Adoptions in the current world are different from the child adoptions characterized in the early years of 1950 to the 60s unlike those days the modern day adoptions are characterized by beyond reasonable doubt civil arrangements and signed consent of both parties. Unlike the early times when the mother of the child had to literary (Nafstad et al. 2013)

According to adoption.com, mothers fear for the child to grow up in their world settings for instance characterized by harshness and calamity or poverty to more well-up families who may offer better living standards to her newborn child. The promise of a family and company is also a major motivating factor for the modern day single mothers who offer their children for adoption(Gilbert & Terrell, 1998).

ny decisions although adoption is a characteristic among children aging between three to four years of age. This article focuses on forced adoptions as a denial of human dignity and particularly focuses on the issue in the Australian setting where forced adoptions were prominent in the mid years of the 20^th century(Guisinger, & Blatt, 1994).

Forced adoptions are characterized by either parental resistance orthe child may be the resisting party while the authorities, non-govern mental organizations, religious affiliations families or the cultural settings may be the forcingfactors. Forcedadoptions may also be defined by the financial status of the individual for instance poverty may lead to a poor mother giving up her child for adoption to make the ends meet. Gilbert & Terrell (1998) defines forced adoption as any non natural, unwilling denial of parental care, love or company to the biological parents of a newborn or child.

These were the questions raised by human rights activists and the anti adoption voices in Australia. Julia Gillard, an activist and Australian prime minister, defined the forced adoptions as any denial of the fundamental right upon the biological parents to care and to love their children whom they have legally and socially been acknowledged as the sole parents(Warren, 2009).

From a religious perspective, the bible accords the parents the responsibility of parental care and love. It refers to the parents the duty to love and care or their children as their only responsibility an command accorded to them, upon their children. The bible further accords the children the duty to love their parents. The spiritual books, the Bible and the Quran are, however, silent about the adoption rights or the process of adoption.

In Australia, for instance in 1950, 1960 and the early 70s, it is estimated that roughly 225,000 babies were forced into adoption. This was the statistics as per the BBC News. Thesereports co-related with the story narrated by forced adoption victims, Monica Jones and Melville,both were young and unmarried and were forced into giving up their babies thus leaving behind a life of bitterness and pain.Some common practices used into luring mothers into giving up their children have been outlined in the excerpt.The practice was used in the postWorld War II Australian society where the baby mothers would even sign into adoption as early as during the pregnancy stages of their children. Young unmarried women who fell pregnant out of wedlock were deemed unfit to care for their children. This was coupled by pressure emanating from the medical religious or civil authorities.

In some cases, in some cases parents of unmarried mothers would force their children to give their children up for adoption to some other families or married couples. This was because the paThis was in the form of pressure and stigma to these young parents who were deemed to bring shame unto the extended family for having children out of wedlock. In some extreme instances, the mother of the child would not even be informed of the planned adoption of her own child but all undertakings were to be conducted secretly with aid of the authorities and adoption bureaus which were widespread at the time.

In the early twentieth century, adoption was taken as an alternative to the common practice in the 19^th century of placing the needy children into orphanages and institutionalized homes. The 19^th Century family policies were characterized by government and charity based orphanage where the needy parents would take their children. However with time and the wake of the new century, adoption was slowly taking shape and winning favor in the society. The other adoption was a way of punishing mothers for having children out of wedlock.This is so because it was seen as morally and culturally shameful for the child unwedded lady to bring a child to her immediate and extended family a child. The child was rather a burden to the family. Often the quote“if you love your child you would give him or her up for adoption” was used by these families and authorities to the mothers to campaign for the adoptions (Kinna et al. 2012).

ouples. This aggravated the ill and justified it almost to acceptable levels amongst the families. The government too facilitated his ill given the complexity and bureaucracy that the single women had to go through to be given financial aid for children upbringing. It was easier for the married couples to get loans at these times as compared to the married families.

socially acceptable good upbringing it was better off to place the child under the care of financially well up foster parents(Suzumura et al., 2010)

The attachment theory was developed by John Bowlby and a complementary to this was the security theory by Mary Ainsworth. The two theories attempted to justify the notion of forced adoption of children pointing out that the child was liable to a better life with the foster parents than the real parents, failing to consider the possible psychological trauma subjected to the unwilling parents, a denial of her right due to financial status. John Bolby wrote to the World Health Organization in 1952, recommending this notion arguing that adoption immediately upon birth offers a “clean break” from the biological parents and creates a new bond with the adoptive parents. This way he recommended signing of the adoption papers during the pregnancy stages of the mother.

An enquiry committee was established by the Australian senate to investigate into the matter. The committee discovered several methods in which the mothers were coerced into giving up their children for adoption. Firstly, the committee established the forms of coercion. These forms pertained absence of informed consent and obviously the opposite, presence of informed consent. Pressure was established to emanate from three channels, familial and societal and the authorities. In the former, lack of informed consent, the mother was either not informed of the other options available to her, was not aware of the contents of the documents she was signing or the welfare provisions. In other instances, the consent would be made under duress in form of manipulation through harassment or open hostility(Johnson et al., 1981)

Ignorance of the legal backing or the legal rights to revoke consent also contributed to the scenario. It was established that most mothers lacked legal knowledge or advice that they would have revoked the consent until it was time barred to challenge the consent. A more forceful unethical approach was established when the children were illegally taken away with no form of consent between the mother and the foster parents but ratherthe grandparents of the child. This was more or less a form of accepted kidnapping.Some other group of young mothers, on the other hand, ensued into the adoption since it was the only “choice” they had given the conditions of the setting(Tajfel,1979).

This raised extreme activism and politicking that even the young women in Australia demanded a national apology be accorded unto them upon the realization of the ills of this practice. Activism was slowly taking shape and in the wake of 21^st March 2013, the prime minister gave a national apology to the affected mothers and the children who ended up being adopted this way and to the families affected and to the fathers of these children.

The family forms a very important entity in the life of an individual given that most of the concepts in life are learnt at the family level. Parental and maternal care is vital for the upbringing of the child and more particularly helps the mother and the child settle discords. Most victims of the forced adoptions are seen to suffer distress and unrest owing to the day to day memories of the child they never had. Adoption can, however, be implemented in a more humane way as explained in the article. It should be more of a form of co-parenting where the biological parents of the child should have access to the foster family and be allowed to interact with her child although it should be done with some moderation whatsoever(Greene, 2011)

The United Nations Bill of ^th century(Taylor, 1991)

Bibliography

Gilbert, N., Terrell, P., 1998. Dimensions of forced adoption. Allyn and Bacon Boston.

Greene, R.R., 2011. Human behavior theory and social work practice. Transaction Books.

Guisinger, S., Blatt, S.J., 1994. Individuality and relatedness: Evolution of a fundamental dialectic. Am. Psychol. 49, 104.

Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., Skon, L., 1981. Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement amongst families: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 89, 47.

Kinna, R., Prichard, A., Berry, D., Pinta, S., 2012. Libertarian socialism: politics in black and red. Palgrave Macmillan.

Nafstad, H.E., Blakar, R.M., Botchway, A., Bruer, E.S., Filkukova, P., Rand-Hendriksen, K., 2013. Communal values and individualism in our era of globalization: A comparative longitudinal study of three different societies, in: Well-Being and Cultures. Springer, pp. 51–69

Suzumura, K., Arrow, K.J., Sen, A.K., 2010. Handbook of Family Social Choice & Welfare. Access Online via Elsevier.

Tajfel, H., 1979. Individuals and groups in social psychology*. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 18, 183–190.

Taylor-Gooby, P., 1991. Social change, social welfare and social science. Harvester Wheatsheaf Brighton.

Warren, E., 2009. Prosperity, Peace, Respect: How Governments Have Managed the People’s Agenda. AuthorHouse.

Need assistance with this?

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW