Keeping things in context is a very important requirement when reviewing anything.

But I fail to see the problem with the apology... because an 'apology' is a sorry to a victim of 'their experience'. It's not about making excuses as you say sorry!

It was a 'sorry' to the children, and to the mothers. They got what they deserve... a belated 'acknowledgement' of their pain.

Their experience was a Human Rights Violation of epic proportions. (which barely existed back then... keeping it in context).

The thing I see missing here, which is missing in too many current situations... that of the irresponsible 'sperm donor'. Which of these 'mothers' were pressured unrelentingly by a boyfriend or raped against their will, by a father or other relation?

Who bailed out in 'taking responsibility' for the result of their 'pleasure'??

You mentioned: "There are also now virtually no children available for local adoption in Australia (only 45 nationally in 2010-11), though abortion is likely to also be a big influence."

.....maybe, but how is this relevent to an apology? (how dare young mothers demand to keep their own children, hmmmm??)

The churches were doing a great service of support... that which the men weren't taking up responsibility for!

And on that, the Government, in their obligatory role is managing to assist 'single mums' bring up the country's future citizens, (to some degree). "Some" stats do show children suffering in their single mum homes, sure. And who is to blame? ..good for nothing single mums! Where are the daddy's? .. they were violent, angry, had little morals or respect, they hurt me and the children, he doesn't help with child rearing.... but it's still mum's fault for managing so badly!

...are you getting the picture of the 'current context' of the life of Responsibility for single mums and their children's wellbeing... and the Governments (responsibility) is to support them, WHY? ...many father's lack of ABILITY to RESPOND to the needs of others, their children & the rights of their children's mothers to be supported and respected etc etc.

Just saying!

AND an apology for referring to mothers as 'birth mothers' as opposed to adoptive mothers, AND an apology from Crean for 'taking away from' the 'special day'.....AND an apology for...... talk about precious.

Fully concur with Mr O'Reillys' article. Historic context, accurate statistical information and an understanding of prevailing motives and mores would help in all this historic revisionism. Anyone daring to question the prevailing rights/left/green/feminist/victim paradigm is well.... Obviously a misogynist.

The article offers salutatory historical perspective and some balance on a highly emotional issue which has now been exploited by unscrupulous politicians.

One sympathises with pain suffered, but one apologises for injustice perpetrated. When adoptions were forced, the relinquishing mothers didn’t only suffer pain - they suffered injustice which was imposed on them by officials backed by force. The author seems to be excusing these acts on the ground of overwhelming public self-righteousness at the time. There was overwhelming public support for burning witches once - it remained a despicable act.

Does anyone else see the contradiction in Gillard offering an apology to mothers and their new-born children for coerced adoptions in years past, and today cutting back on the support offered to single mothers trying to raise a child on their own?
The hypocrisy of our PM is simply astonishing.

Horse feathers, bird's fur and Bah humbug!
Very young women had their children stolen by an all powerful entity or entities. Who arguably gave themselves irrefutable God-like power?
Single mums were not offered a choice, and frequently had their signatures extracted under extreme duress and or powerful hypnotic drugs, or both.
There is no way to sugar coat what was done, which is far beyond the pale and entirely inexcusable!
Let alone allow mums and kids, to be further traumatised, by apologists or revisionists, like the patently calloused and indifferent author, have far too few regrets?
My own sainted mother raised four, born in holy wedlock, kids on her own.
Affordable Govt housing seemed to go to far better off foreigners first!
The state contributed a few shillings a month; not even enough for footwear.
I spent a large potion of my childhood, being both abused and brainwashed in orphanages and foster homes, as did my siblings.
I was on the handles of a commercial polisher, aged just six!
Whipped daily; and beaten unconscious, by an adult male, aged just 11!
I do recall those footsteps leading to our cabin, as a woman abandoned and despised by her friends and relatives; and her church, was left to go it alone, or given no other choice!
And least we forget, there are people in positions of power and or trust, who would if they but could, return us to those days.
Rhrosty.

Thanks, Rhrosty, for letting the light of reality into this discussion. My own childhood was secure and privileged, but that is no excuse for brushing aside the experiences of countless others with mealy-mouthed excuses about different times, different public perceptions. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Rhrosty’s final paragraph is a dire warning put in another way by Harry Truman – (paraphrased): “When a finger appears under the door jump on it, or it will be followed by a hand and an arm and reach for your throat.”. We have seen a probing finger in this article and in some of the responses to it.

thank you for a politically incorrect but very realistic article
The reality was that single mothers then were vulnerable and marginalised
This was the best solution under the conditions of the time and was generally made with the best intentions
The issue that should now be raised is whether , because of these past "mistakes" , this will inhibit the people now in charge making any decision at all , for fear of being critised and held to account in the future

peasant... disagree with your 'reality'
single mothers back then were definitely 'vulnerable' ... but

marginalised ??
"(tr) to relegate to the fringes, out of the mainstream; make seem unimportant"

That doesn't go near to explaining the trauma experienced and abuse of human rights and life long pain of each mother and child ...

Nobody is served by minimising the pain of others.

The Government have never and will never perfect their job/responsibilities, they will always (seemingly) do the best they can at any given time, make improvements... accountability is essential.

It's just an apology... it clearly made a difference to them... and may there be many more!

thanks Brendon for some balanced perspective. No doubt Conroy would want you shut up and the ABC allowed to continue to sprout its dogmas and propaganda.

An apology to those who had their children taken from them without their consent is not ipso facto a condemnation of adoption as a policy.

The apology was about forced adoptions and I think we would be a pretty callous society if we did not acknowledge some of the tactics used to separate mother and child using what were, in some instances, highly illegal processes. Not to mention highly unethical and against any semblance of what might constitute human rights.

In effect it was the State, or delegates of the State, that took it upon themselves to make these decisions on behalf of others when they had no right.

The Catholic Church haven't yet apologised for the baby farming and the failure of the guardian ad Litums appointed by the courts for their role in the abductions of newborns from the 'legal status' of mother upon the child. Catholic health in the mainland/Newcastle dioceses certainly apologised for the practise as they were the administrators of such hospitals in that dioceses, but not outside that dioceses. Under the 1958 Adoption of children Act in Victoria, the parish priest appointed by the courts failed to act under rules 19-21, and as such false affidavits were sworn to the courts.
I was born under the Victorian 'removal policy' written in 1960 by the superintendent of the RWH and delivered by him under the influence of LSD that both my mother and I were subjected to in the birthing suite. The effects were lifelong with the mothers milk poisoned by LSD and in turn if the child was to go out to the mother, the child was a risk of death by gangrene. The effects of LSD in eutro knocked both mother and unborn child into a comatosed state where the child required a forceps delivery and aspiration to I've life. The child received kidney damage as a result and the pension entitlement were paid to the hospital, not to the mother.. My mother passed away due to cancer some 25 years ago, and the same fate awaits me with a cancer diagnosis from 25 years ago.

How very very sad that people who write articles do not do their research first. I was one of the mothers in the great hall on Thursday and I can prove my child was removed illegally as I have papers from the Supreme Court of NSW to show that no form was signed to show that I agreed to the adoption. I was not put in a home by my parents, I had a good job and was at an age that I could have raised my baby. All I needed was to be told that there was help for the first few months and a pension to go with this.

For those who continue to condemn the girls and say the children were better off with adopters, then you must be either adopters or have adopted children somewhere in your extended families.

The Catholic Church was only one of the agencies, the biggest being the Child Welfare Dept so this blaming the churches for everything is quite wrong.

Unless you have made this journey and walked in the shoes of the mothers and adoptees you should not take it upon your uneducated self to comment.

Pointing out factual errors in the Apology, as well as the historical context, is not the same as justifying everything that was done.

Had church-sponsored adoption societies not been in existence back then, single mothers would still not have had the means to keep and raise their children. Instead of the babies of single mums being adopted in an orderly fashion, very many would have ended up on the streets with their mothers, or in institutions.

The Prime Minister could have taken responibility for the Federal Government sitting on its hands back in that era but chose not to. The single parents themselves (male as well as female) are also not without responibility

I woke up almost every day of my life wishing and hoping that day would be the one that I was told I was adopted and the two brutal thugs that beat and abused and tortured me were not my parents.

Alas it never came true so I had to tolerate the abuse without a skerrick of help from the priest, the police or the headmaster who played golf with my child molesting alcoholic bash artist father and my drugged out anorexic bash artist of a mother.

The older generation know only too well what the shortcomings were in those days, your letter is very well written and I remember all of what you have said.
One aspect that worries me is that the father of the child is treated as non existent where the adoption was concerned,apology for women but what about the young men, they also should receive an apology, men are always treated as though they do not belong which is terribly incorrect, we all wonder where our offspring are in this world and long to know of the children as much as the female.

You said "I dispute the assumption in the official apology that relinquishing mothers were regarded by the community as having rejected their adopted child." Two years ago I spoke with a nurse who worked in the hospital in which my child was taken from me on the delivery table (despite my protests - and by the way they refused to tell me if I had a boy or girl)and her words to me were "We felt sorry for the babies because they were not wanted." Read the Senate enquiry report before you make blanket statements about adoption like this. It was illegal to deny me my child when I constantly asked for her. Also illegal to apply coercion and duress to get my signature by saying things like "what can you give the baby", how can you look after a baby, the baby deserves two parents, If you love the baby you will adopt it, the baby deserves the best.....and on and on. Illegal to take "consent" when I was so distressed and crying that I could not comprehend what was being said. The adoption act was put in place to protect me from such coercion and duress but this ignored. The "consent" form stated that it was to be filled out in my handwriting - it was not - it was pre filled in. There are three different handwriting styles on the form and only my signature in my handwriting. Afterwards it was said of me "she did not love the baby because she gave it away." I was not forced into a home by my parents, I had a job and went back to it after I lost my baby. I never said that I wanted to adopt my baby. Get your facts right. I deserved an apology and recognition of the loss of my baby to forced adoption. I could tell you lots more of my horrendous experiences in hospital and the discrimination I suffered. I am not alone, thousands of women were denied their right.

Well written Mr O'Reilly. Certainly there were many many young women who would have WANTED to keep their babies but for the social and economic climate of those times - which some of us can comment on with credibility as we've lived through them.

Nowadays - as pointed out, very few babies come up for adoption since almost all unmarried mothers without partners expect the State to support them and their offspring. Society is expected to accept this as 'normal practice' and a valid lifestyle choice.

So where has this change brought us today? Do any people seriously believe OVERALL that the lives of children being reared by single mothers dependent on welfare - often at risk of neglect or abuse from Mum, or more likely her latest BF, living on the breadline are BETTER than the children of previous eras who were adopted?

If yes, I suggest you are a Social Worker who depends on the misery for a living or some sort of head-in-the-clouds idealist without a clue. Immature and underage girls give birth to dear little babies - oh it's such a wonderful thing and all that - until reality hits. And it hits even harder when sweet little baby turns into a terrible toddler ... and so on. If "Mum" isn't living with her parent/s getting a lot of help and guidance it's a very hard row and it's the child that often suffers. We are seeing the effects more now as these children become adults and perpetuate the cycle.

Continued ...

My solution would be to offer pregnant underage girls a significent amount of money to give their newborns up for adoption. I believe the "Baby Bonus" heralded a spike in teen pregnancies especially amongst the "welfare family" demographic. $5,000 if you had a baby - WOW! That would buy baby daddy a clapped out Commodore AND enough over for a big TV.

A once only payment of say $15,000 to assist them get their lives together. The conditions - contraceptive implant until they reach age 20 or marry.

As for adoptive parents and adoptees - I have a very large extended family and there are a number of adoptees. Two within the family and 7 external. Apart from one who is alcoholic they are all fine members of their communities, good parents themselves and completely accepted and accepting. Bar one 'internal' adoptee not told his "Aunt" was his biological mother until he was very adult, the others have all been informed of their origin early in life. Most have looked for birth mothers or other kin, two have declined to go there.

Admittedly I am fortunate to belong to a good mob and some adoptees have not been as lucky. I still have good reason to believe however that on the whole, a child adopted into a family so eager to be parents and motivated to provide that child with the best they can is way better off than the one living in a cramped dingy flat with a 17yr old mummy and a new 'daddy' who'd rather the kid wasn't on the scene. Get the picture?

Thank you Brendan O'Reilly for an honest and very well and sensitively presented article. A worthy effort to place this sensitive and troubling issue in perspective.

Capabilities, facilities and societal attitudes have fortunately evolved, but even now there are tragedies where children are failed by the 'system' - being left in abusive or neglectful households (mostly biological rather than adoptive, it would seem) - as support services are stretched or inadequately funded, or where reluctance to remove children, even temporarily, from 'troubled' biological households has become the new policy and philosophy.
Thankfully most children are now significantly better off, though some still fall through the cracks in an imperfect system.
Once born, it is right that society as a whole has a responsibility to provide as best it can for the welfare and future prospects of all our children, but it remains moot whether it is in society's best interest to facilitate a substantial increase in ex-nuptial births. This remains a substantially vexed issue.

It is clear failures were made in the past, and I feel for the parents, families and children involved; but I also feel for the carers, who would have had to harden their hearts to the plight of young mothers without means or support to raise their ex-nuptial progeny. Has anyone a care for the plight of these carers? Their task must have been a very difficult and troubling one.

So many distressing stories; thankfully many are still here to speak of them, have moved on with their lives; perhaps many more would have been lost but for a caring system which was all the same limited in its options; we can only try to do better for all concerned, but responsibility cuts both ways, and there may yet be a limit to society's willingness to absolve 'mistakes' - if some seek to abuse or take unwarranted advantage of the philanthropy and compassion of others.
The 'ghettos' of single parents are a troubling contemporary phenomenon, and we have not yet solved the problem of people living it rough on the streets. Where to from here?

Speech given by the Prime Minister to the House of Representative, March 2063.

"The Parliament apologises for policies and practices that forced the separation of single mother’s from their children by forcing them to return to work once their youngest child turned 8 - regardless of their specific circumstances.

The mothers were betrayed by a system that gave no choice to single mothers but to exist on less than $40 a day if they preferred to stay at home with their children or couldn’t find work.

We say sorry to each of you who grew up thinking your mother was a loser and a welfare bludger.

We don’t like to admit we were mistaken or misguided in thinking that single mothers who can’t or don’t work must be punished and made to suffer.

What we see in the mirror is deeply shameful and distressing because we see all around us the negative social impacts of this mistaken and misguided policy.

This story had its beginnings in a wrongful belief that women who raise their children without a man are little more than fallen women who should be ostracised by decent society.

For this we say sorry."

...Equality for Women has advanced since the 50's as evinced by the past examples of "Child Stealing" ! These days, as men have the right to Father a child, equally so to do women hold the right to parent the child until maturity. The single parent benefit is the essential ingredient of equality for Women and must be defended: So endeth the lesson from history!

Better off if adopted? You have to be joking, or know absolutely nothing about adoption, back then.
Some kids were only ever accepted as unpaid slave Labor, just as soon as the were big enough to hold a shovel, or put the teat cups on a cow, or walk behind the traces, on a horse drawn plough.
Others considered it their sacred Christian duty, to drill their particular bible belief into you, by "ALL MEANS" necessary.
Very few report a completely positive or benign outcome.
Sorry to hear about your ugly childhood Marilyn.
However, you do need to stop hating! Nothing can can change the past! The pages of history, once accurately recorded, can never ever be erased!
Be grateful that you didn't follow that abysmal example!
Truly, there is only just one thing we have absolute control over, and that is the thoughts we care to entertain in our minds, and through them our attitudes.
Given there's simply no percentage in holding onto negative thoughts, which only ever harms the holder, it's better we should always look on the bright or positive side.
Your parents were also victims of their addictions!
Had I not been a natural born optimist, with a spirit not even the harshest disciplinarian could beat out of me, I likely would not have survived, or be one on a large and growing list, who have succumbed to cancer?
A teaspoonful of love is vastly more powerful, than a whole barrel chock full of hate.
And the person you need to learn to love Marilyn, is yourself! [The greatest love of all!]
Be the very best kind and gentle person you can be, in spite of your parents, and their horrible history.
That really is the only way you can thumb your nose, or effectively demonstrate, what you really thought of them, or how much you despise them and all they represented.
Rhrosty.

Great article. It's so rare to read an article by someone who actually tries to understand why people did things in the past rather than just gushing hysteria based on ignorance and half-truths and aimed at furthering an agenda.

And I'm heartily sick of politicians apologising for other people's deeds too. If Gillard wants to apologise she could start by apologising for her lies, for the nearly 300 billion of our money she has wasted and for the most incompetent and dishonest government this counrty has ever seen (Thank god she didn't get her media laws thru or I might not even be able to make this post).

There is a lot of talking at cross purposes here.

Are there children in society that would have been better adopted out than remain with their parents? The answer is clearly YES

Are there children who were forcibly adopted out without consent of their mother? Again a clear YES

Would any of these children of forced adoptions been better or worse off? NOT KNOWN. It is not something that can possibly be measured.

Does apologising for past practices and forced adoptions in any way diminish the advantages of Adoption for many children? NO

These are all different issues.

One woman who was interviewed said her own mother was prepared to support her and help raise the baby but they never had the chance as her baby was forcibly removed. This was despite a supporting family and caring parents. It is urban legend that paints single mothers (mainly mothers) as destitute and out on the streets because it suits some past remnant of what it means to be a family.

BRENDAN O'REILLY,

YOUR IGNORANCE IS BREATHTAKING,YOU LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OWN VOICE.

WE MOTHERS OF SUCH PROFOUND LOSS ARE SICK AND TIRED OF CLOWNS LIKE YOU

BLEATING YOUR ...UNTRUTHS.....THATS WHAT THEY ARE.

YOU TITLE YOURSELF AS AN AUTHOR....YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE PROFESSION.YOU BY THIS ARTICLE SHOW YOUR RESEARCH IS ALMOST NILL AND VOID.

YOUR RANTS ABOUT US UNMARRIED MOTHERS YOU HAVE PICKED UP ALONG THE WAY. THAT SHOWS, WHERE IS YOUR RESEARCH??

IF YOU HAD AN OUNCE OF GREY MATTER AND COMMON DECENCY YOU WOULD APOLOGISE UNRESERVEDLY TO ALL YOU HAVE DEEPLY INSULTED.

ONE THING THAT SET'S US APART...WE BLOODY LIVED THIS HOLACAUST.

AND CLOWNS LIKE YOU WILL DEMEAN US NO MORE.

I SUGGEST YOU TAKE AROUND TWO YEARS TO RESEARCH THE TRUTH, STARTING WITH THE BABY SCOOP ERA RESEARCH INITIATIVE KAREN WILSON-BUTERBAUGH
I BELEIVE TO BE A WORLD LEADER IN THIS FIELD< READ HER RESEARCH< YOU WILL END UP WITH MUD ON YOUR FACE AND YOUR TAIL BETWEEN YOUR LEGS. WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF CLOWNS LIKE YOU, OUR KID GLOVES ARE OF NOW. I WONDER HOW YOU WOULD FAIRED IF YOU HAD SAID THAT ON 21st TO THE AUDIENCE GATHERED TO HEAR THE APOLOGY...YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN HUNG DRAWN AN QUARTERED.

I AM A MOTHER-OF-LOSS TO ADOPTION< A VERY IRRATE MOTHER AT THAT< READING YOUR ARTICLE DISGUSTS ME. I HAVE THE HALLMARKS OF 46 YEARS LIVING WITH THIS BOTTOMLESS ABYSS OF SORROW...COWARDS LIKE YOU WOULD NOT SURVIVE WHAT WE HAVE HAD TO ENDURE THESE YEARS

Rhrosty - if you're an adoptee and that's your experience I'm sorry for you. Not because you think you were used as slave labour - almost every child of the era was expected to pull their weight, literally. Especially if you were on the land.

What I'm sorry about is you obviously felt no love in your situation - only harsh treatment. Your story isn't confined to unfortunate 'bastards' as you'd have been labelled then but also step-children and a good many biological children.

TODAY the only difference is few adoptees since the 60s would report a similar experience. That's because they are proportionally fewer and adopting parents were motivated by desire to nurture a child. Economic value of 1st world children is long reversed - an expense to be endured until adulthood not a work unit able to utilised after 5 or 6 years. Would-be adopting parents have also been thoroughly screened by child welfare since at least the 50s

Adoptees I know are predominately from late 40s through to mid 60s. Some are part of my family, others people with whom I went to school, worked, played and formed friendships. Most were happy well adjusted people who'd enjoyed childhoods typical of the day - Mum, who was usually a home maker, Dad who brought home the bacon and usually at least one sibling, also adopted. Undoubtedly there are people for whom this arrangement didn't work but compare the proportion of unhappy abused adoptees to the unhappy abused children of biological parents and there's NO CONTEST.

What I'm pointing out is that TODAY the abused, neglected, disadvantaged child - and the number increases steadily because of social (acceptance, illegitamacy not childs fault) and economic (generous welfare) changes in the past 4 - 5 decades is virtually ALWAYS going to be in custody of biological parent/s.

If you accept some biological parents should have been 'de-sexed' at puberty and that all kids deserve love and basic needs, adoption in the 21st century seems a pretty attractive proposition.

Dane, besides demanding an apology from Julia Gillard for her lies and ineptitude, we are entitled to an apology from all the voters that voted for her party. Furthermore, the independents that sided with her to form a government, should apologise unreservedly for their disservice to the nation.

Marah66 - I'm sorry for your pain. However the RANT is yours. Brendan O'Reilly writes with balance and understanding of the times during which these things sadly happened.

He does not condemn or demean - in fact he voices sympathy for hurt caused by the practices of that era. DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE?

What he does is question the NUMBER of 'forced' adoptions, a very legitimate query. I very much do myself.

Like or not Marah66, if you were a single pregnant woman in the 50s or 60s your family would not have been rushing to congratulate you. Instead they'd have wanted a wedding PRONTO! Failing that - what to do about this shameful catastrophic event? This would have been doubly so if you were of very tender years - early to mid teens.

In most cases of 'coercion' greatest pressure would have come from your FAMILY! If it were not so - why did so many young women end up in so-called "Homes" where entire purpose was to shelter her and her family from prying eyes and tattling tongues of friends, neighbors and society generally AND for immediate adoption of the child? This is where 'forced' adoptions took place. However the majority of "inmates" (who I believe were often treated badly) voluntarily relinquished their babies.

If you had the support of your family the likely outcome was to conceal the pregnancy - sometimes even to the point of relocation and afterwards passing off the child as the grandmothers - NOT the mother 'flaunting' her condition then expecting acceptance after the birth. Like it or not, right or wrong, THAT was REALITY then.

Sympathy to young mothers who were torn from their infants - even if in truth many were too young, unsupported and impoverished to realistically keep their baby. Also for those who signed papers with great sadness believing they were giving their child a better chance in life.

I sincerely hope all birth parents - including fathers and adoptees who wish it are able to reunite. Mostly brings peace of mind and reassurance in my experience.

This is in reply to Mr O"Reilly.The political shenanigans certainly overshadowed the Forced Adoption Apology.I have a feeling that was by design rather than accident.However I would like to take the opportunity to reply to your rather misguided opinion on whether the Apology was indeed based upon half truths.

I believe that prior to the National Apology all the States had apologized for their part in such dastardly deeds......in fact I believe the Northern Territory was the only " state " yet to apologize....and it will do so in the coming week..as it should.

The Catholic Church, The Anglican Church and the Uniting Church have all apologized...as has the Benevolent Society.I believe the St Vincent de Paul Society is playing hardball.

"Historical revisionism, the critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography "....unfortunately these are not presumed historical facts...they are facts that are well documented and have been researched by a Committee of 11 employed to do so by the Australian Attorney-General. These include Professor Nahum Mushin, Senator Rachel Siewert, Senator Claire Moore,Senator Sue Boyce, Mr Graham Perrett MP among others. I am sure they looked over many many documents and heard many many harrowing stories. There is no implied criticism, the criticism is real.....

part one

part two...

and then you pull out the old " mores of the time ".....there was no support, money, accommodation etc argument ....which has been well and truly disproved ...the was a widows pension brought in 1942, child endowment in 1941..and many mothers were entitled to these if only they had known about them. Being poor does not make you a bad parent.

An adoption is only made through loss.....the loss of a child or parent....

The deliberate policy of preventing bonding was in fact an illegal act...well known to be illegal but the legalities were ignored.......because they were ignored does not make them less illegal.The mother was in fact the legal guardian of the baby she had born.....and it was illegal to remove that child with out her consent. Babies taken from the delivery room with out their mothers consent is an illegal act.... A mother does not "relinquish" her child unless she is given choices....choices implies at least two options.

part three

I am unsure of why you think adoption was/is such a wonderful thing...or why you think adopted people should think so.....unless you are of the opinion that adopted people should be grateful for being removed from their family of origin, their roots, their cultures and put into a position of " fulfilling " some one else? This is not tough love.....this is abuse.....using some one else to overcome your own shortcomings....

Quote "Though some find it jarring to see "slavery" and "adoption" in the same sentence, the indisputable connection is the contract at the heart of each institution. Both bind individuals to a lifelong covenant between other persons and the state, without ever giving the individual so bound a say in such a contact." ( attributed to Heather Andrea Williams )......

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible. Recognizing this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her."

Past Adoption practices and policies deserve the condemnation that has been heaped on them...no one had the right to take my child.....I was not allowed to parent....so how was it a foregone conclusion that I was a lesser parent?

Your paternalistic ideals are outdated.....

Oh dear, The article begins with some questioning of figures and references to the historical beliefs and practices and then deteriorates into heavy reliance on prejudice and an appeal to emotions.
1) It shouldn't matter if there were 150,000 adoptions or 150, many mothers were not given a real choice and this was "legitimised" by government practices and policies. Other countries did not pursue adoption with the same rigour. In some countries mothers were assisted to find work and in some they were forced to keep their children, as if in punishment. Never was there a majority of ex-nuptial children placed for adoption as mothers in working class families were more likely to be supported by their families and they were also more likely to assume that they would be employed. The apology was for government policy following the beliefs that a single mother was not a good mother and not worthy of support. Even when a mother signed a consent form in the legal manner there was little or no choice, particularly if she was without family support. If she had been living in one of the church operated homes she was probably subjected to "counseling"and the more she had, the more likely she was to place her child for adoption.
2) Single mothers are just the same as married mothers. We don't all end up in the gutter abusing our children. With the rise of de facto relationships and the demise of the lifelong marriage there is a blurring of lines. My statistics are out of date but I vividly remember ex-married women far outnumbering single mothers on government payments and remaining out of the workforce for longer. But that is a moot point because all women should have the choice to stay at home with the children if they want to. Our children are pretty much just like every other child as well except they are a bit more likely to be independent.

jenny H,
It's simple not right that children from single parent families do as well or better than those from two parent families. They clearly don't and there are many statistics to support that. And before you tell me your personal story, I'll ask you not to. I'm not interested in personal stories of successful single mothers because they are not representative of the majority.

Jenny H,
I agree with your point that all women should have the choice to stay home with their children if they want to - it's just I don't think I should have to pay for it. If we abolished single mothers' payments and reinstated at-fault divorce (no-fault divorce has really come to mean men's fault) then we wouldn't have so many women initiating divorces and 'moving on' (to the pension in many cases) and causing children to be raised with only one parent. That would actually be in the best interests of the child but again, we know that the best interests of the child really means 'the best interests of the mother's ability to do whatever she wants' in practice.