New Zealand Adoption Rights Action For Justice

06/12/2025

We 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 what happens to a newborn’s nervous system in the first days of life when they are permanently separated from their mother. Their stress system spikes, the developing brain shifts into survival mode, and the body encodes separation as threat. This is 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. It is neuroscience.

Yet this trauma is 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱, minimized, or erased. Why? Because the system is built on 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆, 𝗺𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿.

• A multibillion-dollar indu$try profits by pretending separation is harmless.
• Society clings to the fantasy that newborns are blank slates.
• Adults are protected; children’s biology and wellbeing are not.
• Trauma survivors are pathologized instead of the trauma itself.

Newborn separation is 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗺𝗮 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲. It alters the nervous system, creates lifelong dysregulation, and produces mental health struggles.

This is not adoption. It is 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴.

𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲.
𝗜𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘂𝗺𝗮.
𝗜𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝘆𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗜𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴.

The real question is 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵?

Sources
• Gunnar & Quevedo, The Neurobiology of Stress and Early Adversity, Development and Psychopathology
• Hostinar et al., Social Buffering of the HPA Axis in Early Life, International Journal of Psychophysiology
• Liu et al., Maternal Separation and Stress Physiology, International Journal of Molecular Sciences
• Tottenham et al., Early Adversity and Amygdala Development, eLife
• Doom & Gunnar, Early Caregiving and Cortisol Regulation, Psychoneuroendocrinology

28/11/2025

We need to expose this publicly, because it urgently needs to be investigated and stopped.

I am part of the advocacy group that was involved in preventing Oranga Tamariki from uplifting the pēpi in the Hastings case in 2019. I have spoken out about how our babies are being trafficked offshore through the systems and practices of Oranga Tamariki.

Paula Bennett, the former National MP, promoted the “home for life” model for foster children in care. When it was introduced, Oranga Tamariki began targeting 100% newborn pēpi under the previous CEO, Grainne Moss. These newborn pēpi were uplifted under s 78 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 by way of without-notice applications, so the parents were never notified. Once a pēpi had been placed in a “home for life” with a foster parent for 18 months, the foster parent could then apply for adoption. The social worker would provide a letter of support without the parent being notified or giving consent.

I have been told that a social worker was given $2,000 by Oranga Tamariki when they targeted a “child of concern” and placed her in a home for life, and another $2,000 when they supplied a letter of support for the foster parent to adopt the child. In neither case was the parent notified or asked for consent.

There are two sections in the Adoption Act 1955 that are particularly troubling: one allows for a parent not to be notified or to give consent, and another provides that the person applying to adopt does not need to be living in Aotearoa New Zealand. Consequently, it is frighteningly easy for our pēpi to be trafficked overseas under the cover of these laws and practices.

28/11/2025

Exposing Child Trafficking. Stop the Traffickers. The human trafficking industry uses so-called “adoption” as propaganda to operate a global child-supply market.
This is happening in Aotearoa/NZ, we know OT have been uplifting our babies illegally then placed on home for life then trafficked offshore.

24/11/2025

A year-long investigation reveals how mothers lost children after being radicalised by uplifting podcast tales of births without midwives or doctors

02/09/2025

20/03/2025

Morena

A Quick. Update:

My entire Wai claim (on behalf of myself and all Māori children that were displaced from their mothers and their Whānau Hapū and Iwi under adoption and care of children legislation) registered in the Waitangi Tribunal is now going to be heard in the Mana Wahine Kaupapa Inguiry instead of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry
The reason for this is the residing Judge, Judge Sarah Reeves, we believe will hear it fairly. Her father was the first Maori Governor General.

If anyone wishes to support this claim with brief evidence please private message me or email me at:
[email protected]

Thank you

Residing Judge Sarah Reeves

01/03/2025

Here is an academic document I found useful. Very recent research by these amazing wāhine, mostly Māori adoptees.

Here is the Abstract

Closed stranger adoption has not commonly been recognised as a tool of Indigenous oppression in Aotearoa New Zealand, yet it was a colonial practice that caused great harm to Māori. This article narrates some of the ways in which adoptees who identify as Māori demonstrate resilience and resistance to the pernicious effects of closed stranger adoption. Using a mana (strengths-based values) enhancing approach, meaning we champion respect and understanding, this research elucidates how Māori adoptees navigate complex social relationships in courageous and creative ways, including when seeking birth kinship, maintaining those relationships, and making broader efforts to (re)connect with things Māori. Māori adoptees want their experiences to be recognised by Māori and non-Māori alike, so that the ongoing harms of closed stranger adoption can be redressed, and the next generations do not continue to live the negative impacts.

Blake, D., Ahuriri-Driscoll, A., McBreen, K., & Mikaere, A. (2023). Poipoia te kākano, kia puawai: resilience and resistance in the lives of Māori adoptees. AlterNative, 19(1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801221148505

Closed stranger adoption has not commonly been recognised as a tool of Indigenous oppression in Aotearoa New Zealand, yet it was a colonial practice that caused...

01/03/2025

What do you think the amount of compensation should be paid for each Maori culturally displaced adoptee that were harmed.

The next question is how many? As we don’t know the correct stats.

