Australia Apologies for Adoption Policy, sort of

Jane

Amazing but true, the Western Australia Parliament apologized to mothers who lost children to adoption last week:

“(1) That with regard to past adoption practices, it is now recognised that from the 1940s to the 1980s the legal, health, and welfare system then operating in Western Australia, in many instances, did not strike the correct balance between the goal of minimising the emotional and mental impact of the adoption process on unmarried mothers, with the goal of achieving what was considered at the time to be in the best interests of the child; (emphasis added)”

Although the apology is qualified--the government does not take full responsibility—it is still a victory for thousands of Australian women and their children victimized by misogynist policies of the past, wrapped in a cloak of pseudo-science and promoted by those standing to gain financially or emotionally.

Evelyn Robinson

To our knowledge, this is the first time leaders of any country have said publicly “We were wrong!” While the U.S. adoption industry has changed some practices, tactically admitting that the old way of doing things wasn’t in the best interests of mothers or children, it has not come out and officially apologized to the mothers of the Baby Scope Era (1945 to 1973) who lost their children in closed adoptions, the only choice they had. 

Credit for the Australian apology goes to the mothers of Western Australia and first/birth mother Evelyn Robinson, who has committed much of her adult life to adoption reform. Robinson, the author of Adoption and Loss, Adoption and Recovery, and Adoption Reunion, attended the apology proceedings with her relinquished son, Stephen.

I’ve been asked whether I think it would be possible to obtain a similar apology in the U.S. The question reminds me of the scene in John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath where the sheriff comes to seize the Joad property which goes something like this: Pa Joad takes out his rifle to defend their property. The sheriff explains that shooting him would not do any good because he is acting on behalf of the bank. “I’ll shoot the banker,” says Pa. “That won’t work,” answers the sheriff  “because the bank is owned by another bank back east which is owned by investors all over the country.”

“Who do we shoot?” asks Pa.

Who should apologize? Leading the way might be the United States Children’s Bureau and Maud Morlock, the supervisor of programs and services for unmarried mothers from the late 1930’s to the late 1950’s. Morlock promoted maternity homes and adoption as a solution for white unwed pregnancy. (I’ve never seen a picture of Morlock but I visualize her as a cross between Mortica Addams and Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers in Daphne DeMaurier’s Rebecca.) I should add that, to her credit, Morlock believed that an adoptee had the right to know “who he is and who his people were.”

Then there are state social services agencies who failed (and continue to fail) to provide competent services to needy families. And let’s not forget vital statistics registrars who promoted amended birth certificates and the sealing thereof.

Governments were not the sole culprits. The “helping” professionals–psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers--and their allies, the Child Welfare League of America and the American Public Welfare Association-- did their part along with adoption agencies and maternity homes to assure a steady supply of white infants to those who could afford them while purporting to rehabilitate young women. Physicians and lawyers lined their pockets by charging heafty fees to desperate couples seeking to adopt while offering minimal financial assistance to desperate pregnant women.

The parade of horrors includes churches, school counselors, Ann Landers, the media, particularly mass circulation and romance magazines, and family members who could not endure the shame of their daughters bringing home a bastard. The list is almost endless. It reminds me of Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express  where all the suspects stabbed the victim with the mothers of the BSE girls making the unkindest cut of all.

Let’s not forget the notorious Georgia Tann, director of the Tennessee Children’s Home during the 1930’s and 40’s who literally stole babies from poor folks in Tennessee and sold them to wealthy clients throughout the country. Tann convinced would-be parents and the public at large that having an adopted child was just like having your own child. Tann also advocated sealing adoption records with the twin goals of protecting adoptive parents from birth parents and covering up her crimes.

Unlike Australia which has put in place reforms resulting in few adoptions, Americans still believe in the adoption fairy, allowing coercion and corruption to abound. Influential people and organizations on both the left and the right fly the adoption banner. NPR’s Scott Simon extols adoption as a blessing; the liberal think tank Center for American Progress supports a public relations campaign to encourage women to surrender their “surplus” children (more about this in a few days). Reactionaries like Columnist George Will repeat the same old racist rants about the evils of illegitimacy, particularly in black families. “Christian” churches play the shame card while touting adoption as a loving decision.

Pushing for an apology from a government--federal or state–might help counter the pro-adoption mantra reverberating across the land. On the other hand, lobbying for an apology might divide birth mothers, pitting post-Roe mothers against BSE mothers.

The one thing we can agree on is that we need to stop unnecessary adoptions. To do this, we first mothers need to tell our stories. Otherwise, those who profit from adoption will continue to mislead the public into believing that mothers give up their babies willingly with no regrets.

The girls who went away need to come roaring back.

The apology to mothers who lost their children to adoption and their children issued by the Western Australian Parliament, read aloud by Premier C. J. Barnett on October 19, 2010:

“(1) That with regard to past adoption practices, it is now recognised that from the 1940s to the 1980s the legal, health, and welfare system then operating in Western Australia, in many instances, did not strike the correct balance between the goal of minimising the emotional and mental impact of the adoption process on unmarried mothers, with the goal of achieving what was considered at the time to be in the best interests of the child;”

“(2) that processes such as the immediate removal of the baby following birth, preventing bonding with the mother, were thought at the time to be in the mother’s and the child’s best interest;

“(3) that this house recognises that in some cases such practices have caused long-term anguish and suffering for the people affected; and

“(4) that the Parliament acknowledges that previous Parliaments and governments were directly responsible for the application of some of the processes that impacted upon unmarried mothers of adopted children, and now apologises to the mothers, their children and the families who were adversely affected by these past adoption practices, and I express my sympathy to those individuals whose interests were not best served by the policy of those times.”

Comments of opposition leader (head of the minority Labor party), E. S. Ripper:

“The legal, health and welfare systems of this state were not supportive of young unwed mothers and many people were wrongly subject to government intervention that would have lasting and very personal consequences. … Recognising the attitudes that underpinned these policies is not to excuse the actions  of those who took babies from young unwed mothers. … The deep and profound sadness experienced by mothers who join us here today and who live across our state will be a legacy of this period in history. …We also apologise  for mothers not having the chance to see their newborn baby, bond with it and continue the love that had developed while in utero.”

Post Script. Our reader Von has pointed out that the apology came through the efforts of many of the mothers who lost their infants in Western Australia. Please post names of women who should be recognized in the comments and FMF will be add them to this article.