ADOPTION OF CHILDREN.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 18 June 1924, Page 5

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN.

LEGISLATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.

NEW ZEALAND AS A PRECEDENT. In the March number of r.ho l.amet the "Adoption of Children” is a subject dealt with in the editorial columns, and the writer finds in New Zealand legislation an object lesson for the Mother Country. ■‘Over forty years ago,” ir. is explained. “New Zealand legislated for adoption of children. Unlike the'laws of ancient Rome, which mau.ly studied the provision of heirs for childless parents, the legislation of modern communities on this subject is chiefly concerned with the welfare of the child. New Zealand had realised • that foster-par-ents can give the same care and affection to an adopted son or daughter as the • natural parents themselves, and that, wnere this is the case, vt may be advisable to give legal security tc the relationship between foster parent and adopted child. Otherwise when u child has been removed from the control of unworthy and disreputable parents and placed with persons who give ft proper care and often spend considerable sums upon its education, the original intents can disturb its well-being and its prospects by reclaiming it from the lamily in which it may ho happily settled. Readers of Mr Kipling’s story, ‘Friendly Brook,’ may consider his picture of the disreputable father black- 1 mailing the family into which hi£ child has been adopted to be uucomlortablv dose to the truth. Other countries have passed adoption laws similar l.u those of New Zealand. Possibly the war stimulated such legislation. Italy, at any rate, made special provision in 1919 lor tiie adoption of war orphans. Since that year, within the Empire, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Tasmania have passed Acts giving legal 'recognition to adoption. And now the Mother of Parliaments has before licr at the present moment three Bills all dealing with the adoption of children, and all emphasising the principle that adoption is not to be sanctioned unless it is likely to promote the welfare of the child.” The respective merits of three Bills now introduced into the Home Parliament and dealing with the subject of adoption are considered in detail by The Lancet. Of these three Bills ft is stated that that of Sir Thomas Inskip is the shortest, and, therefore, in present Parliamentary conditions, the most hopeful. He would simply enact that parents or guardians may transfer their authorities and duties in respect of a child, subject to the approval of a County Court, or a High Court Judge. In concluding, the writer of the article affirms that “competent observers of the working of the Adoption of Children Act in New Zealand, where the original provisions of 18BL were simplified in 1R95. and have since been further amended in the light of experience, claim that it is a success from every point of view. It has been estimated that in a large proportion of cases the adoption orders relate to illegitimate children. The child Irenelits by obtaining a continuous home life, an environment equal to that of an ordinary legitimate child, and a proper chance of becoming a useful citizen. The adopting parents, perhaps childless, j obtain a son or daughter whom they can regard ami care for as their own. The iState is relieved of the nossible hurden of maintaining the child. New Zealand makes provision for rescinding adoption orders ih unsatisfactory eaf.es, hut it is stated that the percentage of these is fery small, The social cohdi*

tions und the legislative requirements oi' great pioneer communities overseas aie not always identical with those oi the Home country; hut England cannot afford to dispense with any measure which will tetter the welfare and the chances of children who will otherwise be neglected and handicapped unfairly in their upbringing. The association of illegitimacy with many deplorable and intractable conditions which come under medical notice should ensure for a proper method of adoption the support oi' our profession.”