Monthly Archives: January 2013

India cuts off commercial surrogacy to many Australians

on by

am-with-tony-eastleyTONY EASTLEY: Changes to commercial surrogacy arrangements in India, introduced just before Christmas, have cut off one of the more popular avenues for Australians wanting to become surrogate parents.

While going overseas for commercial surrogacy is illegal in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT, hundreds of Australians still fly to India every year to become parents.

However, the Indian government has now issued a directive that only couples who have been married for more than two years can enter into commercial surrogacy arrangements, and only if it is legal in their home country.

Nance Haxton reports.

NANCE HAXTON: Queensland lawyer Stephen Page is a surrogacy specialist who has represented many Australian surrogate parents. He says the policy changes in India have already had a huge impact.

STEPHEN PAGE: Essentially, if you want to go to India in future for surrogacy, you’ve got to be married for a minimum of two years – gay marriage is excluded – and surrogacy must be legal back home.

And the only place where commercial surrogacy can occur in Australia is the Northern Territory. So unless you’re in a heterosexual, married relationship for two years and you’re living in the Northern Territory, you can forget about going to India.

NANCE HAXTON: So there was effectively a loophole before this where many Australians were able to go to India to engage in commercial surrogacy arrangements.

STEPHEN PAGE: Anyone could undertake it in India, anyone. So… and the majority of people from Australia who went weren’t married. So they were either living in a de facto relationship or they’re in a same sex relationship or they were singles.

I believe instead of about 200 children a year being born to Australian intended parents a year, it will be down to five or 10.

NANCE HAXTON: He says the rule change won’t stop Australians entering into commercial surrogacy arrangements overseas. They will simply look elsewhere.

STEPHEN PAGE: See the strange thing is, it’s outlawed at the state level but at the federal level it’s not. At the federal level, you can go overseas and all that you need to establish is that the child is yours and then the child is entitled to Australian citizenship.

NANCE HAXTON: Surrogacy Australia president Sam Everingham says many Australians with incomplete commercial surrogacy deals in India are now in limbo. He says it would be far preferable for Australia to regulate commercial surrogacy at home.

SAM EVERINGHAM: It’s become a legal headache for many courts in Australia dealing with the unintended consequences of surrogacy. And I think you know if we had arrangements in Australia where commercial arrangements were possible, it would make it much easier for the kids that are born, as well as the parents.

NANCE HAXTON: What about for people who have ethical concerns about exchanging money for children in that way?

SAM EVERINGHAM: Look, I think there’s a lot to be said for keeping these arrangements all happening in the same country. You avoid issues like accusations of exploitation of families from less well off backgrounds, and it’s been clear from systems in place in US states like California and Minnesota that commercial systems can operate very well, with really positive outcomes for the children, the surrogates and the intending parents.

So I think we need to look really closely at that as a wider community. I mean, despite the laws we’ve had against surrogacy, a lot of families go overseas and ignore those laws. So I think it will be a much better outcome if we could get those sorts of arrangements and much better access to surrogates in Australia.

I mean, even if it’s not commercial, even if it’s just surrogates being able to advertise that they’re willing to carry in Australia it would be a start.

TONY EASTLEY: The president of Surrogacy Australia, Sam Everingham, speaking there with Nance Haxton.

Single parent pension warning an ‘error’

on by

centrelink, single parent concession cardCentrelink will contact tens of thousands of single parents who were wrongly told to destroy their concession cards after moving to Newstart dole payments.

Human Services Minister Kim Carr told Fairfax Media the ”computer-generated” letters declaring the discount cards invalid were sent in error and admitted they would have caused confusion.

Senator Carr said that despite the letters, all single principal carers on Newstart were entitled to a pensioner concession card and associated discounts.

”New cards will be issued immediately and be received by people by the end of the month,” he said.

The comments came after Fairfax Media on Sunday highlighted how Centrelink had issued letters to single parents telling them their parenting payment had ended and they should ”destroy this [pensioner concession] card immediately after [December 31, 2012]”.

