I recently received a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services outlining some proposed changes to the Adoption Act 1988  and requesting my comments on the issue:

“The proposed amendments will provide the Court with authority to make an adoption order in favour of couples with a significant relationship registered under the Relationships Act 2003  to adopt an unknown child. The effect of the amendments will be that couples in a significant relationship…will be eligible to apply to adopt an unknown child or intercountry child…Following careful consideration of these issues the  Institute (Tasmanian Law Reform Institute) recommended that the Act be amended to permit a couple to apply for adoption regardless of the gender or martial status of the partners making up the couples. A copy of the Institute can be found here… I would like to hear your views on the proposed amendments, and whether you believe that these amendments will sufficiently allow for couples in a registered significant relationship to be eligible to apply to adopt an unknown child or intercountry child. ..”

My comments are as follows:

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the proposed changes to the law that would allow couples who are registered on the significant relationships register to adopt so-called “unknown” children.

I do NOT support the proposal and I urge the government to not move forward with it.

I am on record as being in favour of the significant relationships register which allows, in particular, for same-sex couples to register a civil union.  This remains my position.

I am also in favour of recognising certain rights that reflect the simple reality of a registered relationship: for instance, in terms of defining next-of-kin, and when dealing with matters of inheritance.

In matters involving children the rights and need of the child are paramount and should be the guiding principle.  Specific circumstances and, indeed, assessments of parental capacity should not shape this principle, but should rather be assessed by it.

For instance, with regard to “known” adoptions the relational circumstances of the child are pre-existing.   When these circumstances are applied through the guiding principle, adoption can often be seen as beneficial for the child as a formalisation of what is actually the case and a maximisation of stability in the life of the child.

However, when considering the general category of “unknown” adoptions a pre-existing relationship does not exist and cannot be taken into account.  Changing procedures with regard to “unknown” adoptions should only be made if it can be argued, on a general basis of principle, that doing so would increase the benefit to the child.  The law should not be changed on the basis of specific circumstances or even the parental capacity of a particular couple, but on the basis of category and general principle.

It is therefore reasonable to assert that the best interests of a child are categorically served if they are afforded the highest potential of parental care, example, and intimacy.   It is clear that that potential is most clearly realised when both masculinity and femininity are present in that parental role.

The best interests of a child are best served by the provision of a mother and a father who are committed to one another and to the child.  The proposed changes to the adoption laws are therefore not in the best interests of children.

I would also urge the government to inform itself regarding some more practical matters.  There are many couples who seek to adopt children, often from other countries.  The process is stressful, difficult, and expensive.  The agencies involved must prove their credentials and certify prospective parents to the authorities in the nations involved.  My understanding is that many of these nations would not be supportive of allowing children to be adopted by anyone other than a married, or evidentially committed, heterosexual couple.  The government must be convinced that its proposed changes would not have the effect of increasing the wariness of other nations in their adoption procedures, and therefore making the process even more stressful for those currently involved.

Consideration should also be given to the birth parents of children being adopted.  We have heard recently of situations in living memory of our own community where the desires of the birth parent were not taken into account in the adoption of their children and the trauma that resulted.  Birth parents must have the right to ensure that the best interests of their child is served, categorically.