National PostAdoption disclosure bill set to go to vote Ontarians debate privacy measures Heather SokoloffNational PostWednesday, October 26, 2005[]CREDIT: Peter J. Thompson, National PostWendy Rowney, an adult adoptee who supports Ontario's proposed adoption disclosure legislation, says the bill's no-contact order actually provides more protection for birth parents who do not want to be found by their offspring than the status quo.When Ernie Parsons, a Liberal MPP, adopted a child in 1975, he and his wife had to sign papers that made it appear as if they were their child's birth parents.At the time, Mr. Parsons felt like a fraud, but he signed anyways, feeling he had no choice.Fully 30 years later, Mr. Parsons wants his adopted children to have unfettered access to their birth records, which would happen if his government passes legislation that would set a new North American standard in adoption openness.The bill, which has been proposed six times over the last 15 years, was debated in the house last night and is expected to be put to a vote in the coming days or weeks."Try to imagine what it would be like if we were banned from contact with our siblings, our uncles, our aunts, our roots," said Mr. Parsons. "It wouldn't be right."Supporters of the bill -- a community of adult adoptees and birth mothers -- argue openness will reverse the negative stigma attached to their adoptions, the product of a previous era when attitudes about unwed motherhood and infertility made secrecy the norm.But Ontario's privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, has taken a passionate stance against the legislation, arguing that that rape and incest victims should not be forced to release their names to the offspring they handed over to the state decades ago.She says she has received hundreds of calls, e-mails and letters from outraged birth mothers and adult adoptees terrified their families will be torn apart if their secrets are revealed."You are going to be accused of violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," said Joe Tascona, a Tory MPP, to Sandra Pupatello, the Liberal Minister of Community and Social Services, whose ministry is responsible for the legislation.Ontario would become the fourth province in Canada to open adoption records retroactively, but unlike Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador, the only protection offered to the birth parents and adult adoptees who do not want to be found would come in the form of a "no contact order." Names and other identifying information would be released from files containing a no-contact order, but those who attempt contact will be slapped with a $50,000 fine.Dr. Cavoukian and the Tory opposition say they support retroactive disclosure but want a disclosure veto."We believe that Alberta, B.C. and Newfoundland have the right solution," said Norm Stirling, Tory MP.But Ms. Pupatello says the government cannot live in fear of being sued -- adding that letters and e-mails sent to her have overwhelmingly been in favour of the legislation."We can't be threatened by litigation," she said. "Otherwise governments would be frozen forever."Ms. Pupatello says she has studied jurisdictions outside North America, including New South Wales in Australia, that have opened adoption records without implementing a disclosure veto, and found that the no-contact order was strong enough."We know of no case in the world where someone has violated a no-contact order," she said.She said Ontarians who do not want their names to be released can appeal their case to a board of experts, who will make a decision.She said such an appeal would entail a "simple process," but did not give any details."We understand that there are those out there who want to keep their past in the past."Wendy Rowney, an adult adoptee who supports the legislation and who sat in the public gallery watching the proceeding, said birth parents and their offspring, terrified of rejection, always proceed with caution.She also says the bill's no-contact order actually provides more protection for birth parents who do not want to be found by their offspring than the status quo, considering many have been performing searches on their own for years."Any adult can do a search and find their birth family," Ms. Rowney said."If a birth mother is contacted who doesn't want to be found, she has no legal redress. The legislation would give her protection with the no-contact order, which includes a $50,000 fine."Mr. Parsons said he does not fear the day his adult adopted children tell him they want to search for their birth parents."I changed the diapers. I sat up with them when they were sick. I'm the father," he said."There's a birth mother and a birth father out there somewhere, but we are a family. And if our children chose to find them, we will help them."