From January 1, people whose youngest child had turned eight were no longer eligible for single parenting payments and moved onto the lower Newstart allowance.

Greens senator Rachel Siewert condemned the confusing, mixed messages as ”the last thing people need”.

An organiser of a protest rally outside Parliament House next month, Samantha Seymour, said the concession card helped her with pharmaceutical, public transport and utility costs.

The mother of eight-year-old twins said the Centrelink letter bluntly warned people not to keep using the cards as companies could check their status electronically. ”When I received that [letter] it was just another nail in this whole horrid affair and it devastated me,” Ms Seymour said.

”I personally felt it was a very blunt letter and it was a further slap in the face.”

Senator Carr said the letters issued last month were automatically generated when people moved off the single parenting payment.

”I acknowledge that the computer-generated letter would have caused some confusion,” he said. ”I have spoken to the secretary today and the department has agreed to contact every person affected to explain again that the concession cards will continue.”

Senator Carr said Centrelink had previously held individual meetings with single parents affected by the government’s Newstart decision and the continuing status of the cards would have been explained at those meetings. The existing concession cards could continue to be used but new ones were being issued shortly, he said.

The Gillard government has drawn the ire of welfare and community groups by moving single parents onto the Newstart allowance when their youngest child turns eight, regardless of when they started receiving payments.

In 2006, the former Howard government began the process but ensured eligible parents who were already receiving the payments could continue to do so until their youngest child turned 16.

This exemption has now been closed in a bid to save the federal budget more than $700 million over four years.

The move to Newstart will mean the maximum support drops by $65 to about $267 a week. Newstart also has stricter rules about how much additional income a person can earn before the allowance is reduced.

The recently formed Single Parent Action Group is planning protests around the country when Federal Parliament resumes on February 5 – including a march from Old Parliament House to new Parliament House in Canberra.

Ms Seymour, a spokeswoman for the group, said the rally aimed to show it was unacceptable to force people to live under the poverty line while raising children.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has previously acknowledged it would be ”incredibly tough” to live on $35 a day but said the government’s priority was to create jobs.

Her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, last week called on the government to ”show a bit of heart and do more” to help Australians struggling on Newstart.

Read more

WA leads nation in divorce rate

on by

divorce rates in western australiaWA DIVORCES have hit a five-year high, but in the rest of the country fewer married couples are calling it quits.

Latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show there were 5020 divorces in WA in 2011 a 3.8 per cent increase on the previous year.

Nationally the number of divorces dropped from 50,240 to 48,935 over the same period.

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said WA was bucking the trend because of population growth and the impact of the fly-in, fly-out lifestyle.

“It’s probably not surprising that if you’ve got a population base that’s very mobile, people are moving jobs, moving homes, moving socio-economically in terms of big salary changes, you’re going to have some strains on those marriages and a higher number of divorces,” he said.

The number of divorces across Australia has fallen nearly 12 per cent in the past decade.

But Mr McCrindle predicted WA’s divorce rate would continue to increase slightly in the coming years as “one of the unintended consequences of the mining boom”.

“You have a social context of people who were on the east coast on $50,000 as machine operators heading west and suddenly on six figures, you’ve got a FIFO workforce, you’ve got families going from one income to two significant incomes, and you’ve got people living in more regional and remote areas because of where the work is; you’re going to have fractures in relationships,” he said.

“The other thing is interstate migrations, so when you have couples heading west from other states, they may not have broader family support or their social network and its less likely a marriage under strain is going to last.”

Relationships Australia WA clinical services director Susan Visser was reticent to attribute the change in divorce rate to any one factor.

“Definitely we saw during the global financial crisis that money became a bigger factor among couples using our services as a strain on their relationships, and I think that’s still quite real now with the financial pressures on families in WA,” she said. Mrs Visser said the impact of a fly-in, fly-out lifestyle on relationships could not be ignored.

