Law Society’s view on adoption information

Press, 8 February 1985, Page 4

Law Society’s view on adoption information

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

The Law Society does not favour either of the options for information on adult adoption now being considered by Parliament. New Zealand had always tried to preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of the natural relationship between the three parties to adoption — adoptee, birth parents, and adoptive parents.

The society was opposed to planned treatment of previous adoptions; the exchange of information and contact to which that led could occur without desire or consent of one of the parties, and could occur by default. In the belief that confidentiality did exist, under the Adoption Act, 1955, new lives and relationships had developed. The fears, the emotions,

the pain, and many other reactions from the time (especially those of the birth mother) had been rationalised and accommodated, the society said. In many cases, feelings of guilt or separation had often reached psychotic proportions, but had since been tenuously healed — often in solitude and secrecy. For those people the need to take some positive step would be a retrograde step, even a harmful one; for others, mistake, misunderstanding and ignorance could lead unwittingly to an undesired result.

The society therefore favoured an alternative scheme to cover all cases of adoption entered into before the Adult Adoption Information came into force:

First, it advocated that a positive step be taken by both birth parent and adoptee to advise that information of identification may be

disclosed and, upon those positive steps coinciding, lhe information’s being'released.

Second, and with reservations, there was a middle course which set flown carefully defined procedures. The society said this second course could apply where only one party notified a desire to be identified with the other.

At that point, an organisation such as the Social Welfare Department would approach the other party on a confidential basis to discuss the desirability of contact — offering a counselling service but also respecting any opposition to contact or disclosure of identity. Other safeguards would have to be included, the society said. For example, if the person not giving consent was the adoptee, the first persons to be notified of the approach by the birth

parent for information should be the adoptive parents.

Again, if the birth parent were to be approached by the department, it should be by personal and oral contact after an investigation of the birth parent’s circumstances, in a way not divulging the nature of the request to any other person — such as spouse, family or employer of the birth parent. Reservation on this second alternative was because it could give rise to negative or destructive influences, the society said. Nevertheless, if there were to be some liberalisation of adoption information to adults, this course was in preference to that outlined in the legislation before Parliament.

If tactfully and skilfully done, the society said this alternative scheme might enable people to welcome the exchange of information.

Further reports, page 3