Changes of forename by parents/carers prior to adoption or long-term fostercare.
robinjh
I would be interested to know what rules (if any) on this are in other
jurisdictions. And opinions generally on changing the forenames of older
children that are to be adopted or to remain in long-term foster care. If
you download the PDF of the judgement that prompted the announcement below,
you may feel that there were arguments for doing so as well as against in
the cases that were being judged.
Robin
**************************************************************
From the United Kingdom Department of Health Adoption website
http://www.doh.gov.uk/adoption/forename.htm
Name changes of children looked after by local authorities, including those
placed for adoption - judgment by the President of the Family Division in Re
D,L and LA (Change of Forename)
All staff working in Family Placement Services need to be aware of this
judgment, which has implications for children placed under the Fostering
Services Regulations 2002 and the Adoption Agency Regulations 1983. The
judgment sets out that no carer for a child looked after by a local
authority should unilaterally change the forename or surname of a child. A
proposed change of name is a matter for careful consideration by the local
authority, and the parents, who retain parental responsibility in all
placements except after freeing for adoption, should be consulted and
allowed to express their views.
It should also be made clear to foster carers and prospective adoptive
parents that the carers are not able to change the name of a looked after
child in their care without the agreement of the local authority and any
parents with parental responsibility.
This case is reported in [2003] 1 FLR No. 3.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss's judgment can be downloaded in PDF format from
Henry W. Moritz
news:BB44A93A.1C204%nos...@robinjh.co.uk...
I'm in Iowa. Foster parents can not change a child's name. Since I adopted
out of foster care, I was bound by foster parenting rules, and I am not
familiar with practices in Iowa regarding propective adoptive situations.
On a personal level, I don't think foster parents should be able to change a
child's name and should address the child using the child's proper name or,
if permitted, the name used in the biological household. Regarding
prospective adoptive parents, I think that once a child has been placed in a
prospective adoptive parents custody that, on a practical level, the PAPs
should probably be free to *informally* address they child as they wish.
The example in the case that was cited demonstrates the practical situation
pretty clearly. That is, there doesn't appear to be any practical way to
prevent the practice without actually disrupting the adoption and removing
the child. And, if the intention really was to have the child adopted, then
it seems strange that there should be a lot of concern regarding the name of
a child that is going to have their name changed anyway.
That said, as an adoptive parent I personally didn't feel a lot of need to
substantially change the names of the kids I adopted, although we did make
some changes, including changing all of our kids' surnames to "Moritz". Our
oldest didn't have a middle name, so we retained her first name and set her
middle name to her former surname. No one used the first name of our middle
child -- he had been addressed by his middle name all of his life and his
bmom hated the name. So we dumped the first name, made his middle name his
first name, and changed his middle name to his former surname. Finally, for
our youngest, we simply left her first and middle names as they were, since
her middle name was also the middle name of her birth mother, which we
thought was an important link back to her biological past.
geopelia
going for adoption. The name on the birth certificate was chosen by the
home. Even if the father was known, the father's name was "Unknown" on the
birth cert. Then the adoptive parents were free to name the child as they
wished. This helped to preserve anonymity.
Geopelia
>
Dian
he really was.
BTW, how do you know so much about the sleazy and devious old NZ
adoption methods?
Di
robinjh
phil...@xtra.co.nz wrote on 24/7/03 2:11 am:
The issue above is about older children in pre adoption placements and in
foster care with a view to adoption. There simply are no adoptions straight
from "homes" in the UK and haven't been for very very many years.
What you describe happening in New Zealand, was almost certainly illegal,
even there and at that time. I do hope the people adopted from this home are
pressing legal action against whatever organization ran the home and if the
authorities knew about it, against the Government of New Zealand. Perhaps
you would care to name the home you are referring to, then perhaps some
further investigation can be made, even if only on a journalistic
investigation.
Robin
geopelia
at the time. It must have been legal, or it would not have been done. Social
Welfare kept an eye on every adoption,and would have told them if it was
illegal. There were none of the private adoptions like the American ones,
with no official body to check up on them. The public hospitals also
arranged adoptions for girls not wanting to go to a home. It was illegal to
pay the birth mothers though, but they could get a sickness benefit during
the final months.
If you want to investigate, check with Social Welfare. I think it is called
Home and Income now.
