You can now read the whole story of how they did this in the cover story of the latest AAC Decree, Vol. 26, No 3 "Adoption Disclosure the Canadian Way" available as a PDF file by request. Drop me an email and Ill send it as I cannot attach PDF files here. :-(
The genesis of the article was related in my post of April 28, 2009, entitled: The AAC Part II: Rekindling Long Standing Issues...Whose Rights? where I describe having been called a communist for even suggesting that we change our language from the rights of adult adoptees to the rights of persons separated by adoption.
Many at the AAC were outraged for my suggestion and when I brought up Canada as an example of having accomplished it, I was attacked by the misbelief that it was because of going after rights for both parties to the adoption that caused there to be a veto added to the Ontario legislation. Not so retorted Michael Grand, a Canadian LDA and member of CCNM and Karen Lynn who perused the issue with the AAC and were thus given the opportunity to explain it all in the Decree.
The Canadian law goes far further than i have ever thought to suggest. I was speaking about equal access to the ORIGINAL BC. They have gotten equal access to both the original and amended!
While in Toronto recently and able to spend time with Karen Lynn, president of CCNM, we discussed at length why this was possible there and why we re hot so hard here with the lie that mothers were promised anonymity (which is why they have they the veto as we do in many states here as well without attempting anything at all for mothers who are also party to the OBC).
Karen believes it lies in the difference between civil rights and human rights. She pointe dout that civil rights is a very American concept. The rest of the world thinks in terms of human rights and n thus mothers are humans to! What a concept!! Imagine that!
I, of course, being American and far more cynical, believe it is just one more aspect of the over-reaching greed of unregulated capitalism running as it does, out of control, and the power of lobbyists such as the NCFA - the perpetuated of the anonymity promise myth.
In any case it is an important read. As more and more mothers claim their empowerment, I hope that we stand together and demand this human right -- not to the amended, but to the OBC and that we stop allowing adoptees to use us to aid THEIR fight for THEIR rights while absolutely refusing to see that we have any rights whatsoever to papers that came into existence prior to any adoption and that are as much ours as theirs as we are BOTH parties to the document...and also that they are shreds of evidential proof that tie us to our children...other than stretch marks, painful memories and grief. The OBC is ours just as much as the OBC of any other child we bore is ours.
Human rights begins with US recognizing OUR humanness!
25 comments:
Unfortunately, the legislation includes vetoes, so is not truly open and equal:
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/community/programs/adoptInfo/index.htm?247SEM
'Protecting your privacy .
Adopted adults and birth parents also have the option to protect the privacy of their post-adoption birth information.
Adopted adults and birth parents can:
file a notice of contact preference to specify how they would like to be contacted
file a no contact notice if they do not want to be contacted, but are willing to have their identifying information released
file a disclosure veto if the adoption was finalized before September 1, 2008. This will prevent identifying post-adoption birth information from being released.'
I am well aware of, and noted, that it contains a veto - as do ALL Canadian access laws, thank you.
If you read the Decree article, you will understand however, that it is not because of making it available to both parities. It would have had a veto regardless...as do all Canadian access laws!
Further, the article explains "The judge did not differentiate between them (adoptee and birth parent) when it came to his ruling about a disclosure veto....at no time did anyone in the courtroom suggest that this case was about birth parents' "right" to privacy; it was about privacy, plain and simple."
"The law has accomplished 200% increase in the number of those gaining access to information."
The law is based on New Zealand's model. "[S]ources from New Zealand have pointed out that every year the number of vetoes declines by ten percent, meaning very few remain. The vetoes have just fizzled ut and by now almost everyone has access to identifying information about their nurtural. Parents or their children lost to adoption."
In this country, we rail about loosing the ten percent of those who MIGHT be barred by their parent filing a veto, but think nothing of excluding 50% of those separated by adoption.
AHHHH...sounds like a CLASSIC (Bethnam) ultalitarian vs Kant argument does it not?? Sacrifice some for many; the best for the most or the most humane?
(For explanation see my Oct 10 post: Morality, Ethics, Justice and Adoption.
http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/
2009/10/morality-justice-ethics-and-adoption.html
One thing to point out about the Ontario law - no one is allowed a disclosure veto for adoptions that take place after Sept 2008. That means that with time, disclosure vetoes will eventually die out and the new generation will have unfettered access to their information.
