Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Dec 1991

Vol. 414 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Confidentiality of Adoption Procedures.

I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for giving me the opportunity to raise this matter and the Minister of State for coming into the House to reply to it. This issue, like the issue raised by the previous speaker, involves the anomalies and difficulties encountered under our adoption laws. The substance of this matter is that our adoption procedures are not coping with significant emerging developments which involve people who were parties to legal adoptions in years past and who are now trying to trace their blood relatives. It is mainly adult adoptees, who were legally adopted as babies, who now want to make contact with their birth mother. However, mothers, who gave their children up for adoption because they were either unmarried or very young when the baby was born, now want to get in touch in greater numbers. Because neither our adoption laws nor our structures can cope with this development, our system is blind and deaf to these people. Others, therefore, whose sole motive is profit, are providing a tracing service which is not being provided by the State.

These private investigators will take on the job of finding a relative. They will go to great lengths and search through parish and birth registers in an effort to put people in touch with each other. This is a hard-faced and insensitive system, because, by its nature, it cannot meet the sensitive and caring needs of the people in question. However, because the State and its agencies are not involved these private or freelance operators are the only options available.

The position is that because no guidelines have been laid down under which agencies can provide this post-adoption service a very patchy approach is adopted by individual agencies. There is no voluntary contact register in which people could indicate their wishes in regard to future contact. Neither is any special counselling service available for those who are contemplating making such contact or who have made such contact. These services have been available in Britain and Northern Ireland for some time — as we are all aware, the law has been changed there — where a uniform approach is adopted in tracing relatives following adoption. This can and does prevent distressing situations where a woman, whose child born out of wedlock was adopted, suddenly finds this adult offspring on her doorstep wanting to develop a relationship with her, and she cannot cope with the shock.

Legal adoption arrangements were entered into over the years with a surety of privacy and confidentiality for all concerned — the adoptee, the adoptive parents and the natural mother. This confidentiality must be respected while recognising that there is a need to facilitate people who want to go along this difficult path of discovery.

The measures I propose on behalf of the many agencies who have contacted me and the Minister for Health would cost very little but the suffering and distress saved would be considerable. There are more than 20 adoption agencies and individuals in an informal group determined to work to put this arrangement in place. They are deeply concerned at what is happening and at the lack of departmental action. They have indicated their support for an initiative and promised to facilitate the setting up of such a register and service in every way possible. Action is long overdue and I hope the Minister will give a greater commitment than the one given in answer to a parliamentary question last week. I hope action will be taken in this regard.

I hope I will be able to outline two reasons for not agreeing with the Deputy that cost or lack of departmental action are factors in not proceeding in this regard.

As recently indicated in response to questions from the Deputy, I am aware from the reports of the Adoption Board and from other sources of the increasing number of tracing inquiries, not alone from adopted persons seeking to trace their birth parents, but also from birth parents seeking to make contact with children they placed for adoption.

I share the concern expressed by professionals working in the adoption services about the involvement of private investigators and other individuals in this extremely sensitive and delicate area. I particularly deplore the tactics used by some of these individuals and their utter disregard for the feelings and sensitivities of birth mothers.

While it is wholly inappropriate for non-professional individuals to involve themselves in work which has such potentially harmful consequences, the position appears to be that they are not acting outside the law. There are, of course, appropriate legal processes open to any birth mother who feels that she is being harassed. However, it should not be necessary for a birth mother to resort to legal action in order to safeguard her right to privacy.

There is general agreement among the various organisations involved in the adoption area as to the desirability of a formal arrangement to facilitate contact between adopted persons and their birth parents. It has been suggested that a contact register might be an appropriate mechanism for facilitating such contact.

I have no difficulty in principle with the concept of a contact register. Such an arrangement would indeed be of assistance to adopted persons and birth parents seeking to contact one another. It would also have the effect of helping to curtail the activities of non-professional private individuals in relation to post-adoption inquiries.

However, a fundamental difference of opinion has emerged between the relevant interest groups in relation to the purpose and scope of an adoption contact register. One group have expressed the view that the disclosure of identifying information and contact should only be facilitated with the consent of both the adopted person and the birth mother, whereas another group consider that a request by the adopted person should be sufficient to entitle that person to identifying information and to have his or her birth mother traced.

I recently had an opportunity to meet four individual adoptive parents; three of them indicated that they would agree with the establishment of a contact register but the fourth expressed very grave personal concern regarding the creation of such a register and what it would mean to her personal and private circumstances. Therein lies the dilemma in relation to this issue.

This fundamental difference illustrates the complexities of the issues involved and the need for a full and careful examination of all those issues before a final decision can be reached. Of prime importance would be the manner in which identifying information about a party to legal adoption proceedings would be recorded and the circumstances in which such information would be disclosed. Great care would have to be taken to ensure that the right to privacy of adopted persons and birth parents is not undermined. It would also be necessary to examine whether a contact register should have a statutory basis and who would be the most appropriate body to operate it.

I welcome the debate that is taking place within the adoption services on the question of access by the parties involved to information. This is a particularly complex and sensitive issue. In putting any new structure or arrangements in place, great care will have to be taken to avoid causing upset and anxieties among the parties concerned. It is particularly desirable that there should be a broad measure of agreement among all the agencies and groups involved on the approach that should be adopted. I sincerely hope that a consensus can quickly emerge so that we can make further progress.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 December 1991.

Barr
Roinn