial standing;
Will he support child.
(the consent taker wrote her own remarks)
REMARKS;

(This is from my own form;)
Baby for adoption.
M15 Room 8 by window on right hand side. Baby born on .....1966 at 8 20am.

The 3rd Form;
QUEENSLAND
THE ADOP[TION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 1964.
FORM OF GENERAL CONSENT BY PARENT OR GUARDIAN TO ADOPTION ORDER.

I will try to copy this form and will post it on the blog soon.

From the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital I was able to receive only limited paperwork.
Index Card from baby cot;
Line of Entry of Birth;
Registration of Birth/Death/ illegitimate child.

I was at St Mary's Home Toowong Brisbane.

The only record from there was my admission form.
It was signed by Assistant Matron; M.Roby.
I would be interested to hear if there are any more forms that I am entitled to have now.
Marg

Evolution of Adoption Practices in Australia since 1896

2010-07-05T18:16:00.000+10:00

As recorded in the Hansard Records of Parliament Debates of both Victorian and W.A. Parliaments.

Original Reasons For Adoption Laws.

The original reason for adoption laws was to place "deserted" children in "good" homes rather than life in institutions:this was seen as a great saving to the State and one to be encouraged.
Legislation was thought necessary so that when children were adopted they could not be taken from the adopters by the natural parents.
The child retained the right to its own name, the name of the adopted father being added "in addition to the proper name of the child."The child was also not deprived of its property rights and continued to be able to inherit from its natural parents.

In 1896 Western Australian Adoption of Children Act was contained in only four pages and it was not untill 1921 that secrecy provisions were introduced at the request of adoptive parents.
They objected strongly to the child retaining its own name and were even refusing to adopt unless the child bore "their name and their name only." (p.811 Hansard. 20thSept.1921) that "the past should be wiped out completely."(p.809) and that the child "shall be bought up as their own child, unemcumbered by any other name whatever." (p.693 Hansard. 8th Sept1921.)The child's right to its Surname was removed in 1921 and to its christian name in 1949.
The State wanted "by every means to encourage the adoption of children" as it was considered "for the benifit of the children themselves as well as for the State." (p.852 Hansard. 21st Sept.1921,)
Amounts were quoted in both States of savings in costs to the State through adoption.In Victoria, in 1928 Mr. Slater quoted from a 1927 report of the State of the N.S.W. Minister for Education (Vol.176.pp.674 of 7th August 1928)that
"As each child would have cost the State for its maintenance 26 pounds per annum, the saving effected to the State for the children adopted is nearly 300,000pounds for 14 years." which he put forward as a reason in favour of the Adoption of Children Act which he was introducing to parlaiment.
A Mr. McFarlane in the Victorian Legislative Assembly on 26th Sept.1928said (Vol.177.pp.1869 Hansard)
The whole object of the bill is to get the adopted child from its natural parents and prevent it from ever going back to them."
In 1921 the W.A. Parliament, again request of the adoptive parents began the closing of the records by proventing the adopted child from obtaining a copy of its own Birth Certificate.This was so the ADULT/CHILD might not find out that it was illegitimate or adopted, if it had not been informed by its adoptive parents.
The Government of the day considered that (pp.811 Hansard.20th Sept.1921.)

"People should be afforded an opportunity to protect the secrecy of the child's origins and to let it appear before the world as though it were their own."

Apart from wishing the child to appear before the world as their own, adoptive parents and politicians also desired to prevent "sticky-beaks" and "busybodies" from searching the records for "malicious purposes." It was for those reasons that provisions were made to close the records.
Prospective in-laws however, were not considered "inquisitive people" comments of the Hon.A.J.H.Saw reflects the attitudes and values of the time (pp.811 Hansard W.A. 20th Sept.1921)

"I maintain that a parent whose son or daughter is engaged to marry one of these people is entitled to know something of that person and whose son or daughter that person happens to be. A child born of vicious, drunken or criminal parents may have been taken into a respectable family and been given the name of the family. In the course of time that child may perhaps want to get married. I do not think anyone of us here would allow a daughter or son to marry such a child if we inquire into the heredity of the child and found out the conditions under which it was born."

