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.
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.
2 comments:
The concept of pre-contact contact by a neutral party would be difficult to implement.
The other party accessing information is no clear indication that they will make contact or when they will make contact. Perhaps they want the info to keep & research. Perhaps they will not be comfortable making contact until a certain person has died. It wouldn't be right to force someone who wants only to access info into a position where they feel they have to make contact.
It also doesn't seem right to force someone to make contact with someone else in a certain way just because adoption is involved.
hi Natalie,
The pre-contact contact discussed in this posting is actually something that was in fact happening under the old policy. The ministry was in fact sending out letters providing notice that identifying information was going to be disclosed and there was potential for contact. We have proposed returning to this model to provide people with time to do whatever work they might need to do around the potential contact. You're right, the person accessing the information may never use it to contact the other party, however there is the potential to do so, and this notice advises the individual that their information is about to be disclosed. Whether the applicant decides to do anything with the information or not is up to them. They are not forced to make contact, the other party is simply able to make recommendations as to how they would like to be contacted if contact is to be made. Our recommendation of access to mediation does not necessarily force someone to make contact in a specific way, it allows them to know how the other party would like to be contacted, functioning in much the same way as the contact preferences piece that is already in place. The applicant would still have the option of contacting the other party in whatever way they want to, however we felt that it might be helpful to building a positive contact experience if the applicant had some idea of the preferences of the other party. What it does provide that is different is the fact that people now have notification that their personal information is about to be disclosed, and the ability to make choices around that in terms of recommendations to the other party and access to counselling should they want it. Thank you for your comment, I hope that clarifies our position related to mediation.
Post a Comment