Exactly!
So you're looking to attrition to solve the problem? Nice.
Especially for the 'old' (as opposed to the aforementioned 'new') generation - which, of course, means all those who relinquished or were adopted in Ontario before September 2008, many of whom who won't, in fact, be 'old' at all.
Not that it should make any difference if they were.
Meanwhile, the contact veto stays, I suppose. As well as the possibility of having to pay a $50,000 penalty if the veto is broken. And for that clause to remain on the books, whether it is ever levied or not, is discriminatory. I really think that you miss the point, which is that either all citizens deserve equal right of access to their OBCs, or they don't.
There are some things that are so important that they are not negotiable, and one of these is the right to knowledge of one's personal history and to all the documentation pertaining to it (that other people receive without question). It is fundamental to a non-totalitarian society.
The injustice done to mothers is a separate issue. I do not believe that conflating the two is helpful to either cause.
Personally, I think they have it right in the UK: http://www.baaf.org.uk/media/releases/051220.shtml
"Other changes include giving birth mothers and other birth relatives the legal right to ask for an intermediary service to trace an adoptive adult and find out if contact would be welcome. In the 1950s and 1960s when it was socially unacceptable to have an illegitimate child many unmarried mothers felt they had no choice but to give up their baby for adoption. For many of these mothers it will be possible, for the first time, to find out how their adopted child is and possibly to make contact. Up until now, a number of adoption agencies and local authorities have provided these services, but availability has been patchy and inconsistent. No information about an adopted adult's identity or location will be given without their consent and they can register a "veto" if they do not want to be contacted."
Kippa, I totally agree with your first premise and doubt there are any of us who disagree. No one WANTYS or requests vetoes here or in Canada. It's what we get!
Where we disagree is in the conflict between your two statements:
1. "...either all citizens deserve equal right of access to their OBCs, or they don't."
2. "The injustice done to mothers is a separate issue. I do not believe that conflating the two is helpful to either cause."
Then you bring in UK law which is about the birthfamily's right to LOCATE and have cONTACT with the children they lost. THART, yes, is a separate issue.
What you are confusing however - or simply ignoring - is the right of ALL CITIZENS EQUALLY to document that refer to them. In this case the ORIGINAL BC which every mother who births a child should have unfettered rights despite any loss of custody that takes place SUBSEQUENT to that birth. The OBC in no way interferes with the "rights" of the adoptee or his adoptive family as it it in no way identifies THEM. it is about the mother and the BIRTH that occurred TO HER!!
Ontario law goes further and gives birth parents the OBC and the falsified BC. I am not suggesting that however.
If American adoption reformers would see that by including the rights of all to documents that apply to them - they would double their support base. Ad while the unfortunate Ontario veto - as all vetoes - will hurt a small number of people, the fact that Ontario has given rights to both NCs bilaterally increases every adoptees possibility of finding or being found.
The bottom line however is that the veto would have been there had it not been bilateral and that would be far worse.
"No one WANTYS or requests vetoes here or in Canada. It's what we get!" It's what we get if we are prepared to accept the crumbs from under the table.
". . . the veto would have been there had it not been bilateral and that would be far worse."
I don't like vetoes being placed against first parents, but as far as I'm concerned any bill that includes a clause that allows for vetoes to be filed against adopted people is totally unacceptable. I did not support the earlier bill.
You are absolutely right about mothers' rights to the OBC.
That has nothing to do with the act of adoption, it is a record of the birth itself.
I just need to emphasize that a person 'owns' their OBC in a way that their parents, whether bio or adoptive, don't.
As a non-adopted person, my birth certificate was always respected as *mine*, way back as far as I can remember. It wasn't mommy's or daddy's. My parents were holding it custody of it for me until I reached the age of majority. They were always able to get copies -- as was I after coming of age. Regardless, it was always MINE. By right.
Therefore I feel strongly that the two things - the entitlement of natural mothers to documentation, and the right of adoptees to their OBCs - should not be conflated.
*Of course* a first mother is entitled to her copy of her child's OBC, just as all other mothers are, as well as to a copy of the relinquishment papers.