One might reasonably ask what about the adoptees right to privacy, no-one spoke about the "paramount importance" of the child in this instance.
So the original reasons for closing the records was secrecy from illegitimacy and from the world and as a consequence the child was eventually deprived of its rightful name and heritage.

Mother and Child Movie and August Meeting

2010-06-17T11:43:00.000+10:00

On 22nd August our meeting will be held on a Sunday starting at 11 o'clock.
The movie, Mother and Child is showing at the Redcliffe Cultural Centre starting at 2 pm.We thought we would combine both, as a lot of mothers have shown interest in seeing the movie.

The story line is,

Mother and Child is a striking drama centered around three women whose paths will cross and change them forever;
Karen, (Annette Bening) a reserve 50 year old nurse, who was forced to give up her daughter Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) for adoption 35 years ago has grown into a single-minded career woman; and Lucy (Kerry Washington)was desperate to adopt a child of her own.
A profound and moving film about forgiveness, the choices we make, the chances we miss and the power of the unbreakable bond between a mother and child.

Bookings are essential,
We will try to make a group booking as seats are numbered, or you can contact the Cultural Centre; Phone 3283 0407.
Tickets; $6
Running time 102 minutes.
RSVP; ASAP to join us with the group booking. I have been informed tickets will go quite quickly.
Contact; Trish; 0417 077159 or Marg; 0402 336480
Please bring a plate to share for lunch.

Our Next Meeting Saturday 24th July 2010.

2010-06-17T11:30:00.000+10:00

Our next meeting will be a north side meeting.

Detail;
12 o'clock onwards.
Please bring a plate.

Please contact;
Trish, Mobile 0417 077 159
Marg, Mobile 0402 336 480

All New Ladies Welcome.

One Year Anniversary of Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Apology.

2010-06-17T10:50:00.000+10:00

A Luncheon was held at the Golden Ox at Redcliffe on Wednesday 9th June to celebrate 1st year anniversary of our apology.

It was nice to see the ladies and hear how the apology has had a positive effect on their personal journeys.

"Heartbreak Ward. " Sunday Truth October 24, 1965

2010-04-14T09:58:00.000+10:00

This Newspaper article was found under some old kitchen Lino in my home.
I think it was meant for me to find, as I was one of those "wayward girls," unmarried and pregnant in October 1965.

Click on article to enlarge.

Margaret

Apology From Sisters Of Mercy WA

2010-04-04T18:40:00.000+10:00

Great news. I found today in my letter box the attached letter, ironic that being Good Easter Friday. When I checked the mail yesterday there was nothing in my letter box. I was incarcerated at what was called St Annes Unmarried Mothers Home in 1973 ( Catholic Run) during the last four months or so of my pregnancy. The hospital at the time was called St Annes in Mt Lawley ( Perth) now know as Mercy Hospital.
I feel such relieve after all these years finally having some acknowledgment and the truth finally revealed at long last from those responsible for snatching my precious baby from me the moment of birth and put up for adoption, ( all illegal as we know) without my permission and express wishes I don't want my baby adopted out.

Yours sincerely Judith WA.

West Australia to Apologise To Unwed Mothers

2010-03-05T16:31:00.000+10:00

the WA Australian Government is preparing to apologise to mothers and
our children for past practices - this has just been announced by Dr.
Kim Haines on ABC radio today. The Labor Party has stated if the
government is sincere about its apology it should be made by the
Premier.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/05/2837450.htm

'Sorry' over babies taken from unwed mothers

The West Australian Government is set to become the first to publicly
apologise to mothers who were unlawfully separated from their babies
after giving birth out of wedlock.

from ABC Radio

WERE YOU BIRTHED OR SCHEDULED?

2010-02-21T15:15:00.000+10:00

A NEW BABY? HOW EXCITING!!!!!
WHEN YOU ARE BORN,YOU HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
EVERYONE HAS ONE,DON'T THEY?
WELL,NOT EVERYONE.
IF YOU ARE ADOPTED,THE PAPERWORK, "THE CERTIFICATE" HAS THE WORD SCHEDULE ON IT,INSTEAD OF THE WORD BIRTH.
UNLESS SOMEONE POINTS IT OUT TO YOU, YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW OR INDEED NOTICE THAT YOUR CERTIFICATE IS DIFFERENT TO OTHER PEOPLE'S PAPERWORK............PEOPLE,THAT IS,WHO WERE NOT BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK.

THE LAW ONLY CHANGED IN 1991, THAT ENABLED ADOPTEES AFTER OBTAINING THEIR ADOPTIVE PARENT'S WRITTEN PERMISSION,MIND YOU, TO ACCESS THEIR CORRECT RECORDS PROVIDING THERE HAD BEEN NO VETO PUT ON THE RECORDS.

A NEW BEGINNING.......HARDLY.

ACROSS THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS A NASTY LARGE RED RUBBER STAMP WHICH STATES, "NOT TO BE USED FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES" OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.

OKAY, YOUR ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN NAME IS THERE, WITH THE NAME OF YOUR BIOLOGICAL MOTHER,HOWEVER, THE NAME OF YOUR BIRTH FATHER IS NEVER RECORDED, EVEN IF IT IS KNOWN.

A NEW BEGINNING.........HARDLY!!!!!!

UNTIL NOW, ADOPTEES HAD VERY LIMITED RIGHTS.

ON THE 1st FEBRUARY, 2010, NEW ADOPTION LAWS WERE LAUNCHED AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE HERE IN BRISBANE.

MORE THAN 3,000 QUEENSLANDERS WILL BE ABLE TO VIEW INFORMATION THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY BANNED FROM SEEING.

HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO ADOPTION CAMPAIGNERS, THE CHANGES ARE A "BAND-AID SOLUTION TO A BROKEN LEG" AS ADOPTEES WHO VIEW THE DOCUMENTS FIRST MUST SIGN A WAIVER SAYING THEY WILL NOT CONTACT THEIR PARENTS, OR HOLD THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PAST DECISIONS.

IT IS A NATURAL BIRTH RIGHT TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

IF YOU ARE NOT AN ADOPTEE, YOU SIMPLY TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.

FOR EXAMPLE;

YOU KNOW YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY, AND THAT OF YOUR FAMILY.
YOU GO TO A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, THEY ALWAYS ASK FOR YOUR FAMILY HISTORY.
MOST PEOPLE CAN RATTLE OFF THINGS, SUCH AS AUNT BESSIE HAD DIABETES, UNCLE ALF HAD DEMENTIA, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE OR STROKE KILLED MY FATHER.

THE LIST GOES ON.......
EVEN WHEN LIFE INSURANCE IS TAKEN OUT, THERE ARE ALWAYS QUESTIONS REGARDING FAMILY MEDICAL HISTORY. THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS EFFECT YOUR PREMIUM.

THE ADOPTEE ONLY CAN SAY, "I DON'T KNOW, I AM ADOPTED".

THIS NEW LEGISLATION, WHILE MOST WELCOME DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH IN ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF ADOPTEES.

A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION......YES.

A NEW BEGINNING........NOT REALLY.

Lorraine

Establishing the Legality of a Veto

2010-02-08T17:49:00.000+10:00

If you have an existing veto placed before 1990 consider this;

To our knowledge,an estimate 10 in 100 are unlawfully tended vetoes.

If an adopted person does not know he/she is adopted and there is a veto, it could have been placed with the adoptee's name on it but without their consent.

There was no need to provide proof of identity to show it was actually the adoptee who placed the veto, therefore
the secret of his/her adoption would stay hidden forever.

This means, the adoptee may never know of the veto.

Their real birth identity, birth parents, family and heritage would be lost to them.

