World Support for Truth and Openness in Adoption

2005-08-14

Support from England - Ontario's Bill 183

Child Rights Information Network in England posted CATO member Ron Murdock's (adoptee) article on Bill-183.

Bill-183: this article can be found at http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=5969.
Isabelle GuitardInformation Assistant Child Rights Information Network (CRIN)c/o Save the Children,1 St. John's LaneLondon EC1M 4AR,United KingdomTel: + 44 (0)20 7012 6865/6867Fax: + 44 (0)20 7012 6952Email:

Bill 183 to open adoption records in Ontario, Canada (29 July 2005)

Earlier this year, the province of Ontario, in Canada, introduced a bill (183) which, if passed, would open adoption records to adopted people over the age of 18 without any disclosure veto

Earlier this year, the province of Ontario, in Canada, introduced a bill (183) which, if passed, would open adoption records to adopted people over the age of 18 without any disclosure veto attached.A disclosure veto gives the person being sought the right to veto the release of information. Only adoptees or natural parents are allowed to seek such information.

The bill was brought in by the present Minister of Community Services,Sandra Pupatello after careful planning and consultation with theCanadian Council of Natural Mothers, The Coalition for Open Adoption Records and with the backing of the Ontario Children's Aid Services (one of the largest adoption brokers in the province) and the Adoption Council of Canada.

While the majority of members in the Ontario House of Legislature -both government and opposition - back the bill there are two oppositionmembers who were successful in stalling a vote on the bill by filibustering tactics during the clause by clause reading of the bill.

There is also the extraordinary involvement of the Ontario Privacy Commissioner, Dr. Ann Cavoukian.The Privacy Commissioner's role is to advise the government and toeducate the public.The government did indeed consult Dr Cavoukian prior to bringing the bill before parliament, and she conceded at that point that the bill would be, ultimately, a matter of "social policy."Once the bill was brought before the House, however, Dr. Cavoukian appointed herself chief lobbyist against the bill, claiming torepresent "thousands" of anonymous people who had contacted her office to state that their lives "would be ruined" if the bill were passed.She claims that some people threatened suicide if the bill were passed.Dr Cavoukian's office has no jurisdiction over release of adoption information.

Despite being given hard core facts regarding benchmark legislation which has been in place in England and Australia for many years now, the Privacy Commissioner has chosen to use very selected excerpts from those documents to try and prove that open adoption records do NOT work in other countries.

The right wing press in Ontario has taken up her wild statements andpublished them as fact while, at the same time, dimming down anyrebuttals sent to them which prove the opposite.With each province in Canada free to legislate on adoption records asthey see fit, a pattern of unequal rights for children is developing inCanada. There is no unifying policy from the federal government.

The United Nations Committee for the Rights of the Child made specificrecommendation to Canada in October 2003 stating: "The Committee recommends that the State party consider amending its legislation to ensure that information about the date and place of birth of adopted children and their biological parents are preservedand made available to these children.

”In posing the question to the Canadian delegation, Commissioner Maria Ortiz from Paraguay “. . .regretted that only three Canadian provinces guaranteed the right for adopted children to know the identity of their biological parents, a right which is vital for their mental health and is notincompatible with the right to a private life.” (Extract from the minutes of the morning session.)

However, adoption law in Canada comes under provincial jurisdiction and until the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is incorporated into Canadian federal law nothing much can be done to persuade the federal government to bother heeding this recommendation.
____________________________________________________
2005-08-14

Australia Supports Open Records
Evelyn Robinson advocates for Open Records in Ontario

Published in the National Post:Thursday, June 23, 2005 Evelyn Robinson

Re: Ontario adoption lessons from Australia Re: Bill 183 Will Infringe On Privacy Rights (letter to the editor).

I am a social worker who has worked in post-adoption services in Australia for the last 16 years. In all states and territories of Australia, adults who were adopted as children have access to their original birth certificates and adoption records with their parents' names, as well as other details, when they reach 18 years of age.

Mothers who have been separated from their children by adoption have access to the new birth certificate issued to their children after the adoption, with the child's adoptive name, when that child turns 18.

Fifty years ago in many countries, anyone who set up a business was assured that they could only hire staff who fit in with their personal prejudices and that they could pay female staff less than male staff. However, no government now feels obliged to honour those assurances, just because they were once given.

Today, we have antidiscrimination laws to ensure an equitable work environment.If mothers who lost children to adoption were indeed promised lifelongconfidentiality 50 years ago, when social workers were unaware of the long-term impact of adoption separation on mother and child, then there is no obligation on any government to honour those assurances today.

Our society has progressed in knowledge and social awareness in the last 50 years and policies and practices which were acceptable then are now seen as outdated.

Evelyn Robinson, Christies Beach
South Australia