However, the adoptee, the person whom the OBC *actually identifies*, is entitled to it as a fundamental human right.
I do think there is a crucial distinction here that needs to be kept painstakingly clear.
P.S
That would be me, Kippa.
I am now Little Snowdrop.
It it feels more apt.
Yes, but as you said your parents are entitled to a copy of "your" obc.
As a mother who carried, labored and delivered FOUR children, I am only entitled to copies of THREE of their OBC's. Why? Why is the OBC of my first child "sealed" when her birth took place PRIOR to her adoption? She was still MINE when she was born and that certificate is something I should have equal access to...as I have access to copies of my grandparents birth and death certificates...because we are blood kin!
Besides the fact that it is the RIGHT and moral thing...it is also politically more savvy for adoptees to put us on the same side instead of falling right into the game plan of NCFA who has created us as enemies in this battle of "right" and pitted us against one another.
I do not see supporting legislation which only gived adoptees rights to their own OBC as "falling right into the game plan of NCFA". I do not see insisting, "I won't support you if you won't support me" as a stand that leads to cooperation or supporting something because it is right, not because something is in it for me.
While I think birthparents should be able to get the OBC, I do not see that as the same issue of the same importance as adoptees getting their own OBC. It is not a matter of "empowerment". I got no feeling of power by having a document which I already knew all the information on it. For adoptees, it is their original identity. For birthparents, it is not. They are separate, not equal issues, and need to be addressed separately. I do not see the legislation in Canada as a wonderful thing, nor as a victory for either mothers or adoptees.
What makes enemies and division is insisting that as a mother you would not support adoptee rights legislation unless something you want is included. There actually are birthparents who are opposed to adoptee rights, like that woman who sued in NJ. NCFA does not have to make them up, and they are not us.
Mary Anne,
You have jumped to some wild conclusion if you are suggesting I have ever proclaimed in writing or verbally any such insistence.
THAT would likewise play into the divide and conquer and pitting us against them game plan of the NCFA. I do not, and never have, played that game. i have supported open record access for more than 30 years and you know that better than anyone! I organized marches and speak outs in NYC and Wash DC in 1989 and have never wavered in my support. Like many, I signed the oregon full page ad that helped open that state's records.
I am suggesting a total reframing of the whole concept; not looking at it as "unsealing adoption records" - because it is NOT and cannot be that! There are records - such as medical and psych evals done of prejudicial social workers that are and should maintain confidentiality and are do not belong to the adoptee.
If we instead reframe the entire issue outside the realm of adoption altogether and make it simply an issue of ANYONE and EVERYONE's right to any document that they are a party to - then it is clear and simple US law and hard for any legislator to object to.
When we stand together as being denied the right to that one piece of paper - the OBC - it gives adoptees what they want - their original identity - and it puts on an even keel with then, not someone with competing rights.
That seems a win-win to me. Who looses???
This is a goal I believe we should aim for. Would I openly oppose any legislation that is otherwise? Never have and never will. Let me be clear about that.
It is BN who has openly opposed legislation they did not like despite decades of work on the part of volunteers within a state who knew the state's legislators and what was feasible and not better than anyone in BN. They oppose legislation. I never have and never would.
And, yes, there are mothers not interested in openness or opposed to it - as there are adoptees. So what? Like abortion - if you don;t want one, don't have one! You are not actually suggesting we concern ourselves with that minority who want their anonymity, are you???
You wrote above "...that we stop allowing adoptees to use us to aid THEIR fight for THEIR rights while absolutely refusing to see that we have any rights whatsoever...." To me that sounds very much like you are advocating that mothers not supporty adoptee rights legislation unless it goes both ways from now on. Whatever you did in the past, that does seem to be your stand today. If it is not, that was not made clear.
No, I do not suggest we speak for the minority who want anonymity. They are jerks who can speak quite well for themselves. It was you who said those of us who do not insist that adoptee rights legislation also give birthmother access to the OBC are "falling into the game plan of NCFA". First you say one thing, then another. Which is it?
As I said, you made a leap from that statement to my opposing legislation that was not bilateral.
I think adoptees shoot themselves in the foot by ignoring our right to the OBC. That is what I mean by "falling into the game plan of NCFA".
