Subject: Human Rights Denied to Families in Ontario
It was a pleasure meeting you some weeks back when you,
your wife and friends visited DJ and I here in Toronto.
DJ had spoken of you frequently in the year or so we have
known each other. His colourful stories and his profound
admiration for you bore the ring of truth when we met
recently.
We discussed, briefly, on the walk to Queen's Park
after a quick cuppa at Tim Horton's (where else?) your
involvement with the adoption legislation in your state.
As I was not feeling very well that day, I did not get
into a discussion with you about it.
But your comments have continued to haunt me.
In many jurisdictions in Canada (this being a provincial
matter), adoption regulations prevent a mother or father
from ever again having contact with a child once a
piece of paper is signed giving up rights to parent. The
child, who is normally too young to have any say, is also
bound, for life, by this decision.
I could be wrong but adoption is the only legal procedure
I know of which is lifelong and without appeal.
It is the only one which binds one or more parties without
their consent or knowledge.
It is the only one in which the government acts
Kafka-esque and keeps secret files on the person in question
with no recourse for the persons in question to review them,
or often even know they exist, and where the final power in
the record keeping is in the hands and discretion of a 9-5
functionary.
The only exception, perhaps, being when one is accused of
a crime. It is not a crime, is it?, to be a mother or a son.
Adoption is the only law in which the government denies
any knowledge of heritage and medical information, in
perpetuity, to a citizen.
We have a so-called Freedom of Information Act to protect
us. Yet, incredibly, even if every single person named in
an adoption file asks for the file to be opened, still the
government will not show it to them. I asked for exactly
this in Saskatchewan. I had signatures ready from myself,
my mother, my father, my adopted mother (my adopted dad
has passed away). Nope. Nada.
Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters: once this man-made
rift is created by a signature an a piece of paper giving
a child up, incredibly, apparently, all our notions of
the innate value of family are tossed out.
Whether at 18, 30, 50, 75, 90 -- we are never acceptably
mature enough to know our own origins or family. Or even
our own mother's name. In Ontario, not even your own name.
The logic escapes me.
You know, it is not illegal to be a mother or a father of
a child but this legislation treats the blood relatives
as if they *are* criminals. And without appeal. If you
feel like being insulted, it actually *is* illegal to
release this information subject to stiff fines and
jail time. A mother can be tossed in jail for contacting
her son.
This is family values? Denying, withholding, in
perpetuity knowledge of the members of one's own family? One's
mother? A parent never forgets a child; but this legislation
buries us alive.
You are a father, and travelled great lengths to see your
daughter recently married. If the mother had given your
daughter up for adoption, would you think it right that
you have no further knowledge, for life, about your own
flesh and blood? Would that action justify preventing
your own daughter from ever looking into your eyes?
Adoption records were sealed in Ontario in 1927; the
time-frame is similar for most states and provinces in
North America. Since 1996, British Columbia has had a
straight-forward process for those 18 and older to
learn the truth of their origins. So far not a single
complaint has been lodged about privacy. In Scotland,
the records have been opened since 1930. God has not
come down to swallow up British Columbia or Scotland.
Last night, Bill-77 sponsored by Marilyn Churley of
the NDP in a private member's bill, watched with horror
as the provincial legislature denied the bill a third
reading (second reading was in June, 2001). The bill
allows adult adoptees and birth family to find each
other. There is even a "Contact Veto" -- an appalling
compromise. Should a father or mother be legally
allowed to deny their parentage? Yes, apparently. In
any case, at this point the bill is dead.
What I simply cannot fathom is why, if I understood
you correctly, someone as bright and seemingly as
compassionate as yourself, actively lobbied your own
state at the highest levels to ensure that adults could
continue to be legally denied information about who
their mother and father and grand-parents and sisters
and brothers and aunts and uncles are? What *moral*
purpose is served here?
I hope you and your family are well. And I am pleased
you have been able to know them your entire life.
Happy holidays,
Alexander Inglis,
December 13, 2002,
In Toronto
-- 30 --