“We have seen it so significantly, we actually run courses for FIFO people to help people develop skills to navigate through a FIFO relationship, ways to stay in contact with one another, ways to hold the family together,” she said.

“The main thing is how we deal with all these issues and these pressures that may lead to the divorce.”

Research by Murdoch psychology honours student Wendy Voysey showed partners of FIFO workers were less satisfied with their spouses’ roster than the workers themselves.

“The workers are actually quite happy (but) the partners reported being less satisfied with their relationships on a relationship-quality scale,” Ms Voysey said.

She said her research, which surveyed more than 500 FIFO workers and partners, also found partners who had children reported they were less stressed than those who had no kids.

Parents sue over alleged bashing and sexual abuse of their son at school

on by

school-bashingTHE parents of a boy who was allegedly bashed and sexually abused at school by an older girl are suing South Australian education authorities for failing to provide counselling.

The Advertiser has learnt the parents allege their five-year-old was sexually assaulted at an eastern suburbs school by a girl, 7, in April 2011.

The parents further claim the girl’s younger brother, a four-year-old visiting the school, bashed their son.

Although the incident was reported to Families SA, the  Education Department allegedly told the boy’s parents it would not provide assistance unless they launched private legal proceedings.

The parents say they now want compensation for their son’s future psychological and paediatric expenses.

They also want the department to reimburse the cost of  new uniforms and school fees, as they have moved their son and his siblings into the private education system to ensure their safety.

In legal papers, the parents allege the incident occurred at the end of a Term 1 school day when their son went to collect his drink bottle.

They say he “disappeared” for 45 minutes and was later found standing with the older girl and her brother. The parents claim that, on the way home, the son said the girl had forced him into the toilets and demanded that he pull down his pants.

“They took me into the girls’ toilets and wouldn’t let me out,” the son says in the papers. “She shut me in and stood in the door so I couldn’t get out.”

He said that, when he refused to expose himself, the younger boy had punched him in the stomach. The girl then allegedly exposed herself and sexually assaulted him.

The parents have written to the Education Department, warning that they will file District Court action if settlement cannot be reached.

In the letter, they say they told their son’s teacher, who reported it to Families SA.

They assert their son required medical treatment for urinary problems as well as psychological consultations.

They assert that department officials declined to assist with counselling, telling them to “speak to the legal department”.

Yesterday, an Education Department spokeswoman told The Advertiser the parents’ letter had been received and the department was seeking advice.

Legal aid cuts ‘not in interest of children’

on by

Victoria-legal-aidCHANGES to Victoria Legal Aid eligibility guidelines may breach Australia’s obligations to children under international law, lawyers say.

Legal Aid announced the widest-ranging changes to its guidelines in its history last month as it braced itself for a deficit of more than $3.1 million this financial year. The deficit followed unprecedented demand for its services, which has been driven by the Victoria Police and the Baillieu government’s greater focus on preventing family violence.

The first of the changes, which cuts funding for parents in family law disputes beyond trial preparation and only provides legal representation for them at trials when they are to face a lawyer, came into effect on Monday.

The director of the National Children’s and Youth Law Service, Matthew Keeley, said Legal Aid’s funding crisis ”significantly reduced” children’s access to justice.

Advertisement

”The decision of VLA to so restrict its eligibility and the impact that that decision will have on children is such that one struggles to see how it considered that its decision could possibly be in the best interests of Victorian children,” he said.

Australia is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that public bodies must consider the ”best interests” of children in all decisions relevant to them.

”Governments must also give thought to ensuring that the decisions they make do not either directly or indirectly discriminate against children … None of this has occurred as regards this decision,” Mr Keeley said.

A spokeswoman for Victoria Legal Aid said ”prioritising the best interests of children” was key to the group’s decision to change its guidelines. Expert independent children’s lawyers, who help the court ensure outcomes are in a child’s best interests, would still be funded to ”represent children at final hearings where serious issues such as abuse have been raised”, she said.