I think they would increase their support base by reframing their language to "equal access" and also to the more inclusive "adopted separated people." I have encountered great fear, feelings of being threatened, and hostility to those suggestions - perhaps misunderstood, as it was by you.
Our right to the OBC is what I meant by "stop allowing adoptees to use us to aid THEIR fight for THEIR rights while absolutely refusing to see that we have any rights whatsoever...."
We have every right to the OBC and that is all they are seeking, is it not? Would that not put us on an equal footing and in it together instead of competing forces?
I for one think so...
As I said, I see what I am suggesting as a win-win... not more competition or threats of opposition. Not my style.
I really have not changed much since I began. I have become firmer in many beliefs, but have not derailed from my basic contention that adoption secrecy STINKS. It was initiated by baby brokers and works to assist them...
I have broadened my views as adoption has become more of a global issue. I have learned increasingly. I see it more for the mercenary supply and demand business of exploiting women for their babies than ever before...
But I have become stronger and more confident in my convictions the older I get. But I have not reversed any of my original positions. Unlike you,I still stand by every word in the Dark Side published in 1988.
A for your last question/accusation...I haven't a clue what you are talking about. I see no inconsistency - just your over-reaction and reading into things that aren't there.
No, I do not "stand behind" every word I have written about adoption since getting involved, because some of my views have changed. That is no secret, and not something I am ashamed of. I am much happier to be where I am now than where I was 20 years ago.
I find it very frustrating that in various communications you have both criticized me for not "growing and learning" or "broadening my view" as you claim to have done, and conversely for changing some of my views and opinions over the years. Anyhow the discussion here is not about views either of us had years ago, but about those in this particular blog today.
I have written some things in the past I would now not agree with, both in content and in style. None of it was ever carved in stone. The older I get the less I am certain of, and the more grey areas I see in all parts of life, including adoption.
I have not read anything into your writings which was not there. Perhaps you have failed to communicate what you actually meant.
As far as I know, there has been no legislation anywhere that included OBC access for mothers as well as adoptees, but not ABC access to mothers as well. The Canadian bill was about access to the ABC as a tool to search for mothers, a whole different issue.
I am sorry you feel that way and again I feel you have misconstrued my words. I have never said you have not grown or whatever, I have actually in many different venues admired and complimented for your abilities as a poet, writer and for the support you offer unendingly.
You feel less certain - your words - and I more. You have changed your positions, I have not. You have chosen support and I activism.
And no, there has never been a bill that includes equal and bilateral access to the OBC, as I am suggesting is attempted. The Ontario bill gives mothers BOTH...and i am saying, you'd think we could get just the one...the one that was prior to the adoption and is nOT a search tool.
"Yes, but as you said your parents are entitled to a copy of "your" obc."
Yes, but I also said that parents who have relinquished are entitled to it too.
"Besides the fact that it is the RIGHT and moral thing...it is also politically more savvy for adoptees to put us on the same side instead of falling right into the game plan of NCFA who has created us as enemies in this battle of "right" and pitted us against one another."
I agree with the latter part of that, but I think it is politically more savvy to express support each others cause *from our respective platforms* as opposed to making a joint public alliance, which is what "putting us on the same side" sounds like, and which would confuse the public (which is already confused quite enough as it is).
The two groups have related but separate and different reasons for wanting a copy of the document.
It seems to me that adoptees primarily want theirs because the OBC is their *historically first identifier* as citizens, and because all other citizens have it as a right.
Whereas first parents want their children's OBC for the reasons you have already described -- which are important and deserving, but not the same.
I'm interested in knowing which of the following you would prefer:
1) A law under which all adopted adults had full access to their records and information and first parents had the legal right to ask for an intermediary service to trace their child and discover if contact would be welcome -- but that the the adoptee would have to give consent for their identity or location to be released as well as having the right to register a 'veto' if they don't want to be contacted (as in the UK)?
or
2) a 'unilateral' system such as Ontario's.
would prefer the best of both. You're asking an idealist.
Prior to bastard nation's appearance on the adoption scene in the US sometime in the 90's - everything was framed upon SEARCH and reunion. The arguments: Curiosity was natural. medical need to know.
BN said NO. It is not about search or curiosity. It is about our RIGHTS...our HUMAN RIGHTS!