Is this fair?

Before signing the new No Contact Form, contact the Department of Child Safety to have them establish the legality of the veto and to ensure it was a lawfully tended document by the person in question.

Launch of Queensland's New Adoption Laws and Post Adoption Support Services At Parliament House

2010-02-08T02:18:00.000+10:00

Five ALAS(Adoption Loss Adult Support) and three WASH(White Adoptees Stolen Heritage) members along with other groups involved with adoption, were invited to the launch of the new Adoption Laws and Post Adoption Support Services, (PASQ) at Parliament House on 1st February 2010.

Minister Phil Reeves MP,The Benevolent Society,Mr. Richard Spencer and President of Jigsaw, Trevor Jordan spoke at the opening.

PASQ has been established with an investment of $1.2 million over three years.
Jigsaw is a government sponsored group.

Here are some of the major changes;

The Act requires a child's mother and father and every person who is a guardian of the child to freely and voluntarily consent to the child's adoption.The Act includes a number of measures designed to ensure a person's consent is both informed and given voluntarily. For example, a parent can only consent to their child's adoption after they have received written information about adoption that includes alternatives to adoption and financial support available to them. The Act requires that this information must be explained through pre-consent counselling.

In addition, the Act allows for adoption care agreements to be made for a child for up to one year, while parents consider providing consent to their child's adoption.Past experience and research indicates parents need time to consider all care options available to help ensure consent to a child's adoption is only obtained once a parent has had time to fully explore all the issues and options for their child's care.

The Act provides parents with a revocation period of 30 days from the time the initial consent to an adoption is provides. Information and counselling will be provided to parents to ensure that they understand the consent process and their right to revoke consent within this timeframe, as part of pre-consent counselling.

The new law balance people's right to information about their birth parent, son or daughter who was adopted with the right of others to maintain their privacy.

Previously more than 3000 Queenslanders affected by adoption that occurred before 1991 were prevented from obtaining identifying information about their birth parent or son or daughter who was adopted.
The new law will give these people the right to access information about their own identity or that of a son or daughter for the first time.

PASQ phone; 07 3112 5182 or 1300 914 819.
pasq@bensoc.org.au

For more information;www.childsafety.qld.gov.au

Our next meeting 20th February 2010

2010-02-06T07:35:00.000+10:00

This meeting will be held northside Brisbane.

We are delighted to have as our guest speaker, the Team Leader from PASQ (Post Adoption Support Queensland).

We are looking forward to hearing how this new Support Services will be of benefit to us.
With the new Adoption Law changes, most mothers and adoptees will now have the opportunity to have information previously denied to them.

For address details;
Please phone Trish; mob.0417 077 159.or
Marg; mob.0402 336 480.
Time; 12 o'clock
Please bring a plate.
A gold coin donation would be appreciated.

NO AGE LIMIT ON SEEKING BIRTH PARENTS

2010-01-07T14:59:00.000+10:00

Laws giving adopted children and their birth parents greater access to information about each other are among a raft of measures coming into effect in NSW today.

Community Services Minister Linda Burney said that under the changes, children would no longer need to be 18 before identifying information could be released.

"Worldwide research shows that adopted children benefit enormously from developing a strong sense of identity knowing who they are and where they come from," Ms Burney said yesterday.

"Regardless of how loving and caring the home adoptive parents provide, it's human nature for children to want to know about their history, culture, biological family and possible brothers and sisters. Similarly, birth parents and siblings may want to know about the adopted child."

Ms Burney said there would still be strict controls over the information.

"Before information about an adopted person under 18 years is released, a careful assessment will identify any issues. Records will be checked and adoptive parents consulted."

From The Australian
January 1st 2010.
Jared Owen.

Well done NSW!
Now Queensland,what about us?

OUR FIRST SUPPORT MEETING FOR 2010.

2010-01-07T14:34:00.000+10:00

Our first meeting will be Brisbane southside.

At this meeting,a guest speaker from Child Safety Services will talk with us and answer our question on the New Adoption Laws.

