“SKATING ON THIN ICE”

Press, 23 August 1979, Page 17

“SKATING ON THIN ICE”

“Such knowledge is a veritable ‘Pandora’* Box,’ of trouble and embarrassment.” —Mr H. Y. Gilliand, S.M, reported decision of the Auckland Magistrate’s Court, 1976.

■Thin law.” That’s how the Rangiora lawyer, Keith Hales, describes court decisions made in favour of adoptees seeking access to adoption records, under the present act.

Interpretation of the words “special grounds'’ was being stretched, he says. Some magistrates take the view that “special grounds” do not exist just because a person applies to the court. They look for other supporting evidence, such as something in a medical or psychiatric report.

Curiosity, in itself, does not seem to constitute a “special ground” for opening the records. “It is natural and certainly not peculiar or spacial that the applicant should wonder about her mother,” said Mr Gilliand in his 1976 Auckland decision. Keith Hales does not think that the law wil be changed by increasing numbers of adoptees applying to the courts. “That will only create precedents; we will always be faced with the law. What we need is something clean cut.” From the Scottish, English, and Finnish experience there are “ample precedents” for a change in New Zealand Jegisla-

tion. he says. However, the system should be a little more structured than it is in those countries, even if it is only to satisfy those who are concerned about changes to the law. “After all, we don’t always follow British law. We have two glaring examples in abortion and homosexuality.” The essential thing is that people wanting to search for their natural parents form a very small group. “They are the rare sort of people — the thinkers, ones that can cope with their emotions. Well, I think they can. I thought that when I heard the people at the Jigsaw meeting. They’re not looking for an answer blindly; they’re trying to think it out.”

“But, yes, were skating on very thin emotional ice here.”

An important condition that should be imposed is the use of intermediaries, as there is always the possibility of someone’s life being disrupted “out of all proportion.” Even if it is for the sake of one person out of 2000, it matters. It is the possible emotional effects on an adoptee disappointed m a search for his natural par-

ents that worries the Christchurch lawyer, Laurie O’Reilly. “If applications, wim supporting evidence of, say a psychiatrist, are presented to the courts, with information as to the experience and .trends in other countries, and the developments in New Zealand, then I believe the courts must take a more liberal attitude.” The next stage, says Mr O’Reilly, is the introduction of amending legislation enabling courts to make orders for revcords to be opened, subject to a number of conditions being met. The court would have to be satisfied that the adoptee has considered carefully the medical and social consequences of his action. Mr O’Reilly believes that applications should be supported by medical evi-

dence that an adoptee could cope with what he found, or if he or she were disappointed in his search. “It’s reasonably certain that he will be disappointed, and either party — adoptee or birth parent — could react adversely to a meeting.” The Christchurch magistrate, Mr Fergus Paterson, says that at present it is only one side of the case that is up for consideration — the adoptee. “It’s the people that have been through the emotional stress of giving up a blood relation and have made a new life for themselves, having ensured a new life for the child, that I fear for. What effect can all this have on them? Any sort of enquiry would bring a highly charged reaction.” Mr Paterson does not think that, it is the courts’

job to set the precedents; the law says loudly and clearly that adoption records are closed. “Whether the act should be altered and the whole .approach to the matter changed as clearly some think it should, is a matter for society.” The problem is how to know the natural parents’ reaction. “Under the present system you can’t — you’re working in a vacuum." One possible way, Mr Paterson says, is to have a preliminary hearing to see if a “prima facie” case is established — if there are special reasons, if the birth parents are alive, and so on. “But whichever way you go you are still opening up what Mr Gilliand has called Pandora’s Box. And once that happens there is no way of closing the door again.”