thank you!

Through this blog, we have had the opportunity to look at the history of adoption disclosure as it evolved to the Access to Adoption Records Act (Vital Statistics Statute Law Amendment), 2007 (AARA) and to examine the changes that were made in this legislation as implemented on May 14, 2008. We have examined the ideological issues around adoption disclosure and have looked at the ways that theoretical framework can be used to examine the concepts surrounding disclosure and the new contact notices and contact preferences. We have provided an overview of the current policy, and a history of how the amendments came to be. The systems involved were identified as the agencies which facilitate adoptions, and the adoption triangle (adoptee, birth parent and adoptive parents), and have examined how the recent changes will affect the people involved in the adoption triangle. We have developed a deeper understanding of the policy, with it positive and negative aspects, and have developed a hypothetical policy through which we hope we have addressed the main concerns identified in the current policy. We identified several items upon which we wanted to make recommendations, as follows;
- Maintenance of the veto for adoption orders completed after September 1, 2008
- Guidelines regulating the consistency of medical information
- provision of pre-reunion counselling
- provision of reunion mediation
- provision of contact search
- guidelines for non-identifying information provided
- Mandatory updating of medical information in terms of genetic medical conditions
We elaborated on these recommendations and discussed ways to go about implementing the new policy, including speaking with and developing connections community partners, hearing stakeholder voices through media, and enlisting government allies.
We have outlined the reasons that we feel these changes need to be made to the current policy and have included recommendations for implementation. Throughout the process we have sought and responded to criticisms and comments from the wider community and have greatly appreciated the input that we have received from them. These kind of projects certainly cannot progress on their own without the input and support of those passionate about the issues.
It has been an interesting and educational experience and we feel that we’ve gained a much more thorough knowledge of the issues around creating and implementing policy that meets the various and conflicting needs of stakeholders. We feel that we have a better understanding of how ideologies and personal bias can influence the outcome of policy development, and the associated need for more than one voice to be heard in development and implementation.
We want to thank everyone who has contributed to the development of the blog, either by educating us, expressing dissenting positions (which we can learn greatly from!) or working collaboratively with us in the development of a new policy response. We really appreciate all of your input and patience with us as we examined all of the issues brought forward.

Evaluation of the Adoption Policy

In the lifespan of a policy, it is “birthed” out of an identified need and shaped into a policy, Once formed, the policy is implemented and marketed. The final stage is that of an evaluation. When embarking on the process of an evaluation, it is important to be cognizant of the fact that both the evaluator and the evaluation process will reflect the perspective of the evaluator and this will have some effect on the evaluation design.

There are 2 main evaluation points to obtain outcome data. The first is the outcome data that has traditionally been collected to answer the questions about the desired effect or objective is being achieved. More recently, process evaluations are applied in the evaluation process to determine if the program is operating according to the planned expectation.

In order to evaluate our adoption policy, outcome indicators would be collected. These indicators would consist of both qualitative and quantitative data. Information of a qualitative nature might include end-use or client surveys to determine how they are experiencing the adoption services in terms of the delivery of services. Family service workers and Ministry staff would also be surveyed to assess how well they are doing with meeting policy objectives such as completed social and medical histories. Quantitative data would also be important to the evaluation process and might include the number of individuals referred to counseling services, waiting times, and number of individuals registering vetoes etc.

Process oriented research determines if the policy is operating in accordance with the expectations contained within it. Therefore, an important aspect to consider is how well the policy is being implemented and followed across adoption agencies. Again this would be looked at both quantitatively and qualitatively both within the adoption industry framework as well as from the perspective of the client using the service. An example of a process evaluation method for collecting data from the service providers might include peer reviews and case reviews.

Westhues, A. (2006). Canadian Social Policy, Issues and Perspectives. ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press

From Allies to Government

So far we have discussed some effective ways to build awareness, recruit allies and create public interest at the grassroots level. The next step is to move into the political phase of policy development.

Within the Ontario Legislature, it is the Ministers who are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for policies and programs. Ministers have authority and lead the individual departments. The staff within the departments are the ones who research, study and advise the Minister about policies. (Kenny-Scherber, 2006). Often times it is the debates that are held in the legislature that create public awareness and attention to a particular policy on the table. Legislation is introduced into the House of Commons either in the form of pubic bills, government bills ( introduced by a cabinet minister) or private bills introduced by a member of the provincial legislature. Much early in our blog we discussed how NDP member Marilyn Churney introduced a private members bill about adoption into the legislature.

Once introduced, the bill is titled and "read for the first time"( Kenny-Scherber p. 97). Following a brief introduction there is a vote to decide if the bill will be accepted for future debate. If accepted, the bill moves on for a 2nd reading. In the interim, the members of parliament have time to study the bill. The 2nd reading is when members have the opportunity to debate and make comments on the bill. ( As a point of interest adoption, we will add here that between 1998-2003 seven adoption policy bills were brought to the legislature and never made it past 2nd reading).

The outcome of this is a critical stage as to what happens next. If the bill receives an unanimous vote of all members in the house it will pass on to the 3rd reading. If the bill receives a majority vote it will pass on to the committee stage. If it goes to what is known as a standing committee the bill may be investigated further in the way of public hearings, expert witnesses etc. This can be a crucial time for voices to be heard from private citizens and stakeholder groups to influence policy ( White, 1989 as cited in Kenny-Scherber).

Once the work at the standing committee is complete, the amended bill is returned to the House.

At the third reading, the bill may either be accepted by members without debate and voted on and pass 3rd reading or it may be sent back once again to a standing committee for further revisions. Following a 3rd reading, a bill receives Royal Assent and eventually becomes law.

Having briefly reviewed the political process by which policy becomes law, it is also important to consider the "lifecycle" of the political climate. (Kingdon 1984 ,as cited in Kenny-Scherber) uses the term "policy window" to describe the optimum time to bring a policy forward. This window is typically within the first year of a new government when there is restructuring, new ideas and platforms being established.

Potential Allies

When trying to make changes or amendments to a policy, having allies who support your cause and can provide additional voices becomes crucial. It also becomes necessary to create a space where people are aware of the issue so that it becomes a matter of public interest rather than just the rhetoric of a special interest group. There are several ways to go about raising awareness and recruiting allies. The primary way, we believe, is to have the voices of those who are affected by the current policy, and the proposed changes, heard. Blogging is one way in which this can be done, however special interest stories in the newspaper or local news stations can also be valuable mediums for generating awareness of an issue. There are also a plethora of interest groups that can be found in the internet community who can be valuable resources to tap into in terms of policy development. Once a course of policy development has been chosen, it is easy enough to find groups who will support that viewpoint, however it is essential to consider the voices of those who disagree as well, or we take the chance on becoming isolated in our thinking and denying the reality that no policy will ever satisfy all those who feel passionately about an issue and who may have very valuable insight into ways it can be improved. Presentations can be made to interested parties, such as in this case, advocates for privacy rights as well as advocates for adoptee rights in terms of pure open adoption. Partnerships can be created between advocacy groups, legal groups and individuals who are affected by the policy that will strengthen the message when trying to bring an issue to the political agenda. Once the voices have been in a sense consolidated, a potential policy amendment can be broached with media, ministers who might be interested in the topic, and the local MP who has the power to put the issue on the table so to speak. Often these potential allies in the political realm can be found through researching the development of the original policy.