Geopelia
Dian
Forgive me if I split my sides laughing.
Di
robinjh
phil...@xtra.co.nz wrote on 25/7/03 3:33 am:
Are you seriously saying that the falsification of details on a registration
of birth was/is not illegal in NZ?
In the UK in private adoptions arranged by the mother herself before the
birth of the child the mother could of course agree to name the child
according to the adopters wishes (such adoption arrangement ceased to be
legal in England and Wales in 1983) but that would obviously have had
nothing to do with anonymity in the circumstances. What you describe would
certainly have been illegal under the 1952 Act here and almost certainly
prior to it. It was of course also totally immoral if it were done with the
intent that you suggest i.e. to "preserve anonymity" any person should be
able to establish the identity of his or her genetic parents as far as is
physically possible.
I assume the system of registration there in NZ is similar to England and
Wales or we would not be employing Len Cook (New Zealand's former Chief
Statistician) as our current National Statistician and Registrar General for
England and Wales. Well let's hope he's a bit more honest and of better
morals than some New Zealanders obviously are from your remarks, he's
overhauling the English registration system at the moment.
Robin
robinjh
moc.ishcm@ztiromwh wrote on 23/7/03 10:57 pm:
Thanks Henry, that sounds sensible and is pretty much the way I always
thought things happened here in England. Certainly even over 45 years ago
when I was fostered then adopted, my parents had to sign a piece of paper
promising among other thing that I would be known only by my original name,
they weren't allowed to even call me their choice of name until my birth
mother had signed the necessary form (six months before the adoption) and it
changed from foster care to pre-adoption placement (bit confusing for me as
I was 2yo by then).
In the case quoted I think it was a Guardian ad Litem that questioned the
changes (We're not allowed to call them that anymore because of rule on the
use of Latin and legal jargon in court cases involving Family Courts so they
are known as Children's Guardians or simply Guardians). Though it would
have made very little difference in the case involving the little girl with
Rett syndrome whose cognitive ability is stalled at six or seven months, it
may have mattered to the other children. The Guardian wanted the legal
position clarified and a precedent set. I think it probably came as a
surprise to most of us that take an interest in adoption and "looked after
children" that the legal position had not been set many years ago.
Robin
geopelia
Sorry, it's WORK and income
>
> Are you seriously saying that the falsification of details on a
registration
> of birth was/is not illegal in NZ?
>
> In the UK in private adoptions arranged by the mother herself before the
> birth of the child the mother could of course agree to name the child
> according to the adopters wishes (such adoption arrangement ceased to be
> legal in England and Wales in 1983) but that would obviously have had
> nothing to do with anonymity in the circumstances. What you describe would
> certainly have been illegal under the 1952 Act here and almost certainly
> prior to it. It was of course also totally immoral if it were done with
the
> intent that you suggest i.e. to "preserve anonymity" any person should be
> able to establish the identity of his or her genetic parents as far as is
> physically possible.
>
> I assume the system of registration there in NZ is similar to England and
> Wales or we would not be employing Len Cook (New Zealand's former Chief
> Statistician) as our current National Statistician and Registrar General
for
> England and Wales. Well let's hope he's a bit more honest and of better
> morals than some New Zealanders obviously are from your remarks, he's
> overhauling the English registration system at the moment.
>
> Robin
I don't know what happens since the law was changed in the 1980's. Maybe
they have changed this too. Geopelia
>
>
>
Julia
I'll join you on that one. Geopelia's theory could render any illegal
act legal simply on the basis that it was done - therefore it was
legal...
Julia
Dian
home with all other adoption workers at our NSW inquiry. That all shot
their mouths off claiming that everything was "routine practice" and
therefore must have been legal and ethical. Turns out they all shot
themselves in the foot, as none of it was. It seems they had all
brainwashed themselves with their own rhetoric. LOL!
Di
Dian
law since
then. Common law rules dictate that the mother is the sole legal
guardian of her child until she signs the consent. And that Common law
rule has applied since the signing of the Magna Carta hundred of years
ealier. This means that every adoption practice which disentitled the
mother from seeing or restricting access, forbidding her to name her
child etc comes under a criminal offence both in NZ and Oz. And any
other Commonwealth country which applies Common Law rules.
