Progress on open adoption and birth records...?

Question

Is this progress?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-proposes-changes-to-adoption-laws/article1314752/

Is this a step in the right direction? Do you see other jurisdictions following suit if this change occurs?

Answer 1

I agree 100% with PhilM. The reality is that natural mothers gave birth and relinquished a child. The adoptee has every right as a human being to know who brought him/her into the world, and what their story is. Living in reality is a lot healthier for all involved. There are enough delusions in adoption.



For Ferbs who was asking about the thoughts of natural parents: I never asked for anonymity. It was decided for me. I do not need to be protected from my child. My child does not need to be protected from me. What we do need, is protection from asinine legislation that prohibits adults from forming or not forming relationships on their own terms.



Having a veto for natural parents is a slap in the face to every adoptee born to them. It is absurd to bring a child into the world and expect to deny him/her the basic human need to know who/where they came from. It's even more absurd when a government is doing it. It is selfish, and something that the overwhelming majority of natural parents oppose. In this instance, it has to be all or nothing.



ETA: Ferbs: Don't understand what you are saying about "danger" to the adoptee, since we are talking about adults who are no longer in "opened or closed" adoptions. So...this is moot.



Also..don't understand what you mean about forcing the natural parents? Forcing them to not deny the basic human right that the general population has? And why would you think this would be "forcing" natural parents? As a rape survivor, I have no qualms about my child having information. There are a minority of natural parents that may want to remain anonymous, but adoption is supposed to be about the child....not the parents period. Why should a government pass legislation that serves and "protects" a small minority of natural parents, and violates the adoptees they gave birth to?



It is blantant discrimination to exclude adoptees from what everyone else in society takes for granted.

Answer 2

NO VETO!



If you were old enough to bleed, seed, breed, read and sign you are certainly old enough, 18 years later, to be honest with another adult. If anyone actually demands anonymity from their adult child then I demand the right to anonymity too... there are a few ex boyfriends I would love to see barred from contacting me. Total BS. Adults behaving like children, it sickens me.



Man or woman up and TELL the other party you aren't interested in contact. Boo @ cowards, on both sides.

Answer 3

It's a step sideways as it's still discriminating against Adopted People by not giving them rights of access equal to those of the non-adopted

Answer 4

Both disclosure vetoes and contact vetoes are unacceptable amendments to a bill.



Just think - as an adult, what legal right do *your* parents say you can't do over the age of 18? If everyone in the state is allowed to have their own birth certificate, but only adoptees require their parent's permission, that's nothing less than discrimination.



The only acceptable compromise is a nonbinding contact preference form.



For an example of fair and no cost legislation that states should view, Maine's recent LD1084 is a good example:



http://obcforme.org/bill.htm

Answer 5

Although it may seem like a step in the right direction, I agree with Phil and everyone else who agrees with Phil. I see any type of veto as wrong....especially if there is a third party intermediary involved. It doesn't say if there will be an intermediary, but it most likely will involve one.



I have found that having an intermediary involved is usually a recipe for disaster- even if the first Mom wants to be reunited. The third party is a stranger, and the first Mom may be threatened by being contacted by a court or agency worker, especially if her relinquishment was forced or involved coercion.



I felt this way long before I knew of all the problems with third party first contacts. A first Mom usually will talk with her child. There was no way I would allow someone to make that call for me. I figured if she was going to reject me, I would at least have heard her voice once again. :(



No veto....that is STILL stripping us of our identity. If a first Mom does not want contact, she has no right to keep us from knowing the rest of our natural family.She's not the only one we are missing and/or related to.

Answer 6

This most definitely is progress and thankfully, open to amendments.



I really do respect a biological parent's right to handle this issue on a personal level. I just don't see why the veto has to exclude everything else about the family.



I suppose the "fear" is that this contact with extended family will eventually lead to them directly. I don't know what it is like to relinquish a child, so it's hard for me to think of forcing the bio parent to be identified.



And yet...it seems like for those needing that piece of the puzzle as adoptees would only encounter yet another road block.



I just hope that any medical info included in the file would be accurate and honest.



Progress for sure though...if only because of a) its a reaction to the "new" thinking on adoption and b) it is generating a reaction that will hopeful effect changes before the bill is passed.



I just would like to hear more from the bio or first parent point of view. This shows how hard it is to balance the "rights" of everyone.



Thanks for posting the question AnnaBelle?



@Life: I can appreciate your comments. You are in a better position than I am to speak about that. I can only say that although you are not a safety risk (or vice versa) there are cases where safety is an issue. Those can be handled through a restriced open or closed adoption though (our son has access to his natural mom and sister...not his bio dad).



However, since the laws are applicable only for adult adoptees (18+) I would think that protection at this point is less of a point of contention.



I am stuck on this one...forcing the natural parent seems wrong...and so does denying an adoptee their right to their information. I really just don't know where to fall on this one.

Answer 7

It's progess by recognizing the need and importance of adoptees maintaining a connection to their biological parents. But I agree with another answerer that it loses it's meaning with the birthparents right to veto the disclosure of their identity.



I know this is in Canada but it kind of brings back the age old debate here in the US of who the laws are supposed to protect.

Answer 8

I agree with PhilM that there should be no compromise. While it definitely sounds good for some, it's basically saying, "hey, if your mommy likes you, we'll recognize your human rights. If not, we'll strip them from you." I do like the idea of both names on the birth certificates. I don't like the idea of allowing that for some while hiding the identities of others.



ETA: It's not "new" for the adoption process to grant special privileges to some while treating others as less than human.

Answer 9

It was all sounding good until the end, the fourth paragraph from the bottom:



"However, the biological parents will be given the right to veto the disclosure of their identity..."



This is a deal-breaker. As long as there is a disclosure veto, adoptees are being treated as second-class citizens. Until this changes, it's all just window-dressing.



ETA: There is no basic right to anonymity. The claim that biological parents have a right to privacy from their own children is to completely misunderstand (or misconstrue) the right to privacy.



ETA: Forcing the natural parents to do what? To fulfill their obligations to their children?

Answer 10

I agree with Phil. It's still not the unrestricted access for adoptees to their information like everyone else has.

Answer 11

Actually, Quebec is following suit in this instance. Ontario has had this for a year or so now as have a few other provinces.



As for the veto, I agree with that part too as long as it goes both ways. In our society one persons basic rights don't trump someone elses (regardless of how many TD I may get). While most may welcome contact it's proven that there are some bio parents who don't want to be contacted as well as adoptees that don't want to be contacted either. If they want contact then the veto doesn't effect them but if there is one who wants to use it then they have that option. Everyone has the right to privacy so they should have the opportunity to maintain that if they want.



As a 46 year old adoptee who has had no contact and who wants no contact at this point in my life I have personally used mine to block any attempts at contact but that is my personal choice. Others may not want to use the veto and that is their choice as well.

Answer 12

I think it's ok because both parties have to agree.