I find it interesting that those who ALREADY have identifying information without consent (such as your guest, Joy Cheskes and Denbigh Patton) think that others should not be allowed the same. That is extraordinarily hypocritical to say the least.

NO mother has confidentiality as her name is found on ALL adoption orders prior to 1970 (which, by the way, covers Joy and Denbigh). The judge is FACTUALLY incorrect in saying that adoption orders are sealed. They are NOT. The adoptive family gets the order from day one of the adoption. Up until the judges ruling, adult adoptees were allowed these adoption orders on request WITHOUT the permission of the mother. Just look at this web site - it has been the case since 1927 and there are names from even that date there!
http://www.canadianadopteesregistry.org

The judge contradicts himself when one moment he says that Joy and Denbigh have identifying information on their mothers without consent - and the next he says in the same ruling that NO ONE does! How bad is this man’s memory?

Why have you also ignored the fact that the US Freedom of Information Act gives ALL Canadians adopted by Americans LOADS of information on the bio parents from the immigration and naturalisation papers. Adult adoptees can get these on request WITHOUT consent from the bio parents. In fact, they do not need to even access any Ontario resources whatsoever for this. There are tens of thousands of such adoptions. Explain again how a veto in Ontario is supposed to stop information legally available in the States? I sure would like to know. It is discrimination on grounds of nationality.

Furthermore, the ruling does NOT take into account the THOUSANDS of adoption fraud victims in Ontario! One well known CAS has admitted to running a dead baby scam where it paid bribes to doctors, etc. to tell the parents that their baby died shortly after birth. The “dead” baby would then be put up for adoption WITHOUT the knowledge or consent from FIT parents. The UN estimates that there are approx. 10,000 such cases in Ontario. These cases went to the UN because police would not prosecute, the Ombudsman has no power (Ontario is the ONLY province where this is the case) and the CAS - well it is a bit like asking a burglar to punish himself after he has robbed you!

The UN suggested that the Ontario government consider this law to help those victims.

Why were these people COMPLETELY ignored by the court?

I would also challenge that view that it should be “one-way” for a number of reasons.

Your guest, Joy and Denbigh have identifying personal information on another legal adult (in Denbigh’s case, he even knows the ages of both parents and the martial status of his mother). The Personal Privacy Act states quite clearly that if they have such information on another person, then that person has a LEGAL RIGHT to know who hold that on them. The judges ruling makes mothers “less equal” before the law.

Furthermore, there was no mention of the Kariann Ford case. It is one of the most important cases in Ontario adoption history. In the court transcripts, the CAS and the ADR admit that they with-held vital medical information from the adoptee and the adoptive family so that the child would not be returned to them. They did this routinely. The decisions to with-hold medical information were made by medically unqualified social workers.
Add to that the waiting times for this information (I personally know people who have waited up to 10 YEARS for their information) and many die while waiting for the very information that would have saved their lives.

Here is one sad case. The adoptee thought that all medical information would be given to her. She was wrong. She found out the hard way when her apparently healthy 11 year old son suddenly dropped dead. Sudden death is the ONLY symptom of QT disease. If there are no symptoms of the disease, the CAS and the ADR will NOT do a search. They just don’t. Sudden death is a bit late to find out about the disease, don’t you think? QT HAS to be treated BEFORE its only symptom - and ONLY family history can help as QT not not routinely screened for.

There is also another flaw. Many adoptees were told that their mothers would find them. Many adoptees actually believe it to be the DUTY of the mother and/or father to find them. The one-way system also does not cater to DEAD people - yes, adoptees do die before their parents (such as stated in the case above).

I have reunited with my son who shares my views. He did not sign up to the ADR registry for a reason that no one has even mention - but there are many like him out there.

My son felt he was a disappointment to his adoptive parents. He believed that I would be too. He was so afraid of rejection that although he did not want to search, he desperately wanted to be found.

When I did find him via a PI (I had his first adoptive name as well as a lot of information from his non-id), he was delighted. To him, it showed that I truly cared. He NEEDED my reassurance that he was not a failure in life (My son’s feeling of failure was based on being unable to compete academically with the adoptive parents bio children who are P’hD’s)

My son also thought I had his full name - for some reason, a number of adoptees do believe this to be the case and wait to be found for the above reason.

A mutual registry does NOT work for these people, not does it work for the DEAD. The waiting times of up to 10 years (it has been brought down to 5 to 6 years now) was a subject of the Ontario Commission for Human Rights which stated that the waiting times over the decades was an abuse of human rights - many literally died waiting. Why was this not raised by the judge who claimed to have done his homework?

Another point that was not raised - were you aware that the province on the amended birth certificate can be different to where the adoptee was really born. There was an article about that in the Globe and Mail.

The adoptee’s amended birth certificate stated that he was born in Montreal, Quebec. His (bio) mother actually gave birth to him in Toronto, Ontario.

By some miracle and a fluke of fate, they managed to find each other.

However, such an obstacle has stopped many others from reuniting.

Some adoptees are even told that they were born in the US when in fact they were born Canada.

How are people supposed to sign up to the right registry or even go to the right province or country without this vital information supplied in the records?

Only one party will have the right information - the mother. The adoptee will go to the wrong place and not realise it, waiting in vain. How cruel is that?

Again, why was this not raised in the courtroom.

It is obvious to me that the research by the judge and co was NOT thorough enough and this issues were not even raised, never mind addressed.

