Search
Ontario group fights law allowing release of adoption records: "A decades-long battle to unseal Ontario adoption records will face yet another hurdle Monday when a small group of adoptees and birth parents mounts a constitutional challenge to the legislation.
A minority of critics argues the Adoption Information Disclosure Act -- which allows birth parents and adoptees to access information about one another -- presents a serious breach of privacy under the Constitution.
'We're saying that you can't retroactively undo the privacy that was promised to Canadians who gave children up for adoption or who adopted children,' said Clayton Ruby, a Toronto-based civil liberties lawyer representing three adoptees and one birth parent who want their identities kept private.
'They want to continue living their lives without having an alcoholic mother drop in on them. Without having a child to harass them because they're angry about being put up for adoption. Maybe just because they value their privacy and don't want their life to change.'
No choice to remain anonymous
Passed a year and a half ago, the legislation is expected to be fully implemented this fall, but it's not clear whether it will happen before or after the Oct. 10 provincial election.
While British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador have all passed similar legislation, Ruby said those provinces have included a disclosure veto that protects the identities of those who wish to remain anonymous.
Ontario's law, he said, merely offers people the opportunity to sign a form indicating they'd prefer not to be contacted. While there are penalties for those who breach the order, Ruby suggested filing charges and going to court is a 'very ineffective remedy.'
And while the order may prevent someone from contacting their birth parent or the child they gave up years earlier, it doesn't stop them from communicating with their relatives or their employer, Ruby said.
'They can follow you around and see what your life is like,' he said. 'All that is perfectly legal.'
"
(Read Original Article - Via The Canadian Press.)
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Comments
Ontario group fights law allowing release of adoption records
I feel that some corrections are in order to your news article about the group challenging
the adoption law.
There is only one birth parent that is a client of Clayton Ruby, so to say birthparents in plural is incorrect.
The birth parent is a father - there are no birth mothers.
This is important.
There are no birth mothers that are clients of Clayton Ruby in this case and their opinion would have been censored if it had not been for the intervention of COAR (Coalition for Open Adoption Records) in the role of amicus curiae (friend of the court).
It is the only way we will be heard.
It is a myth that birthmothers were promised anonymity from their children. Most were promised the opposite.
Most adoptees have their birthmothers surname on the adoption order, so please explain how they could have this anonymity?
If you don't believe me about the surnames, particularly before 1970, then check out this site - then tell me about confidentiality.
http://www.canadianadopteesregistry.org/
This being the case, were you even aware that adoptees have been contacting birthmothers for at least 10 years without incident?
However, not all adoptees do have that identifying information, particularly after 1970 when the law became more haphazard.
That is not fair to the have-nots.
It is also rather hypocritical of at least 2 of the adoptees in this case who do have access to this identifying information to say that others are not allowed the same as them. In fact, Denbigh Patton had some of his birthmother's details published in the Toronto Star several months ago. Now he is lying saying he knows nothing about her!!!
Doesn't the Data Protection Act say that we have a right to know who have our personal information so we can check what they are doing with it?
Did Denbigh Patton ask his birth mother if he could post very personal information in a national newspaper? No.
Shouldn't she have the right to know who has her personal information and what they are doing with it? Absolutely.
It is called "equality before the law" under the Canadian Charter of Rights.
Adult adoptees are fed-up of being called children.
This law is about ADULTS and to call adult adoptees "children" is nothing short of insulting.
To add insult to injury is to imply that they are "harassing angry children".
To imply that all birthmothers are "alcoholics" is also equally offensive.
Mr. Clayton Ruby is WRONG in his statement about how people can be harassed indirectly through relatives or employers.
It is NOT legal under the new law to do so! Didn't he even read the new law?
FACT - the new law not only punishes the person if they get into contact with the party who asked for the no contact notice, they will also be punished if they try (or even attempt) to try to contact them INDIRECTLY!!!
Here is some of the text from the law. READ IT.
"Notice of wish not to be contacted
(5) If a notice registered by a birth parent under subsection 48.4 (3) is in effect, the
Registrar General shall not give the uncertified copies to the applicant unless the applicant
agrees in writing not to contact or attempt to contact the birth parent, either directly or
indirectly"
Myth - Disclosure Vetoes work - the other party can not get the information if the records
are kept sealed.
Fact - Disclosure vetoes do NOT work because people can get information from other
sources quite legally.
Did you know that thousands of Canadians were adopted by Americans?
Did you know that every single one of them is entitled to the full names of their
birthparents under the US Freedom of Information Act?
When Canadians immigrate to the US, they MUST have immigration papers to do so. This
even applies for Canadian babies adopted by Americans. The immigration papers contain
the FULL names of BOTH birthparents which the adoptee is entitled to.
Please explain how a Disclosure Veto placed in Ontario (Canada) is supposed to cover
information given out by another country such as the US.
That is just one of many legal avenues of information that CANNOT be blocked by this
legislation.
The disclosure veto ONLY applies to the province and no one else!!
It does NOT apply to information legally obtained elsewhere.
The punishment and protections in this law are far more stringent than the provinces you quote.
For example, there is no contact veto in Alberta.
If, as mentioned above, you get the information on someone from somewhere else, then you will NOT be punished for contacting them.
Why isn't that mentioned?
It seems some people have not done their research very well.