_____________________________________Adoption Changes Would Open Door to the Past But unwanted revelations could destroy lives, say privacy advocatesBy KAREN HOWLETT Monday, September 12, 2005 Page A3Michelle Edmunds was 1½years old when she was taken from her home in Toronto and placed in foster care. But she never stopped thinking about her mother -- what she was like, the colour of her eyes, and why she had given her baby up for adoption. They finally reunited when Ms. Edmunds was 34. Ms. Edmunds, now 42, said the happiest day of her life was when she received family photographs in the mail from her mother in 1996. Her younger brother, John James, had the same red hair and freckles and looked like her twin. The photo of her grandmother as a young woman bore an uncanny resemblance to Ms. Edmunds -- they had the same eyes and mouth."I could actually look at those pictures and see myself," she said.The photos helped Ms. Edmunds fill in some of the missing pieces about her past. She began searching for her birth mother in 1975. But she does not understand why it took 21 years before she had enough information to track down her mother, who had moved to Edmonton. She also met four of her brothers and sisters and is still searching for her father. t's my identity. How could anybody have the right to withhold that from me? "Ms. Edmunds decided to share her story with The Globe and Mail after the proposal of legislation in Ontario that would lift the veil of secrecy on adoption records. Hearings resume Wednesday.Ms. Edmunds, who is single and works as a counsellor helping immigrants find jobs, is on one side of a battle, sparked by the government's efforts to bring greater openness to a process that has long been confidential.On the other side are privacy advocates who say the government has gone too far by proposing to retroactively expose the identities of birth parents who expected decisions they made to remain private.Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian is leading the campaign defending the rights the birth mothers who now fear exposure because they have never told even their families about having a child they gave up for adoption."I feel like I have no other choice," Ms. Cavoukian said. "I feel that it's my job, because there's no one else to express this view."Under the current law, in place since 1927, adoption records are sealed. The only way for birth parents and adopted children to reunite is for both to register with the government to have identifying details revealed. Even then, a match can take as long as three years.The proposed legislation, known as Bill 183, would allow individuals at age 18 access to their birth records, which contain their original name and information about their birth mother. Parents would have access to birth records and adoption orders once the child turns 19. Ms. Cavoukian is urging the government to amend the bill to give birth parents and adoptees who want their identities protected an automatic disclosure veto for adoptions that occurred before the proposed rules take effect.She's received hundreds of letters, many from elderly birth mothers who fear revelations about their past would destroy their families. "I made the hardest decision of my life 20 years ago alone with no family knowledge of my pregnancy or adoption," says one letter. "These proposed changes could completely upset my life as it stands today."Ms. Cavoukian said the goal of greater openness of adoption records can be achieved without trampling on the rights of these individuals and potentially destroying their lives. She has the support of every one of Canada's federal and provincial privacy commissioners and the provincial Progressive Conservatives.Tory MPP Norm Sterling called on the government last week to withdraw Bill 183 and draft a new piece of legislation to improve access to adoption records without revoking the privacy rights of birth mothers and adoptees.Sandra Pupatello, Minister of Community and Social Services, said there would be little point in changing the legislation if it is not retroactive. The government has amended the bill to allow adopted persons who had been victims of abuse by their birth parents to maintain their privacy and to allow others who want privacy to appear before a tribunal where they would argue that disclosure would cause significant harm.Ms. Edmunds said her thirst for information never went away. "It wasn't a choice. It was a physical need, a craving."At 10, she was adopted into the family that included three older children, where she had been in foster care since the age of 2. But that did not end her craving for information about her birth mother. "Telling an adopted child that you love them does not override that physical need to know your roots," she said. "What adopted kids want to hear is who they look like, what's your mother's name, when's her birthday."She remembers going through the telephone directory when she was 10, looking for a listing for her mother. She didn't find it.When she was 13, her adopted family took her to the Children's Aid Society in Toronto, and asked them to give her some information about her background.She got a document titled Non-identifying information on child prior to adoption. It had basic information about her background: she was born in Chicago on Sept. 28, 1962, began walking at nine months and had her tonsils removed at 3. It also noted a doctor observed in 1964 that she never smiled.She spent the next 20 years feeling confused and thinking she could be related to everybody. On one occasion, she approached a haggard-looking woman in a bar -- she knew her birth mother was an alcoholic -- and asked if she had a daughter named Michelle.In 1995, Ms. Edmunds returned to the Children's Aid Society and found out more about her family. Her mother was raised in an orphanage in Nova Scotia and she had eight brothers and sisters. One brother died in infancy and five other siblings were adopted or became wards of the Crown.She also found out that one of her older sisters, Colette, had been searching for her for 17 years. She met her and another sister, Mimi -- in New York where they live -- and the three have become close. "We became the sisters we should have been all along," Ms. Edmunds said.The following year, Ms. Edmunds tracked down her mother at an address in Edmonton with the help of a friend who overheard her phoning across the country. She spoke to her mom for the first time on the telephone on Mother's Day in 1996 and went to visit in September. She said her mom was only 62 at the time, but looked like 92. Her mother told her she had tried to find her many times but that no one would give her any information.Ms. Edmunds was struck by one overwhelming emotion. "l lost her for 34 years and then had her for eight months. I never really cried because I didn't know her well enough."The reunion was bittersweet. Her mother died two months later of pneumonia.___________________________________How Do Adoptees Pass On Their Ancestral History?CATO member and adoptee Glenn Gardiner writes...Honorable Sandra Pupatello, Minister of Community and Social Services Ministry of Community and Social Services (Ontario)Saturday, April 23, 2005Hon. Sandra Pupatello,I thank you for your efforts to reform the Adoption Laws of Ontario. Reform that is long overdue. I read your response, Toronto Star April 18, 2005, to the recent debate concerning the bill you have proposed and could not agree with you more.Knowing where I came from has been something I have wondered about most of my life. Even with assurances from my mother that she would be supportive of my searching, I was afraid of how she might react if I actually searched for my birth parents.I loved my mother dearly and could not bring myself to commence a search until 5 years after her death. What finally made me realize I had to find out about my ancestry, was my daughters’ wedding. It made me realize I was not the only one affected by adoption. Every descendant of mine would be affected. I could not fathom my grandchildren not knowing their ancestry. And it would be unconscionable for me not to do everything in my power to determine what hereditary diseases I might have passed on to my children and grandchildren.The changes you propose to the adoption laws of Ontario do nothing more than give us the same rights as all Ontario and Canadian citizens. I have always wondered why it is not obvious that adoptees who had no say in the adoption process, as minors, have fewer rights than criminals, as adults. Why shouldn’t my children and grandchildren have the same rights as everyone else in Ontario. It is not their fault they had an adoptee for a father or grandfather. It is not right to trample the rights of citizens just because an ancestor was adopted.Lastly, you are right that the law must be retroactive. Why would anyone think that because of my date of birth, I should not be entitled to the same rights as someone born today. Why is it that everyone who touts a reference to the “promise of confidentiality” cannot produce a copy of it.I am sorry for the length of my letter, but I feel it is extremely important that people realize the laws affecting adoption do not stop with the adoptee. I am very proud of my family and want them to have the opportunity to know their ancestry, know their medical history, know their relatives and for them to know my family.Respectfully yours,Glenn Gardiner________________________________________In 4 Generations, Half of Americans' Ancestry Will be Bogus -By [Attorney] Brice M. ClaggettIn "Adoption Laws Threaten Death of Genealogy," an article by Attorney Brice M. Claggett in the National Genealogical Society (NGS) Newsletter, Claggett describes how genealogical research, whether for medical purposes, sociological studies, or hobby purposes, is becoming increasingly impaired with each passing generation by secrecy laws.In most states, secrecy laws have been adopted in this century which cause the original birth record of an adopted child to be replaced by a bogus record. The bogus record names, as the parents, the newly adoptive parents, and does not reveal in any way that they are not the birth parents. Thus, the researcher has no way of knowing that the apparent ancestry of the child as shown in public records is bogus.The effect is similar to compound interest in reverese. Attorney Claggett estimates that IN ANOTHER 4 GENERATIONS OR SO, ABOUT HALF THE ANCESTRY OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION WILL BE BOGUS.Genealogical researchers, as well as medical and other researchers, need to take action to correct this Orwellian practice. Surely all people, whether adopted or not, have a right to be able to trace their ancestry in public records.[NOTE: The above article and complete newsletters are available from The National Genealogical Society Newsletter is at 4527 - 17th Street North, Arlington, VA 22207-2399.]_________________________________________CATO member Noreen Talbot tells her story...Following adoption’s trail By Stephanie MacLellan - The Chronicle-Journal August 21, 2005Growing up in Toronto, Noreen Talbot always thought she was different from the rest of her family.She had auburn hair and green eyes. Her younger brother and sister were blue-eyed blonds. She loved to sing in the choir and play piano. Her siblings were never musically inclined.It was decades later, when she was 48 and living in Lappe, that Talbot discovered something that could explain the differences. She had been adopted by the people she thought were her parents when she was a baby.Her stepbrother let the secret slip in December 2003 when she travelled to her father’s funeral in British Columbia. After she badgered her stepmother for answers, she finally confirmed it.