That simply is not good enough.

Based on the above, I have every reason to believe that it will be appealed - not least because of the contradictions and cherry picking by the judge.

The cherry picking includes the fact that the judge purposely omitted some of the UK’s legislation. In the UK, there is no contact veto. In the UK, the adoptees have their original birth certificates on request without needing consent from anyone AND (omitted by the judge) the parents have the LEGAL RIGHT to contact the adoptee via an intermediary. If the parent is unhappy with that particular search, the parent has the LEGAL right to ask for another done by a different person as it has been proven that some people are better than others at this sort of thing. The older the parent, the higher the priority and the faster the search will be done.

Ontario has NEVER allowed this for parents - ever!! Why was this left out?
The adoptee IS contacted.

There is no actual disclosure veto - the parent is given the name of the adoptee to find if the adoptee cannot be found or is found to be dead - another omission by the judge.

One thing that makes me very upset about this case is this so-called “birth parent”. This man does NOT represent birth parents in any way shape or form. Here is why.

This man (he was a FATHER and does not represent MOTHERS in this case) does not even know IF he is a father.

We don’t say someone is a killer until it is proven - this man should not have been allowed to have standing as he was NOT proven to be a father nor would he actually admit to being one.

It would not have been difficult to find out anonymously as the ADR had both the adoptee’s address as well as this man’s address on file.

Furthermore, this man ABANDONED the mother of his (alleged) first born and he ** DENIED ** paternity.

The judge should have ordered a DNA test. If the man refused to have this done and continued to deny paternity, then he should NOT have been allowed to have standing - period. Many ** REAL ** birthparents are angry that this was even a question.

It is also particularly cruel for the adoptee in question as this person only wants to know if there can be anyone else - which brings me to another point.

It is ABSURD to think that if you abandon the mother of your (alleged) first born, that she will keep silent about it.

It is ABSURD that this man believes that someone can make a promise of confidentiality on someone else’s behalf who did NOT agree to do any such thing.

This man LIED to his wife.

The law is NOT there to protect liars - it is why we have laws against perjury and fraud.

I told my husband - so should everyone else. The law is NOT there for those who deceive others.

Dear Mr. Cochrane

In Justice Belobaba’s decision striking down the act, he stated that Joy Cheskes and Denbigh Pattons had their identifying information, but then went on the say that NO ONE had their information. Sounds contradictory to me. Also, Denbigh denied paternity, therefore, it doesn’t follow that he should be given standing as a bio parent without proof. A DNA test, which could/should have been ordered by the Justice would have proved/disproved this. Perhaps Mr. Patton is like most deadbeat dads and doesn’t want to pay for his mistake.

As an adoptee, I just want to know my family history, a sense of belonging. I do not want to invade on my bio mother’s life. I do not know if you sir are adopted, if you are not, perhaps you won’t understand my emotions on this.

Regards,

Jim White

As I read this blog I am struck by the falacies that are perpetuated. Under the adoption act of 1954 records were sealed however adoptions prior to 1970 individuals were able to obtain a long form of the birth certificate that included names of Birth Parents. Investigating agencies requiring information for national security reasons were able to obtain information on Birth Parents and do background checks on them. Individuals who are not placed for adoption are able to access family information such as medical history; family; and heritage. They have a keen understanding of who they are and where they come from. Many adoptees may not even know they were adopted but still feel like they don’t belong somehow, and those adoptees would not know or be able to access the passive registry. Not to mention the stigma attached “because we are chosen (something many adoptive parents told their children) it is better to leave well enough alone, you might not like what you find.” Therefore, it is my opinion that many people do not register for the passive registry because they either don’t know about it or are afraid. Lastly, the new legislation did have the proviso included that anyone who chose not to be contacted could apply for a “no contact order” and children who required protection also had a proviso. I was adopted privately and all of the adults in the placing family were aware of where I was and what I was up to. It is just myself and my 2 brothers that are unable to contact each other because of legislation.

We are in a new world and things like open adoption are available. This wasn’t a choice when I was placed. It is short sighted to think that mothers giving up thier children for socio-economic reasons would not want to have contact if given the opportunity. Many birthmothers may be afraid that because it has been so many years without contact that there may be resentment. I for one had an adoptive family that provided all that I needed and more and I appreciate that my birthmother gave me that opportunity. It is unthinkable that a few people could represent so many individuals on both sides of the issue; both birth families and adoptees.

I think it is my right as a Canadian to know my lineage and heritage. I think it is my right as an adult to be able to chose to have contact with mutually consently family members. It is my right to be equal under the law with the other members of society. It is shameful that in this county some individuals have more rights than people affected by adoption. I guess some people are more equal than others. Heather Campbell

Hello Mr. Cochrane,
Denbigh and Joy already have identifying information on their natural parents and without consent! How the heck did this happen and how?

Why oh why would they want to discriminate against the entire adoption community of those who do not have any information on their natural parents? The answer: their sick people obviously.

As a very happy reunited mother to my child I lost in the seventies, I found out that my daughter had all my information, my entire maiden name. We were NOT promised confidentiality whatsoever. None.

This entire business of opening up the records has been totally misconstrued by paranoid, selfish individuals.

Why is it that 97% of the adoption community want to know who their natural parents are? Why is it 99% of natural parents want to find their child. It is a human necessity to know. To know makes one whole again, as silly as that may sound to one who hasn’t been involved in human loss.

Sincerely,
NS.