56-year-old adoption laws queried
MICHELLE COOKE
An adoption advocacy group has filed a claim with The Human Rights Review Tribunal stating that New Zealand's adoption law is out of date and discriminatory.
Same-sex and de-facto couples weren't able to adopt, birth mothers weren't fully informed of their rights and people up to the age of 20 could be adopted without their consent under the current law, the group claimed.
Adoption Action said the adoption law, which had not been changed in 56 years, was inconsistent with the anti-discrimination provisions of The Human Rights Act 1993 and The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in 15 different respects.
Those acts stipulated that a government and "persons or bodies acting with legal authority" could not discriminate and that everyone had the right to freedom from discrimination.
Committee member and retired lawyer Robert Ludbrook said while some Australian states and the UK had updated their laws, justice ministers in New Zealand had ignored the Adoption Act 1955 and the urgent need for it to be reviewed.
"You're dealing with a law that refers to values present in the post war era - 1955 was a different world," he said.
"They reflect a time in our history when the parents of a child born out of wedlock were viewed as immoral and their children deemed illegitimate. Adoption was shrouded in secrets and lies."
Ludbrook had known of hundreds of birth mothers who felt pressured to hand their baby over, same-sex and de-facto couples who desperately wanted to adopt a child but couldn't and one 16-year-old girl who had found out her step parent had adopted her without her consent and went to court to fight the decision.
He said the current adoption system had resulted in "a lot of pain and suffering".
He said the group had met with ministers over the years and the response was often that they were embarrassed about the law and acknowledged it needed to be amended "but nothing has happened".
The group had asked for a meeting with Justice Minister Simon Power but he wrote back saying while he appreciated there were problems with the law, it was not a priority, Ludbrook said.
"The frustrating thing is the Law Commission in 2000 did a massive report following a lengthy consultation and made 100 recommendations - that was 11 years ago now," he said.
He also said the ministry made 40 recommendations for change in 2007 but none of them had been implemented. The group had the support of a number of individuals including Prof Mark Henaghan, dean of Otago University Law School.
Power said that he was aware of the issues regarding the Adoption Act 1955.
"This has been identified as an area for potential review but it hasn't been a high priority due to the heavy agenda in the sector," he said.
The minister will retire from government when he finishes his three-year term in November.
Adoption Action claimed that Family Court judges had been critical of the act, The Human Rights Commission had identified the law didn't meet the country's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had expressed concern about it.
Adoption numbers had declined from nearly 4000 in 1971 to 172 in 2010 but there was a large number of inter-country adoptions by New Zealanders.
As the law stands, same-sex couples couldn't adopt a child but an individual could. De-facto couples weren't able to adopt, but some judges had approved de-facto adoptions in the past.
Ludbrook said people could be adopted up to the age of 20 without their consent, and could not obtain a copy of their birth certificate until they were that age. This was despite people who had been conceived via donor gametes being able to access information about their donor at the age of 18, or 16 with court approval.
Ludbrook said New South Wales and Queensland adoption laws were more advanced and dictated that a child over the age of 12 needed to provide their consent when an application to adopt them had been made.
He said Queensland, New South Wales and the UK's laws stipulated that same-sex couples could also adopt and Queensland and New South Wales provided oral and written information and legal advice to birth mothers, whereas New Zealand law didn't require any information to be provided to them.
"Bad adoptions have resulted in a lot of pain and suffering to birth mothers, adopted children and people wanting to adopt a child," Ludbrook said.
"All we can do is hope the application is granted [by the tribunal]."
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I totally agree with #12 and #13. I believe most people feel that it should only be that a wife and husband be allowed to adopt but dont bother sharing their opinions because a) the people who argue its discriminatory criticise and discriminate them on their values b) can't be bothered wasting their time in a politically correct world when immoral radicals try and manipulate such Bills as BORA to their own ulterior motives. Anything and everything if the Courts allow could be put under freedom of expression. These foolish radicals argue that morals and truth differ to the person. What foolish talk, the whole New Zealand legal system is based on the truth, right and wrong, based on morals founded on the Bible. For the Courts to agree to such foolishness and extend the BORA to circumstances that DEFINITELY was not thought of when Parliament was enacting the statute is wrong, going against Parliamentary Sovereignty and disregards the foundation to which the whole legal system is based on. Those who say that Adoption Act is discrimination to other family dynamics criticise people who do not agree with them, to which those who disagree are forced to keep their mouths shut, what kind of freedom of expression is that? Tyranny of the foolish. I think first and foremost the rights of the child should be the sole focus, what they need, not fulfilling the selfish desires of the adults who want to imitate the family dynamic, that's just sick.
@Avon: NZ is a secular state. Sure there are many Christian people in NZ but there are also many people of other faiths or no faith at all. Legislation should therefore not have any reference to a particular religious conviction. If children.
@Dave from Te Awamutu & Ben: You seem to be implying that children raised by same-sex couples do worse than children raised by heterosexual couples, however there is no scientific evidence for this just a whole lot of prejudice.
Oh God. Here we go. Don't you people out there realise that the Adoption Industry is simply out to steal your babies so the wealthy and the privileged can ignore their own issues of infertility?? If the powers that be were truly interested in the welfare of children, it would be easier for young women to keep their babies. Adoption as it stands should be outlawed. There are enough orphaned and abused kids in need so that there is no reason except ego that sez "gimme a baby to adopt." Foster a kid in need, instead. Yes. I am a Natural Mother whose babies were stolen. My son's life is still a ruin. My daughter and I are still getting to know each other and we are among the lucky ones. Yes. The Laws certainly should be changed. More rights for Mums and Babies. No more baby stealing in Aoteroa!
This is really overdue. I had to 'adopt' my own son when my husband wanted to adopt him as only a married male & female couple can adopt. on his new birth certificate I was then listed as his 'Adoptive Mother'!
I rang Birth's Death's and Marriages and demanded it be changed back to Natural mother. They were so blase about it and said t me "Why does it matter"? I said because for historical accuracy sake it should be put right AND it matters to me!! They finally caved after I rang and nagged them daily!
The whole adoption process needs to be brought into the 21st century and reflect the many varieties of families we have now.
Yes, it's very good that Adoption Action is taking this matter to the tribunal. However, even if they're 100% successful, there's no obligation on government or the parliament to change a thing. All we'd get is a declaration saying the law's discriminatory, that's it. Certainly better than nothing, though, and definitely worth aiming for. The best of luck, Robert Ludbrook.
As it stands there is a major waiting list for married couples wishing to adopt (causing many to seek to adopt overseas). To broaden out the criteria for adopting to defacto and same-sex couples will worsen this and would be driven more by political correctness than the interests of the child (as a generality married couples are more stable than the other categories). I am surprised that an individual can adopt (unless they are already a close relative like a grand parent).
Adoption Action is sadly out of touch with reality in our Christian society. Marriage is fundamental to procreation and family life, so de facto couples, who clearly don't want to make that commitment to quality of life, should not be allowed to adopt. Neither did God allow for homosexual relationships (recall the old Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve mantra?),so the idea of two men or two women trying to play mummy and daddy is pathetic and insulting. Not to mention the misery it will bring to the children when they reach school age.
via mobile
11:20 am Jul 29 2011
I find it extremely disappointing this is seen as 'low priority'. If they did review the laws it would make it much easier for people like my (defacto) partner and I to possibly adopt. We have one biological child who has a very rare genetic disorder that is also very debilitating. We have been told that there is a very high chance that this will occur in future pregnancies. With the current laws here in NZ it would be very difficult if not impossible for us to adopt another child who we would so dearly cherish. Maybe if the practice of adoption became more accepted and promoted in this country, people having babies they can not afford or into abusive homes would have an avenue to give their child a better life and good people like my partner and I who so desperately want to add to their family or to become parents would be able to do so...
Adoption is nearly unheard of in NZ, why isn't it being promoted? Adoption doesn't seem to be an option that get any attention for unwanted teenage pregnancies (or any unplanned pregnancies) but should be talked about at least as much as the possibility of abortion. Adoption over abortion allows the child to live, it also gives childless couples a much wanted son or daughter. Abortions do affect the birth mother, studies have shown they are several more times likely to suffer depression. GP's should be given more information regarding adoption of little NZers, like the rest of NZ.
Murder sentence 'not excessive'
Death threat emails 'clearly a hoax'
Climber dies in Fiordland fall
School bus crash accused in court
Heavy rains, wind pound country
Man jailed for crossbow, machete incident
Engineer denies conflict of interest'
Carterton tragedy: Safety chief would refuse balloon ride
Foreign Affairs Ministry confirms 305 jobs to go
Carterton tragedy: Safety chief would refuse balloon ride
Major courts overhaul proposed
Foreign Affairs Ministry confirms 305 jobs to go
Mob cancels star's performance
Kiwis not up with online security
Helena Bonham Carter 'honoured'
New hope for kiwifruit growers
Gender non-conformity linked to abuse
Nelsen cleared to lead NZ against Jamaica
Robinson starts for Chiefs against old team
Man's childhood comic collection fetches $4.2m
Carterton tragedy: Safety chief would refuse balloon ride
Mob cancels star's performance
Girl's three-hour punishment run fatal
Model ignores Victoria's Secret snub
Study looks at Kiwis' height, weight
Jennifer Aniston loves being lewd
PSA disappointed Key won't discuss cuts
EU expects eurozone to suffer mild recession
Policewoman's alleged attacker bitten
Protester hijacks Auckland Council meeting
Mob cancels star's performance
What it means to live in Christchurch
Murder sentence 'not excessive'
Wow so many very ignorant comments. The reason the law is outdated is NOT because it is working well it is because NZ has a very good way of sticking its head in the sand when it comes to important issues. Take a look at our abuse of children stats, suicide stats, poverty stats etc. Until the population and the government wake up and understand the truth of what adoption is, this very archaic and barbaric practise will continue to do more harm than good. Adoption does not prevent abuse, poverty or any of the situations many people think it does. Adopters are just humans at the end of the day and to adopt is not to rescue a child. This law is not only outdated but it contravenes Human Rights and the rights of the child. It shouldn't just be updated but erased with a child centric and transparent law put in its place. New Zealand, get with the times!