Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T05:31:39.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A birth certificate is not a biological property title: Has an insidiously persistent idea finally reached its use-by date?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Jim Poulter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Particularly in western societies, the notion that children are biological property has been a strongly implicit idea for many generations. It has therefore also been an idea that has implicitly pervaded our child welfare legislation and practice for generations, despite frequent legal rhetoric about the rights of the child. In this paper, the author traces the negative effects on welfare practice that this notion of children as property has had over the last half century. In doing so, the author calls not only on his professional experience, but also on his personal experience as a foster, adoptive and permanent care parent. Some provisions within the new Victorian child protection legislation are examined to gauge their capacity to address the negative effects on practice of this persistent notion, and reason found for some guarded optimism.

Type
Practice perspectives…:
Information
Children Australia , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , 2007 , pp. 37 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, M. (1979) ‘Attachment as related to mother child interaction’, Journal of Advanced Study of Human Behaviour, Vol. 9, pp. 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and loss, Volume One: Attachment, Hogarth, London.Google Scholar
Carney, T.R. (1984) Report/Child welfare practice and legislation review, Government Printer, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Eagle, R. (1990) ‘Denial of access, past, present and future’, Journal of Canadian Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 121–131.Google Scholar
Finklestein, N. (1991) Children and youth in limbo, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1993) Who do children in foster care think comprise their family?, Fourth Australian Family Research Conference, Manly NSW, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., Freud, A. & Solnit, A. (1973) Beyond the best interests of the child, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hegar, R. (1993) ‘Assessing attachment, permanence and kinship in choosing permanent homes’, Journal of Child Welfare, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 367–378.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. & Fein, E. (1991) “The concept of attachment: Applications to adoption’, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 13, pp. 397–412.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A. & Fein, E. (1983) ‘Permanency planning: A redefinition’, Child Welfare, Vol. 62, No. 3, May-June, pp. 195–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Poulin, J. (1985) ‘Long term foster care, natural family attachment and loyalty conflict’, Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall, pp. 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulter, J. (1984) Issues in informal parenting, Victorian Consultative Committee on Social Development, collected papers, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Rutter, M. (1972) Maternal deprivation revisited, Penguin, Ringwood, Victoria.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1993) ‘Inter-agency collaboration: Why is it so difficult? Can we do it better?’, Children Australia, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 4–9.Google Scholar
Tiddy, S. (1986) Creative co-operation: Involving biological parents in long term foster care, Child Welfare, Vol. LXL, No. 1, Jan/Feb, pp. 53–61.Google Scholar