Starting time 12 o'clock.
Please bring a plate.

For details please,
Ring Trish; Mob 0417 077 159
Marg; Mob 0402 336 480
New members welcome.

With Our Best Wishes

2009-12-11T10:46:00.000+10:00

It has been a very successful year for us and we are looking forward to 2010 with much anticipation.

February will see the much awaited changes to the Queensland Adoption Laws and the launch of the Post Adoption Support Queensland with Susan Kelly as team leader.

Susan will speak at our February Meeting
Details to come in the new year.

Our Special Thanks to everyone who has helped us through the year.

Christmas celebration

2009-12-08T20:17:00.000+10:00

A Christmas Lunch at The Ox at Margate on 28th November was enjoyed by everyone.
It was nice to have some of our Adoptees and Mothers together for our final meeting and to celebrate such a successful year.
It has been a very busy year and we are very proud of our achievements.

Margaret

We believe this to be the very First Apology to Adoptees

2009-11-27T08:45:00.000+10:00

Congratulations to members of WASH (White Australian Stolen Heritage) on receiving an Apology for all Adoptees seeking an apology.
Some ladies from ALAS had the privilege of watching Professor Ian Jones, on behalf of the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital present to Victoria Fitzpatrick and Kerry Saint a long awaited apology. A very disappointed third member of the team, Therese Hawken was unable to attend due to illness.

The letter from the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital reads,

To The White Australian Stolen Heritage (WASH) group and all Adoptees seeking an apology.

Dear Friends,
Thank you for meeting with me at the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital and sharing your experiences of being an adopted one. I was saddened to hear how half truths,lies, feelings of abandonment, lack of knowledge of your origins and missed opportunities to grow up and be with your siblings, have and continue to adversely affect your lives, and many other lives of those who are near and dear to you.

Our open, honest and obviously painful discussions have helped me to understand how you have been denied the right to experience the natural relationship between you and your mother, your siblings and extended family because of the practices in place at the time of your birth. Some of you were subjected to many different types of abuse; from being denied contact with your mother and by the family in which you were placed.

In this regard on behalf of the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital, I acknowledge the hurt and suffering you have described and sincerely apologise for any ill treatment you experienced while in hospital by being taken and denied contact with your mother at the time of your birth.
For similar reasons I have also apologise to those families who have experienced hurt and suffering through the tragic and harmful effects caused by adoption.

Yours sincerely,
Professor Ian Jones
Obstetrician and
Executive Director
Women's and Newborn Services
Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital
12/11/09

Letter in Courier Mail 14th November 2009

2009-11-15T10:03:00.000+10:00

This letter typifies the misguided concepts that were proliferated in the 60's and 70's and still exists today.

Hooray for the proposed national breast milk bank (C-M, November 13). When I was having my children (now in their late 30's) at the Royal Women's Hospital, single mothers were in a special veranda ward away from the other mothers, as they were all giving their babies away for adoption. After every feed we had to express our leftover milk for the babies who were being given away (hepatitis and AIDS were far from anyone's mind).
I am glad to see that babies will once again be given the best start in life they can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is the response I have written to the Courier Mail. I hope they print it!

Over 30 years ago I was one of the mother's who "gave away" my baby for adoption.
The facts are, we did not give away our babies!They were taken.Our crime was, we were unmarried. Adoption signatures were taken under the influence of strong medication. Most mothers were under age and were kept in isolation in the "special veranda ward" away from "respectable Mothers".
While you were expressing breast milk for our babies, we were given drugs to dry up our milk and had our chest bound to suppress milk. We did not agree to this, in fact we were denied any contact with our babies to make sure adoption practices went ahead smoothly.
Our rights as a mother were violated. My baby was born at the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital.
The Hospital has recognized the crimes relating to adoption and the never ending trauma mothers have to endure from the loss of their babies.
A public apology by the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital in June 2009 was presented to mothers who were treated badly while in the care of their hospital.

