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.