”Prioritising the best interests of children was a key consideration in changes to legal aid eligibility guidelines. In parenting disputes, we are simply not funded to meet the growing demand and our priority must be to fund children where the court has identified that this is important.”

Other changes to Legal Aid’s guidelines to be implemented this year include one that would restrict legal aid grants in youth crime to children who are first-time offenders, most likely to go to jail or be placed under supervision. Those no longer eligible for grants will still be represented by Legal Aid’s staff lawyers.

Mr Keeley said that unrepresented children might ignore court notices and could be convicted ”where otherwise they might have been acquitted”.

He said that children in rural areas would be particularly affected by such changes because they had less access to youth diversionary programs than children in metropolitan Melbourne.

The co-director of community legal centre YouthLaw, Tiffany Overall, said that a change to raise the age at which children could directly instruct their lawyers from seven to 10 might also limit their human right to participate in legal proceedings under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

State reviews adoption law

on by

harmonising-adoption-lawsA PUSH to harmonise adoption laws across the country could see South Australia abolish restrictions that can conceal the identities of birth parents or children.

SA is the only state in which parties to an adoption can apply for a veto on requests for information that would identify a child or birth or adoptive parent.

Other states have either no veto provisions or only allow people to veto requests to contact others involved in the adoption.

The State Government is reviewing the Adoption Act and has committed to harmonising laws nationally, a move that would be likely to see SA come into line with other states.

As of June 30 last year, there were 417 vetoes on identifying information in place in SA.

Adopted children lodged the most (231), followed by birth mothers (153) and a small number were lodged by adoptive mothers (16), adoptive fathers (10) and birth fathers (seven).

Vetoes only apply to adoptions before 1988.

All adoptions since then have been fully open and authorities say adoptive parents are now encouraged to tell their children about their biological families.

But vetoes remain important in some cases where being identified would put the child, or other family members, at risk.

Under current laws, adoptees now in their mid to late 20s and older are not able to find out information about their birth parents, or vice versa, if a party to the adoption has lodged a veto.

The vetoes remain active for five years at a time and must be renewed, otherwise they lapse.

Families SA chief David Waterford said the trend in the number of vetoes being maintained was declining. He said it was “highly likely” the harmonisation would mean SA laws changed to be more in line with other states. There is no set timeframe for the changes.

“There are some people for whom the current veto system is really, really important (for safety or privacy reasons) and who have strong views that they should be retained,” Mr Waterford said.

“And there are some people out there who are really very keen to meet either their children or their birth parents and would like the vetoes lifted.

“It’s a really emotive issue.”

Under current legislation, SA and the Northern Territory allow for vetoes on seeking information about parties to adoptions.

There are only three active vetoes in the NT.

In NSW, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, vetoes can be put in place to prevent contact by other parties to the adoption. No vetoes apply in Victoria.

Widow allowed to use husband’s sperm

on by

sperm-donor-family-law-judgmentA widow has been allowed to extract her dead husband’s sperm a day after he took his own life, following an urgent West Australian court hearing.

The woman, known only as Ms C, and her husband had been trying to conceive for the past two years and began in-vitro fertilisation treatment before he committed suicide.

His body was taken to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. Ms C asked for his sperm to be removed and stored for future IVF procedures. Her request was denied and she was told she needed a court order.

Justice James Edelman heard the matter a day later and said the Human Tissue and Transplant Act allowed designated officers, such as senior doctors, to grant such requests from family members.

He said future applications should be acted upon more efficiently so relatives would not have to attend a court hearing.

The only restriction was if a person died in suspicious circumstances, in which case it would need to be referred to the state coroner for approval, Justice Edelman said.

Swan Rejects Call To Raise Single Parent Payment

on by

jenny-macklin-single-parent-paymentsFederal Treasurer Wayne Swan has rejected backbench calls for the Government to reinstate higher welfare payments for single parents.

Tens of thousands of single parents have been moved from their parenting payments onto the lower Newstart allowance, with some left more than $100 per week worse off.

Left faction powerbroker Doug Cameron says the current benefits will drive people into entrenched poverty, but Mr Swan says parents can access other financial benefits to supplement the dole.

He says his main aim is getting people into the workforce.

“As a member of the Labor Party, the reason I joined and got involved in the political process was to ensure people on low and modest incomes had a say and a stake in our future prosperity, and that they could get opportunities for their kids irrespective of what postcode they came from,” he said.

The matter is likely to be raised in Caucus when Parliament resumes next month.

Health Minister Tanya Plibersek today refused to comment on welfare negotiations within the Labor Party.

“I’m simply not going to get into that. It’s difficult to live on income support payments, and the best way we can help people on income support payments is to get them a job,” she said.

Families Minister Jenny Macklin infuriated many when she told reporters she could live on the unemployment benefit, which equates to about $35 a day.

In response, the Greens challenged her to live on the dole for a week, while the Opposition accused Ms Macklin of being out of touch.

“For a minister to lecture single mothers about living within their means at the same time as her own Government can’t live within theirs,” Opposition spokesman Jamie Briggs said.

Ms Macklin also faced critics on her own side of the chamber, with Senator Cameron expressing shock at the comments.

“I was gobsmacked. It’s so unlike the Jenny Macklin I have known for many years,” he said.

But Ms Macklin’s remarks are consistent with Ms Lambley, a member of the Country Liberal Party.

“I probably used to live on less,” Ms Lambley said.

Sterilisation first option for the disabled

on by

sterilisation for disabled womenPARENTS of women with intellectual disabilities are going straight for sterilisation procedures rather than ”existing and viable options” to help control menstruation and contraception, a national Senate inquiry has heard.

Associate Professor Sonia Grover, a gynaecologist at the Royal Children’s Hospital, told the hearing she was horrified when she received ”straight-out” requests for hysterectomies. She said increasing access to respite care, helping women manage their periods, and ensuring contraception is in place are options ”so these young women, if they are able, can enjoy a close sexual relationship without risks of pregnancy if they are not able to have a pregnancy and care for a child”.

Under Australian law, parents wishing to sterilise a child or adult children who cannot give consent for non-therapeutic reasons must apply to the Family Court or, in some states, a guardianship board.

However, Dr Grover expressed frustration with the therapeutic test. ”The question really is: Is this a procedure you would do on a non-disabled person?” she said. ”We should not be doing a sterilising procedure if we would not be doing it in somebody who did not have a disability.”

Advertisement

The inquiry into the involuntary or coerced sterilisation of people with disabilities in Australia began in September as part of the government’s response to a series of calls from the United Nations for an end to non-therapeutic sterilisation without consent, regardless of disability.

The executive director of Women with Disabilities Australia, Carolyn Frohmader, said options such as family planning and menstrual management were not being explored because the sexuality of young women with disabilities was not widely accepted.

”Parents and other care-givers are not made aware of these or are discouraged from understanding their effectiveness,” Ms Frohmader told a recent hearing in Melbourne.

In one case from Queensland in 2010, an 11-year-old intellectually disabled girl (”Angela”) was sterilised after she began getting her period, which was heavy and irregular, at age nine. Contraceptive pills were ineffective, two gynaecologists reported she would benefit from the removal of her uterus, and a Family Court judge was satisfied less-invasive treatments had been exhausted.

”I am not a doctor but I am the mother of a nine-year-old child and I found that case very problematic for a whole range of reasons,” Ms Frohmader said.

The inquiry has so far received just five submissions, including one from a parent explaining her wish to have her 27-year-old intellectually disabled daughter sterilised.

”Her own life is not stable enough to support another life,” the parent wrote. ”Advocates who say she has the ‘right’ to have a child need to factor in her ability to be responsible for that child.”

The author said they had already raised three children, but at 54 did not want to raise their grandchild. ”Sterilisation of my daughter is one thing that I can ensure for her before I die, otherwise who will?”

The inquiry is receiving submissions until February 22 and is due to report on April 24.