“My adoptive mom had sworn everybody to secrecy. Everybody,” Talbot said. “For whatever reason, they all decided not to tell me. And my adoptive mother’s been dead for 27 years.”First Talbot was shocked, and then she was angry at her family for keeping her in the dark. When her anger subsided, she started a search for her origins. She had no idea how much work it would be. Under Ontario law, adoption records that include the birth parents’ names are sealed, unless both adoptees and birth parents give their consent. First, Talbot contacted the Ontario government’s Adoption Disclosure Register to get a copy of her adoption order. She had to fill out what seemed like an endless string of forms to get it. The order gave Talbot her birth name — Dorothy Louise Hunter — and her date of adoption, six months after her birth, but nothing else to indicate who her parents were.She contacted the Children’s Aid Society in Toronto, which handled the adoption, to request more information.Normally, the waiting list for non-identifying information is at least two years long, but staff put a rush on her request due to her age, Talbot said.From that information, she learned that her mother also had auburn hair, with blue eyes. Her mother was of English and Irish heritage, and just 15 years old when she gave birth.“They said she fell in with the wrong crowd,” Talbot said.The five-page document from Children’s Aid also revealed Talbot lived in foster care until she was six months old, was born prematurely, and was diagnosed with a heart murmur and an intolerance for milk.“These are things I did not know that, in my opinion, I should have known,” she said.But even that picture of her background has too many holes for Talbot. She wants to know her family medical history, and she wants to know where she came from.“It’s really hard for people that aren’t adopted to understand,” she said. “It’s basic human nature to want to know who you are, where you came from, who do I look like.“All of a sudden, I find out I’m adopted and I’m not entitled to any personal information.” She’s signed up for the government’s active search registry, which helps parents and adoptees find each other’s identities, but she was told it takes two to seven years for most people to get the information they want.According to government figures, 57,000 adoptees and birth relatives are on the list, and only 887 were reunited last year.Talbot also joined the Coalition to Open Adoption Records, a group that is fighting for Ontario’s adoption disclosure bill.If passed, Bill 183 would let adoptees get copies of their original birth records, which could include their parents’ names, once they turn 18. It would also let birth parents access their child’s records and current name once the adoptee turns 19.Parents and adoptees can put a “no contact” notice on their file to stop the other party from getting in touch with them. Anyone who violates that notice may be fined up to $50,000.The coalition thinks adoptees need access to their birth information.“Adopted people are the only people who do not have access to information about themselves that everyone else has,” said Karen Lynn, who sits on the coalition’s co-ordinating committee. “We feel it’s a violation of human rights.”Cathy Farrell licenses private adoptions through North of Superior Adoption Services. Most birth parents and adoptive parents she works with now favour open adoptions, where they meet before the child is born and decide whether to stay in touch as the child grows up.“I think it’s healthier for the child to know as much as they can about their biological heritage,” Farrell said. “There needs to be more openness in general. “(Adoption is) a loving plan people make for their child when they’re not able to raise the child.”But she knows things were more secretive in the past, and she thinks people who gave up their children thinking they’d have total anonymity should still have that option.That’s why Ontario’s privacy commissioner has been lobbying against the bill. Ann Cavoukian has said making the proposed new rules retroactive would violate the rights of birth parents who may have been promised anonymity when they gave their children up for adoption.“Going from this day forward, with everyone aware of the rules, I am in favour of openness in adoptions,” she declared in a written statement. “But retroactively changing the rules and exposing the identities of birth parents who entered into the adoption process in an era when secrecy was the norm can have major repercussions.”But confidentiality was never legally guaranteed, Lynn said. And since adoption orders include an adoptee’s surname at birth, it can be simple for them to track down their birth mother.Her last name was Couse when she gave her son up for adoption.“At the time, there were only 10 listings for Couse in the Toronto phone book,” she said. “You can just start phoning.”Talbot points out that the social stigma of having a child out of wedlock prompted many mothers to give up their children in secret, and that stigma is virtually gone now.Some birth parents Farrell works with still don’t want their children to know their identity once they’re adopted, but they’re few and far between, she said.Often, they change their mind after the child is born, she said.And even when adoptees know their parents’ identities, that doesn’t mean the parents have to be part of their lives.“Even when they are involved in the child’s life, it’s not as surrogate parents,” Farrell said. “They’re involved as someone in their life who gave birth to them and cares about them.”Bill 183 passed its second reading in May. Now it’s before the legislature’s standing committee on social policy. The final vote is expected once the legislative assembly resumes sitting in the fall.Talbot is still frustrated with the delays that have stopped her from finding out who she is. She fights it by writing letters to newspapers and MPPs to lobby for the bill’s passage.She doesn’t know what she’ll find if she learns her mother’s name, but she ardently believes nothing she could learn about her parents would be worse than not knowing.“I’m one of those people, I want to know the facts,” she said. “I don’t want to disrupt anybody’s life, but I’d like to have answers.” ________________________________Looking for the Past
Kingsville woman supports access to adoption recordssubmitted by CATO member Judith Lalonde
BY ROBERTA PENNINGTON
STAR STAFF REPPORTER
KINGSVILLE
When Judith Lalonde was placed for adoption a few weeks after her birth in Windsor in 1971, she gained a loving family but lost her ancestral history.
