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.