Effectiveness of Australian Adoption Laws PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay on Australian adoption laws & Changing nature of parental responsibility....

Description

Evaluate the effectiveness of Australian Adoption Laws  Australia’s adoption laws have been moderately effective in achieving just outcomes for the parties involved in the adoption process. Adoption is the process of transferring parental rights and responsibilities from the biological parents to the adoptive parents. Adoption can be carried out domestically, or internationally, known as ‘Intercountry’ adoptions, which are governed by the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention), which ensures the adoption must be in the best interests of the child. Many lobbyists and NGOs criticise Australian adoption laws for the lack of accessibility and complicated nature, however, the law is effective in its protection of individual rights and providing just outcomes for the parties involved in adoption.  One of the main criticisms of Australia’s adoption laws is the complicated nature and lack of accessibility. In New South Wales, adoption is governed by the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), where there are over 50 foster care agencies all independent of each other, with no central body. This decentralised system creates problems, where “It's a lot to try and navigate. If someone is interested in adoption, they first have to figure out what type of adoption could be right for them.” (Renee Carter, CEO of AdoptChange). Adoption legislation is different in each jurisdiction and the various agencies can be very complicated and can create unneeded stress for those looking to adopt, for example, the adoptive parents must be over 25 to adopt in the ACT, whereas in NSW it is 21. The effect of this is highlighted by the low adoption rates, in 2018-19, 310 adoptions were finalised in Australia, of which 82% were of Australian children and 18% were intercountry. Overall, there has been a 64% decline in finalised adoptions in Australia in the 25-year period between 1994–95 to 2018–19 (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2019). Assistant Social Services Minister, Zed Seselja said the adoption process is simply too difficult and the "mismatch" between the number of adoptions and the number of children needing permanent homes needed to be addressed. "There are certainly many people who want to adopt but are frustrated and can't”. Without one central body, it becomes difficult for those interested in adopting, to find the appropriate agency, “It's not uncommon for people to take six or more years to adopt. I think that's far too long and I think we can do much better." (Zed Seselja)  However, amongst the criticisms dealing with the low rates of adoption in Australia, the main counter-argument is that a slow and hard adoption process keeps the rights of the child at the forefront, protecting individual rights. A sound and ethical process are necessary to ensure a child is legally and ethically available for adoption, consents are free from coercion, and parents are given adequate time to change their minds. Many of the public forget that adoption is a service for children and not just a service for people to make families. When politicians and lobbyists call for adoption reform in Australia, they often argue adoption should be easier and quicker, leaning towards the UK local adoption system and US approach to intercountry adoptions, where adoption services are delivered in the private market, however, countries with ‘easier’ adoption laws such as the United States face large amounts of child exploitation, “It has been criticised for incidents of trafficking, child deaths, and rehoming, in which adopted

children have been offered to strangers over the internet.” (Sydney Morning Herald, 2018). Due to the rights of children being protected in Australia, the effectiveness of adoption laws is raised heavily, as they conform to the aim of adoption to ensure that the best and most appropriate parents are found for the child.  Changing nature of parental responsibility  The law to a moderate extent has protected family members involved in relation to the changing nature of parental responsibility. In the past, parents sought ‘custody and control’ over their children, enforcing their parental rights. Now the courts are less concerned with parental rights and more concerned with parental responsibility. Parental responsibility means all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that parents have, by law, in relation to their children. Since the 1990 ratification of the Convention on the Rights Of the Child (CROC) in Australia, Family law amendments relating to children have been towards ‘the best interest of the child’ as seen by recent law amendments such as the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 which has been to a high extent effective in protecting family members involved, including the children and parents.  The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 (Cth) has been to a moderate extent effective in protecting family members and has been referred to quite widely as the most significant reforms to the family law system since the original Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The act introduced a new presumption of equal shared responsibility, which means that both parents have an equal role in making decisions about long-term issues, eg care, welfare, development of the child, etc. The amendment places emphasis on the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in family law matters, these changes were in response to the ratification of the CROC, to better reflect the community values in Australia, demonstrating the Australian legal system’s ability to comply and reflect the domestic and international society’s changing values and expectations. Additionally, the presumption that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child will not apply ‘if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child has engaged in abuse of the child … or in family violence’, further protecting children. The 2006 amendments also emphasised the child’s right to meaningful family relationships and care, rather than either parent’s ‘right’ to have the child live with them, further placing the rights of the child at the forefront of the amendments. However, despite the successes in protecting the rights of children, some critics from the media and governmental agencies disagree with this and argue that the rights of children aren’t being properly protected. In the 2011 amendment Evaluation by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), it found that “there is evidence that these arrangements are sometimes being made even in circumstances where parents have safety concerns, with adverse consequences for the well-being of children” as well as “The Evaluation found that families where violence had occurred, were no less likely to have shared care-time arrangements than those where violence had not occurred.” (2011 AIFS Evaluation of 2006 Amendments Report). These findings jeopardise the effectiveness of the 2006 Amendments have been seen to be ineffective in practical use despite seeming good on paper.

 In conclusion, Australia’s adoption laws have been moderately effective in achieving just outcomes for the parties involved in the adoption process, as seen by the highly protected rights of children which outweighs the slow rates of adoption. As well as adoption, the law to a moderate extent has protected family members involved in relation to the changing nature of parental responsibility....