Let’s see how Crown law will act regarding this.

The amount of compensation for each Māori culturally displaced adoptee should reflect the profound harm experienced—both individually and collectively. It must account for:
1. Loss of Identity & Culture – The severing of whakapapa, language, and tikanga, leading to cultural disconnection.
2. Psychological & Emotional Harm – Trauma from displacement, loss of belonging, and intergenerational effects.
3. Breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi – Violations of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) and the Crown’s failure to protect Māori interests.
4. Economic & Social Disadvantage – Many adoptees faced systemic barriers due to disconnection from Māori land, networks, and opportunities.

Determining the Compensation Amount

A fair compensation framework could consider:
• Precedents: Similar cases (e.g., residential school settlements in Canada, Stolen Generations in Australia) have seen compensation in the range of $100,000–$500,000 per person, depending on the severity of harm.
• Cost of Restoration: Funding to support reconnecting with iwi, learning te reo, mental health support, and rebuilding identity.
• Inflation & Long-Term Impact: Adjustments to reflect decades of harm.

A realistic figure might start at $250,000–$500,000 per person, plus ongoing resources for healing and reconnection.

How Many Adoptees?

Since the government does not provide clear statistics on Māori adoptees, we must estimate:
• Known figures: From 1955–1985, around 80,000 adoptions took place under closed adoption laws, with a large proportion being Māori.
• Possible range: Some estimates suggest Māori made up 30–50% of adoptees, meaning 24,000–40,000 Māori adoptees could be affected.
• Unknown cases: Many Māori were never officially counted due to racial classification policies.

Next Steps
• Push for an official investigation into the number of Māori adoptees.
• Demand an acknowledgment from the Crown of the full scale of harm.
• Ensure compensation includes both financial redress and cultural reconnection support (e.g., free whakapapa tracing services, te reo programs, therapy).

01/03/2025

The previous government did initiate adoption law reform, but those efforts were put on hold pending the findings of the Royal Commission Inquiry into abuse in care. The intention was to ensure that any legislative changes were fully informed by a comprehensive review of historical practices and their impacts. This pause was meant to allow the inquiry to provide evidence-based recommendations addressing the harms of closed adoption, including issues like cultural disconnection, lack of access to birth records, and the broader emotional and intergenerational impacts.

With the report now many advocates hope it will pave the way for reforms that:
• Recognize the unique trauma associated with adoption.
• Facilitate better access to adoption records and opportunities for reconnection.
• Include a formal, separate apology for adoptees.
• Establish a fair compensation framework.
• Ensure that future policies respect the rights and cultural identities of all adoptees, including Māori and others.

It is deeply disappointing when reform efforts stall, especially given the significant harm caused by past adoption policies. The fact that the current government isn’t pursuing adoption law reform means that many of the critical issues—such as the right to access personal records, cultural reconnection, a formal and separate apology, and fair compensation—remain unaddressed. This inaction not only perpetuates the legacy of closed adoption but also fails to honor the obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Continued Advocacy and Awareness:
Pressure from community groups, media coverage, and public campaigns remains crucial to keep the issue in the spotlight. Increased public awareness can build momentum for future legislative change.
• Engaging with Policy Makers:
Even if the current government is not prioritizing reform, engaging with local MPs, opposition parties, and community leaders can help form a coalition that demands a renewed commitment to addressing these historical wrongs.
• Leveraging Legal Avenues:
Waitangi Tribunal claims and ongoing litigation play a significant role in holding the Crown accountable. Continued legal pressure can potentially force a reconsideration of policy priorities.
• Supporting Affected Communities:
In parallel, developing community-led initiatives and support services can help mitigate some of the intergenerational trauma and support cultural reconnection for adoptees.

01/03/2025

The first New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care found that Māori children who were adopted—particularly under the Adoption Act 1955—were legally severed from their whakapapa (genealogical connections). This was due to the law’s approach to closed adoptions, which aimed to fully integrate adopted children into their new families while erasing legal ties to their birth parents and iwi (tribe).
Key Findings Related to Māori Adoptees:
1. Loss of Identity – Many Māori adoptees were raised without knowledge of their whakapapa, leading to cultural disconnection.
2. Disproportionate Impact – The Adoption Act 1955 disproportionately affected Māori, as it facilitated the large-scale adoption of Māori children into non-Māori families, particularly in the 1950s–1980s.
3. State and Church Involvement – Both the government and religious institutions played a role in separating Māori children from their whakapapa through adoption and foster care.
4. Intergenerational Trauma – The severance from iwi and hapū (sub-tribes) contributed to intergenerational trauma, as Māori adoptees struggled with identity, belonging, and cultural alienation.
Context of the Adoption Act 1955:
• It legally severed the relationship between birth parents and children.
• It promoted closed adoptions, where original birth records were sealed.
• Adopted children were given new birth certificates, listing their adoptive parents as their only legal parents.
The Royal Commission’s findings support calls for adoption law reform in Aotearoa New Zealand, recognizing the harm caused to Māori and the need for a system that respects whakapapa and cultural identity. The government has acknowledged these issues, but concrete legal changes are still in progress.