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

70.1Diversity

71Fragmentation in the philosophical approach to post-adoption support services

Some (but by no means all) mothers do not welcome the perception—if not the actuality—of involvement of adoptive parents (as workers, clients or fellow participants in support groups) in particular agencies. In a number of workshops, it was either apparent or expressed directly, that this fundamental divide in the view of adoption and who should be included in services is a major problem. This may mean that for some mothers, accessing services from the current state-funded service provider in their jurisdiction is not seen as a valid option—particularly where they are involved in current adoptions, or where they are seen as being “apologists” for adoption, or somehow involved in past practices—such as the Benevolent Society in NSW. Agencies who provide support for, or include the perspectives of adoptive parents (past or present), such as VANISH in Victoria, risk criticism or being “black-banned” by those who reject this model as offensive and re-traumatising to them.

For example, one participant said:

You don’t want someone to be dealing with you who organised adoptions 20 years ago. There’s a conflict of interest there. There is an obligation on the organisation to have that disclosure upfront.

The fragmented nature of peer supports and the diversity of advocacy groups has led to some deep divisions and mistrust. For example, some groups object to the word “adoption” to describe their experience (as they feel they had no part in the adoption, and the trauma relates to “the malpractice and mistreatment they experienced prior to, during, and after the birth”, and the “illegal removal policies and practices that led to adoption and/or institutional care”) and believe that they are excluded from some services (such as peer-support groups for “relinquishing mothers”). This appears to be more of an eastern-seaboard phenomenon, but is nonetheless a significant hurdle to unified and coherent service provision across the country.

Some mothers have been fighting for a separate view of adoption and service provision that does not include the perspectives or needs of adoptive parents. A number of participants articulated that this tension underpins why some individuals and groups react in a defensive manner, and why there is considerable fragmentation of peer-support groups, and high levels of mistrust and inability—or unwillingness—to cooperate between some individuals and some agencies. A number of workshop participants and other contributors we consulted suggested this was reflective of the trauma that remained a very “present” issue, and how certain words, phrases, or actions—or the presence of particular individuals or group—could easily “trigger” a trauma response (consistent with PTSD-like symptoms). (This is explored in the literature review section.) It is therefore highly unlikely that a single, unified perspective of affected individuals, particularly mothers, can be achieved in the short term.

However, in order to provide services for adopted individuals, the experience of growing up with an adoptive family needs to be addressed. Some service providers argue that it is still an important part of holistic service provision to assist adoptive parents—and adopted sons and daughters may experience some of the benefits of this. As one stakeholder explained:

I often think too of adoptive parents. They are a hidden population. Infertility or death of children was an issue they haven’t worked through. When an adoptee told her adoptive mother [she was searching for biological family], she became so distressed. But they never spoke about it again, and she died 10 years later. Her mother had never resolved the issues that led to her adopting children. She loved her children, but there was always a barrier there. What came home to the adoptee was that there were unresolved issues. The love of her adoptive parents was always conditional on her not having a past. There is great pain for adoptive parents that we never look at. To assist adoptive parents—and current permanent care parents—may help. Even though the National Apology money was not for adoptive parents, if we can’t include adoptive parents in the reunion process, it makes it hard for adoptees. If you’re able to reach out to them [adoptive parents] more, the path for reunion is helped and enhanced, instead of being a push and pull. It’s not helpful to not include. They need to be brought into the discussion. They’re part of the lives of the adoptive individual. They can coexist. That’s where great training for our workers is important.

Information for adoptees about the history of forced adoption and what mothers went through is needed to help with understanding and empathy, and hopefully to facilitate more conducive contact or attempts at reunion.

72Although peer supports were often seen as a strength, two key issues emerged:

the lack of availability in many outer suburban or regional/rural areas; and

variability in the quality of peer-support services.

Many service providers told stories of clients who were reporting unsatisfactory experiences with peer-support services. Also, many peer-support groups who participated in the workshops and consultations were themselves highly critical or dismissive of other peer-support groups. The highly fragmented nature of the sector was strongly evidenced, suggesting that it could be hard for a person seeking support for the first time to navigate, and feel “safe” with, the range of legitimate options available to them. An initial attempt at seeking help that was unsatisfactory could lead them to feel that there was nothing out there to help them.

When asked what is needed to overcome this, a number of stakeholders said that the answer would be to develop local/regional networks where all service providers are required to cooperate, act respectfully, and not attack each other. A helpful suggestion was that—at least at the outset—such networks would benefit from a neutral or independent mediator to facilitate meetings and help establish ground rules for interacting. Cross-organisational joint training opportunities were suggested as a way of meeting dual aims—of increasing the skill set and knowledge base of workers, but also of building mutual respect and understanding across sectors and services. Some stakeholders also emphasised that peer-support workers for adopted persons and mothers/fathers need to sit on network coordinating committees so that they have a voice too.

Recognising that decisions need to be made regarding a time-limited funding round, stakeholders make the following observations:

I wouldn’t want the funding to go to just one agency nationwide. Would prefer state by state.

It needs to be agencies that have a history of inclusive relationships; that can honour other groups’ individuality and expertise, but is able to work along side.

There may be a lead agency in each state that creates a network and supports other agencies. However, that overarching agency shouldn’t have had a history of removing babies—even if some of the partner agencies in the network might. Or it’s ok if there is diversity—that people can choose to go to them, or not; and that there’s transparency: that the agency has made an apology, and acknowledgement of the past, and has publicised a statement of the agency’s views and steps to ameliorate what’s happened.

Some creative suggestions for diversity in service provision included:

linking services to the National Archives website and planned “tour”;

mobile outreach; and

art or music therapy.

For example, one stakeholder made the suggestion:

Establish a mobile unit with an art therapist that is funded to travel to different regions. It would help bring people together, allow people to tell their story through art or a painting, and create a strong community connection.