GILLIAN KLAWANSKY
Trapido, who with her husband adopted a son, is working to have the bill withdrawn.
They believe that while National Child Protection Week is a commitment by government to uphold the rights of children who could be adopted, these are being threatened with this amendment.
They are perturbed by a statement by the spokesperson of the social development department, who said, “The placement of children into unrelated families through adoption is no better for children who can’t be reunited with a biological family than institutional care.” Even more worrying is the department’s proposed Children’s Amendment Bill which states that no fees shall be payable for adoption services.
Non-governmental organisations subsidised by the government which need to raise funds to make up significant deficiencies will not be allowed to do so. It means private social workers, doctors, and lawyers are forbidden to charge fees.
Adoption would then solely be in the hands of already drastically under-resourced government workers who can’t sustain the need.
The National Adoption Coalition of South Africa (NACSA) says that this will drastically reduce the amount of adoptions, which have already declined over the past few years.
“We’re very concerned because we believe that if they go ahead with these amendments, it will slow adoptions down to an absolute trickle,” says Sue Krawitz, the founding member and former chairperson of NACSA. Krawitz is a social worker, director, and the co-founder of Impilo Child Protection and Adoption Services, which is based in the heart of Jewish Johannesburg.
“This is very concerning because the number of children that come into the system continues to increase. We know that there are about 3 500 children abandoned every year. What is going to happen to these children?” she asks.
“They’re going to sit in institutions. No child should grow up in an institution, every child needs a family. As much as the government tells us they’ve got the social workers they need, they’re not yet prepared and trained to do these adoptions. Adoption is a specialist field no matter how you look at it.
“We believe adoptions should be done by specialists in partnership with government,” she says. It suggests the government is overlooking the realities involved.
“For example, children have to have medicals for adoption. In Gauteng, the provincial hospitals won’t do those medicals. They have to be done privately. Who’s going to do those medicals for these children? We don’t feel that they’ve thought this through. We believe they didn’t negotiate and consult widely enough on this – if at all. It will wipe out private practitioners completely. They have an important role to play.”
In justifying the changes, those behind the bill say the facilitation of adoptions should not be a business, and is the mandate of child-protection services. They also contend that those who cannot afford adoption fees are prevented from adopting children should they wish to.
Two petitions have gained traction to mobilise citizens to fight the proposed changes. The one Trapido is promoting was set up by blogger Tom Jordi on childrenmattersa.org. Jordi is a passionate adoption advocate who runs the Fatherheart Fund to help support adoptive and foster parents.
He and his wife are parents to one biological and three adopted children. On the website, he posted a video to raise awareness of the threats posed by the bill. Jordi has teamed up with adoption advocate Robyn Wolfson Vorster to raise awareness and garner support.
They’re also working with Cape Town-based children’s rights attorney, Debbie Wybrow, who started a similar petition on change.org. “We got together to raise awareness, and see how many people we could get to agree with us that this needs to be stopped and reworked. On Monday, both petitions together had 50 000 signatures. Once the speaker of parliament is sworn in within the next week or so, we will send a letter and the petitions to him or her requesting that that bill be sent back. The bill is flawed in its entirety, not just in regard to adoption.”
Says Jordi, “The amount of time and effort that’s gone into raising this awareness could have been better used in partnering with the people who make the rules and laws, and asking, ‘How better can we serve these kids?’”
There have also been contentions that the revisions are motivated by the desire to limit interracial adoptions. “There is a concern in some circles that the culture of this child can be lost,” says Jordi, “but the reality is that if you have an abandoned child, don’t they have a right to a second option? Culture isn’t DNA, culture is family. To dictate what culture somebody should have based on a colour or start in life is just as prejudicial as many of the horrible things that have happened in this country in the past.”
Says Trapido, “I may not be able to adopt more children if this bill is passed. The criticism of those adopting kids of a different culture also hits home because my son is black, and we are white. You’re telling me that my child would have been better off in an orphanage than a loving home? I believe you’re not born with a culture; you are born into a culture. My child was born into a Jewish culture, and he’ll be brought up Jewish.”
Trapido mentions the red tape that already exists in regard to adoptions. “It took a long time to adopt our son, and for us, it actually was quicker than for many others. We started in 2015 and a year later, we were matched with my son. Yet, the adoption was finalised only last month. If this bill is passed, it will probably take even longer.”
She also stresses the value of the private sector. “When it’s done through a private social worker, you get that one-on-one connection, and they’re able to place you with the right child. We were handed my child when he was three months old, and the second we held him, he smiled,” she says. “If it’s up to overloaded government workers, all they’ll be doing is getting through their adoption workload.”
