Shakeup for adoption law viewed as well overdue

By KATHERINE HOBY

Forty-five years ago adoption was a secret, shadowy process and the interests of the adults involved were paramount.

This is no longer the case, but a review of the Adoption Act 1955 has taken years to be considered.

It seems widely accepted that adoption law needs to be changed, since about a third of New Zealand families with children no longer fit the traditional concept of mum, dad and two kids.

In fact the 1996 census showed that about 28 per cent of families were headed by single parents, 8 per cent by de facto couples and 0.06 per cent by same-sex couples.

The Government administration select committee of Parliament is now conducting an inquiry into adoption, and a Law Commission report, "Adoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework" was prepared for the committee to evaluate. This was released for public submission last September and written submissions on it close today.

The report's recommendations include allowing homosexual and de facto couples to adopt, giving adopted children two birth certificates, extending the time for legal consent by the birth mother from 10 to 28 days, and providing for children to be adopted by families of the same culture.

Social changes have seen women in general having babies later in life and this has also meant those who cannot have babies have been applying to adopt them at an older age.

The select committee chairwoman, Dianne Yates, said that after hearing submissions the MPs' panel would have until April to recommend legislation to Associate Justice Minister Margaret Wilson.

"Our brief is to look at the report, and review some of the intercountry adoption measures," she said.

The commission's report says: "The 1955 Adoption Act is the creature of an era when mainstream society frowned upon women who had premarital sexual relationships and branded children born out of wedlock with the stigma of illegitimacy.

"To a generation whose young men had been conscripted, adoption was a measure that dealt tidily with illegitimacy and infertility and was seen rather differently than today ... Nowadays these issues are seen through a lens of human dignity."

Ms Yates said the law needed to be brought into the 21st century.

"It is a matter of updating the law. For instance, we have a custom of open adoption in New Zealand but nothing in the law to enforce it.

"Customs and practice have gone ahead but the law has stayed in 1955. We need new attitudes."

Women in the 1950s signed away babies for adoption, often without realising quite what they were doing, she said.

The reports says: "What is considered to be acceptable practice by one generation can be completely unacceptable in another.

"That has been the experience in the case of adoption law. It is the changes in social needs and perspectives between the 1950s and the 1990s that present the challenges to the current law of adoption."

Ms Yates said legislation should be in the House well before the end of the year and today's deadline could be extended in exceptional circumstances.

Wendy Hawke, from Intercountry Adoption NZ, said that the current adoption legislation "certainly needed altering" and that some things which happened in practice to safeguard parties involved in adoption were not required by legislation.

"They have been put in place voluntarily by people who care to give everyone a sense of security when it's put in black and white."

Inquiries on the changes should go to the Clerk of the Government Administration Committee, Select Committee Office, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.