HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-05-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDREN'S PROTECTION (LAWFUL SURRENDER OF NEWBORN CHILD) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 March 2013.)

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (10:33): I would like to speak on behalf of the minister today, as she is already occupied in another part of the building. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that the Children's Protection (Lawful Surrender of Newborn Child) Amendment Bill has been discussed and debated for some time now, and the intent of the draft amendment is to enable women to relinquish the care of their infant in a manner that prevents them from being identifiable to the infant or the government, and without criminal charge.

The child will be placed in the minister's care with the view that the infant will be adopted. The bill intends to allow a six-week window for the parent to apply to the minister for their infant to be returned if they change their mind. As it has been stated consistently by our government, we do not support this amendment.

This bill raises many sensitive and emotive issues regarding women who have or may wish to anonymously relinquish their child; however, I am acutely aware that we in this place must be mindful of enacting legislation which may have the very best of intentions but, in the longer term, actually produce harmful consequences.

The apology for past adoption practices reminds us of our need to scrutinise these proposals beyond our best intention. What is the outcome for these families? Will the legislation seek to ensure the best possible outcome for children: children who have become adolescents and ultimately adults who themselves become parents? What about their sense of loss of identity—the ripple effect that a feeling of disconnect from their family would place on them and their lives, and a child lost forever from their family? As with the apology for past adoption practices, people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s and beyond are still impacted by the deep hurt and pain of being separated from their families.

This proposed amendment to the Children's Protection Act may have good intentions but it seeks to, once again, alienate people from their families and their origins. It allows for families to be disconnected from one another. It will mean that we have a system, once again, that ensure sons and daughters will be strangers to their mothers and fathers, compounding people's grief about the loss of contact, the loss of knowledge about where they come from, and about important genetic and medical information that may have an intergenerational impact.

Can we confidently say that the parents of these children will not be pressured into anonymously relinquishing their child? The bill in its current form will allow for the anonymous abandonment of a child with little or no safeguards to ensure that the mother or father are aware of the enormous support mechanisms that the state government has made available to them. This support includes the universal home care contact; the Family Support Program, Torrens House, Pregnancy, Birth and Baby Helpline, the Parents Helpline, the Respite Care Program, the Early Childhood Intervention Program, our Children's Centres or even simply contacting the Child and Family Health Centres to seek advice and support from qualified and trained staff.

Importantly, if a mother wanted to relinquish the care of an infant she can do so through Families SA. In addition to this option there are supports to assist in strengthening and supporting a mother's parenting skills and the opportunity to be reunified with her infant. None of these options would be possible if the bill was passed to allow for the anonymous abandonment of a child.

Parental inability or unwillingness to provide care in the context of neglect of the baby rather than the anonymous abandonment of the baby is the most common reason for anonymous abandonment occurring. Our priority in South Australia should remain on early intervention services that are already in place to assist mothers and families.

A Victorian research paper on abandoned children and baby safe havens for the Standing Council Community Housing and Disability Services makes clear that the South Australian approach to early intervention is consistent with the national approach, which is to fund services aimed at supporting parents and preventing universal secondary or specialist responses. The research paper does not provide any evidence that would suggest that the early intervention approach should be changed.

The research paper, led by Victoria for the Standing Council Community of Housing and Disability Services, suggests that the policies developed in response to child abandonment must consider the complexity that is generally thought to be present in the lives of those who are abandoning their children. Early intervention services are the best option to address these complexities. Our priority, as a government, should be to ensure support services which allow families to remain together, not policies and laws which seek to separate them.

As I highlighted earlier, there is clear research that details long-term psychological and emotional impacts on the children who do not have the opportunity to develop their identity in relation to their biological heritage. I remain concerned at the longer term outcomes for those infants and there is no way that this bill can prevent this occurring. If children were to be adopted or placed under the guardianship of the minister through this amendment bill, significant concerns would be raised regarding their right to access information about their identity and the long-term impact this would have on their emotional and physical well-being.

My concern for this amendment bill is the infringing of a child's human rights. South Australia, as a signatory to the UN Conventions of the Rights of the Child, may be contravening Australia's agreement to the rights of a child and possibly to understand their identity. I asked earlier: what is the outcome? Do these laws reduce tragic cases of child abandonment that result in the awful death of a child?

The research paper led by the Victorian standing committee concluded that, whilst research and data regarding abandoned children is limited, the evidence does suggest that abandonment and neonaticide rates do not reduce through the introduction of baby safe havens. If this legislation is not able to decrease the small number of infants unsafely abandoned and neonaticide then what does this amendment bill add to the safety and wellbeing of children in South Australia? It does not offer anything further to the services already under existing legislation to support women and infants who are the target of this bill. It does not add to the whole government and non-government approach to the prevention and early intervention where children are included and infants are at risk.

Establishing and administering the proposed amendment bill and the possible subsequent baby safe haven system would require diversion of resources from existing service delivery, without the citing of any evidence that there would be any gain for the abandoned child, parents or the community. Indeed, some of the existing evidence suggests that it could result in additional risks for the infants concerned.

A Criminal Law Journal article by Lorana Bartels draws upon safe haven laws in the US state of Pennsylvania and it suggests that the laws there have not had an impact on reduced child abandonment. In fact, the number of unsafe baby abandonments may have actually increased since the introduction of the legislation.

Another study by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute claims that enacting the baby safe haven law may encourage women to conceal their pregnancy and then abandon their infant when they otherwise would have sought assistance or had the child raised by a relative. This research paper also raises the issue of fathers. Under the proposed amendment bill, fathers can be denied the right to care for their child if the mother relinquishes the child under these laws—and fathers are incredibly important in families.

The South Australian government will remain committed to our universal, secondary and intensive support services aimed at supporting parents and protecting the health and wellbeing of children. The proposed amendment seeking to legalise the abandonment of children will not solve the complex issues that ultimately lead to a child being relinquished by their parent.

Furthermore, if we cannot offer the support services to the mother and a child is left anonymously, what results is a very similar outcome down the track to those faced by forced adoption. The member for Morialta stated about past adoption practices, specifically, 'the denial of a mother's love.' He mentioned how, 'In this day and age, children are put up for adoption in South Australia only where there is genuinely no opportunity for family to stay together', and he is absolutely correct in saying that.

We fundamentally believe, on this side of the house, that our focus should be on supporting vulnerable families, intervening where we need to in order to support them and making sure the early warning signs for potential risk or harm are identified. We fundamentally believe the best place for a child is with both of their parents.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT