We will be approaching our research for the purposes of this blog from the point of view that the changes that have been instituted in adoption disclosure policy reflect the change from a colonialist position preferring government regulation to an emphasis on self-regulation and autonomy. Adoption records have been closed since 1927 and secrecy surrounded adoption as was considered best at the time. The previous form of the policy emphasized the governments need to “protect” a person from social shame and marginalization. The new policy form recognizes the importance of looking at who speaks for whom and under what conditions, rather than the government making sweeping changes that not all birth families, adoptees, or adoptive families may be comfortable with. There is more of an emphasis on allowing individuals to decide what they need, and an increase in the emphasis on the individual’s ability to account for and speak for themself. This is evidenced by the fact that the individual is now expected to make their choice about vetoing contact on their own when the child turns 18. Our society has long viewed birth mothers needing to place her child up for adoption as a shameful act that should not be acknowledged. It was thought that the pregnancy should be hidden and never spoken about again. The idea that a birth child could come back and contact them later in life was thought to be a scary idea for birth mothers, and it was thought that the government must protect them from that by sealing adoption records. In recent years however, birth mothers have been speaking out and saying that they are not ashamed of having put their children up for adoption and wanted the choice to seek out reunions with their birth children. They no longer wanted the complete protection of the government, and they wanted the ability to autonomously decide whether reuniting was in their best interest or not. This ability to choose does not fail to acknowledge the potential harm there is in providing complete access to private information, rather it asks that that the birth mother and the child have the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they want to take that risk or not, and to place their own conditions on that risk (such as through contact vetoes and preferences).
L.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Please explain how a persons adoptes is deemed capable of causing harm and what exactly this harm is or will be.
Sorry, but I just don't understand how people can write so casualy about a sector of the population that the government has deemed capable of destroying lives to the point of taking away their identities.
Ann Cavoukian used healines such as: "Adoptees will destroy lives" with repsect to adopted persons possessing their birth certificates. This accaptable by others? Imagine if she had referred to a gay or ethnic group using the same headline??
My understanding of this post was that when the author was referring to "harm" it was not harm that the adoptee themselves could impose on the birth parent, but the potential harm inherent in providing information about one person to another without their express permission. We have laws that protect against this, and those laws are unconditional and should remain as such. I agree wholeheartedly with you that these laws can and do infringe on an individuals ability to discover their heritage and identity, and I don't for a second believe that this is not intensely harmful. However, the idea that someone else can make the decision to infringe on my right to privacy based on who is asking for the information scares me. There is potential here to create loopholes in our privacy laws that could potentially cause harm completely unrelated to the potential of an adopted person causing harm. When we create conditionality in our rights and the laws that protect these rights, we take the chance on going down a slippery slope.
This doesn't take away from the harm being caused by statements such as "adoptees will destroy lives" , and I don't deny that these kind of statements have ocurred and still occur, however taking statements out of context is a pretty dangerous game to play. It’s not that Cavoukian believes all of Ontario’s adoption records should be kept private. In fact, she said she understands the need for some former adoptees and birth parents to obtain information about their past. She said her problem with the legislation was the fact that it would make all files available for disclosure, regardless of whether the people involved were looking for that information or not. “I just objected to the absence of some provision to allow those who did wish to preserve their privacy to be allowed to do so,” she said in an October interview. “I didn’t object to opening up adoption records from this day forward.”
Ms. Cavoukian was representing the voices of those who had written to her in respect to the new law and respecting the fact that for some, the adoptions took place under circumstances they would rather forget or move on from, such as incest or rape. One letter that Cavoukian received, one voice that she represented stated that: "I was told in a court of law by the judge, by the caseworker, by my lawyer, by the crown counsel, by everyone present to just get on with my life – that … these records were going to be sealed,''What was I supposed to do—not trust all these officials who had promised me privacy?’”
Right or not, there is a great deal of evidence that based on the laws as they previously stood, privacy WAS promised, and choices were made based on those promises. Ms. Cavoukian argued that those who would like that promise upheld should be able to have that, she did not argue that adoptees should never have access to their birth records, and she did not state that all adoptees will destroy lives, as you imply.
I think the author(s) of this blog are making an attempt to take an impartial look at a policy as it currently stands rather than a stance of advocacy for one group or another, which could account for the casual nature of the postings.
As some one who lost a child to adoption, I disagree that there was any such promise made. It was the punisment imposed on me not the promise made to me.
I see that one letter quoted so often. One wonders why the minority have been permitted to obliterate the rights of the mjority.
Many studies have shown that approximately 95% of birth parents are happy to be found.
The government and particularly the socialwork profession needs to examine its paternalistic, in the truest sense of that word, attitude.
See my post - Thats One Big Powerful Mother, Dude
unsignedmasterpiece:
you said: "Many studies have shown that approximately 95% of birth parents are happy to be found.
"
- there is no reason why a person who wants to be found has to veto - why should the 5% not be able to just because the majority don't want to?
The policy doesn't seal all adoption records, it only makes privacy an option (as it should be under Canadian law), for those who choose to file a veto.
Is it paternalistic to give people the right to privacy only if and when they so choose?
Post a Comment