Call for changes to adoption law

Press, 16 February 1980, Page 6

Call for changes to adoption law

(through education. We cannot rush it.” I Mr Griffith said that he (expected na change in the

If you suddenly found out that your parents were not your parents and that you were not allowed to trace your origins, how would you feel, asks the Rev. Keith Griffith, of Wellington. Mr Griffith, who is in Christchurch to speak at an adoption seminar at the Methodist Central Mission today, believes that New Zealand’s adoption law should be changed to allow adoptees access to their birth records, and that adoptees and birth parents should be given equal rights. Either party should have the right to apply for a restriction order, so that no information could be given without their approval. This would leave the way open for others who wanted access to birth records. Mr Griffith said that, one person in 31 in New Zealand was adopted. By 1981, the centenary, of New. Zealand adoption |aw, New Zealand

would have about 100,000 adoptees, 130,000 adoptive parents, and 80,000 birth parents — 10 per cent of the population would be living within the “adoption triangle.” One per cent of adoptees or birth parents per year felt a burning need to trace their origins, he said. Only 10 per cent of those who applied for access ever got in touch with birth parents, or children given up for adoption. In England, where the adoption law was changed in 1975, about 9000 people had received copies of their original birth certificates — “without any serious complications.” In New Zealand about eight out of 10 reunions were successful. “Adoption is a . subject which stirs strong emotions,” Mr Griffith said. I “The law will not be| changed through protest , butf

adoption law in the next two years — “to what degree is anybody’s guess.” Any change would have to take into account the rights and feelings of all those in the adoption triangle. The thinking on adoption was changing all the time, as was the whole face of adoption. An increasing number of children were being adopted by a natural parent and spouse, and by relatives or close friends. Mr Griffith, who had counselled adoptees for 20 years, is himself adopted. He wondered from time to time who his natural parents were, but never felt the “burning urge” to find his parents. His own adoption was very happy. Tracing his own origins was part of his research on the subject, and he said that he now had a good relationship with all parties connected with his adoption. He had often acted as

mediator between birth parents and adoptees, but believes that if the law were to be changed the use of a mediator should be optional. Some sort of back-up counselling service should also be provided, he said. An age restriction of 18 years should apply for adoptees wanting to search their origins. Most adoptees wanting to search were aged between 25 and 35.

Opening adoption records had not caused an uproar overseas, but in any human relationship there was always some degree of difficulty and risk, Mr Griffith said.

Parents of adopted children should be prepared to acknowledge the difference and should discuss this with their children.

He said thet in spite of the difficulties in adoption, it had been highly successful in New Zealand and other Western countries.