The Forgotten Suffering:
Adoption, Trauma, and the Silence of Experts
In discussions of trauma and healing, much is said about embracing one’s true self – about uncovering the core identity beneath layers of pain and disconnection. Programs like “CI Circles to initiate self-inquiry and emotional healing”, which promise liberation through understanding, speak to a deep yearning for authenticity and wholeness. Yet for adoptees, particularly those impacted by forced adoption, such promises can feel hollow when the lived realities of adoption are overlooked or ignored.
Dr. Gabor Maté, a leading voice in trauma and healing, often speaks with remarkable insight about the pain of disrupted attachment and the struggle to reconcile our deepest wounds. Yet even as he advises programs like “CI Circles to initiate self-inquiry and emotional healing”, he rarely, if ever, mentions adoption. This omission is particularly glaring, given how deeply adoption disrupts the formation of selfhood.
Adoption is not merely a loss of familial bonds – it is a rewriting of identity at the most fundamental level. Forced adoption, especially, replaces one’s origins with a legal fiction, erasing ties to ancestry, culture, and history. For adoptees, embracing a “true self” is not a straightforward journey; it is a battle against a system that has deliberately severed the roots of identity.
When trauma experts like Maté neglect adoption in their discourse, they perpetuate the very disconnection their programs claim to heal. Adoption, as a system, is rife with human rights violations: coercion, identity erasure, and the denial of autonomy. Its impact lingers across lifetimes, shaping every attempt to form relationships, understand one’s past, and navigate a world that often refuses to acknowledge the loss it entails.
What makes this omission even more troubling is the setting in which it occurs. Programs like “CI Circles to initiate self-inquiry and emotional healing” aim to guide participants through transformative healing, often positioning themselves as inclusive spaces for exploring identity and trauma. Yet by failing to centre adoption as a form of systemic trauma, these programs risk excluding those whose sense of self has been profoundly shaped by it.
For adoptees, the silence around adoption in trauma discourse is not just an oversight – it is a continuation of the erasure that began with the act of adoption itself. Forced adoption doesn’t just fracture an individual; it creates a legacy of silence, one that trauma experts too often uphold when they fail to speak to its realities.
This erasure becomes particularly harmful in spaces that purport to be about self-discovery. How can adoptees embrace their true selves when their foundational experiences are ignored? How can healing occur in a framework that fails to name the systemic injustices at the root of their pain?
Programs and experts committed to trauma-informed care must do more than offer abstract advice. They must confront the uncomfortable truths of systemic harm, including the ways adoption perpetuates loss, disconnection, and identity fragmentation. To speak of selfhood without addressing the realities of adoption is to offer an incomplete – and, for adoptees, inaccessible – path to healing.
Adoptees do not need promises of wholeness that ignore their realities. They need acknowledgment, advocacy, and a trauma discourse that reflects their lived experiences. Healing spaces like “CI Circles to initiate self-inquiry and emotional healing” cannot truly serve adoptees unless they are willing to address the systemic forces that shape their pain.
To ignore adoption in the context of trauma is to perpetuate a profound injustice. It is time for experts, educators, and program leaders to listen, learn, and include adoption in their narratives. Without this acknowledgment, the promise of embracing one’s true self will remain out of reach for many who most need it.
AdoptChange
It is deeply concerning to see Dr. Gabor Maté, whose work on trauma and attachment is widely respected, previously collaborate with AdoptChange – an organization whose practices and priorities often conflict with the principles of trauma-informed care. AdoptChange promotes permanency through measures like forced identity changes and legal erasure of biological ties, prioritizing adoptive parents’ needs over the rights and lived experiences of adoptees.
For adoptees, particularly those affected by forced adoption, this approach perpetuates systemic harm. Permanency, as framed by AdoptChange, often means severing connections to ancestry, culture, and identity – actions that have lifelong consequences. The organization’s failure to meaningfully engage with adoptees and its resistance to family preservation efforts highlight a troubling bias that reinforces systems of coercion and inequality.
Dr. Maté’s teachings emphasize understanding the root causes of trauma and the importance of authentic selfhood. Yet his association with an organization that disregards these principles raises critical questions. How can one advocate for embracing one’s “true self” while supporting practices that erase and rewrite foundational aspects of identity?
AdoptChange’s silence on the voices of adoptees and its neglect of systemic injustices like poverty, racism, and coercion further deepen these concerns—favouring adoption as the default solution sidelines family preservation and human rights, perpetuating cycles of harm.
I urge Dr Maté and others in trauma-informed spaces to reflect critically on the implications of such partnerships. Centring adoptee voices and addressing the systemic injustices of adoption is essential to any true trauma-informed approach. Collaborating with organizations that ignore these realities risks perpetuating harm, silencing those most affected, and undermining the pursuit of genuine healing and justice.
Adopt Change positions adoption as the primary means to achieve “permanency” for children in care, often framing it as a necessary solution for stability and belonging. However, their advocacy materials and campaigns, such as those addressing “Barriers to Adoption,” promote adoption as a goal rather than a last-resort tool to address systemic failures. This approach tends to overlook the complex needs and rights of adoptees and their original families, including the significance of family preservation and trauma-informed care [1, Research & Advocacy | Adopt Change] [2, It defies logic’: Sydney couple’s anguish over gruelling adoption process – Adopt Change].
Their research highlights the bureaucratic and logistical delays in adoption processes, suggesting that adoption is hindered by inefficiencies rather than questioning its role in perpetuating identity erasure and human rights violations. Their rhetoric often disregards adoptee perspectives, prioritizing the needs of prospective adoptive parents and framing biological family contact as an obstacle rather than a benefit for the child’s identity and mental health.
By emphasizing “permanency” through adoption, Adopt Change risks perpetuating the narrative that severing a child’s ties to their birth family is a preferable outcome rather than addressing the systemic issues – such as lack of support for vulnerable families – that lead children into care in the first place. This raises significant ethical concerns, especially when the voices of adoptees who experience the lifelong consequences of these policies are marginalized in their advocacy efforts.
Critiques of this approach align with broader concerns in the adoption and child welfare sector, where reforms are needed to centre adoptee rights, family preservation, and trauma-informed support over institutional convenience or ideological promotion of adoption as the only viable solution.
The rising number of children in out-of-home care
The rising number of children in out-of-home care (OOHC) in NSW and the financial burden on taxpayers highlight significant systemic issues. Despite various reforms, including a $200 million rescue package by the Minns government to sustain OOHC, challenges persist, such as the increasing reliance on emergency arrangements like motels, which are both costly and insufficient for children’s needs. Between 2020 and 2023, the use of such placements tripled, indicating deeper systemic failures.
AdoptChange’s promotion of adoption as a solution to ensure “permanency” raises critical questions about their evidence base and agenda. Their focus on overcoming “barriers to adoption” seems to prioritize adoption as a goal rather than addressing the root causes of family separations and fostering supports that could enable family preservation where possible. This approach neglects systemic issues that lead to the separation of children from their families and disregards the voices of adoptees, who often highlight the lifelong consequences of identity changes and loss of biological connections.
Moreover, while AdoptChange influences public perception and training related to OOHC, there is little transparency about the taxpayer funds allocated to support their initiatives or the evidence supporting their advocacy for adoption as a default solution. Given the ongoing surge in OOHC placements, particularly in NSW, these strategies appear to focus on treating symptoms rather than addressing underlying systemic and social inequalities.
These issues call for a deeper examination of both the policies surrounding adoption and the systemic failures in the child protection system. Voices of adoptees and impacted families must be centred in the discourse to ensure reforms are genuinely trauma-informed and rights-based.