So you can see that, while breast milk is good, natural mothers milk is best.
Margaret
----------------------------------------------------

IT NEVER FAILS TO AMAZE ME THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT "ALL" MOTHERS "GAVE AWAY" THEIR BABIES, IN EVERY HOSPITAL, IN EVERY STATE IN AUSTRALIA.

Support from Aboriginal Elder

2009-11-10T08:07:00.000+10:00

Apology Alliance has received a fax from the much esteemed,
Initiated Yuin Elder, Uncle Max Dulumunmun Harrison offering his support to the Apology Alliance and all member groups in gaining an apology for the White Stolen Generation.

Uncle Max's words,

To Whom It May Concern

As an Aboriginal Elder, I fully understand the pain and suffering that has been done to my people in the past, and the traumatic times that we have endured.

I applaud the Prime Ministers apology to our mob, but what about the White Stolen Generations that has suffered the same fate.

I know many white people who has went through the same pain.

So why can't this government do its healing again, and apologise th the White Stolen Generation to bring closure to all this suffering.

As we walk the same land,
Breathe the same air
Drink the same water.

Signed by
Yuin Elder Max Dulumunmun Harrison

2/11/2009.
Apology Alliance has humbly and gratefully accepted this support from Uncle Max in his capacity as Indigenous Elder.

ALAS, as one of the member groups, would also like to send our thanks and appreciation to Uncle Max.

Christmas Meeting 28th November 2009

2009-11-10T07:54:00.000+10:00

Our last meeting of the year will be a Christmas celebration.
It will be held at:
The OX Restaurant,
Oxley Ave., Margate.
Time 11.45am onwards.
Please RSVP by 25th November.
Contact Trish Mob:0417 077 159 or
Marg Mob:0402 336 480

Come along and help us celebrate our achievements of 2009.
All welcome.

COPY OF A LETTER SENT TO AN ALAS QLD MEMBER

2009-10-22T09:52:00.000+10:00

"I am pleased to advise the Adoption Act 2009 was passed by the Parliament on 18 August 2009. The new law will come into effect on 1 February 2010.

The passage of the Adoption Act 2009 heralds the most significant reform to Queensland's adoption law in over 45 years. As Minister for Child Safety, I am honoured to have been given the responsibility of leading the debate and passage of this historic legislation through the Parliament on behalf of the Government.

The Adoption Act 2009 is available for download free of charge from the Queensland Legislation website (www.legislation.qld.gov.au under 'Acts as passed for 2009) and printed copies can be purchased from the Queensland Government Bookshop (www.bookshop.qld.gov.au).

A team is in place to undertake the range of activities that are required to prepare for the delivery of adoption services under the new law. The Adoption Reform Implementation Team is working closely with Adoption Services Queensland to develop the new policies and practice that will support service delivery under the new law.

Now that the Adoption Act 2009 has been enacted, the reform team's priority is to develop information and resources about the changes to the law and how they affect various client groups and other people with an interest in adoption. This information will be distributed through a range of communication activities to ensure as many people as possible are aware of the changes and how they will be affected.

The best source of information about the key areas of change introduced by the Adoption Act 2009 is the department's website (www.childsaftey.qld.gov.au), which will continue to be updated with new information leading up to the Act's commencement on 1 February 2010.

_____

You can also contact the Adoption Reform Implementation Team for information or confidential advice on how the law might affect you. The team's contact details are listed at the end of this letter. Until the new law takes affect in 2010, adoption services will continue to be delivered in line with the Adoption of Children Act 1964.

Yours sincerely,

Phil Reeves MP
Minister for Child Safety
and Minister for Sport
Minister for Mansfield

Contact the Adoption Reform Implementation Team
Postal address:
GPO Box 806 Brisbane, Qld 4000

Phone:
1800 811 810 (Qld only)
(07) 3224 8045

Phone (TTY):
(07) 3012 8655

Fax:
(07) 3235 9422

Email:
adoptionreform@childsafety.qld.gov.au"