L.

How Were the Changes that Just Happened Brought About?

The changes that are currently in process of being implemented came about through dialogue with stakeholders and through protest by people affected on both sides of the issue. The media was heavily involved in presenting both sides of the debate.

Adoption records have traditionally been kept confidential through legislation, but in recent years, some agencies have moved towards more open adoption arrangements. This movement towards various types of openness comes as a reaction to the secrecy that has traditionally marked adoption. It is also affected by the present culture and social construction of family with a focus on biology as opposed to affectionate bonds and social ties (Ambert, 2003). Depending on the situation, many agencies created various forms of openness, in which contact between the adoptee and the birth family, ranging from letters or information sent through the society, to contact with supportive extended family members, to face to face contact with birth parents in specific situations. Such openness is at the discretion of the adoptive parents. Face to face contact with birth parents is not a usual practice for Child Welfare related adoptions unless it is believed to be in the child's best interests.

The issue of open or confidential records affects everyone who is involved in the adoption process, and each person may be profoundly impacted by the outcome of a decision to make contact or a decision not to make contact. For this reason there are strong feelings involved for both sides. Changes have evolved over time.

If you are interested in reading about information about the history of Adoption Disclosure, this is available earlier in the blog.

The Adoption Information Disclosure Act, 2005, amended the Child and Family Services Act and the Vital Statistics Act. Phase One of the new legislation was implemented in January 31, 2007. This allowed adult adoptees over the age of 18 and birth parents to register privacy protections with the Registrar General in the form of no contact notices or contact preferences. This was intended to balance the right of adult adoptees to know about their history and identity, with the right for adoptees and/or birth parents to protect their identity and privacy.

On September 17, 2007, the Adoption Information Disclosure Act was passed, and two days later on September 19, 2007, it was struck down as unconstitutional.

Further changes were made in response to public protest to the plan to release identifying information even in case of past abuse or to situations where the birth parent or adoptee adamantly did not want to be identified. Revisions were made and on May 14, 2008, a revised Access to Information Act (Vital Statistics Statute Law Amendment) 2007 (AARA) was passed.

This allowed:

• Adopted adults to apply for copies of their original birth registrations and adoption orders. Information identifying the adoptive parents will not be disclosed.
• Birth parents to apply for information from their child’s birth registration and adoption orders if the adopted person is 19 years of age or older.
• Adopted adults and birth adults to place a disclosure veto on their file if their adoption was finalized prior to September 1, 2008. The disclosure veto prevents the release of any information found in the birth registration and the adoption order that would identify the person who filed the veto. Applications for Disclosure vetoes were made available on September 1, 2008.

The provision of contact preferences as set out in the AARA of September 2007 was implemented on May 14, 2008. This is available to anyone if the adoptee in over the age of 18, regardless of when the adoption was finalized. A “no contact notice” was made available to prevent disclosure of identifying information in circumstances where there are concerns about preventing sexual harm or significant physical/emotional harm. This means that the birth parent or the adoptee would have to agree in writing, not to contact the person who registered the “no contact notice” before he or she can receive information from the birth registration or the adoption order. The person who violates a “no contact notice” may be fined up to $50,000.

These changes came about because the issue of opening adoption disclosure records brings up controversy and debate as to whose interests such arrangements serve, and there is ongoing debate about the outcomes such arrangements have on those who are involved.

June 1, 2009, is designated as the day when post adoption birth information will be made available.

Implementing the Changes

Implementing changes to policy is difficult. Challenges to changing policy include “high public expectations, confrontational politics, competing and vocal stakeholders, intense media scrutiny and a distrustful citizenry” (Kenny-Scherber, p. 92.) Kenny- Sherber also states that Social workers are expected to be active citizens who participate in influencing public discussion and shaping the decision- making of governments. Social Workers are expected to be advocates on behalf of the powerless (Kenny-Sherber).

The issue is complicated by the conflicting needs of the stakeholders: adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents.

There are many ways of working towards implementing changes to policy. These methods are currently being used to implement the policy that is currently being proposed. We suggest these methods could be used to promote further changes which would improve the policy that is to be fully implemented by June 1, 2009.

When changes to the policy are ready to be implemented, it is helpful to discuss and explain the proposed changes and the reasons for the changes to any Provincial Members of Parliament who is willing to listen. It is also helpful to speak with Public Servants to share research results, policy findings and options. Ultimately the goal is for the Minister in charge of Community and Social Services to receive the information from their staff, after they have reviewed the suggestions.

At the same time, the media can be used to provide news releases and to feature stories about real people who will be affected by the proposed policy changes in the existing form and in the proposed revised form. In the media releases, a consistent designated liason person and alternative contacts should be provided in case anyone has questions or wishes to provide further input. Television documentaries and public service announcements help to get the information out to the people about why change is needed. Advertisements in newspapers, magazines and websites help to get the information about proposed change to the people. Printed brochures provide information to anyone who is looking for facts, once a revised policy has been decided upon.

Public presentations can be made at social or service clubs or to explain the proposed changes to the people who are in attendance. Those people then take the information home to their own families or they may tell others about it when the topic arises. The internet can be used to send out information by way of blogs and emails and personal websites.

Partnerships can be developed with other groups who are also trying to make policy changes.And, as in every other situation where people are grateful for work that is being done, a thank-you is always helpful ( information taken from Lecture of November 5, 2008).

H.

Reduction of Harm

If changes are made to the present policy, we believe that harm may be reduced.

• Harm will be reduced if people are given opportunity for reunion specific counselling, so they will understand the dynamics involved for themselves and for their birth relative. When they know what to expect as they go through the process they may be reassured that what they are feeling is similar to what other people involved in potential reunions are experiencing. A counsellor who understands the dynamics involved in adoption will help the person to be realistic in what to expect. They will also have opportunity to consider how to add the new family connections into their current families while considering the feelings of all involved.

• Harm will be reduced if mediation is available. Given the conflicted feelings of grief and loss and of anticipation and of anxiety, it is helpful in some situations to provide the assistance of a third party who understands the push and pull feelings experienced by both and is able to interpret that for both. Sometimes it is easier for both to meet in a neutral place for the first time they meet with the assistance of a third party, so that they can each decide how and if they want to arrange future contact.

• Harm will be reduced if non indentifying information is provided in context with as much detailed information as possible. A summary of information is able to put the information into contact so that information specific to the birth parents is provided.

• Harm will also be reduced if assistance is given in adoption reunion searches. If the person is left with only a name and nothing else to go on, they will be tempted to just search the telephone book and contact anyone with the same last name. They will feel more and more rejected as the search goes on. They may also feel required to pay for someone to do a search for them, using methods that are available to them themselves or which may or may not be successful or welcomed by the other party. This may set up a negative dynamic from the beginning.

