Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop is calling for more children of drug addicts to be permanently removed from their parents and offered for adoption.
Ms Bishop wants to see adoption, rather than fostering, used to separate children from parents who are battling addiction.
The backbencher, who is currently chairing a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of illicit drug use on families, has told the ABC’s Four Corners program the current system is skewed towards the interests of drug-using parents, and not their children.
“There are hundreds and hundreds of parents who are desperate to adopt children and give love and give good homes, but there is this ‘biology first’ principle,” she said.
How “addicted” do people have to be to have their kids permanently removed without hope of ever regaining custody? How will this be determined, and by who? Do both parents have to be addicted or only one? Are all drug-using parents automatically bad parents anyway?
What empirical evidence does she have against the ‘biology first’ principle? There are always horror stories, both about addicted parents and about adoptive parents (or at least the adoptive experience). Where are the figures about whether ‘biology first’ is statistically proven as an inferior model?
Just how many people does Bronwyn think exist who actually want to adopt troubled young children instead of bouncing “blank slate” babies? This strikes me as a guideline that could easily end up primarily as a way to take babies away from drug-addicted women in the labour ward, women who may have already taken significant attempts toward becoming “clean” when they discovered they were pregnant.
Finally, what are the implications in conjunction with the indigenous emergency interventions, in communities where we know drug addiction is a huge problem?
Surely BB must be a leadership contender in the forthcoming bloodbath? We must not be deprived of her firma but wise hand on the tiller of the ship of state.
It’s about time we went back to Community. Tribe, if you like. Relatives even.
The children of these unfortunate parents need their own Tribe. There is no
other satisfactory way of dealing with this dreadful problem. To take children
away from drug addicted parents damages both the children and the parents
further. Where are the aunties, siblings, grandparents of yesterday who would
pick up this problem and meld it into family. Don’t think Govt. should have any
say in what happens to these children, but maybe they could help by giving
those who take the child/ren a small pension. This isn’t pie in the sky stuff…..
think about it.
A good question on who will decide on the criteria for taking kids. Most people have heard stories of overzealous child protection officers causing misery.
However some sort of trigger needs to be put in place where kids, or infants are removed for long term family based care. In some cases adoption and removal from the biological parents may be the best option.
But it appears to me that adoption would be the 2nd worst option, leaving them to be neglected the worst.
A personal story. A chap I knew and his wife had a 5 year old boy who was abused, told to fuck off when he went near them, and whos teeth were decayed stubs due to a diet of coke and chips.
They werent druggies (alcohol and lots of tobbacco only) but that poor boy was as damaged as any ive ever seen. There is no doubt in my mind he would have been much better off adopted out to a loving family.
He was used by his mother to “farm” welfare agencies, she was into neary every agency on a fortnightly basis. All the money and goods never benifited the poor boy though.
We have a situation like this in our family. The grandparents and associated second husbands and wives have taken over the care of the two boys, who are doing well at scholl, soccer and have lots of friends and interests. The boys’ father is out of rehab and functioning as well as can be expected. Sadly, the mother is still in denial, perhaps heading further down.
Both parents, now in their thirties, have lost their youth in the pursuit of drugs. They need accellerated emotional development, not more punishment.
The last thing we want is another “Stolen Children” situation from the beehived Nazi camp guard from Sydney’s Northern Beaches.
Two points:
My partner works with many children struggling in/out of Northern Beaches Schools.
The NSW Education Dept has cut staff numbers (removed all non-permanent staff positions) to these services (the special shools and ISTB teams) so they can’t meet “demand”. Meanwhile my partern sees many occasions where NSW DOCS (Dept. Community Services) doesn’t adequately monitor and manage parents and children in high-risk family situations. Muhc of this is due to lack of staff and funding, but only makes the papers when a “tragedy” happens. Low-level creeping tragedies are happening every day.
Yes there are plenty of negative examples like those stated in the previous replies, but there are also positive examples of those who have successfully rehabilitated and gone onto become productive and prosperous citizens and parents. In some cases the children have come out braver and more resolute having seen what their parent(s) when through to rehabilitate for their sakes.
Where do they fit in in Bronnie’s plan? A few years down the track finally rehabilitated only to find their children gone for good. Or worse, their one reason and goal for attempting rehabilitation taken away for good.
Why is it nearly everything this government does leads to taking away hope?
..part 2:
Many of these terrible situation occur in BOTH blood-family and foster-family situations. Meanwhile the federal Gvt of which Ms Bishop is an “elder” member deems it a wise spending of our tax money to provide $50000 for Christian chaplains or councilors in the schools. The schools will take this simply as an additional headcount to assist in social monitoring/councilors, even though many Principals would probably rather spend the money on on-denominational student welfare and counciling services, or see the funding to the special teams increased.
Ms Bishop — unfortunately — will probably be returned due to her seat’s voting profile and margin. For this we are all worse off.
I caught a snippet of Bronny’s rant this morning, and it sounded to me like she was going to say “thousands” but corrected herself. Perhaps she thought that claiming there are thousands of drug-dependent parents in Australia might, somehow, serve to feed suspicions that the economic miracle wrought by our Dear Leader and is Faithful Sidekick had not benefitted everyone …
Poor Bronny. Perhaps she needs to be reminded that ripping children away from their families and institutionalising them doesn’t always lead to the best outcomes.
It’s really easy, Tigtog. Addicts grow horns. That way it’s easy for Normal People to identify Addicts.
Is BB is talking about continuity of care determinations around kids who are already in long term foster care, as to whether the placement is ‘permanent’ or are they perpetually ‘wards of the state’ ?
[After the haneef bomb plot fiasco yesterday, I’m not sure we should base our discussions on the media’s grab on the issue]
I think I heard a dog whistle.
Remember, Pauline Hanson thinks BB is a brave sould worthy of our admiration. Which says it all really….
The rights of the children supercede the rights of the parents.
Let us not forget that the doughty Ms Bishop has had a bonnet in her beehive about the quite appalling lack of access to the children of the poor for quite some time.
She was making similar noises about adoption back in 2005: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fear-bullying-claims-over-adoption-cases/2005/09/24/1126982270122.html
See? There are all sorts of wonderful market opportunities for baby-farming. Overseas, drug-addicts, maybe even Labor voters.
Why won’t people listen?
Jackboots in the nursery.
This is a complex area that is not served by uninformed responses.
If you really have an interest in the area at very least do a google ’scholar’ search on Long term foster care versus adoption and trawl through a couple of articles if you aren’t familiar with the issues. Where parental unification is not an option after many many years in one stable placement, it is in the best interest of the child to look very carefully and compassionaltely at all the alternatives and eveidence based reseach without dismissing aspects out of hand.
I’m surprised we can be so willing to howl something down without taking the time to think this through.
I’ve worked with kids spurned by their parents from infancy, who have had stable placements for over ten years and little or no parental contact, who have begged to be allowed to be adopted, to be legally recognised as a child of their family, to use the surname, to be able to inherit. Where do y’all stand on that?
Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s just the first random article that comes up on google:
SC, you are quite right to point out that where long-term care is at issue then adoption certainly needs to be on the table for the best interests of the child. But is BB talking about long-term care of these children of parents battling drug addiction? She doesn’t seem to be qualifying her statements in such a way as to indicate that her recommendations won’t also apply to more short-term care situations.
When was the last time Bronwyn got her name in the papers?
Here’s how it works: Bronwyn gets her name in the paper, nobody gives a rat’s about the issue at hand (kids of druggies, the flag, working mums, whatever shit she comes up with next), everyone’s happy.
Indeed it is - and when it comes time for yer emeritus professors to comee through with complex, longterm responses, Bronwyn will be long gone from this issue.
Which addicted people? Rich, affluent addicted people or yobbos from Moe addicted people? Short-term fostering is probably a better go. Everybody can get better, get healthy, get help etc, although some people won’t.
However, it is rather sad that there lots of people line up to “adopt” pets every day, and thus sometimes rescue them from horrible circumstances, but kids are sometimes left to live in terrible circumstances. It’s a bad comparison, I suppose, but the way I see some pets dolled up to the nines around where I live, I think we are getting to the point of valuing them more than human kids. That’s not to diss responsible pet owners, who are necessary.
Sorry for a badly put together comment.
Darlene, I think you’ll find it’s the other way around. Adoption rates in Australia are very low (at least in terms of domestic adoptions) because of a lack of children able to be adopted rather than because of a lack of willing adoptive parents. Instead, long-term foster care seems to be preferred, perhaps because of policies prioritising reuniting children with their natural parents. Intercountry adoption rates are low because of all the red tape involved. This report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is an interesting read on the numbers and categories of adoptions in Australia.
1. There will always be a small number of parents, who for one reason or another are just very bad parents, and society will have to intervene for the kids’ sake.
2. Deciding when to intervene, in what way, and for how long is an extremely difficult decision for all involved, and getting that decision wrong either way can have appalling consequences. I don’t envy anyone involved in having to make that decision, personally or professionally.
3. Bronwyn Bishop, and her rabid self-righteous control-freak ilk, are the last people who should be involved in anyway in making that decision. I find her one of the most disturbing ‘mainstream’ politicians in Australia. She makes my blood curdle and my skin crawl. Nasty piece of work.
sublime cowgirl is right - it is a complex area.
and why is bishop chairing a parliamentary committee in the effects of drug use on families - surely these are state matters - criminal justice/DOCs/drug rehabilitation etc??
tigtog – and anyone else interested in “permanency planning” - this issues paper from the NSW Children’s Guardian Office - covers the topic pretty well, and references a large number of reports and research etc. it also covers policy in respect of indigenous children
http://www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/files/permanency_planning.pdf
So precisely why the Human Beehive has been let within 10 miles of it takes a bit of explaining…
Because complex problems call for dimwitted populist simplification, CK.
Like Aussie Bob I have a mate who has taken the responsibility for raising his grandkids over the years.
The father is now back on track and helping more and more with the kids, the mum is still a write off.
The wider family unit is what has helped with this and hopefully the kids and the dad will be able to settle back together. We need to encourage and help this type of intervention where the kids do not leave the wider family unit and do not lose their identity.
But the only thing I got from Bishops comments was an eagerness to take kids away from thier parents and give them to strangers, it may be OK in some circumstances but the priority should be looking at alternatives to keeping the kids within that wider family unit.
Does this include those addicted to the good ol’ cancer stick?
Good one, tig tog.
SC, last time they started farming kids out, that was called “the Stolen Generation”.
Like Lesley, I mourn for the demise of the “community” and “locale” many of us grew up in.
It’s been necessary for the system, to break down these notions and sentiments, to provide “opportunities” for business through electronic Macmedia against those weakened by cultural and social atomisation. And, of course there is further government “efficiency”.
Which brings us to Bishop. Big government micromanagement helps ensure small government for the few. So be grateful, someone benefits from all the control freaking, even if it isn’t you and even if they don’t deserve it.
Finally, let’s not forget that bluecollar losers sit just behind aboriginals on the coalition carousel of scapegoats. Prepare yourself for weeks of self righteous guff from TDT and ACA aimed at the female element of the mortgage belt concerning their slightly poorer sisters in the government housing areas. Textor and co know their demographic; dont you worry about that!
PS, Bishop’s last appearance before this op engineered effort through the now Stepoforded “their” ABC, was about five or six months ago to say that something or other Howard had tried to dump on the electorate ” didn’t pass the Nazi test”. Surprised me, that.
PPS, is that THE Darlene?
How’s the cat?
Paul, there is only one Darlene, my sweet. Tee hee. Yes, I have had a nice little breaky from blogs, and have returned to make comments that make little sense. Don’t have time for my own blog though. Too much effort trying to keep a blog going on your own.
Puss is doing well. Contradicting my previous point, puss aka Jess has got a lovely little tiny tent she sleeps in, she has responded well to this Feliway diffuser thing, she’s got tons of toys: in other words she’s an over-induldged brat from the inner-city of Melbourne.
I chanced to see Bronwyn Bishop talking about this very subject on 4 Corners last night, her portly form swathed in well-heeled North Shore matron gear, coiffed to the max, oversized pearls around her neck and with that gracious crocodile smile of hers telling everybody that we should go back to the 1950s and start ripping those kids away from those undeserving, wicked parents right now and give them to deprived couples (presumably with money and good morals) who are just dying to have a child of their own. There’s just too much political correctness in the world these days, she sniffs, oh if only government had the power we had in the old days, things would be so much simpler…
Honestly, how could anyone take her call seriously?
Right, we’ll need a list of those things which automatically rate you as unfit to parent:
1 - Workaholic (say.. more than 38 hours per week);
2 - Fan of Michael Buble;
3 - …
If we can incorporate DNA sampling perhaps we can determine those with ‘unfit to parent’ tendencies and have them made barren/castrated. Of course this won’t help the adoptable baby supply problem..
Ms Bishop’s comments betray her innate prejudices: “There are hundreds and hundreds of parents who are desperate to adopt children…’
Note she says ‘parents’, not ‘people who want to be parents’, or ‘potential parents’. What she really means is that people who are more like her should be entitled to be parents. Unfortunately for them, wanting to be parent doesn’t make you one, it’s actually having the child which makes you a parent. But in Ms Bishop’s world, if you’re white and middle class, you’ve got that entitlement, but not if you’re poor and struggling with addiction. This debate will never be resolved on the issues if the Senator who is leading the enquiry won’t acknowledge her prejudices.
.
See my comment above http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/23/riiiggghhhht/#comment-386812
This has precisely nothing to do with the well-being of children and everything to do with the ugly prejudices of a particularly nasty human being. Bronnie would be right at home running a concentration camp or, to bring matters up date, a detention centre.
Ah for the days when i used to bump into our Bronny at the Kingston IGA, coiffure frosted and amazingly short. In fact, it fueled my suspicions that she is in fact suffering from the little-known ’short-woman’s syndrome’. TV does not tell the full tale.
Naturally she wasn’t doing anything as plebeian as purchasing milk or bread.. in fact she rarely seemed to be found other than in the checkout queue or the liquor section.
I sometimes wonder how I resisted the temptation to tip her headfirst into the freezer…
Whatis the upside of leaving a child with a negletful and/or addicted parent then? In my own opinion it should take more than the ability to bump uglies to allow you to engage in behaviour, which if was done to a dog, would see the dog removed from you.
If the ties of a mother/father to a child are so strong and should never be broken then why take children even on a short term basis?
Isnt an addict as likely to take action to straighten out if they have lost their child, as when it is removed for a short while over and over?
Its not simple, any action applied as a “this is whats best” template will fail a percentage of either refoming parents or abused children.
Who in peoples opinion should make that call?
And who in peoples opinion should lose their offspring?
Should children ever be left with severely addicted/neglectful parents?
Should “unworthy” parents be steralised? (reversable) until they demonstrate the ability to look after a child?
All michevous questions, but i hope a few people will indulge me by attempting to answer them.
PS: I dont know is a valid answer, because i sure as hell dont.
As to Tigtog’s smarty pants gotcha question:
“Finally, what are the implications in conjunction with the indigenous emergency interventions, in communities where we know drug addiction is a huge problem?”
If she were to take the time to inform herself better she would know that we already have an apartheid child protection system. Aboriginal children need to be in a substantially more abusive environment than a white/asian/whatever child before welfare authorities will intervene.
One can only hope that ‘Brassy Bronnie’ includes alcoholic, pill popping politicians on her hit list. The neighbour’s dogs are barking……….ah…at least that’s something that makes sense, unlike the doggerel this vile, opportunistic politician asks the Australian people to swallow whenever she opens her mouth. The instant any politician speaks those appalling words,”but what about the children!!!!”, we’re all in the pooh.
So many different points, I hardly know upon which to comment. (An aside, and maybe i should nip across to Hoyden for this, but has anyone ever seen a post in which the women were so strong and undivided? Forget the ‘names’ anyone who couldn’t pick the ovary owners ought to shut up.)
I cannot speak on their area of expertise (these damm chromosones) but trust their judgment(on any issue really, stressed concrete or toilet training, both vitally important to a functioning society) but I would like to take up the ‘addict’ point.
Who qualifies, cancer sticks, workaholics, IKEA freeks or ‘Sam Stone’?
The hypocrisy of addiction treatment using Methadone (a proprietary product - hint, hint)is gob smacking. Far more addictive and a dangerous withdrawal, compared to heroin (”like bad ‘flu - only a couple of days of climbing the walls” according to the very experienced Human Riff aka the world’s most elegantly wasted human being - can’t see it myself but he’s still around).
The only reason the Establishment funds Methadone is that there is (relatively) little PLEASURE in its thrall. That’s what they are most exercised about - unearned pleasure, can’t be having with that.
Surely drug use per se is not the issue, its the neglect that sometimes follows in its wake, and draws the attention of teachers, doctors, welfare.
Sublime - in a just & decent world, absolutely but look around. The likes of Beehive & her ilk aren’t anymore concerned about junkies’ kids than they are about NT kids, it’s typical moral panic, wedge, dog whistle, call it what you like, it’s about fracturing commuity not uniting it.
SO is the point to debate the issue, or debate BB’s appearance and/or role on the committee?
Have fought this manfully and now succumb, finally got the better of me.
OK Darlene, what is, “…this Feliway diffuser thing…”?
the more important social problem permeating all levels of society and requiring an immediate federal government response (involving the trammelling of validly enacted state laws and the disposition of legal rights with no compensation other than from the warm glow of the smug self-knowledge that GOOD is being done by thee) is the addiction to a fantasy belief in an afterlife and in the existence of some all-knowing, omni-present non-material entity, which these sadly afflicted delusional types often call “God” (the phrase “fairies in the garden” having fallen into disrepute).
Now i wonder what Ms Bishop is doing about this very real, horrible blight on society. And of course the most horrible thing of all is that these sad pathetic addicts are spreading their addictions to their very own children!!! no civilised society should stand for such wanton abuse of the young and vulnerable. think about the children!!! act now Bronwyn!!!