I thus humbly disagree and believe it would be far less confusing for us to appear as in opposition to one another's rights as the NCFA claims we are and thus forms the basis for ALL vetoes, intermediaries and other such junk that clutters the issue.
If we stand together as being denied the right to ALL DOCUMENTS THAT PERTAIN TO US we make ti a very simple clear issue that ends all discrimination and special "protection" for anyone separated by adoption. We need no protection nor do we need to be protected. We are all adults and not necessarily criminal.
This would not be either the British or the Canadian version, however, as it would not give original family access to amended certs. THAT is a horse of a very different color and there I share with the adoptees that - no matter how coerced - we signed away that right. Sorry, and I may get hate mail on that point, but it is my opinion looking at it as a strictly rights issue, and of course looking at it only retrospectively.
Going forward of course, everyone should have unfettered access to everyone and all openness MUST be enforceable, as it is in divorce. Now for that, I may get slammed from the opposite side. Aps are not find of adopting with strong attached. To which I say, too bad - don't adopt! With PAPS so outnumbering "supply" who cares about those who are not find of a form of guardianship? Adoption should always be about what's best for the child, not the aps!
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi
"Would prefer the best of both. "
OK then. In the hope of getting a direct answer, let me put it like this.
Which of those two options would you consider to be the lesser evil?
"You're asking an idealist.
I don't think it's idealistic to consider the Ontario ruling progressive just because it's bilateral. It's a mess. It doesn't restore rights to anyone. 'Rights' that can be qualified by others aren't rights at all. All this law does is shroud the matter from the public eye by shifting the responsibility onto the individuals - rather than acknowledging that the crux of the matter is equal access for to their own information for all citizens.
To dress up this travesty as a triumph is a con job, and to buy into it is naive. The only kind of 'equality' this act confers on first parents and adoptees is the equal opportunity to screw each other over if that's what they want to do. Disclosure vetoes are just plain wrong and contact vetoes nothing more than a priori restraining orders in a different dress. Aside from being absurd, contact vetoes stigmatize the person on whom they are placed. The Ontario Adoption Disclosure laws just allow mean-spiritedness to go both ways. They are a sorry mess of a compromise that is nothing to celebrate.
I suggest we look beyond the immediate concerns of adoptees and first parents for a moment. What vetoes *really* say is that NO citizens have an absolute right to their own identifying information. I think this this is something that should concern us all, adopted and non-adopted alike. The information contained in any individual's birth record belongs first and foremost to that person. It's as simple as that. *All* my sons have a primary and fundamental right to their OBCs - plus anything else pertaining to their personal history, medical, ancestral or whatever.
Yes, I too have a right to my born-to children's OBCs, as a record of having had given birth to them and evidence of our biological relationship. But nevertheless, I believe that my right to that document is secondary to theirs because everyone has the right to all matters and documentation pertaining to their birth and original identity by virtue of being citizens of the country to which they belong.
Just agreeing with everything Little Snowdrop said. Neither the right nor need to be able to access the OBC are equal for adoptees and original parents. They are not just "adoption separated people" but people in different situations with different kinds of losses. To conflate the two does not make for a win-win situation, and it certainly does nothing to mollify the opponents of adoptee rights nor to make a fair compromise. Apples and oranges will never be the same fruit.
And differences of opinions is what makes horse races and elections.
Using your fruit analogy - every individual adoptee is different from every other adoptee. Some are interested in having access and some don;t give a shit.
And taking the metaphor one step further, if the government was going to pass a law about the sale and distribution of FRUIT - it would most definitely combine and effect both apples. oranges...as well as pears, plums, grapes, etc. etc. In fact - any legislations would most probably be brought to bear on all fruits and all vegetables, for that matter!
Laws are not specific, but tend to be general.
I see no issue in letting the world know that adoption screws all of us and only acts to protect the one paying client in adoption. I see that as eye opening.
I see it as very helpful when adoptees and the mothers who bore them do not come off as competing for their rights. That's my position and i'm sticking to it.
Nothing either of you have said has convinced me that anything in my proposed idea would harm adoptees.
Hey - we've done a pretty LOUSY job IMO of getting adoptees their right to access in the US. half a dozen states out of 50? IN 40 YEARS!!! And how many of them have restrictions such as vetoes? Two of them were never sealed so no "reform movement" can't take credit for that! Give me a break! It's high time to try something new. WHAT COULD IT HURT????
Vetoes and other restrictions get attached because we are seen as having competing rights. This eliminates that. That is a win-win suggestion even if you don't see it.
So, just keep banging your heads against the same brick wall. Join "them" in making us competitors with very different rights and goals. Go right ahead. They love it when you play into their hands.
Go ahead. Bottom line: I'm not introducing any legislation. Just making a suggestion. My personal guns are focused on the future of adoption, not the past anyhow.
Give me a break!
Don't know why I bother, but is is possible for you to see that both adoptees and birthmothers who want open records asking for the OBC in no way cancels out the allegation of our opponents that some birthparents were promised and want anonymity?
There are still "competing rights" in their minds, because the mothers asking to get the OBC are not the ones they are "protecting" anyhow. The closet Moms are still there with their "competing rights" no matter what we say.
Whether we ask for the OBC for ourselves as well as for adoptees or not, we are STILL dismissed because we do not represent ALL birthmothers, as we always have been. Our asking for the OBC for ourselves will not make anyone think that the needs and rights of birthparents and adoptees are identical. It will not make anyone believe we speak for all birthmothers.
Within the ranks of all mothers who surrendered there is a minority who do not want adoptees to have access to any identifying information about them. THOSE are the people with a different goal and competing claims to rights, not those of us who are supporting adoptee rights, albeit in ways you do not find useful.
Your solution will not work; it will make no difference in getting legislation passed anywhere.
I never said that it would stop the lies about promised anonymity...not because of "some mothers", but because the adoption INDUSTRY i.e. NCFA wants it that way!
we're stuck with that EITHER WAY! My proposal does nothing to harm it, for sure! And in a small way shows us as non-enemies, but both victims.
Now, try and understand this.
The "adoption separated people" language is very apropos because the only reason a mother who gives birth is denied access to that original BC is when an ADOPTION takes place subsequent to that birth! That is the ONLY instance. It is the adoption that seals the record. otherwise, all mothers have access to BCs of their births!
We are both being denied access that others have and take for granted because of adoption and sealed records. What is so hard to understand about that? What is wrong with showing the gen public and legislators thats sealed records hurt adoptees AND their mothers (the ones who care)? AND...my proposal does nothing to harm those who want anonymity and so would in no way add to any vetoes or such.
Why is our joining forces to fight the sealing of the OBC so ridiculous and not helpful??
Why shouldn;t adoptees toss us a bone - an incentive - for helping them fight for something that yes, is far more important for them?
It won;t burt them, it will help them to include us and show us as on the same side of the system.
You have not shown me any harm this would possibly cause.
You jumped on this originally, panning it beleiving I was asking for bilateral access to BOTH obc and abc. Having clarified that, you refuse to give up beleiving this a bad idea - though you have made no viable argument against it. Just that it won't stop the anonymity lie. Well, no, but so what? It's there either way.
PS i think another reason we have such a hard time here in the US with opening the sealed records, as opposed to other nations...besides the greed, capitalism, and profit motives...
Americans are very much not into ever admitting they are wrong. Each state would in effect be reversing prior laws and we are wont to do that here. We don;t apologize for slavery or to the native Americans we screwed over. We never admit that we are wrong. it is the American way and if you don;t love it - leave it!
As a nation, we prefer to leave our errors and allow for civl suits, thus increasing the income of our attorneys! (As opposed to say, NZ, where there are no civil suits or other nations that at lest limit the pin and suffering BS that goes on here...ya' know, that always talked about and never done "tort reform")
And now - the US is calling corps individuals so they have MORE RIGHTS!
Nope, never said it was bad idea, just that it would not accomplish what you said it would, to present a united front of birthparents and adoptees and eliminate the idea of competing rights.
It is as you say harmless, and I see nothing wrong with birthparents getting the OBC if they want it, but I do not see it as a monumental step forward or aid to open records legislation being passed either.
If it can't hurt - and given our dismal past "success" rate - i think it sure as heck worth a try!
I mean isn't the definition of insanity to keep doing what hasn't worked?
Post a Comment