“Whenever I went to a new doctor or to a hospital and they started asking me questions about medical history, like, ‘Does cancer run in your family.’” Said Lalonde, 34, who now lives in Kingsville, “My answer was always, ‘ I don’t know.’
And they looked at me really dumb-founded, like, ‘How could you not know?’”
The reason that Lalonde could not know is because she was born shortly after adoption laws were changed in the mid 60’s to exclude the adoptee’s birth surname from the adoption order, which is the paperwork given to adoptive parents. Birth parents’ surnames were also abbreviated to the first initial, to protect their identity.
When Lalonde worked up the courage to seek out her birth mother – in part to get her medical history for the sake of her children and in part to simply “ have a conversation with the woman who gave me life” – she had few clues to go on.
“All I had was the letter ‘G’ and there’s a lot of G’s in the phone books and city directories,” Lalonde said. “It was very hard, but I was very determined that I wanted to know more about myself.”
It took Lalonde nine years of sifting through phone books and city directories to narrow down probable names, but her sleuthing paid off. She found her birth mother who, coincidently, lived only minutes away in Cottam.
Had Bill 183, also know as the Adoption Information Disclosure Act, been law, however, Lalonde said, “ I would have probably found her within a week.”
That’s why Lalonde addressed the Standing Committee in Social Policy’s public hearing on Bill 183 at Queen’s Park recently in favour of the bill.
The bill, introduced by Community and Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello (L—Windsor West), seeks to give adoptees over the age of 18 access to their original birth certificate and adoption order. It would also allow birth parents to access the adoptees birth records and adoption orders, with the new adopted name, after the adoptee turns 19. as a safeguard, the bill also gives each party an opportunity to place a “no contact” order: Violating the order would lead to a $50,000 fine.
We’re trying to balance the appropriate thing to do for adoptees who believe their rights have been trampled, they are second-class citizens, ‘Why does everyone else get to know and we don’t get to know?’” Pupatello said.
Making an argument on the secrecy side is Dr. Ann Cavoukian, information and privacy commissioner, who opposes disclosing without their permission the names of natural parents who placed children for adoption after the laws changed in the mid-60’s.
“ The problem is it’s going to be retroactive, meaning those individuals who gave up their children for adoption in the past 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago even, who were promised to have their records sealed permanently, their records are going to be opened without their consent.”
The commissioner has proposed the bill be amended to allow natural mothers or adoptees to file a disclosure veto, which would prevent their records from becoming available to the other party. The disclosure veto would only apply retroactively, Cavoukian said.
_______________________________________________________Published on Hansard, May 19, 2005
COALITION FOR OPEN ADOPTION RECORDS
My name is Dr. Michael Grand. I'm a member of the coordinating committee of the Coalition for Open Adoption Records. COAR is an umbrella organization for every major adoption group in the province interested in open adoption records. You will have heard from many of these groups over the past two days.
I am also a professor of psychology at the University of Guelph and the co-director of the National Adoption Study of Canada. I have conducted the most comprehensive study in the country to describe and assess adoption policy and practice. The results of the study are published in my book Adoption in Canada. In the course of the study, I have met with the directors of adoption and their respective staff in every province and territory in the country. This work has been recognized by the Adoption Council of Ontario, the Adoption Council of Canada and the North American Council on Adoptable Children.
Good policy should not be based upon opinions or casual observation, nor should policy be determined by single-case examples. It is impossible to write law that will cover every instance. If this were the standard we used, then we would not allow anyone to drive a car for fear of a single accident. We would not engage in business for fear of a fraudulent transaction. I'm sure you see the ludicrousness of taking the extreme position. Law must be written to do the most good, while at the same time attempting to limit the possibilities of harm.
This is the approach that's been taken in Bill 183. It balances the right of everyone to a history with the right of adult adoptees and birth families to control direct access to each other. The provisions in Bill 183 are based upon the best research findings we have concerning the process of adoption. They are not an emotional wish list; they are premised upon well-gathered data. In this light, I would like to consider some of the issues pertaining to the bill.
First, let me address the question of whether a contact veto will be a strong enough disincentive to protect the privacy rights of those being sought, or will Bill 183 destroy the lives of birth parents who wish to keep their past a secret? Let us look at the data presented by the privacy commissioner yesterday. She read out a series of emotionally charged letters of birth parents who fear that their lives will be ruined if Bill 183 were to pass in its present form. It's not hard to be moved by the force of these concerns, but let us not be confused by the privacy commissioner's presentation. She spoke of birth parent anticipation of harm but, I would emphasize, not actual harm itself. Not a single letter she offered described the lived experience of someone who had been found and had not wanted contact.
Contact vetoes are available in many jurisdictions. They serve their purpose. No jurisdiction has ever taken steps to remove a contact veto from legislation for the reason that it didn't work. They've always kept them.
We've also been told in press releases and during debate in the Legislature that the experience of New South Wales points us toward the necessity of a disclosure veto, so let's look at the full evidence. In 1992, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission reported that a significant minority of birth parents felt the law violated their privacy, that a significant minority of adoptees disapproved of the law and that a majority of adoptive parents were opposed to the law. This has been cited by some to indicate that the adoption community does not want legislation without a disclosure veto. But what is the rest of the story? What you were not told was that the 1992 report also discussed the unexpectedly high compliance with the contact veto. In 1997, a subsequent law reform commission report never mentioned the need for a disclosure veto, and in 2000, the new adoption act again did not include a disclosure veto.
What is the conclusion to be drawn? Bill 183 is neither new nor is it radical. It has been tested in the field. It has been found to provide the necessary protections.
Are adoptees at risk in heading into a reunion with an abusing birth parent -- a scenario that's been put in front of us? In the national adoption study I authored, we asked all children's aid societies in Ontario, as well as over 300 other practitioners and agencies across the country, about search and reunion. Not a single respondent raised the issue of re-abuse as a concern if records were to be opened. I travelled to every province and territory in this country as part of the feedback process. I met with the provincial adoption coordinators, as well as a wide cross-section of professionals in adoption, adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents. There was not a single instance in which any of these groups voiced concern for this matter.
Yesterday, this committee was asked to add a disclosure veto to Bill 183 for adoptions prior to the passage of the bill. What is the price of doing this? The research indicates that issues of identity and disenfranchised grief are at the heart of many of the difficulties that adoptees and birth kin experience. By restricting access to identifying information through the use of a disclosure veto, you are asking those affected to continue to pay a high personal price, both psychological and medical. We don't need two classes of adoptees and birth parents: those who will be allowed to come to terms with their history and those who will be restricted from doing so. This is simply cruel. The contact veto has been proven to protect a person's privacy while maintaining access to a history. Please do not include an unnecessary disclosure veto, and ensure the retroactive nature of this bill.
The Coalition for Open Adoption Records is recommending a number of amendments to the bill. We have sent you a copy via e-mail through the clerk of the committee. I hope that you have it. If you don't, we can easily make other copies available for you. In the interests of time, I will limit myself to mentioning only the most important amendments that we think must come forward. I must also say that I've been very impressed with the list of amendments that other speakers have presented today.
The first one that is vital for the act -- because you can't take away what you've given and leave adoptees now with just a name but no history -- is that we must have access to non-identifying information. Under the current law, adopted adults, birth parents, birth siblings and birth grandparents have the right to obtain descriptive information about relatives lost to adoption. That's under the current law, not this one. This information is taken from the files kept by the adoption disclosure registry. Unfortunately, Bill 183, through subsections 166(4) and (5) of the CFSA, would take away this right. There's no controversy about this. Everybody wants access to non-identifying information, and so that right must be returned. There has been no discussion to say that it shouldn't be so.
Secondly, we need a searching mechanism. You can't simply give a name and then just drop people. Law put people into this position and now the law has to take them out. If the government chooses not to have the ADR, you need to put another mechanism in place to assist people in searching. We go into details of that in our document to you.
We're very concerned by the fact that many birth mothers were told not to put the name of the birth father on the long-form birth registration; they were advised to do that. But adoptees are looking to find that information, and that information oftentimes appears in the file. So if trustworthy information is available in the file about the name of the birth father, it should be made available to them.
Many adoptees are born in this province and then adopted in another province, or born in another province and then adopted in Ontario. As long as you're a citizen of this province, you should have access to documents that this province possesses, either the long-form birth registration or access to the adoption order. One way or another, you should have access to your own documents.
We're very concerned that adult children of adoptees -- and it's funny to use this term, adult children of adult adoptees, but that's who I'm talking about -- should have the right to also know who their grandparents, their uncles and their aunts are for medical reasons, for psychological reasons, to fulfill a full sense of identity. The law at this moment is not structured to give that right, and I ask you to ensure that that's put into the law.
We also offer 11 other amendments to you in our document, and I ask you to consider them carefully.
In conclusion, I would once again stress that the decision to open the records is one that finds strong support in the research on adoption. To reject it on emotional grounds is not the way to go about developing strong social policy. The research speaks for itself. Please join with the overwhelming majority of the adoption community and support Bill 183.________________________________________________________2005-08-17
Bill 183: Adult adoptees to get access to their original identities
Letter to the Editor,Published in the Kingston Whig-StandardRE: Ontario to rewrite adoption laws, Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Three Cheers for the government and in particular Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello in finally acting to bring Ontario’s adoption disclosure laws into the 21st century!All 70,000 people on the Adoption Disclosure Registry (ADR) who are looking for their relatives will be finally counted as equals among other Ontario residents.
Adult adoptees will be able to access birth certificates, and medical information while birth parents will have access to their child’s adoptive name.
Can you imagine needing a kidney transplant and not being able to find a matching donor because your personal background has been locked behind closed doors? Can you even begin to imagine searching for - even when on the registry - seven years to know anything of your parent or child?
Although some of us affected by adoption were concerned about the effects of a veto (no-contact provision) we are pleased with the how the bill has been constructed. As April Lindgren has described the new legislation, it is fair to all. Privacy has been fairly balanced with the compelling need for information, both medical and familial.Birth (natural) mothers will be respected for their need and right to know about their children while adult adoptees can finally piece together their whole identity!
Margaret Taylor, Natural MotherKingston, ON and
Meghan Elizabeth Charters,
Adult AdopteeInverary, ON
_______________________________________________
What Its Like To be Adopted: David Bishop
Published on Hansard, May 19, 2005 - Submission made by David Bishop (adoptee)
Chairman and committee members, thank you for this opportunity to address you this afternoon. In my brief time, I will attempt a few things; namely, to explain to you what it's like to be adopted and to share with you what it's like to be reunited under the current system.
I was adopted at 13 days of age by my parents and I was reunited five years ago with my birth mother. Finally, I would like to say, as a member of the adoption community, that I am anxious for this bill to become law in the next couple of weeks.
One of the main frustrations we feel being adopted is trying to make others understand what it's like to be adopted. I don't imagine any of you on the committee are adoptees, so let me tell you a little story about what it's like. I'm sure some of you have been to Europe and have been speaking English somewhere, and someone has come up to you and said, "What part of the United States are you from?" Just before you answer -- just before that feeling of indignation, that feeling of anger, that feeling of, "How can he confuse me with an American? I'm a Canadian" -- that feeling before you speak is what it's like to be adopted; that's just a tiny element.
We look like you, we sound like you, we act like you; however, we're just a little bit different. We've grown up not knowing anything about who we are.Now, the truth is what is, not what should be; what should be is a lie. If you were adopted in Ontario in the last 80 years, your whole life is what should be: You should be lucky you were adopted; you should get on with your life; everything's fine. Oh, really? Then why am I always scared? I thought everybody was always scared, but of course, not any more. I'm reunited now.
When I was 26 years old, I decided to search for my birth mother. I contacted the proper children's aid and then got on the waiting list of the adoption disclosure registry. This is not a decision I took lightly. I really wasn't that curious up until then. I had no idea that this would actually change my life to the extent that it did. I emphasize the fact that I was 26 years old when I decided to do this. I contacted children's aid and then contacted the adoption disclosure registry.
