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.