Correction Re Adoption Policy
A few days ago I posted on the subject of adoption. This a subject I have some experience with as my wife and I have two adopted children.
When adopting a child, you cannot "take possession" at birth, you must wait 12 days.
This to allow the birth family, or more usually, the mother, every opportunity to change her mind. During the 12 day period, the baby must be looked after by a nominated foster carer, relative of the birth mother etc.
I disagree with this policy as, in my opinion it allows time for the birth mother to bond with the baby and sometimes results in an emotional reversal of her earlier rational decision.
A correspondent to the anti Child Youth and Family website claimed that this policy was just that-a CYF policy with no actual force in law. I reprinted his claim, expressing my surprise. I thought it was law.
I have before me a letter from our adoption social worker (she saw my post)stating very clearly that the "waiting" policy is indeed the law of the land.
I apologise for any misunderstandings that may have occurred.
When adopting a child, you cannot "take possession" at birth, you must wait 12 days.
This to allow the birth family, or more usually, the mother, every opportunity to change her mind. During the 12 day period, the baby must be looked after by a nominated foster carer, relative of the birth mother etc.
I disagree with this policy as, in my opinion it allows time for the birth mother to bond with the baby and sometimes results in an emotional reversal of her earlier rational decision.
A correspondent to the anti Child Youth and Family website claimed that this policy was just that-a CYF policy with no actual force in law. I reprinted his claim, expressing my surprise. I thought it was law.
I have before me a letter from our adoption social worker (she saw my post)stating very clearly that the "waiting" policy is indeed the law of the land.
I apologise for any misunderstandings that may have occurred.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
2/08/2007 01:11:00 PM
7 Comments:
Adoption should be a matter between the biological parents nd the adoptive parents. There's no need for the nanny state to get involved. Free market solutions work in this area as in others. So will Act take a principled libertarian stand and abolish state regulation of family life, enabling a free market to develop?
Anon-ACT is not and has never claimed to be a libertarian party.
I, and many other members are libs-others are conservatives, soc-dems and classic liberals.
While I think you are quite right in your analysis, not all ACT members, nor a large chunk of the the voting public would likely agree with you.
ACT is focussed on certain big issues. Achieving these is ACT's role.
Pushing principled but hard to sell policy is the role of pressure groups.
The public will never agree until they are sold the message. At the moment they hear phrases like a 'free market in kids' and get frightened. But when they come to realise that the market is the only sane way of making decisions, and that the state should have no right to regulate transactions between biological and adoptive parents, then they will chnage their tune. That's why a party to the right of the toothless and left-drifting ACT is an urgent necessity in NZ today.
Two options anon-
1 join the Libertarianz-a very fine bunch-who are certainly not scared to advance principled positions.
2 Start your own party-after you've liberated Iran that is.
I will be sticking with ACT, which I believe offers the best blend of principle and practicality to advance the cause of freedom in this country.
So you power wins out over principle for the de facto socialist Trev!
No anon-sense wins over silliness.
adoptionadoptee
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home