You might be interested to read the best extracts from the NSW Health
Commission of 1982 which forced the adoption industry and the Health
Departments (who were in a collusive arrangement with each other to
carry out these practices) to begin complying with the law as it
pertained to the single mothers legal rights. You can obtain a full
copy of it from the NSW Health Commission Record Archives, in North
Sydney.
Health Commission of New South Wales
File No.C.1081
Circular No: 82/297
Issued September 1 1982
Health Commission Policy on Adoption
A policy Concerning the Rights of Parents Planning to
Surrender a Child for Adoption and Hospital Practices
in Regard to Such Parents.
"In the early 1960's the view was commonly held that it was in the
mother’s interest that she not see the child she was planning to
surrender for adoption, and policies were thus followed which
prevented her seeing the child. The hospitals themselves did not doubt
that they had a legal right to adopt such policies which were rarely
questioned by the staff and by the mothers themselves.
<snip>
A single mother whatever her age is the sole legal guardian of her
child and remains so until a consent to adoption is signed. She
therefore has the rights of access to her child and cannot legally be
denied this.
An adoption consent may be proved invalid under the terms of the
Adoption of Children Act, 1965 (section 31 (b) if the mother has been
subject to duress or undue influence. Refusing a mother permission to
see or handle her child prior to signing a consent, or putting
obstacles in her way of exerting this right, may readily be
interpreted as duress if the validity of an adoption consent is being
contested. One challenge to the validity of a consent on these grounds
has already been heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court. In the
same context any comments or actions by staff members which the
mother could see as pressure to persuade her to place her baby for
adoption run the risk of later bearing the legal interpretation of
duress. Anyone found in these circumstances to have exerted "undue
pressure' is liable to prosecution under section 51 of the Act.
NATURE OF PROBLEM
A contributing factor in this was the identification by the Standing
Committee of a number of practices occurring in some public
hospitals in relation to adoption matters which are contra-indicated
on either mental health or legal grounds. These include:-
* Undue pressure being placed on unmarried women to surrender their
infants for adoption (an offence under section 31 of the Adoption of
Children Act)
* Unwillingness on the part of hospital personnel to grant the same
rights of information and contact with their infants as women who are
considering surrendering their infants for adoption as are accorded
other women.
Guidelines
2.1 Need for a Written Policy
Each hospital should devise a written policy, easily accessible to
all hospital staff dealing with adopting mothers.
2.2 The legal rights under Common Law of the mother prior to
signing a consent to adoption must be recognised as being no
less than those possessed by any other mother
2.2.2. Staff should be aware of the legal complications that may arise
in denying or interfering with these rights both in relation to
the
security of the child’s adoption and to their own
vulnerability to
prosecution. Health Commission of New South Wales. Policy
on Adoption File No.C.1081 Circular No: 82/297 Issued
September 1 1982 (see Appendix 1)
Di
geopelia
"Dian" <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0307...@posting.google.com...
Very interesting. I wonder if New Zealand had such a law and nobody knew
about it. Today there is probably a law like this.
The problem is that if the mother sees the child bonding may take place, and
make things more difficult for her if she is adopting. She could even change
her mind though not in a position to keep the child. Perhaps it was to avoid
this that the homes had a no contact policy.
Geopelia
robinjh
phil...@xtra.co.nz wrote on 25/7/03 11:24 pm:
It was I suspect always Illegal to falsify the details on the registration
of a birth. In addition much of what Dian says about English common law
applies equally to New Zealand, unless you can point to any specific
superseding NZ statute law that would have applied. I very much doubt that
there is any such statute, but if you know of one, as you imply, then please
cite it.
Robin
geopelia
I don't know of any such statute. New Zealand is not a colony though, and
has its own laws.
Children born through adultery are still registered under the woman's
husband's name even though she knows (and he may know) that this is not
true. How do these kids find their biological father if they are not aware
of his existence?
The husband of a married woman is legally the father of her children unless
he or she can prove otherwise.
DNA will certainly open a can of worms!
> Geopelia
>
>
>
>
>
robinjh
phil...@xtra.co.nz wrote on 26/7/03 2:37 pm:
>
> "robinjh" <nos...@robinjh.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BB483E0C.1C5D0%nos...@robinjh.co.uk... in article
> C%hUa.92256$JA5.2...@news.xtra.co.nz, geopelia at phil...@xtra.co.nz
> wrote on 25/7/03 11:24 pm:
>
<snip>
Nevertheless it was a British colony and as such it inherits English Common
Law (the body of law developed as a result of custom and judicial decisions,
as distinct from the law laid down by parliament) as Dian has rightly
pointed out. Indeed I believe New Zealanders in principal at least still
have a right of appeal to the Privy Council, unless NZ has suddenly become a
republic unbeknownst to me, a right that we in the UK no longer have, it
having been replaced by appeal to the House of Lords.
> Children born through adultery are still registered under the woman's
> husband's name even though she knows (and he may know) that this is not
> true. How do these kids find their biological father if they are not aware
> of his existence?
In England the appearance of a father's name on a birth certificate depends
upon him either registering the child himself, being present at the
registration or making a statutory declaration if he is not legally married
to the mother, there is no law dictating that the mother's husband must
appear as the father. I find it very difficult to believe that NZ law has
been brought up to date on this.
> The husband of a married woman is legally the father of her children unless he
> or she can prove otherwise. DNA will certainly open a can of worms!
Why, are New Zealanders particularly given to lying and deception? Two or
three generations ago when divorces were difficult to obtain and adultery
was still seen as a terrible sin that may have been very common, not so
today surely, unless NZ is really so far behind the rest of the civilised
world in its attitudes. Not that that would surprise me greatly since your
arrival here. A few years ago I used to do a lot of backpacking around
Europe and Turkey meeting a lot of young people from around the world on the
way, I'd usually ask at some point when they were going home, it always
surprised me how many New Zealanders said "never", I'm starting to
understand why now.
Robin
Dian
It's not only NZ, Robin. Under Common law and the Commonwealth
Marriage Act a child born to a married woman is considered to be the
issue of the marriage unless proven or declared to be otherwise. It's
an automatic legal assumption. Always has been. It dates back to when
married woman were considered to be chattel and assumed to remain
faithful. It also allowed the male to assume children born to her were
his. Kept marriage nice and tidy.
Two or
> three generations ago when divorces were difficult to obtain and adultery
> was still seen as a terrible sin that may have been very common, not so
> today surely, unless NZ is really so far behind the rest of the civilised
> world in its attitudes. Not that that would surprise me greatly since your
> arrival here. A few years ago I used to do a lot of backpacking around
> Europe and Turkey meeting a lot of young people from around the world on the
> way, I'd usually ask at some point when they were going home, it always
> surprised me how many New Zealanders said "never", I'm starting to
> understand why now.
>
>
NZ is a beautiful place. Like paradise in part.
Di
> Robin
Dian
Everyone knew about it. It's common law. They just chose to ignore it
when it came so unmarried mothers.
Today there is probably a law like this.
Of course there is. Always has been. The Circular just reminded
everyone about it after one such case was heard in the NSW Supreme
Court and shook the whole system to its core. NZ and OZ have the same
common law rules, so as far as laws are concerned, when Oz sneezes NZ
catches a cold.
>
> The problem is that if the mother sees the child bonding may take place, and
> make things more difficult for her if she is adopting.
That was her legal decision to make. It was up to her to tell them she
didn't want to see her baby. And they then had to warn her of the
potential future harm such a course of action might cause her. That
same warning was supposed ot be provided when considering adoption.
She could even change her mind though not in a position to keep the
child.
Perhaps it was to avoid this that the homes had a no contact policy.
Irrespective of their reason it was illegal and constitutes the
unlawful taking of the child to forbid the mother unrestricted access
to her child before she signed any documents authorisiing them to take
her child.
Di
> Geopelia
robinjh
patr...@bigpond.com.au wrote on 26/7/03 6:10 pm:
The law here is the same in principal, I just don't think people lie about
these things in the way that they did a couple of generations ago it's more
likely that it will be "declared to be otherwise".
>> Two or
>> three generations ago when divorces were difficult to obtain and adultery
>> was still seen as a terrible sin that may have been very common, not so
>> today surely, unless NZ is really so far behind the rest of the civilised
>> world in its attitudes. Not that that would surprise me greatly since your
>> arrival here. A few years ago I used to do a lot of backpacking around
>> Europe and Turkey meeting a lot of young people from around the world on the
>> way, I'd usually ask at some point when they were going home, it always
>> surprised me how many New Zealanders said "never", I'm starting to
>> understand why now.
> NZ is a beautiful place. Like paradise in part.
I'm sure it is a wonderful country, it's the people there that I'm starting
to wonder about.
Robin
geopelia
geopelia
New Zealand since 1956, so I'm able to see both sides of an argument.
When I arrived here, it was like stepping back 50 years, but now New Zealand
seems ahead of Europe in social attitudes. For example, we have just
decriminalized prostitution.
As for the Privy Council, there is talk about dropping the right of appeal,
but I think that still stands. It is far too expensive though for the
ordinary citizen.
And no, in 40 years of marriage I have never committed adultery!
Geopelia
geopelia
That may be true in theory, but in practice the girls were given no choice
and were not told they had one. Remember most girls were young teenagers
placed in the homes by their parents to conceal the birth from society. How
many would have been able to consult an uninvolved lawyer to find out their
rights?
Geopelia
lisieux
> >
> Just for the record, I was born and educated in England, but have been in
> New Zealand since 1956, so I'm able to see both sides of an argument.
> When I arrived here, it was like stepping back 50 years, but now New Zealand
> seems ahead of Europe in social attitudes. For example, we have just
> decriminalized prostitution.
I know, Tim Barnett's legislation has merged the dairy and sex
sectors. You can now buy human breast milk in a brothel and pimps can
advertise the service.
However I would not describe it as being technically 'ahead' of
Europe, more of a throw-back to that stuff the Salvation Army tried to
eradicate in the 1880s.
New Zealand attracts sex tourists from all over the world, it is a
major destination for predators.
geopelia
"lisieux" <lis...@gaelmail.com> wrote in message
news:7734dcd6.03072...@posting.google.com...
No, you are thinking of Thailand. Tourists come here for scenery and
adventure tourism, like bungy jumping.
If by predators you mean paedophiles, we have laws against that going right
back to the 1970s. It's quite a witch hunt at the moment. So if you know any
of those blokes, warn them to steer clear! Our age of consent is 16 and
prostitutes must be 18. If you want human breast milk, pasteurize it first,
it is dangerous.
Geopelia
Marley Greiner
Why would anybody want human breast milk except for fetish purposes.
Especially from a brothel. Gak!
Marley
>
>
geopelia
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:oFHUa.73221$3o3.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
Dian
ROFLMHO!!!! Methinks you are confusing NZ and Thailand.
Di
Dian
Precisely. These children were stolen, both overtly and by ommission.
Remember most girls were young teenagers
> placed in the homes by their parents to conceal the birth from society.
most "girls" were not young teenagers at all. The average age was 19
which puts the majority in they early-mid twenties. Only 1/3 were in
their teens.
How
> many would have been able to consult an uninvolved lawyer to find out their
> rights?
They shouldn't have had to consult a lawyer. It was the adoption
professions responsibility to explain the law and to carry it out. it
was part of their training. They knew it and yet ignored it. It was
also the Hospital administrators responsibility to ensure that his
staff were following the law when dealing with women giving birth.
irrespective of their marital status.
Dian
Only if they find out. According to recent DNA studies 10% of kids
born in marriage were not their fathers children. And that's only the
figures where some doubt was involved.
Steve White
patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
> > Remember most girls were young teenagers placed in the homes by
> > their parents to conceal the birth from society.
>
> most "girls" were not young teenagers at all. The average age was 19
> which puts the majority in they early-mid twenties. Only 1/3 were in
> their teens.
Most of whom were coerced by their parents despite their age.
> > How many would have been able to consult an uninvolved lawyer to
> > find out their rights?
>
> They shouldn't have had to consult a lawyer. It was the adoption
> professions responsibility to explain the law and to carry it out. it
> was part of their training. They knew it and yet ignored it. It was
> also the Hospital administrators responsibility to ensure that his
> staff were following the law when dealing with women giving birth.
> irrespective of their marital status.
Of course, with Mummsy and Daddsy twisting the girl's arm to get rid of
that unwanted bastard, for many of these relinquishments it wouldn't
have mattered what the hospital or the agency did.
steve
famil...@cpswatchlive.com
What?.....No 'Cottage' cheese?!? (double Gak!:)
>
> Marley
> >
> >
--
Free