Page 2188 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Services Directorate in January 2015. The ACT Government Solicitor was given their adoption matter in June 2015. In mid-May 2016 the Government Solicitor finished the paperwork for their adoption matter to be lodged in the court system. In mid-May 2016 the couple was given two court hearing dates—June 2016 and a final hearing in August 2016. This couple’s adoption matter is still not finalised. These are families who give so much of themselves to provide a stable and secure home—permanency, a sense of belonging—for a child.
The feedback that I have received from constituents is that they are concerned about the delays in the local adoption process and the effects these delays are having on the children being adopted. One concerned constituent said to me:
These delays impact on the children, is not in their best interest and do not align with the government’s stated aims of getting children into secure permanent homes and seeking adoption as quickly as appropriate.
A quote from another concerned constituent:
We have now been told three times over three separate issues that if we don’t do or do something it could affect/delay/or stop our adoption process. The first time I was given this ‘advice’ was three years ago when I asked for Barnardos to pay for a photograph album that I had made for [the child’s] biological mum … It has just happened again with regard to supervision of contact and asking for more support. I think that there is a real issue with not being VERY clear at the beginning of the adoption process of what our ‘legal’ obligations are and what their policies are. This has led to a situation where we can be ‘blackmailed’ into doing or not doing certain things for fear of jeopardising our adoption. We have absolutely no power and I feel our adoption has been held over us for almost three years now. It is essential that adoptions be done in a timely manner as an additional way to stop this from occurring.
The lengthy adoption process is contributing towards institutionalising our vulnerable young children. A constituent has told me they were hoping their adoption would be finalised before the child turned five. The process has been underway for quite some time. Now that the child is five her adoptive family must undergo a review by a psychologist. The constituent has said to me:
After speaking with a private solicitor I understand that now [the child] is 5 we will have to have a review by a psychologist (which hasn’t been done as they initially told us the adoption would be completed before she turns five). So will have to find out if this is now an additional process we will have to undertake due to them taking so long to get this completed.
This family believed this is continually institutionalising a child who by now should be part of a secure, loving, permanent family. Other children may not have to go through these processes. It is not something that should be forced upon people when they are going through an adoption process. If the process had taken place in a more timely manner, it would not be required.
What we are asking for is not to make adoption easier or to make more children available for adoption. What we are asking for is that the adoption process take place
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video