ADOPTION OF CHILD IMMIGRANTS IS LARGELY ASSURED

Grey River Argus, 13 November 1948, Page 7

ADOPTION OF CHILD IMMIGRANTS IS LARGELY ASSURED

Welfare Bill Passed 1 P.A. WELLINGTON, November 12. The desirability of as many children as possible being brought into a , proper home atmosphere, so that they might develop into the type of citizens the country wanted, was : stressed by Mr C. G. E. Harker (Nat., ’ Hawkes Bay) in the Blouse of Representatives this afternoon during the second reading debate on the Child Welfare Amendment Bill. 'He was discussing the arrival of refugee children and British children in New Zealand, and he said that there were many couples seeking children for adoption, including some with children of their own. His experience of the latter type of adoption was that adopted children were treated as the parents own, and neither parents nor their own children made any distinction. HOME BETTER THAN ORPHANAGES With institutional care, he said, the danger was that there could be so many in one institution that it precluded the introduction of a home atmosphere. He thought that the time had come to find a better word than “inmate” to describe the children in institutions. In his opinion “ward”, or “protected child”, would be preferable. Rev. C. Carr (Govt., Timaru), said he hoped that, the tendency would grow more and more away from State institutions, and tpward a widespread adoption system. Mr R. M. Algie (Nat., Remuera), discussing the clause giving a Magistrate power to hear and determine a charge before the Childrens Court, said that it was better that, there should be some informal atmosphere when such cases were heard. Mr E. B. Corbett (Nat., Egmont) said that the question of the nationality of the refugee children needed clarification. If they were adopted, would they become of the same nationality as their foster parents? He considered that the Government was doing its best to provide homes and protection for refugee children. The Minister of Health, Hon. Miss M. B. Howard, replying, said the provision in the Bill making it necessary! to obtain the consent of a child 12 years or over, before adoption was agreed to, was to bring the measure into line with the Infants’ Act. There was nothing in the Bill saying that a person could not be given the guardianship of a child less than 12 years of age. From information available, it would be utterly impossible to trace the parents or the nationality of the refugee children coming to New Zealand. The Government wished to have the children adopted as soon as possible, giving them parents ijnd nationality. Consideration was now being given to the question of how to give these children nationality. The sooner they were made little New Zealanders in every sense of the word, the better. The demand for children would be so great, she said, that no child would need to go to an institution. Nor would there be any child farming. Miss Howard said things would probably be so well organised that the foster parents would be able to meet their children on the wharf. One factor in allocating children to homes would be that of religious training, and information on the child’s religion would be given to persons accepting it into their care* Miss Howard said that from inquiries, she believed it correct that, as stated by Mrs G. H. Ross (Nat., Hamilton) before lunch, children who appeared before the Children’s Court had theii names entered in the Police Gazette. The matter would be taken up at once, and something would be done about it. The Bill was read a second time. QUESTION OF ILLEGITIMACY