• Harm will be reduced if complete medical history information is made available at the time of adoption as is the usual practice in public adoption. Medical issues may come up later, and at the present time a serious medical search can be done as needed. But what do you say when your doctor asks about a history of cancer or heart problems in the family? Twenty or forty years ago when you were placed for adoption, the medical history might have showed that there were no issues. Since then someone in the family may have developed serious medical problems that you should be screened for! To reduce medical harm, we suggest that a central registry be set up where birth families or adoptive families can update medical information for each other so that each will have medical history information readily available as needed.

H.

Better Able to Make Contact

Some adoptees who do not already have their birth name, are only looking for the name and nothing else. The way the new policy is written will work for them. Similarly, when the birth parent is only looking for the adoptive name of their birth child, this policy will work for them. This may provide the adoptee with the link to their original identity and heritage that they always wondered about and the birth parent with the name they have always wondered about. Many people have no intention of actually looking for the other party at the time that they seek the name, but they know that if they ever want to do that, they have a place to start.

For the birth parents and adoptees who want to take this a step further, to actually making a connection, this policy has made a provision whereby this will be possible. If both parties have filed a contact preference with each leaving instructions about how they wish to be contacted, then contact can be made. Many adoptees feel the need to search for birth parents to fill the gaps in their identity concept. Birth parents may seek to find birth children, to address their grief or to make sure that their children had a good life. Some will be respectful of the bonds of affection and security built within the adoptive family. Others will hope that they will take on the role of being a parent.

The other group is not served by the way the policy is currently written. If the adoptee or the birth parent has not filed a contact preference, the person who is hoping to contact the other person is left with only a name. The person is left to do the search on their own. They have the option of registering with the current passive Adoption Disclosure Registry and wait for the other party to register. If both are registered, then a connection can be made for them.

The policy could allow for a new process to be set up where the registry would give generic information about how to conduct a search. They could give specific information which would allow them to narrow their search. This would avoid people blindly approaching random people who have similar last names.

Another option would be for the Ministry to find current information about where the other party is, make a connection to determine if they wish to be approached, and if so, pass the information on to the person who is searching. This is similar to the process of the former Adoption Disclosure Registry when it was formerly able to do a search on behalf of the adopted person.

H.

Overview of new policy - why we feel the changes will benefit people

Our first steps in the process of assessing adoption disclosure policy was to conduct a critical analysis of the existing AARA. In doing so, we clearly recognize that this piece of legislation was a long time in the making and has made a significant inroad into furthering the rights of the adoptee. It was also clear that there was a legal requirement to protect privacy rights of those affected by adoption prior to the AARA. However, what is also apparent is that the current policy does not go far enough to include the needs and/or rights of all parties of the adoption triangle and that it also has the potential to create some hardships in its implementation.


In our last blog entry, we introduced an overview of the changes we are proposing in a new policy. In keeping with our post-colonial perspective, in our revised policy we are attempting to ensure the rights to privacy remain intact in the future, while at the same time respecting societal demand for more open adoption practices.

We have taken the policy further in the direction of adoptee rights by including mandatory health information to provide the adoptee to ensure the adoptee has the same rights/access to medical care. We are advocating that the all adoptions are conducted in a way that ensures the collection of comprehensive non-identifying information that is consistent from agency to agency to eliminate any perceived discrimination. from inconsistent practices. Furthermore, we are advocating for the use of a detailed social history form to collect as much detail about an adoptees family history to assist the adoptee in the creation of their own identity that reaches beyond the provision of a "name".

Finally, in an effort to avoid a neo-liberal ( look after yourself) approach, we have taken some of the previous adoption legislation and policies, such as Ministry searches, contact notices, and pre-reunion counselling services that were previously in place and recommended their re-institution to ensure that while the new policy reflects a desire for more openness, it continues to offer members of the adoption triangle with valuable services and non-discriminatory practices.

In our next few blog entries we will discuss in more detail how these changes will be beneficial to individuals. D.

Overview of the Revised Policy

Overview of Revised Policy
Early on in the blog, we provided an overview of the AARA 2007 in its current form. From that, we have removed the pieces we feel need to be removed and added in the pieces that we feel need to be included in order to make an appropriate amendment to the policy. The following is an overview of the proposed AARA 2007 in its revised form as we would like to see it.



Information provided in italics are revisions that we would like to see made rather than current components of the AARA 2007. Throughout the revised edition, the condition of having the adoption order finalized after September 1, 2008 has been removed - again, this is a revision that we would like to see, rather than a reflection of what is currently in the policy.


The legislation now allows:
· adopted adults to apply for copies of their original birth registrations and adoption orders
· Birth parents to apply for information from their child’s birth registration and adoption orders if the adopted person is 19 years or older.
- Information that would identify the adoptive parents would be removed
· Adopted adults and birth parents to apply to place a disclosure veto on their file (on adoption orders finalized before OR after September 1, 2008)


Other previously existing adoption information disclosure services will continue to operate unaffected by the new legislation, including the delivery of non -identifying information upon request to adopted persons or to birth families; searches in the event of severe medical conditions; and the adoption disclosure register.



The delivery of non-identifying information will be regulated across the province as to what information can and will be provided based on individual circumstances. Searches will be conducted by the ministry for all contact requests, providing the applicant (in the case of no veto), the most up to date personal information as possible. All potential contactees who have not filed a disclosure veto will be notified by the Ministry by registered mail 30 days before identifying contact information will be provided to the applicant. At this time, they have the option of indicating contact preferences, such as the mediation of a third party through whom contact will be made. Pre-reunion counselling will be made available to the adoptee and the birth parent through their local CAS should they desire or require it.


If the adoptee or the birth parent decides that they do not wish to be contacted, they may chose to register a disclosure veto during the adoptees 19th year which would prevent the release of any information on the original birth registration or adoption order that could identify the person who registered the veto. This is available to all adopted adults and birth parents involved in adoptions..
If no disclosure veto is registered, the adopted person or birth parent may receive identifying information that was previously unavailable officially. Many adoptive persons already have that information, but it is less likely that birth families would have had that information.
If a disclosure veto is registered, the person may still apply for non identifying information just as before. This information may include their date of birth and where they were born. If a birth parent decides to register a veto, they will have the opportunity to voluntarily provide a brief statement to explain why they submitted the disclosure veto and updated information about their family and medical history. Birth parents will be required by law to update the medical history every five (5) years through the ministry registry. No contact need be made between adoptee and birth parent for this update to be provided, and no identifying information need be provided.
Privacy will be protected by allowing adoptive people and birth parents involved in all adoptions to submit a disclosure veto to protect their information if needed. All people who had adoptions finalized in Ontario may chose to place a no contact notice on their file to say that they do not wish to be contacted. They are promised protection of their personal identifying information through Canadian privacy laws as the people involved in earlier adoptions were.



No contact notices and disclosure vetos are intended to be protective measures and so it is an offense if not obeyed. A violation is subject to a penalty of up to $50,000. If a corporation, is guilty of not obeying the veto, they can be fined up to $250,000.


Requests for contact where there is a history of abuse under the Child and Family Services Act are no longer protected as they were under the previous Disclosure Registry. Previous waivers of protection are no longer valid. The new legislation provides no protection to adopted adults who were previously abused by their birth parents because the legislation states that all parties involved are now adults. If they are aware of significant abuse history they may chose to place a disclosure veto or no contact order on their files before June 1, 2009 or immediately upon turning 18 years of age.



These policy revisions have been developed as a result of collaboration within the blogging group (please see our profile for more information about who we are and what our aims were in this blogging excercise) and in the hopes of reflecting the needs expressed throughout our research and through feedback we have received from people on and off the blog. We sincerely welcome your commentary, opinions and discussion about any of the revisions that we have made, and any suggestions you may have for changing the revisions that we have made or additional revisions that need to be made in your opinion. We appreciate the contributions that commentators have already made to our knowledge of the issues around the AARA 2007 and look forward to hearing any input you may have.


L.

Recommendations: contact notice

We recommend that when a match for reunion is made through the Adoption Disclosure Registry, that the practice of sending a registered letter to the adoptee and the birth relative and the CAS where the original adoption took place, 30 days in advance of connection be continued after June 1, 2009. This will give both parties time to prepare for the upcoming contact and will give time for the contact preference style to be confirmed. If there is no current contact information available, we recommend that Service Ontario provide assistance to provide a means of contact or an address to make the connection.

In the event that an adoptee asks for the birth name, or the birth parent asks for the adoptive name, we recommend that a registered letter be sent to the other party to inform them that their names will be released in 30 days. This will give the person time to prepare in the event that the relative decides to make a search. We understand that after June 1, 2009, if a contact preference was filed, that an address or way of contacting will be provided. If no contact preference was filed, we recommend that Service Ontario provide guidance or assistance to determine whether or how to do a respectful search.

H.

Recommendation: regulation of provision of non-identifying information

As mentioned in several of the comments by people reading the blog, non identifying information given to adoptive families is inconsistent. Some families receive timely information in descriptive detail. Others receive only bare facts. Yet others receive scattered information. The information provided depends partly on what the birth parents and family provided at the time of adoption. It also depends on the information provided by the family worker and by the child care worker and on the expectations of each agency. The revised provincial Social History form that is used for Child Protection does not provide as much detail as the former adoption specific social history.

We recommend that a new adoption specific social history form be developed so that the type of descriptive information provided for adoptive families and adoptees is standardized across the province. The following information should be included:

• Description of the appearance of each birth parent


• Information about the birth parents’ childhood and about who cared for them


• Personality of the birth parents


• Medical and psychiatric health of the birth parents – specific information about diagnoses


• Interests, talents, and skills


• Education and work experience


• Information about how the birth parents met and about their relationship at the time of their adoption


• Information about extended family members and specific information about their social and medical health including level of education and type of employment and about whether they are aware of the birth of the child


• Information about the reason for adoption


• Information about whether the birth parents were involved in choosing the birth family and if they provided a letter or memento for the child


• Information about whether the birth family will welcome future contact or if there are safety concerns


• Anything that the birth parent specifically wants the child to know about them


• Anything else of interest that the child would want to know

H.

recommendations: Provision of counselling

low self-esteem, fear of rejection, fear of abandonment....
scary, overwhelming, opening old wounds...
Prior to June 2006, people who were in the process of applying for contact information were able to seek counselling around the process of reunion. This kind of counselling deals with support and guidance pre-, during, post- the search process , planning and preparing for reunions;
core issues through the reunion process for adoptees such as feelings of rejection, fear of instablity in ones current life and emotional healing, and fear, anxiety about opening old wounds (such as thinking about/talking about the birth father in whatever context that might be) experienced by birth parents. Counselling assisted people in determining if they were ready to make contact and to deal with negative emotions that surround the reunion. It gave them tools for preparing their loved ones and for coming to terms with the existence of this person that they are connected to who hasn't been a part of their life all this time. This counselling process was removed when the policy changes took place, and it certainly has left a gap in the support and experiences of those attempting to reconnect with.
As part of the amendments to the current policy, we would like to see counselling made available to both the adoptee and the birth parent if they desire and or require it. As used to be the case, this could be offered by the CAS that the adoption order was completed through, or through the CAS that is local to the individual.




L.

recommendations:provision of mediation

Provision of mediation
Having mediation in the process of reaching out and making contact with the other person in the adoption system can be helpful in terms of exploring all the options for outreach, considering the other person’s need for privacy, gaining an insight into the other person’s perspective on the adoption, providing space and time for a person to make an informed decision about contact and in minimizing potential damage if a person is unaware of their adoption or may have fears about contact. As discussed above, sudden and direct contact could be very damaging to a person depending on their life situation, knowledge of their adoptive status, current relational status, social status, or various other life positions. A person and their family or social circle may or may not be ready to deal with the implications and repercussions that can come alongside reunion with an adoptive person or birth parent, and the provision of mediation in the process can help to mitigate this damage. We would be interested in seeing the reinstatement of the mediation that occurred before the recent changes to the policy, which seemed to be effective and has since been removed. Binding policies to ensure taht written notice of the intent to contact is given, along with the potential for contact through a party rather than direct contact, seems a more effective and considerate way to deal with potential adoption reunions.
L.

Recommendations: medical history reporting

After much discussion and debate along with a review into the advancing medical field in terms of genetically susceptible disease and our knowledge regarding inheritabilty probabilities and the related medical managment such as screening procedures, we feel that the rights of the adopted child have not been fully considered in the current policy. It is our opinion that the adoptees right to genetic health information must not be overlooked. Our policy amendments therefore include a mandatory provision that both birth parents be required to submit a non-identifying updated family medical history every 5 years to the Ministry that is passed on the the adopted child. This requirement would no longer be required in the cases where the adopted child is re-united with a birth parent(s). However in the event that only one birth parent agreed to contact, the other birth parent would be required to continue with the mandatory medical history updates. We understand that this inclusion involves a shift in the policy framework as well as a shift towards the idological framework of civil liberty. This policy requirement also creates a fundamental change in responsibility on the part of the birth parents who now aquire a life long obligation to their child. However, at the same time, the rights of the birth parents to privacy will continue to be protected. D.

recommendations: adoption searches

It is our collective opinion based on a combination of professional working knowledge from within the field, an adoptee who has experienced the process of Ministry led searches as well as the results of our critical analysis of current and past adoption policy that adoption searches be included in adoption legislation. Searches offered in former adoption legislation have worked well and provided a valuable service that minimized any potential access discrimination for those who might not be able to conduct their own searches. We have learned through this process that the various CAS agencies that handles adoptions have had a certain degree of autonomy in terms of how much background information is collected and/or provided to the adoptee or birth parent. This fact alone can have an impact on how easy or difficult a search might be to find an individual. Once again, with trained staff with ready access to government documents it seems to be the most logical and equitable way to provide a service to those who would benefit. D.

Recommendations: the maintenance of the veto

The current AARA 2007 removes the possibility that an adoptee or a birth parent could veto the disclosure of their identifying and personal information to an applicant if their adoption order was completed after September 1, 2008. As we’ve discussed in several postings above, there are many situations in which a person might want their privacy protected, and this new policy removes their right to that protection. Through the research that we have conducted and the feedback we have received, both on the blog and off of it, several reasons for wanting the protection of privacy have been identified.
A birth parent might want their personal identifying information protected because of
· The adoption taking place as a result of rape or incest
· The adoption having taken place as a result of an inability to care for the child because of a mental or physical illness that they would rather not relive.
· The fact that they have moved on or away from their previous life and would rather not be tracked down or found.
· Having fled an abusive relationship
· The desire to protect their social situation and family from the potentially damaging influence of a person who may or may not be involved in criminal activity or negative social actions.
An adoptee might want their personal identifying information protected because of
· A satisfaction with their current life that they do not want interrupted
· The desire to not resume a relationship with someone who was once abusive
· The belief that upon relinquishing their parental rights, the birth parent relinquished any right to contact or relationship with them
· The desire to protect their own social situation and their families from the potentially damaging influence of a person who may or may not be involved in criminal activity or negative social actions.

None of these reasons go away just because an adoption takes place after September 1, 2008. The notion that birth parents and adoptees should no longer be in need of protection under the law is rooted in a post-colonialist framework that holds that the shame and marginalization that was felt as a result of adoption was a social construction that no longer holds true. While we believe this wholeheartedly, there are reasons for protection that go beyond marginalization and shame. There is still potential for an individual’s physical, mental and emotional safety to be compromised through the unmitigated release of personal information that fails to be addressed by the current policy.
As a results of this belief, and in terms of policy development, we would be interested in seeing the veto in its current form being upheld for adoptions orders finalized after September 1, 2008.

L.

Recommendations for a revised policy

Throughout the research process for this blog analysis of the AARA 2007, we have discovered several aspects in which the policy does not adequately address the needs of those who are affected by it. The primary issue that we have seen is the removal of the possibility of vetoing contact for adoption order completed after September 1, 2008. Disclosure vetoes were put in place to protect the privacy of those who wanted to have it protected, and as we have discussed previously, there are many reasons why a person, be they the adoptee or the birth parent, would want to have that privacy protected. If they veto were to stay in place, there are several other aspects of the policy that we would need to address. We have discovered that adoptees experience inconsistencies in the medical information that they are provided with, as well as in the non-identifying information that they are able to obtain in the case of a disclosure veto having been filed. There is a lack of accountability on the part of the birth parent in terms of their responsibility to provide updates to the medical information an adoptee is entitled to, of particular detriment in terms of genetic conditions to which the adoptee is at higher risk because of a family history. The removal of the provision of a contact search, as we’ve discussed earlier, has led to a greater inability to actually make contact even when a disclosure veto has been filed, and as one person commented, potentially leads to a greater invasion of an individual’s privacy when an individual rather than the ministry is conducting a search. Without the same level of access to public documents, an adoptee or birth parent may turn to relatives or neighbours at the last known address in an attempt to find the other party rather than just following a trail of public documents. There is increased potential for harm when an adoptee or birth parent is not advised of life conditions of the other party, such as in the case of criminal activity or negative social actions. The lack of mediation or pre-reunion counselling also leads to the possibility that people will make contact when they are not prepared for it and haven’t had time to prepare others in their life for it. Not only can this be harmful to adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents, but also to all of their families and friends. It can also lead to the possibility that there will be a great deal of hurt around the reunion which will impede the likelihood that there will be good lasting connections between the adoptee and their birth parent. In the following posts, we will be addressing each of these issues through recommendations for the following additions to the policy;
- Maintenance of the veto for adoption orders completed after September 1, 2008
- Guidelines regulating the consistency of medical information
- provision of pre-reunion counselling
- provision of reunion mediation
- provision of contact search
- guidelines for non-identifying information provided
- Mandatory updating of medical information in terms of genetic medical conditions

L.

Medical History Reporting: Current Policy

We have discussed concerns with the issue of medical history reporting in the blog posted on 10/25 dealing with disclosure veteos and medical history forms. If the birth parent wished anonymity, this will happen at the time the child turns 18. There is therefore an opportunity to update the medical history at this time. What we are discussing in regards to the current policy is what medical information is collected and how it is collected at the time of a child's adoption and given to the adopted child's family. under the current policy, the next time or opportunity for the provision of medical history is at the age of 18 at which time they are able to contact the birht parent or be provided with some medical information ( hopefully) that accompanies the filed dislcosure veto.



It is not clear as to how comprehensive or how consistent the process by which medical history is collected from the birth parent at the time of adoption across the various Children and Family Sevice offices. The unstructured approach to the collection of detailed medical history has never been addressed in previous legislation. The reasons for this likely lie in the fact that until recently, the value and implications of a detailed medical history have not been seen as highly signficant and the agency has not been looking much beyond the adoptive parent who is often young and disease free at the time of adoption. However, family histories of inheritable diseases in grandparents and siblings is also signficant information and this may not be collected under the current policy process. D.

Reunion searches: current policy

Prior to the current legislative changes, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services provided the applicant with the most up to date information possible about either the birth parent or adopted child, granted that there was no contact veto in place. When the applicants name came up on the list, they would conduct a search for the person using public documents such as drivers licenses, passports etc. It was a very non-intrusive process as they only accessed public documents and did not speak to family, friends or neighbours at the last registered address.
With the implentation of the current policy ( AARA) the Ministry no longer provides the searches. A name and address that was registered with the CAS at the time of the adoption is provided to the applicant and they are required to do the searching for themselves. L.

age of majority: current policy

As mentioned above, part of the process of applying for post-adoption information or filing a no-contact notice includes the fact that adoptees must wait until they have reached the age of 18, and birth parents must wait until the adoptee has reached the age of 19 (allowing the adoptee the full 19th year to make their decision about whether they would like to be contacted or not). This is based on the age of 18 being the age of majority here in Canada and the associated assumption that a child under the age of 18 is unable to make informed decisions about important life matters as well as the assumption that a young adult becomes capable of doing so at the age of 18.
There is academic evidence and widespread public acceptance to support both of these assumptions.
"The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.... Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions..” (Weithorn and Campbell, p. 1)

However there is also academic evidence that would show that both of these assumptions are faulty in many situations. The late justice William O. Douglas, in the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, used evidence from major developmental theorists to show that the ability of a 14 year old to make informed decisions relating to life events is similar to that of an adult (Weithorn and Campbell:1989), and in their study, Weithorn and Campbell found that “minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults” (Weithorn and Campbell:1989).
This supports the idea that there are some “mature minors”, who are as, if not more, capable of making major life decisions before the age of 18, and raises the question as to whether they should have to wait until a pre-determined age to attempt to make contact with their birth parent.
Also, there has been some research conducted that would support the notion that the age of 18 may not be an ideal age for many adoptees to be making a decision that will have drastic effects on their life. Craig Bennett and Abigail Baird noted in their article Anatomical Changes in the Emerging Brain that;
“The transition from adolescence to adulthood is known to be a time of tremendous change. Between the ages of 18 and 25, most young adults move away from their parents or guardians and become self supported for the first time [Cohen et al., [2003]]. Marked shifts in the romantic relationships, risk-taking behavior, insight, and worldviews of young adults have been well documented during this time [Arnett, [2000]]. Such research has demonstrated convincingly that a person continues to mature behaviorally between the ages of 18 and 25” Bennet and Baird: 2005)

This raises the question of whether an 18 year old already undergoing major change in their life should be reasonably expected to be able to make this decision. These two pieces certainly do not necessarily show that a change needs to be made in relation to the age of majority at which these decisions are made, however, we feel that since there is evidence to support either side, it should be a topic that is open for discussion. Please feel free to leave comments or contact us if you have any ideas around this issue.

L.

lack of mediation: current policy

Along with the lack of counselling around the potential reunion is the fact that the applicant, be they the adoptee or the birth parent, is given the name for the other person rather than the contact being arranged through a third party. This creates a lack of mediation and a lack of notice for the person being contacted. Some have argued that if contact were going to pose a problem for a person, they would have filed a non-contact notice, and some have argued that this problem is resolved by the ability a person has to file a notice of contact preference. However, neither of these measures adequately address the problem of a sudden contact and the lack of preparation one might feel around that.
As we’ve previously mentioned, prior to the recent changes in the policy, an applicant would apply for contact with their birth parent or adopted child, and the ministry would run the search, send a letter with 30 days notice to the person being contacted, and make arrangements for a meeting or contact that would be appropriate to both parties. This allowed for some time to prepare themselves and those around them for this potentially very disruptive contact to take place. Now, the applicant is simply given the post-adoption information and sent on their way. This means that an adoptee or birth parent could simply call or show up one day out of the blue with no warning.
To say that a person might want notice or mediation around a meeting surely does not imply that they would rather not meet at all which completely negates the effect that the no-contact notice would have on this situation, and as mentioned above, the notices of contact preference are not binding, meaning that the person attempting to make contact has no obligation to allow a person mediation or notice even if they request it. In essence, those two measures that some have argued could mitigate the potential harm caused by an abrupt meeting or contact, do not address the problem at all.





L.

Barriers to Contact: current policy

In the past, if you wished to make contact with a birth relative ( parents, grandparents, siblings or adopted child), you could place you name on the Adoption Disclosure Register. If there was a match, in other words someone you have listed is also on the list, you were notified. Actual adoption searches by the Ministry were started in 1986 at which time you could register for a search if the birth relative being sought was not on the register. The wait times for a search have varied considerably over the years. We have first hand knowledge of a 10 year wait time. However, once you were selected your records were opened and the ministry conducted a search. Personal experience with this process revealed that it was a quick and simple process taking less than 1 week to complete.

Under the new act however, if you do not find a "match" on the Adoption Disclosure Registry, the onus will be on the searching party to find the individual they are seeking. The ministry will no longer complete searches. Speaking as an Ontario adoptee who attempted to find a birth parent independently, I can attest to the fact that the searching process without government documents is not always an easy process. There may be an considerable amount of time involved in a search. Organizations such as Parent Finders offered some"laymen" assistance to those searching in terms of providing suggestions etc. When I could no longer afford the search time, I hired an "expert" to assist me at the cost of several hundred dollars.

The barriers that are faced include name changes ( in my case 2), cross country or international moves etc. Therefore, the reality is that without the benefit of the CAS searches, people may face some fairly significant hurdles in terms of time, effort and cost to track down birth relatives. There is also the matter of literacy, and possible language barriers. This may prohibit some people entirely. It may also create a spin off industry of "search experts". D.

Contact Preferences: current policy

According to Service Ontario, A notice of contact preference lets your birth parent know how you want to be contacted. You must file a separate notice of contact preference for each birth parent. In a notice of contact preference, you can say that you’d like to be contacted by e-mail or by telephone, by letter or through a third party.
The only contact information that your birth parent will see is the information you provide on the statement page of the application, so this is where you can make it easier to get in contact with you through providing an address or phone number, and also any information you don’t want the other party to have should not be included in the notice.
Unlike no contact notices, notices of contact preference are not binding and there are no repercussions to not adhering to the preferences. This means that the other party is not legally required to contact you the way you requested. To see examples of the forms and guides available to those wanting to file a notice of contact preference, please see the Service Ontario website at: http://www.gov.on.ca/ont/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cs/.ce/7_0_A/.s/7_0_252/_s.7_0_A/7_0_252/_l/en?docid=111872.
While the ability to request that contact be made through a third party with a certain amount of notice does allow the mediation and preparation piece to take place, the fact that the preferences are not binding is problematic and does not create an effective solution to the removal of mediation from the reunion process.

L.

What do you get if there is no veto?

If you are an adopted adult, over the age of 18, you will be able to apply for a copy of your original birth registration and your adoption order as of June 1, 2009. This information can be released only if there is no disclosure veto registered by the birth parents. If you apply for it, you will receive your original birth name, show where you were born, and give you the name of your birth parents. Actually many adopted people already know their birth name, and they all would know the city of their birth from their birth certificates. Many also know the first names of their birth parents.

Birth parents will be able to apply for information from the adoption order and from original and substituted birth registrations, as of June 1, 2009, if their child is over the age of 19. Once again, if a disclosure veto was registered before June 1, 2009, the information cannot be released. Birth parents will be given the new adoptive name of the child they placed for adoption and the order would show where the adoption took place. It would not provide the name or the address of the adoptive parents. It would also not provide an address for the adopted person.

H.

Disclosure, Non-identifying Information

Non-identifying information has long been available for anyone who was adopted. This will not change, even if there is a disclosure veto in place. In fact, if there is veto registered, the person registering the veto should have updated the social and medical information so you should be able to get that information in non-identifying form, in addition to historical information without names, addresses or identifying details.

If you are an adult looking for non-identifying information about your own history, you should contact the Children’s Aid Society where your adoption took place. You will be able to obtain the information that was available at the time of your adoption. If your adoption was a Private adoption, you would apply directly to the Ministry for your non-identifying adoption information. The non identifying information includes everything that your birth family shared with the agency or the adoption worker, to be passed on to you. It should give information about how old your birth parents were when you were born, a physical description; and information about their personality, interests, education, type of work and about their relationship. It should give information about why you were placed for adoption. It would tell you if you have any siblings older than yourself and would list younger siblings if they were born before your adoption was finalized. It would usually give some information about your parents, grandparents, and extended family and provide the medical information that was known at the time.

Many people find that it is most helpful to receive the information summarized into one document rather than redacted (photocopied) bits of information because the information is more cohesive and in context for the reader.

In the past 20 to 30 years, most people received all of the non-identifying information that was available at the time of placement. Some people may have lost their information and some people were not given the information by their adoptive families. It is still available. Even if your adoption took place 50 or 75 or more years ago, you can still contact the Society where your adoption took place and they will be happy to share it with you. You will be asked to provide identification to ensure that your information is only released to you.

What if I am looking for information about someone else?

Maybe you are looking for information about your sibling, your deceased parent, or about the adoptive family who adopted your child. The same process is in place. You would make a request to the Agency where the Adoption took place. You, as an adult, would need to provide identification to demonstrate your connection. Once again, Non identifying information would be shared as appropriate.

H.

What do you get when a disclosure veto has been filed?

In the case of a disclosure veto, i f one or more birth parent or adopted adult child has filed a disclosure veto then the release of identifying information relating to the birth parent or child that filed is withheld. When a disclosure veto has been filed, the only information to be released is a copy of the disclosure veto which can include any statement that was filed by the parent or adopted child. This may include birth parents medical history ( see previous post on medical info), or family history as well as reasons for not wanting the identifying information released.


In the case where two birth parents are listed in the birth records, if only one files a disclosure veto there is the possibility that the adopted child may be able to learn about the identity of the "vetoed " parent via the identified birth parent. Of course, the $50,000 fine for contact would likely apply to this situation if an attempt to contact were made. D.

Barriers to vetoing

The process by which either the birth parent or the adoptee can file a disclosure veto is fairly simple. There is a form provided on the Government of Ontario website that can be filled, printed, then mailed, delivered or couriered to the office of the registrar general. There is a toll free phone number provided on the form that an applicant can call for assistance if necessary. There are guides provided on the same web page for adoptees and birth parents as to how to complete the form in case there are questions. These, and the form, are available at; http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/FormDetail?OpenForm&ACT=RDR&TAB=PROFILE&ENV=WWE&NO=007-11318E
A person with a visual disability would need assistance with the application, as would someone with a disability relating to literacy or a person who does not speak English or French well. The forms are available on the website in both official languages. Any of these people can call the toll-free number available on the form for assistance in completing it.
One barrier that could be significant to some applicants is the need for a mailing address at which government correspondence can be received in a timely manner in order for the application to be processed. For applicants who don’t have a local mailbox for a variety of reasons, this could be a problem since they need to file their veto within the specific time frame of the adoptees 19th year. If they are out of the country or are experiencing some level of homelessness this could become a problem for the processing of their application.

L.

violations of the veto

If you do not want the adopted person to contact you, you may file a no contact notice. If the child you gave for adoption violates the notice by trying to contact you, he or she could be fined up to $50,000.
An adopted child can still apply for post-adoption birth information, which includes identifying information, possibly including the child’s name prior to adoption and the name(s) of the birth parent(s).
Post-adoption birth information services include:
· Copies of adoption orders and Ontario birth registrations for adopted adults
· Information from adoption orders and Ontario birth registrations for birth parents
· Disclosure vetoes for adopted adults and birth parents to protect their privacy.
· No contact notices for adopted adults and birth parents who don’t want to be contacted by each other.
· Notices of contact preference for adopted adults and birth parents who know how they want to be contacted.
If the adopted person requests post-adoption birth information (beginning June 1, 2009), your no contact notice will be released with it, and to access it, the adopted person must sign an agreement not to contact you. This signed agreement is binding and subject to the $50,000 fine. Birth parents and adoptees must file a disclosure veto if they do not want the other party to know their name.
http://www.gov.on.ca/

L.

Can disclosure vetoes be overridden?

The AARA appears to contain only 2 exceptions to a disclosure veto. These are: when the veto is filed after the release of information as in the following first 2 points below or after death.

• A dislcosure veto submitted by an adopted person with respect to one or two birth parents does not come into effect with respect to any birth parent to whom the Registrar General has already given information before the match is made.



• A dislosure veto submitted by a birth parent does not come into effect if, before the match is made, the Registrar General has already given the adopted person uncertified copies of the birth documents.



• or... if an adopted person or birth parent who submitted a disclosure veto under this section dies and the disclosure veto is in effect, the disclosure veto ceases to be in effect when the Registrar General has received evidence of the death.

D.

Disclosure Vetoes and medical history

The newly created disclosure veto form ( see below for link) includes a blank area for the filing party to inlcude a brief statement of any information they wish to include about medical history. This section of the form is nothing more than a blank box and it is not a mandatory section to be filled in. Concern about the potential lack of medical detail collected at the time of filing a disclosure veto was raised and recorded in the Committee Transcripts: Standing Committee on Social Policy - April 21, 2008 - Bill 12, Access to Adoption Records Act (Vital Statistics Statute Law Amendment), 2008. Groups such as COAR and parentfinders made recommendations that the disclosure veto form include a comprehensive medical history form that would ask for adequate detail concerning medical history. This was also highlighted by former MPP Marilyn Churley who provided testimony in court about the fact that there are over 2500 identified inheritable diseases which highlights the importance of having your own medical history. Further to this is the fact that medical screening initiatives for a number of these conditions is presently based on a family history ( eg colon cancer screening). The new dislosure veto forms posted on the Service Ontario website do not include any more than a blank space. Further inquiry with the Ministry about whether there is a more detailed form available ( October 24, 2008) confirmed there are no other forms for collecting medical history at this time.

An exception to the above is in the case of what is called a severe medical search. If you are adopted, a descendent of an adopted person or a birth relative of an adopted person and you have a severe mental or physical illness you may be eligible for a severe medical research. A search is conducted where it is likely to significantly increase the liklihood of diagnosing or treating a severe mental or physical illness. Contact is made to the necessary family member to get required information. The information is provided on a voluntary basis and remains non-identifying. Forms for the severe medical search are available at the service ontario website.

The question of medical information/history and what is available to the adoptee raises a ethical issue that is not addressed in the current policy. What rights should the adoptee have in terms of access to current family medical history in light of our modern medical environment and the increasing knowledge about genetically inherited disease susceptibilty.

D.

Disclosure Veto Form available at: http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/FormDetail?OpenForm&ACT=RDR&TAB=PROFILE&ENV=WWE&NO=007-11318E

What if a disclosure veto has been registered?

What if a disclosure veto has been registered?

If a birth parent or adoptee submits a disclosure veto, they will also have the option to voluntarily provide a brief statement explaining why they submitted the disclosure veto and why they want their identity to be protected. They are voluntarily able to give or update non- identifying information about their family and medical history. This is all included on the Adoption Disclosure Veto.

Filing a disclosure veto does not prevent birth relatives from being eligible to apply for a severe medical search.

Sometimes circumstances or feelings change. If you decide that you want to withdraw your disclosure veto that can also be done through http://www.serviceontario.ca/. You may fill out the form again to ask to have the disclosure veto withdrawn.

What circumstances do you see as a good reason to register a Disclosure Veto?

H.

The Disclosure Veto

The Disclosure Veto

The AARA explains that the opportunity to register a Disclosure Veto is available to adopted adults and to birth parents who were involved in adoptions that were finalized before September 1, 2008. If a person chooses to register a disclosure veto, this will prevent the release of any information found in birth registrations and adoption orders that would identify the person who filed the veto.

This veto was put in place for people who feel very strongly that releasing their identity may pose a risk or a threat to them or may cause serious disruption for their lives. Some birth parents may have kept the birth of their child a secret from the rest of their family and they may not be ready to share that information. Some adoptees feel strongly about being happy in their adoptive family and worry about disruption to their lives by including birth family who they do not know. Some people may be aware that there is a troubled history and they may be fearful of having their name released.

It is anticipated that not many people will file a disclosure veto. In fact, other jurisdictions that have opened adoption records have found that although some people feel very strongly about their need or right to file a veto, actually only a small percentage of people file a disclosure veto.

If you want to file a disclosure veto you can do this anytime after September 1, 2008. Applications are available on line through http://www.serviceontario.ca/ or by calling 416-325-8305 or toll free at 1-800-461-2156. This is also the way for the public to access forms, have your questions answered and application updates can be given to you. It can be done anytime but should be done before June 1, 2009, if you do not want to have your information released when the program opens.

A Disclosure Veto will not be available for adoptions finalized after September 1, 2008, but a no contact notice or a contact preference may still be filed. People involved in adoptions after September 1, 2008, understand that their identity cannot be kept private when the child turns 18 if the adoptee asks for it. The adopted name will be released to a birthparent who asks for it after the child turns 19.

Some people may decide that they do not mind if their identity is made known but they do not want to be contacted. If you do not want to be contacted or if you have a preference for how you would like to be contacted you would file a no contact notice or a contact preference notice through http://www.serviceontario.ca/
H.

Removal of the potential to veto: current policy

The current AARA 2007 removes the possibility that an adoptee or a birth parent could veto the disclosure of their identifying and personal information to an applicant if their adoption order was completed after September 1, 2008
A birth parent might want their personal identifying information protected because of
· The adoption taking place as a result of rape or incest
· The adoption having taken place as a result of an inability to care for the child because of a mental or physical illness that they would rather not relive.
· The fact that they have moved on or away from their previous life and would rather not be tracked down or found.
· Having fled an abusive relationship
· The desire to protect their social situation and family from the potentially damaging influence of a person who may or may not be involved in criminal activity or negative social actions.
An adoptee might want their personal identifying information protected because of
· A satisfaction with their current life that they do not want interrupted
· The desire to not resume a relationship with someone who was once abusive
· The belief that upon relinquishing their parental rights, the birth parent relinquished any right to contact or relationship with them
· The desire to protect their own social situation and their families from the potentially damaging influence of a person who may or may not be involved in criminal activity or negative social actions.

None of these reasons go away just because an adoption takes place after September 1, 2008. The notion that birth parents and adoptees should no longer be in need of protection under the law is rooted in a post-colonialist framework that holds that the shame and marginalization that was felt as a result of adoption was a social construction that no longer holds true. While we believe this wholeheartedly, there are reasons for protection that go beyond marginalization and shame. There is still potential for an individual’s physical, mental and emotional safety to be compromised through the unmitigated release of personal information that fails to be addressed by the current policy.

L.

Critical Analysis of the Current Policy

The following posts will be looking at several aspects of the current Access to Adoption Records Act ( AARA) in an attempt to critically analyze the effectiveness of the Act in addressing the needs and rights of those individuals involved in adoption disclosure, namely the adoptee, the birth parent(s) and the adoptive parents. We will be looking at such things as the disclosure veto, the provision or lack thereof of counselling and mediation, access to medical records, age of consent, the search process, contact preferences, and the non-identifying information that is provided under the act when a disclosure veto has been registered.

L.

Overview of Current Policy

Overview of Current Policy
The following information is taken from the Access to Adoption Records Act, 2007, June

On May 14, 2008.The Provincial Government passed New Legislation regarding adoption information disclosure services, the Access to Adoption Records Act (Vital Statistics Statute Law Amendment), 2007, (AARA). It will come into effect in stages. The new Legislation now allows:
· adopted adults to apply for copies of their original birth registrations and adoption orders
· Birth parents to apply for information from their child’s birth registration and adoption orders if the adopted person is 19 years or older. Information that would identify the adoptive parents would be removed
· Adopted adults and birth parents to apply to place a disclosure veto on their file if their adoption was finalized prior to September 1, 2008.

Other previously existing adoption information disclosure services will continue to operate unaffected by the new legislation, including the delivery of non -identifying information upon request to adopted persons or to birth families; searches in the event of severe medical conditions; and the adoption disclosure register.

If the adoptee or the birth parent decides that they do not wish to be contacted, they may choose to register a disclosure veto which would prevent the release of any information on the original birth registration or adoption order that could identify the person who registered the veto. This is available to adopted adults and birth parents involved in adoptions finalized before September 1, 2008.

If no disclosure veto is registered, or if the adoption order was made after September 1, 2008, the adopted person or birth parent may receive identifying information that was previously unavailable officially. Many adoptive persons already have that information, but it is less likely that birth families would have had that information.

If a disclosure veto is registered, the person may still apply for non identifying information just as before. This information may include their date of birth and where they were born. If a birth parent decides to register a veto, they will have the opportunity to voluntarily provide a brief statement to explain why they submitted the disclosure veto and updated information about their family and medical history.

Privacy will be protected by allowing adoptive people and birth parents involved in adoptions before September 1, 2008 to submit a disclosure veto to protect their information if needed. People who had adoptions finalized after September 1, 2008, may chose to place a no contact notice on their file to say that they do not wish to be contacted. They are not promised confidentiality as the people involved in earlier adoptions were. People who adopt a child after September 1, 2008, are aware that their records may be opened upon request.

No contact notices and disclosure vetos are intended to be protective measures and so it is an offense if not obeyed. A violation is subject to a penalty of up to $50,000. If a corporation is guilty of not obeying the veto, they can be fined up to $250,000.

Applications for Disclosure vetos will be available after September 1, 2008.

Applications for Identifying information from birth registrations and adoption orders can be made on or after June 1, 2009. This will give time for those birth parents and adopted adults who do not wish to be contacted to register disclosure vetos, no contact notices or notices of contact preference.

Requests for contact where there is a history of abuse under the Child and Family Services Act are no longer protected as they were under the previous Disclosure Registry. Previous waivers of protection are no longer valid. The new legislation provides no protection to adopted adults who were previously abused by their birth parents because the legislation states that all parties involved are now adults. If they are aware of significant abuse history they may chose to place a disclosure veto or no contact order on their files before June 1, 2009 or immediately upon turning 18 years of age.

H.

The Adoption Triangle

In every adoption there is a triad or triangle. There are 3 groups of people involved, the child, the adoptive parent and the birth parent. As such, there are unique needs and perspectives from each side of the triad to be considered.

• Adopted Child: The needs of the child include parents who provide a stable home environment and who love and support the child. The unique needs of the child may involve assisting the child with identity issues especially through adolescence when these issues may emerge. The voice of the adopted child seems to be the dominant one in terms of adoption rights. The civil rights ideology fits in here as the proponentsof this ideology argue that adopted children have a right to their birth identity. We will focus in on some of this debate as we conduct our critical analysis of the AARA and add futher to the argument of "rights" in our revised policy recommendations.

• Adoptive parent: Need to have an understanding of child development and how adoption may affect their child in terms of bonding and forming attachments. They also need to be equipped to tell their children about their adoption. Adoptive parents have been more of the forgotten group in the triad in terms of rights. The psychology of adoption Ideology proponents would reflect the voice of this group to some extent.

• Birth Parent: Need to understand that they may experience feelings such as grief and sadness, possibly anger or regret around their decision and the fact that they may continue to experience feelings around anniversaries and birthdays. Search rights, identity rights and psychology of adoption ideologies apply to this group. The AARA includes revisions that reflect the birth parent rights to privacy.

D.

For more info see http://www.childsafety.qld.gov.au/