WIXLIB

Irish adoption practice holds as fundamental the followingvalues:Confidentiality The assurance that private information will bemade available only to those third parties whohave a right to the information or to individualswhose professional involvement warrants access tothe information.Fairness The assurance that objectivity will be maintainedand bias avoided.Equity The assurance that equality of opportunity will beprovided to those availing of the service.Accountability The assurance that professionals will acceptresponsibility for outcomes from practice andaction taken.Respect A commitment to protecting the inherent worthand dignity of each individual and promoting thisperspective in those availing of the service.6

Autonomy A commitment to enabling informed and freedecisions; this value is also referred to as Client SelfDetermination.Knowledge A commitment to providing clear, value-freeinformation and updating such information whenappropriate; ensuring that each person has therelevant information to enable him/her to make aninformed decision.Beneficence A commitment to act for the good or well being ofthe individual.7

PART TWOHistorical Context of Irish AdoptionLegal adoption was introduced in England and Wales in1926, Northern Ireland in 1929, and Scotland in 1930.“Pressure for legal adoption did not, however, start tobuild up in Ireland until the late 1930’s and did notbecome urgent until the second half of the 1940’s and,perhaps, then because of the increase in the illegitimacyrate” (Darling, 1977, p6). The Adoption Society (Ireland)was formed in 1948 as a pressure group for theintroduction of legal adoption. “Yet despite its scratchnature, it proved an uncommonly effective pressuregroup” (Whyte, 1980, p185). However, there wasconsiderable resistance towards any form of legaladoption. There was a fear that parents would simply giveaway or abandon their children, or that they would havechildren simply to sell them (Shatter, 1997, p445). “It wasthe strong feeling, especially in the Irish countryside, thatproperty should go to someone of one’s own blood”(Whyte, 1980, p187). “It has been suggested that fear ofproselytisation was probably the strongest objection tolegal adoption” (O’Hare et al, 1983, p13).The Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. McQuaid, initially opposedthe introduction of adoption legislation. He was notopposed to the concept of legal adoption as such, but wasconcerned for the protection of the rights of the motherand child. He felt too much emphasis was being placed onthe rights of the adoptive couple (Whyte, 1980, p192). TheCatholic Church was consulted closely about thelegislation “and the text of the bill bore out the closeness ofthe consultation, for regard was had to all the limits andsafeguards for which the committee of the hierarchy hadasked” (Whyte, 1980, p276).8

Any discussion on ethics in adoption in Ireland must beunderstood not only in the historical and political contextof the time, as outlined above, but also in the social climatethat prevailed when legal adoption was first introduced.The 1950s was a decade characterised by poverty,unemployment and massive emigration. The prevailingmoral code of the time dictated that no family form wasacceptable other than the traditional nuclear family basedon marriage, as enshrined in the Constitution andpropagated by the Roman Catholic Church. The passing ofthe 1952 Adoption Act allowed for non-marital childrenonly to be adopted by legally married, heterosexualcouples. This bestowed the status of ‘legitimacy’ on theadopted child, serving as a mechanism for removing thestigma of non-marital birth from the child, while alsosatisfying the parenting needs of couples.Current Trends in Irish Adoption (Source: adapted fromthe Practice Guidelines for Domestic Adoption Assessmentin Ireland, 2006 P13-14, unpublished)Since legal adoption was introduced in Ireland, over 43,000adoption orders have been granted. The number of ordersgranted peaked in 1967 to 1,493, a figure which accountedfor 96.9% of non-marital births that year. By 2007 thisfigure had dropped to 187 adoption orders, accounting for0.81% on non-marital births (Report of An Bord Uchtala,2007, p41). Within this period the profile of adoption inIreland changed immensely. This change is characterisedby; The decline in the total number of adoption ordersgranted.The decline in traditional infant agency adoption.9

The move from a closed to a more open form ofadoption involving ongoing contact between thebirth/natural and the adoptive familyAn increase in family adoptions, particularly stepparent adoptions.The introduction of the Adoption Act, 1988 whichallows for the adoption of marital children withoutbirth/natural parents’ consent.The Adoption Act, 1998 which makes provision forthe consultation of birth/natural fathers inadoption applications.A demand for the further development of socialwork and mediation services to birth/naturalfathers.A significant increase in the rate of Inter-CountryAdoption.The introduction of the Adoption Act, 1991.An upsurge in the number of Information andTracing queries countrywide.An ever increasing demand for Post AdoptionServices.The establishment of both the National AdoptionContact Preference Register, 2005 and theStandardised Framework for the Provision of aNational Information and Tracing Service, 2007.Despite these changes, some of the traditionalcharacteristics of Irish adoption remain, for exampleconcealed pregnancies, secrecy and stigma (O’Carroll,2002). Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that adoption,as it is traditionally framed in Ireland, facilitates theretention of these characteristics (Mahon et al, 1998,O’Carroll, 2002, Loughran and Richardson, 2005). Newcharacteristics also emerge in contemporary adoptionincluding various blended family arrangements andincreased complexities around individual cases (Loftus,10

2004); for example, the increased involvement ofbirth/natural fathers with their children and in theadoption process. These new characteristics can beattributed to the great social and economic changes inIreland in recent times.Thus, there is a recognition among adoption practitionersof a need to reframe adoption as a modern child careoption in a creative way to meet the needs of modern Irishsociety and the changing profile of children requiringpermanent care (Doherty, 1990, p13, O’Carroll 2002, p88,Loughran and Richardson 2005, p17). (Source: adaptedfrom the Practice Guidelines for Domestic AdoptionAssessment in Ireland, 2006 P13-14, unpublished)Ethical Dilemmas in Irish AdoptionDebate regarding adoption often focuses on the issue ofrights: the rights of the child, the rights of thebirth/natural parents, the rights of the adoptive parents. Itmust be acknowledged that these rights and needs are notcomplementary and, in fact, can often be in conflict.Balancing rights and needs is an ongoing ethical issue inadoption.A fundamental social work principle in adoption practiceseeks to hold the best interests of the child at the centre ofall considerations. However, should this ‘paramountcyprinciple’ take into account the entire life of the adoptedperson or the child’s needs at the time of the adoptiononly? This is just one of many ethical dilemmas facingadoption social workers.In considering the social work values as set out on pages 6and 7, other challenges and dilemmas which routinelypresent themselves in adoption practice are as follows:11

Confidentiality Total confidentiality, meaning privacy or secrecy, isnever guaranteed in social work. Safe workingpractices, alone, require that information regardingthe client is shared with at least one ion on the social worker’s practice. Anongoingchallengefacingadoptionprofessionals and, in particular those working inthe area of Adoption Information and Tracing,relates to confidentiality and promises of secrecy inthe past. Practice up until the late 1980’s saw manybirth/natural mothers given guarantees of secrecyin order to make a ‘fresh start’ after placing theirchildren for adoption. These promises left manybirth/natural mothers with a sense of protection.However, for their children, this guarantee hasbecome a barrier to information they have a deeplyfelt need for and to which they believe they have aright. The dilemma facing adoption social workers is oneof balancing the need for privacy for one memberof the adoption circle with the need for opennessand information for another member of the circle;whose need takes precedence?Fairness The question needs to be asked, are we ever totallyfree of bias? Adoption is a highly emotive subject,drawing on strong views among members of thepublic and some members of the social workprofession alike. Among some professionals thereexists a bias against adoption, as repeatedlyindicated in the research (Richardson andLoughran, 2005, Richardson 1993, McCashin 1996,O’Donohue 1990).12

Equity Ensuring equality of opportunity to all thoseseeking adoption services can be challenging,especially given the perception among someservice users and some professionals that ‘theloudest voice prevails’. How can adoption workersensure that those without a voice, especially thechild at the centre of the process, are given equalityof opportunity? Kelly (2005) and Richardson and Loughrane (2005)found that social conditions, including poverty andsocial stigma, continue to influence the decision toplace a child for adoption. These studies cite thereality that some birth/natural parents continue toplace their children for adoption out of a sense ofhaving no other option open to them. How cansocial workers advocate for families in a way thatensures equality of opportunity, so that parents donot feel they have no option open to them otherthan adoption? As a profession, social work stands accused offacilitating the movement, through adoption, ofchildren from poor/disadvantaged communities toricher/more socially advantaged communitieswithout sufficiently challenging the conditionswhereby parents are obliged to relinquish theirchildren (Vass, 1996). Social workers are challengedto address this issue while simultaneously holdingand supporting the needs of individual adoptivefamilies. There is growing concern among adoptionpractitioners in Ireland and overseas (Evan BDonaldson Institute, 1999), regarding intercountryadoption in terms of adoption ethics, market forces(Freundlich & Phillips, 2000) and an apparentlygrowing consumer-driven culture in adoption13

practice (Triseliotis et al, 1997). Social workersstruggle with these ethical issues in a countrywhich gives a statutory right to assessment forintercountry adoption to any individual aged 21years and upwards (or, if a married couple, one ofthe applicants is aged 21 years and upwards) in thisState. This statutory right to a service impactsdirectly on the provision of services to otheradoption service users and impacts directly thevalue of equity.Accountability Some past practices in adoption services fell shortof the value of accountability. Ensuring that currentand future practice meets the highest standardsrequires continuous scrutiny and review. Given thedemands on overstretched services, this may not beas straightforward as it appears. To whom are adoption workers accountable; theagency, the professional organisation, the AdoptionBoard, the courts, the child, birth/natural parents,adoptive parents? At what venue are these issueseven debated?Respect While recognising the need to respect the wish forprivacy of birth/natural and prospective adoptiveparents, social workers strive constantly to balancethis value with the need for relevant information;the information sought assists in the matching andplacement for adoption of a child.Autonomy Client self-determination poses challenges at manylevels in adoption.14

The birth/natural parents’ wish to defer decisionmaking may be in conflict with the child’s need fora permanent home. Babies are particularlyvulnerable with regard to timing around decisionmaking in the first year of life. In 2007, only 32% ofbabies placed for domestic adoption were under 6months old (Adoption Board Annual Report 2007,p35).Legal restrictions and adoption practice limit theprospective adopter’s wish to become a parentwithout the necessity of professional assessment.Further legal restrictions apply when the adoptedperson seeks identifying information regardinghis/her biological background.When seeking to enable informed and freedecisions, social workers work within theserestrictions and recognise that client autonomy islimited.Knowledge Crucial issues in relation to this value begin withthe importance of informing the birth/naturalparents about the impact of adoption in a timelyfashion, thus enabling them to consider the optionswithout undue pressure. This value may be inconflict with the child’s need for timely decisions(Kelly, 2005). This core value creates additional challenges forsocial workers providing an intercountry adoptionservice, as anecdotal evidence and a growingamount of international literature suggest thatthere is some doubt over birth/natural parentsbeing facilitated in making informed decisionsregarding adoption in some placing countries. Providing balanced information to prospectiveadoptive parents so that they can appreciate both15

the rewards and challenges in adoption isimportant. Given the paucity of reliable research inintercountry adoption, especially in relation topractice in some sending countries, social workersare challenged when trying to meet thisresponsibility especially when relying on anecdotalevidence that itself may not be balanced.When the birth/natural parent relinquishes a child,is the child's right to know who they are and whattheir background is, also relinquished? Manyadopted people need to know about their origins inorder to have a complete sense of themselves andto feel connected to the world both genetically andenvironmentally. Should adopted people have thelegal right to access all information aboutthemselves? Can they be harmed by their exclusionfrom information about their origins and early life?Beneficence Seeking to act for the good of one individual in theadoption process may risk causing harm to anotherperson.For example Attempting to balance the birth/natural parents’needs and rights may not be complementary to thechild’s need of and right to a permanent home. Similarly, seeking to act for the good of the adoptedperson’s need for information may risk harm to thebirth/natural parent who has a continued need forsecrecy. In adoptive parent assessment there is a need toensure that, in meeting the adult’s need for a child,the focus remains on the child’s need for a safe,secure and loving family.16

In considering current dilemmas facing adoption socialworkers, there is a need also to reflect on the reality thatprevailing cultural attitudes towards adoption changewith time and that these attitudes impact on everymember of the circle. A significant issue surrounds privacyand the need for secrecy. For example, in 1950s Ireland,birth/natural mothers needed the secrecy of the adoptionto be maintained due to the social stigma of out of wedlockpregnancy. In modern Ireland, a significant proportion ofwomen availing of adoption services express a need forsecrecy due to what they perceive as the stigma attached toplacing their child for adoption (Kelly (2005), O’Carroll,(2002).There is also the need to take into consideration the impactof the constitutional context in Ireland and its protection ofthe family. While it protects individual families, TheConstitution does not give recognition to the overlap anadopted person has between different nuclear families,genetically, biologically, psychologically and historically.What are social workers’ responsibilities when the law andethics are in conflict? Further consideration of theimplications for practice arising out of the Constitution isset out below.Bunreacht na hEireann (1937) and Adoption Practice inIrelandAll current childcare and adoption legislation, andconsequently practice, in Ireland is informed by theConstitution. In 2005, the Council of Irish AdoptionAgencies, in its submission to the All Party OireachtasCommittee on the Constitution (The Family Module),considered the following issues as important to adoptionpractice:17

‘The Kilkenny Incest Investigation (1993) noted that thereis a perception of over-emphasis on the constitutionalrights of the family that, in practice, is interpreted as therights of parents. Furthermore, the unique constitutionalposition of the family based on marriage impacts onfamilies at many levels, and the results of all of the abovecan be seen in adoption practice in the following areas:a) Adoption consent - although section 3 of theAdoption Act, 1974 states that the welfare of thechild is to be “the first and paramountconsideration”, the perception among adoptionpractitioners is that the rights of the mother towithdraw consent carries greater weight by virtueof our Constitution. “The ‘paramountcy’ test onlycomes under consideration when the motherhad voluntarily and freely placed the child foradoption. The revered nature of the mother andchild relationship, under the Constitution, and thenature of adoption . require that the process beentered into voluntarily” (Shannon, 2004).Over the past number of years, concern has beenexpressed both by adoption practitioners and bythe Adoption Board (Report of An Bord Uchtala,2003) regarding the sometimes lengthy delays inplacing children for adoption under the terms ofthe Adoption Acts, 1952 – 1998. These delays,practitioners believe, are due to what appears to beincreasingly stringent requirements relating to theconsent to place for adoption and to theconsultation of birth/natural fathers. Whileadoption practitioners are committed to facilitatingparents

The Council of Irish Adoption Agencies is the umbrella body incorporating all adoption agencies, both voluntary and statutory, in the Republic of Ireland. Council members meet a number of times each year to consider, address and advocate on the basis of 'best practice', all aspects of adoption. While it is the agencies themselves who are