Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

adoption. This positive duty would authorise the department or agency to breach themother’s confidentiality to the extent needed to trace her own and the father’sbackground, possibly by making enquiries through an Aboriginal Children’s Service.Non-discriminationFailure to appreciate different child-rearing values in Indigenous societies leads non-Indigenous social workers and others to dismiss as neglectful the common practice ofshared parenting. In the context of adoption it also leads adoption agencies to ignore therights of Indigenous extended family members to have a say in the placement of the childand to dismiss the possibilities of placement orders less permanent than adoption infavour of the extended family and of adoption by an extended family member.In Aboriginal culture, children are the responsibility of the extended family and notjust the biological parents alone. Even under normal circumstances the extended familyplays an important role in the upbringing of Aboriginal children. Where the biologicalparents cannot or do not provide for their own children’s care, the maintenance of care isguaranteed through the extended family structure (WA Adoption Legislative ReviewCommittee 1989 page 24).The exclusion of the unmarried biological father and his family from the adoptiondecision, especially when the father’s relationship with the birth mother was publiclydeclared, is viewed with dismay. Adoption legislation historically only required theconsent of the biological father if he was legally married to the birth mother. If not, thebiological father need not even be informed of the child’s relinquishment for adoption.The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended in 1986 that Aboriginalcustomary law marriages should be recognised for the purpose of requiring the consent ofboth parties to the adoption of their child (page 196). Traditional marriage now entitlesthe biological father to have a say in Victoria, SA and the NT. However, no jurisdictionformally provides for other family members to be consulted on the relinquishmentdecision.Before my son’s birth and adoption I had been living in a defacto relationship with thechild’s Mother Gloria since [early 1990] through till [early 1992] during which time we hada son together named Peter and upon her leaving me in [early 1992] to live in a 2ND defactorelationship … she was already pregnant with my 2nd son Andrew …At the time of my 2nd son’s birth and adoption I had no knowledge of either his birth norhis adoption; because [two weeks after his birth] during a private discussion with Gloria sheinformed me that the child had died, therefore I feel wilfully & knowingly she deprived meof the knowledge and at the time the choice in the matter of adoption, deliberately lying tome for her own ends without consideration for family ties between Peter and Andrew, beingfull brothers.If, at the time of birth, I had been informed of Andrew’s existence and that Gloria did notintend to keep him, then I myself would have applied for full custody of my son …