The Privacy Of Adoption

A Charter of Rights challenge is being heard in the Superior Court of Ontario today regarding the availability of adoption information in Ontario.  Currently, there is legislation that is expected to be implemented in October of this year that would provide access to identities for both sides of the adoption (parents and children).  The challenge claims that this is a violation of privacy, that should they choose not to seek out the other party, they should also have the right to be protected from searches.

The legislation has some provisions to prevent the concerned parties from being contacted.  One is a form that can be completed to indicate a preference of not being contacted (but would still disclose their identity).  The other is to apply for an order of non-disclosure, but that only applies if there is the threat of danger.  Most other provinces with similar legislation offer both sides the opportunity to veto the identity request without disclosure.

Adoption is a complex issue.  In many cases children are not told that they are adopted until much later in life, when an emotional bond has been established with the adoptive parents.  In many cases the children accept this reality, seeing biological parentage as little more than genetic contribution.  Forcing them to accept contact from someone who made the decision to leave them years ago is unfair and unreasonable.

As for biological parents of adopted children, some gave up the child for adoption because their own situation at the time of the child's birth made being a parent impossible (such as teenage pregnancies).  Since then they made have established a life where their past is either unknown or shared with a limited few.  Forcing them to encounter a child they forfeited could cause social and emotional damage.

From both sides, the reasons to maintain secrecy when desired is compelling.  However, from both sides it is also arguable that vetoing access can be just as compelling.  Consider a child with a genetic disorder, or needing genetically-matched material such as bone marrow, seeking out a birth parent only to be vetoed.  Or a mother who gave up her child because she could not care for it herself trying to ensure that everything worked out for the best.  Don't these people deserve access?

Ultimately, though, the rights of the individual need to be maintained.  While it may be unfair, uncaring or even deadly to do so, participants in the adoption process should be able to have their privacy maintained, and their identities unavailable, if they so desire.  However, perhaps an anonymous messaging system could be established, wherein one party can submit communication which would be handled by the Ontario government and distributed to the other party would be beneficial.  At least it would allow for the terminally ill individual I used as an example above to plead their case.

Regardless, the law as it stands now is not only unfair and unreasonable.  It is a violation of the Charter and needs amending before being put into practice later this year.

Comments

[Amris]

You do, of course, realize that adoption is a violation of civil rights to begin with, and all disclosure does is CORRECT that violation, right?

No, apparently, you do not. The vast majority of countries in the world recognize a child's right to grow up with their family. The vast majority of countries in the world recognize a woman's right to keep her child and not have him or her stolen. Unlike the US and Canada.

Oh, yes, you also realize that a lot of adult adoptees were stolen from their mothers, too, right? You didn't? Or perhaps you simply don't care, like so much of the rest of the world?

I'm interested to see that you only include a couple of possible reasons why a child ended up adopted, and not one of them included removal from their family through coercion or outright theft. But I have to hand it to you, you were at least one step up from the people who call all first mothers drug addicts and worse.

The pathetic fact that the majority of domestic US and Canadian adoptions are a result of coercion being still relatively unknown is why it is perpetuated. Ignorance allows these horrific pratices to continue. Support of keeping adult adoptees from finding out that they were stolen from their mothers, support of keeping these thefts from being publicised, and the fact that most often targeted are those who cannot afford the lengthy court battles, are all contributing factors to the continuation of child theft.

As for a mother who DID willingly violate her child's civil rights by abandoning them, she does not deserve such "protection" from the consequences of her violation.

These laws are not to protect mothers and adoptees, these laws are to protect the perpetrators of infant theft.

It would be wise for you to look up the history of adoption. In every way, adoption is a violation of the child. Now you seek to prolong the civil rights violation against the child into perpetuity. As well as the civil rights violation against any first mother who lost her child through theft or coercion.

As if the initial violations of rights are not enough, you wish to seal these violations into law until the death of the person. It is a most pathetic thing to argue "rights" in a case where so many civil rights have already been violated.

What you are proposing is equal to taking a woman who was raped and got pregnant, and giving her a mandatory abortion. "To protect her civil rights," of course...

[Addie Pray]

"In many cases children are not told that they are adopted until much later in life, when an emotional bond has been established with the adoptive parents. In many cases the children accept this reality,"

Yeah thanks, Sci-Fi Dad, I'd be just thrilled to live in an alternate reality. Can it be a reality just like on Dune? or Star Wars? or Deep Space Nine? or Dr. Who?

"From both sides, the reasons to maintain secrecy when desired is compelling."

Because in your reality only two sides are considered. What are we fucking tribbles, here?

[Andie D.]

"Forcing them to encounter a child they forfeited could cause social and emotional damage."

FORFEIT? From dictionary.com: Something surrendered or subject to surrender as punishment for a crime, an offense, an error, or a breach of contract.

Are you really saying that birthmothers committed a crime by giving birth? Are you saying that the baby should be relinquished to atone for her mother's crime?

When does the punishment stop? When can that baby grow up and stop paying for her mother's "crime"? When can she know the basic information about herself, her heritage, her family that is every other person's basic RIGHT?

[dory]

I see your interests include family - well so do mine - my family - that I was born from.

[Lillie]

Here is a ver-batim copy of a catholic charities reliquishment form. Please tell me, where, oh where does it promise any sort of "privacy"? Can you find it? Because I sure can't: