TURMOIL
Why should an adopted child have the choice of looking for another set of parents, when the natural child does not? asks the mother of two teen-age children.
Opponents to a change in the secrecy clause of the 1955 adoption act say that the argument put forward that it is impossible for a birth parent to break the psychological bond between adoptee and adoptive parent is “absolute rubbish.” It is something that you cannot guarantee, they say. Yet many will concede that once the adoptee has reached adulthood, 21 was suggested, he or she should be able to apply to a court for the right to inspect records, if the adoptee feels the need to do so. But what about the natural mother? others ask. She may have married, had a family, and not told them of the child she gave up. Imagine the turmoil if that child appeared at the door 30 years later. It is all very well saying that intermediaries are used, but the past has been dug up, the memories stirred.
Then there is the argument that tracing the natural parents gives the child an identity. “That’s a load of rubbish,” says one mother. “It’s taking away the identity they have. Our family tree is their own.” Adoptive parents prefer
to remain anonymous. But three sets of adoptive parents I talked to say that “if it came to the crunch,” and it appeared that a more liberal adoption law might be passed, they would be prepared to come out and “produce some sort of reaction against it.” The greatest fear, for many adoptive parents, is that the natural mother will trace her child. That is pure selfishness, they say. The natural parents abrogated their responsibility, and access, when they gave up the child for adoption.
Tracing the child? “It’s weird, it’s unhealthy, and it upsets everyone,” says one father. There has to be an absolute limit on a mother tracing her child; an age limit for the child at least.
Once the natural mother had made initial contact with the child, where would it end? asks the mother of two young adopted children.
A little fed up that he was being forced to discuss all this, one man put it in these words: “Well, I don’t know about all your lofty arguments but if these people (meaning the Christchurch Adoption Support Group) claim that natural parents have the right to trace a child, then as an adoptive parent I claim the right for the natural parents not to come in and stuff up my family.”
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19790823.2.112.2
Bibliographic details
Press, 23 August 1979, Page 17
Word Count
430TURMOIL Press, 23 August 1979, Page 17
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.