Forced adoption support services scoping study Daryl Higgins, Pauline Kenny, Reem Sweid and Lucy Ockenden Report for the Department of Social Services by the Australian Institute of Family Studies February 2014

10Introduction

The then Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (now the Department of Social Services) (“the Department”) has commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) to undertake the Forced Adoption Support Services Scoping Study (the “Scoping Study”). The study was conducted between August 2013 and February 2014.

The purpose of the Scoping Study is to develop options for service models that will enhance and complement the existing service system to improve support for people affected by forced adoption and removal policies and practices. The Scoping Study:

maps the current support available for people affected by forced adoptions;

determines how the system currently meets the needs of those affected;

identifies any gaps in the service system; and

provides service model options for how to complement the existing services to improve the support available to those affected.

AIFS have undertaken the following activities to inform the findings of the Scoping Study:

a literature review to synthesise previous research on forced adoptions and the impact they have had on people, including the long-term effects and people’s current service and therapeutic needs, as well as reviewing best-practice models for meeting those needs;

consultations with service providers across all states and territories;

a map of the services currently available for people affected by forced adoption practices and analysis of the strengths, promising practices, weaknesses, barriers and gaps;

an environmental scan of existing service delivery models that have levels of transferability to the forced adoptions arena; and

the development of evidence-based national service model options that will complement and enhance the existing services and fill gaps to better meet the needs and expectations of those affected by forced adoption practices.

The study builds on the work AIFS undertook with the National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Practices (“AIFS National Study”), the results of which were released on the AIFS website on 17 August 2012 in the research report Past Adoption Experiences: National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Practices (Kenny, Higgins, Soloff, & Sweid, 2012).

It also extends an earlier review of the Australian research on the impact of past adoption practices published by the Department in April 2010, Impact of Past Adoption Practices: Summary of Key Issues From Australian Research (Higgins, 2010).

10.1Terminology and language

Forced adoption is an incredibly sensitive topic of discussion, with the ability to trigger past trauma. Therefore, consideration must be given to the terminology and language used in reference to forced adoption. Many of the terms used in the literature can be perceived as “value-laden” (Kenny et al., 2012), and in reading the submissions of people affected by adoption made to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee in the Senate Inquiry into the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices (“Senate Inquiry”), it is clear that the preferences to terminology used can differ depending on the experience of the person. This report relies on the terminology used by the Senate Inquiry in their final report (Senate Inquiry, 2012). The Senate Inquiry’s choice of language and terminology provides an unbiased approach while clearly differentiating between parties when necessary, as explained in the Senate report:

Wherever possible in this report, the committee has used the term “mother” to refer to a person who has given birth to a child. However, in situations where further clarity is needed, it has used the terms “natural mother” and “adoptive mother” to make a distinction between these parties. Similar distinctions are drawn between “natural fathers” and “adoptive fathers”, and “natural parents” and “adoptive parents” where necessary. (Senate Inquiry, 2012, p. 3)

The committee has used the terms “baby” and “child” when describing adoption processes concerning babies and children. However, when referring to people who were adopted and are now adults, the committee has used the term “adopted person”. (Senate Inquiry, 2012, p. 3)

As recognised by the Senate Inquiry, some readers may not be satisfied with the language of this report; however, the authors believe that the terminology used both provides consideration to individuals and remains comprehensible for the wider audience.

Terms we use wherever possible:

forced adoption and removal policies and practices;

illegal removal policies and practices that led to adoption and/or institutional care;

mothers and fathers;

adopted individuals,

The Scoping Study includes discussion relating to the experience of trauma for many individuals affected by forced adoption. There are varying terms used in the broader literature surrounding trauma-specific service interventions, including treatment options. Wherever possible, we use terminology that is consistent with the language of specific treatment interventions (which are described in Chapter 4). For more general discussion in the context of the scoping study, “trauma-informed” is considered the most appropriate term to be used for services that are aware of the potential for trauma, training in trauma-based treatments, and/or who are sensitive to the needs of clients affected by trauma. However, this does not imply that all people with an adoption experience are traumatised, or that this is the only kind of harm that can be experienced (see Chapter 4 for further discussion of this issue).

In this report, when we make reference to different types of mental health treatments/interventions/modalities, the mental health workforce and mental health professionals, we use the terminology expressed by stakeholders during the consultations. We acknowledge that this might lead to some apparent inconsistency and may not reflect the language of government departments or specific mental health initiatives. For example, stakeholders often referred to “Medicare-funded” psychological services. These services are funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health’s Better Access to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and General Practitioners through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (Better Access) initiative. We are aware that psychologists are not the only providers of Better Access services.