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
- 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.
2 comments:
You state that, "The primary issue that we have seen is the removal of the possibility of vetoing contact for adoption order completed after September 1, 2008"
That's not really true. A contact veto is still available and its purpose is indeed "vetoing contact".
The disclosure veto (which prevents the release of information) will be discontinued.
There is a bit of a common misuse/intermingling of these 2 terms (contact veto/disclosure veto) throughout your blog.
Of course neither veto is guaranteed to prevent contact or knowledge of the other party. As one of your commenters mentioned, adoptive parents were provided with non-id info in the past. Adoption orders were issued in the past with the birth mother's last name on them. This information together can certainly be identifying and has been used to locate people. I believe this information can also be used in the future without any penalty applying since the information was not obtained under the new law.
People should not believe that properly filed vetoes will mean they will never be legally contacted.
hi Natalie, you are correct, there was a common intermingling of those two terms throughout the blog as we developed our understanding about the policy further. Thank you for pointing that out. It was in fact the removal of the possibility of vetoing disclosure that we were concerned with, because we felt that the contact veto was insufficient in extreme cases. The contact veto, while subject to a fine, does still allow identifying information to be provided and opens the door to contact should the applicant for information be so motivated, despite the fine (be that a birth parent or an adoptee). As another recommendation, we discussed the regulation of non-identifying information so that all adoptees would have equal access to this information and there would be less discrepancy between whether an adoptee could identify their birth parents through this information or not. We cannot change what has happened in the past (though we can make efforts to mitigate the harm caused by mistakes, there is always hope!), but we can move forward. There are never guarantees in life, however there are protections that can be put in place. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancies, we appreciate the input and the development of our learning that comes through that.
Post a Comment