On May 31, 2000, I was reunited with my birth mother and two sisters. This is the most courageous, the best thing I have ever done. I did very well in university. I went very far; I've had my own business; I've done lots of things. Everything pales in comparison to this. Remember that charming feminist part about, "The personal is political"? Remember when people used to say that? This is exactly what this is like.If you've been listening closely -- I don't know if I've mentioned this yet -- I started this process when I was 26. I was reunited on May 31, 2000. First I was 26; then I'm 35.
I am from Toronto. I was adopted from the east end of Toronto to the west end of Toronto. The difference between 26 and 35 is nine years. Did everybody get that? It took nine years. I followed all the rules; I did exactly what you're supposed to do. I waited and I waited and I waited, and then I called the ADR and they said, "No, no. You're on the waiting list. Don't worry." Then I waited a little bit more. After one year of this, I got non-identifying information, the first thing I ever learned about myself, sitting there in my room with my wife holding this stuff about me -- unbelievable. I learned that my birth mother kept an older sister. I have an older sister? It was shocking. This was not like what it usually is in the adoption world.Let's flash forward a little bit. That's all I had for eight years, and I got that after a year. I really wish the members of the panel could experience what Marilyn and I have experienced later in your life. This happened to me when I was 35, and it's just too big to describe; however, I'm going to try.
When I got really close to reuniting, what I had to do was write a letter to my birth mother. In this letter, I couldn't reveal my name. I had to send this letter to the ADR. They read it. I was 35 years old, I had to write a letter and they read it. Then they passed it on to my birth mother. My birth mother wrote a letter and sent it to them. They opened the letter, read it and then passed it on to me. My birth mother agreed to meet me right away, but that's just the way the process goes.I mentioned that I was 35, and I still resent that something that is intrinsic to who I am was mediated through a government agency. I had to bend like a pretzel to make this happen. I had to keep my mouth shut and be as nice as pie to the ADR worker because that was the only game in town. My mother was a widow at a very young age, so the name on my birth order is not her maiden name. There's no way I could have found her without the information supplied by the ADR. If I had had her maiden name, which was always hidden from me in my own best interests, I could've opened the Toronto phone directory. There are five names like that. Those five people are my uncles. I could have called one of them and I wouldn't have had to wait nine years.When one is reunited, the language no longer reflects your reality. On Christmas Day, I must explain to family and friends that this is my sister, and this is my sister, and they've just met once or twice before. When my nieces ask me, "Uncle David, are we related?" I say, "Of course you are. You're cousins, through me."
It was Mother's Day a few weeks ago, and you've all heard of the language that says you can only have one mother. Well, on Mother's Day you might buy a card for your wife, who's also a mother, but you only buy one card. Well, for the last five years, I buy two cards: one for my mother and one for my mother.The same way that I can reunite two families and make them one at Christmas is the way I can reunite this Legislature right now.
In the late 1980s, it was the Conservatives, oddly absent, who started the ADR --It was the Conservatives, when they used to emphasize the word "progressive" instead of "conservative" in their name, who had a hand in starting the ADR, who opened it up. Throughout the 1990s, it was the NDP and Marilyn Churley who gave us private member's bill after private member's bill, and we all know the fate of private members' bills, or most of them. We got close once, only to be shut down, again by someone from your party. Alas.Here we are now: It's the Liberals. I've been here before and I've seen people change their stripes. Suddenly, you're with me. This is nice, being on the side of the government. There have been certain people who weren't too big when it was her bill. Oddly enough, we're all on the same side here.
So now you're trying to really open the door. For that, we're grateful.I want this bill to be retroactive, with no disclosure veto; an amendment that would include the non-identifying information. During the privacy commissioner's screed yesterday, she said that in the provinces where they already have this type of legislation, only 3% lodge disclosure vetoes. You are legislators; when do you ever hear the words "97% of anything"? Why is the tail wagging the dog only on this law? She said something interesting: "The silent minority." Yeah. The words that you're supposed to use are "silent majority." A minority is silent because it's a minority. There's 97% and there's 3%. That's why it's silent. We've been quiet long enough. This hasn't worked for us. The tail doesn't wag the dog; the dog wags the tail.
Maybe you can tell me how a province like Ralph Klein's Alberta is more socially progressive than Ontario. How does that work? They are. They have this law and we don't.In conclusion, I urge you to get this law passed as soon as possible. Please don't make me come here four years from now just to argue the same thing again.
