INTRODUCTION

5.1 In this Chapter the Commission presents the results of its inquiry into “the impact of the legislation on birth parents, children surrendered for adoption, adopting parents and the extended families of all parties”. The Chapter is based on a range of sources, notably:

• Submissions made at public hearings held in Sydney and seven country venues
• Written submissions (numbering over 700)
• Telephone submissions (numbering over 300)
• Personal interviews
• Meetings with groups, representing adoption interest groups
• The report prepared for the Commission by MSJ Keys Young (Appendix B)
• A ‘persons found’ study conducted by PARC at the Commission’s request
• Correspondence received by the then Premier, the Hon Nick Greiner, and the then Minister for Health and Community Services, the Hon John P Hannaford, and made available to the Commission
• Non-confidential submissions and evidence provided to the Willis Committee
• Research and other publications.

5.2 The presentation in this Chapter follows the wording of the terms of reference and also attempts to draw together the main conclusions of the Commission relating to issues of particular importance in the present review. In order to respect the confidentiality of individuals, submissions are referred to by number, except in the case of organisations which have indicated that they are willing to be named. Case summaries have been drawn from various submissions. In all, fictional names are used and some unimportant details have been altered.

5.3 Before presenting the Commission’s findings on the operation of the Adoption Information Act 1990, it is necessary to comment on the nature and significance of the various sources used in this Chapter.

Written and oral submissions

5.4 It hardly needs to be said that the Commission learned a great deal from the people immediately involved in the course of one of the most extensive public consultations the Commission has ever undertaken. The opportunity to hear directly, whether in person or in writing, from such a large number of people affected by the Act was invaluable. It has enabled the Commission to learn about the wide range of experiences under the Act, and the equally wide range of opinion about the issues involved. It seems highly unlikely that any significant type of experience, or point of view, has not been expressed somewhere in this invaluable mass of material. The Commission is very grateful to all who made submissions, the vast majority of which were extremely helpful and thoughtful. In particular, those who spoke at public hearings typically displayed considerable courage in speaking publicly about such personal and sensitive matters, and in the vast majority of cases, presented what they had to say with clarity, compassion and restraint.

5.5 The submissions were extraordinarily diverse. Some people spoke of their own experiences while others spoke about second or third hand accounts of the experiences of other people. Some were more concerned to present arguments about the merits of the law than to relate their own experiences, although in some cases, these arguments were supported by anecdotal material about the impact of the legislation. Some submissions were very well informed while others indicated a misunderstanding of some aspects of the law. Some submissions showed a great deal of compassion and understanding of other people’s points of view while others showed more limited insights, and sometimes assumed or stated that other people’s views and experiences would necessarily be similar to those of the person making the submission. Some people simply signed their names to petitions or form letters,¹ while others presented detailed and carefully considered material. Some were speaking about this issue for the first time, while others had given evidence, or engaged in lobbying activities, on one or several previous occasions: some of the material received by the Commission had been also used previously in the debate about this legislation. Many of those who spoke to the Commission used their own distinctive language and way of presenting what they had to say, while others appeared to be reflecting the results of discussions held in one of the several organisations involved in lobbying to preserve or change the law, or in providing advice and support for particular categories of people affected by the Act. Some submissions addressed a large range of issues while others focused on one or two aspects of the law. Some submissions were largely based on personal experiences with the legislation while many others were based on expectations about what might happen as a result of the legislation. The vast majority of those who spoke to the Commission were directly involved in the issues, being an adopted person or otherwise involved in the ‘adoption triangle’, or were involved in administering adoption law or services. A large number of submissions were received from all of the main groups involved in adoption and both from people who were seeking information and from people who were concerned about having information released about them, or being contacted by another party to the adoption.

5.6 The diversity in the form and manner of submissions was matched by the diversity of their content. In each of the categories of people affected by adoption, the Commission heard a great range of experiences and views. In particular, it was clear that within each category of persons affected by the Act, there were those whose concern was to obtain information previously concealed by the operation of the adoption laws and those whose main interest was the protection of what they saw as their privacy from disclosure of such information and the contacts that might be made as a result. Much of the focus, as expected, was on babies surrendered for adoption to unrelated persons, and what was said in this context may not equally apply to adoptions by step-parents, or by former foster parents, or by relatives, or adoptions of older children.

5.7 The richness and complexity of this material makes it important to consider carefully what inferences can properly be drawn from it. Four general characteristics of the personal submissions should be kept in mind. First, people have naturally described their views and impressions at a particular time, although the release of post-adoption information marks a stage in a series of events lasting over time: people’s initial response may be very different from their response some years later.² This point also has implications for the significance of this review, for it is possible, even likely, that the pattern of experiences and views will change over time: the experience of the first year’s operation may be rather different from that of years to come. Secondly, the reactions of the individuals involved are often so various, complex and often ambivalent that it is difficult to characterise them in simple ways. Each person’s experience is unique, and often emotionally highly-charged, and many of those who spoke to the Commission noted how difficult it is for people to share the experiences of others under the adoption legislation. Adoptees, for example, frequently said that it is difficult for them to convey to people who have not been adopted the importance to them of finding identifying information about their origins. Thirdly, the individuals involved in a particular situation might give very different accounts of it, emphasising some matters and omitting or attaching different significance to others. In virtually all the available accounts of experiences, it is necessary to rely on the presentations of one participant in the situation. Even if one assumes that there is no intention to mislead - as seems true in nearly all submissions received by the Commission - rather different stories might have emerged from the accounts of each of the other participants. Fourthly, the process of making submissions and lobbying for law reform tends towards simplification: those seeking to retain or remove the law are tempted to state their own experiences and views in a more simplistic and unequivocal way than they might do in other contexts. Submissions to the Commission are therefore likely to understate the extent to which those affected by the law have feelings that are often ambivalent, and often, even typically, change over time.³

5.8 Partly for these reasons, the experiences and views of those who made submissions may not necessarily reflect the extent to which those experiences and views are held by other members of the adoption community. The fact that a particular view was taken by a certain percentage, say, of birth parents or adoptive parents, may reflect, in part, the effectiveness of lobby groups. The pattern of submissions may also reflect the characteristics of those with particular experiences or points of view. It is possible, for example, that those who oppose the Act might be more vigorous than those who favour it, because they see the review as an important opportunity to influence change, while those who favour it might tend to assume that since the law is in place there is no great need for action. Again, it is possible that those who are concerned to prevent other people knowing about events in the past, or those for whom the experiences have been particularly painful, might be reluctant to put themselves forward. For these reasons, precise conclusions about what has been called ‘the silent majority’ cannot be drawn from the proportion of particular experiences or opinions occurring among those who made submissions.

5.9 It is also difficult to draw clear inferences about ‘the silent majority’ from the statistics (presented in Table 1, Chapter 4) on the exercise of rights under the Act. The number of adoptees and birth parents who have exercised information rights under the Act is clearly fewer than the number who are interested in information or reunions, since, as we shall see later in this Chapter, people who welcome contact are often unwilling to take the first step, and wait for the other person to take the initiative. This seems particularly true of birth mothers. Similarly, the number of vetoes lodged is not an accurate measure of the number of people who wish to prevent contact. We know that some who have lodged vetoes did so in order to exercise a measure of control over the timing and nature of contact, not because they wished to prevent it altogether. Conversely, some who did not want contact may have refrained from lodging vetoes because they objected to the fee, or believed that it would be ineffective. Most obviously, some people may have taken no action because they were among the minority of people who did not know about their rights under the Act (see generally Chapter 3).

5.10 To summarise, the written and oral submissions constitute an invaluable source of information to the Commission about the issues, experiences and views associated with the legislation. Further, the large number of submissions often makes it possible to say, for example, that at least a substantial minority took a particular view. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that the incidence of particular experiences or views among those who made submissions is necessarily the same as it is among other people affected by the Act: claims about the ‘silent majority’, although commonly made in the submissions, are actually very difficult to establish. On some matters, however, reasonable estimates can be drawn from a study of the submissions in combination with other types of evidence, to which we now turn.

The MSJ Keys Young Report

5.11 The report by MSJ Keys Young, which forms Appendix B to this Report, has been described in Chapter 1. The Commission’s understanding of the issues and experiences of people affected by the Act has been greatly assisted by this separate and independent study, which is referred to throughout this Chapter.

Adoption review: ‘Persons Found’ survey

5.12 In a further attempt to provide another useful source of information, at the Commission’s request, PARC⁴ undertook a small study of 41 cases in which contact had been made or attempted, focusing on the experience of the persons who were found. The cases chosen were the first cases involving contact, up to a total of nine, dealt with by each of the six social workers currently on the staff. Workers A, B, C and D had each dealt with nine cases, E with 4, and F with 1. The workers wrote a brief account of each case, based on their notes and recollections and in some cases also based on a follow-up phone call. The workers answered, to the extent that they could, the following questions:

1. How was contact made?
2. How long ago?
3. Did the person found know about the Reunion Information Register/Adopted Persons Contact Register?
4. Did they ever put their name on a register?
5. If they did know about it and did not register, why not?
6. Did they know about contact veto possibility?
7. If they knew, did they think of putting on a veto?
8. If they knew and did not put on a veto, why didn’t they?
9. How would they describe their attitude to the legislation prior to contact? eg fear, didn’t think about it, didn’t know about it.
10. After the contact, how would they describe their attitude to the legislation?
11. In the light of their experiences, did they agree with a law that made it possible for them to be found?
12. Should the law have prevented the other person from having identifying information about them unless they had agreed to it? Yes/no; reasons?
13. Any comments you would like passed on to the Adoption Law Review?

5.13 PARC sent to the Commission the social workers’ summaries of each of the cases, typically half a page or so in length. Although these summaries do not mention names, addresses or other obviously identifying details, it is possible that publishing them in their original form might enable them to be identified by persons already aware of some of the facts. The study will therefore be described here only in general terms.

5.14 The survey addresses a common concern about the legislation, namely that it will have a disruptive or damaging impact on the persons who are found. It is a general characteristic of the literature in this area that the focus is on the persons searching, and to a considerable extent the available research is based on searchers who volunteer to participate in research. These people of course, may not be representative of other searchers. A similar difficulty arises in surveying the experience of persons who have approached PARC for assistance. It is possible that in relevant ways they are different from people who have conducted their searches without any assistance by PARC. By focusing, however, on the persons found, it should be possible to gain an insight into the experiences of this category of persons affected by the Act. There is no evident reason why the persons found as a result of mediation through PARC should be different from persons found by other searchers. The survey thus provides an insight into the elusive ‘silent majority’ about whom there has been so much speculation and assertion in debates about the Act.

5.15 The experiences of the people in this survey are likely to be typical of persons contacted through professionally qualified intermediaries such as PARC. Therefore, this survey should give a reasonably good indication of the usual responses of people contacted through professional intermediaries. While it may not so closely reflect the experiences of those contacted directly, however, it seems unlikely that the experiences of this group would be substantially different from those of the sample. The size of the sample (41) means of course that it would be wrong to attach any precise significance to the results: such surveys can only give a very approximate indication of what the larger pattern might be. Reference will be made to this survey at appropriate points in this chapter.

Ministerial correspondence and submissions to the Willis Committee

5.16 The Commission’s examination of correspondence addressed to the then Premier (Mr Greiner) and the then Minister for Community Services (Mr Hannaford), and of the non-confidential submissions and evidence to the Willis Committee, also assisted the Review. The former contained representations from a number of people who also made submissions to this Review. Most of the latter material related to the period before the Act came into force, and, although it did not bear directly on the operation of the Act, it provided valuable insights into the issues and views that emerged in the preparation of the legislation and its course through Parliament. These insights are of considerable importance in the present review, since as will be seen in Chapter 6, it is important to determine, as far as possible, whether the operation of the Act conformed with the expectations held at the time it was passed.

Research and publications

5.17 Research and publications have assisted the Commission’s review in various ways. In this Chapter, they are mainly used to provide a context for the evidence received, and in some aspects to assist in assessing the experiences of those affected by the Act. Of course, they need to be used with caution. The experiences of people in other places, and at other times, might be significantly different from those of people in New South Wales during the operation of the Act, owing to differences in (for example) the laws, the social background, and adoption practice at the relevant times. It is also necessary to take into account limitations of the evidence used in published accounts: some of it, for example, is based on anecdotal material or small or unrepresentative samples.

BIRTH PARENTS

Introduction

5.18 The evidence showed that the experiences of birth parents varied greatly. Of the birth parents who participated in the review, the majority were birth mothers. Most, but by no means all, had consented to the adoption when they were young and unmarried. In a significant number of cases, the birth parents married, often some time after the child’s birth. In some cases, they were married at the time of the adoption, and for various reasons were unable to care for the child. In some cases the father was closely involved with the mother, and with the decision to have the child adopted, while in others the father was unknown, or was not involved, perhaps because he had no knowledge of the birth, perhaps because he had no interest or accepted no responsibility, perhaps because he was effectively excluded by the mother or her family. Sometimes, the mother consented to adoption only after a period during which she attempted, with varying amounts of support, to care for the child herself. In many cases, the young mother’s family played a large part in the events surrounding the relinquishment. In some cases the mother’s parents provided no support and urged that the child be adopted; in others they provided a great deal of support and encouragement, and urged the mother to make up her own mind about what would be best for the baby.

5.19 The views of birth parents on the legislation also varied widely. The majority of birth parents who made submissions were enthusiastically in favour of the Act, and strongly asserted their rights to information and contact, and the benefits they saw as flowing from this. A significant minority, however, argued that the law should not open up the past: that birth parents had terminated their relationship with the adoptees when they consented to adoption, and had commenced a new life, perhaps with a new family who were unaware of the fact that they had given birth and relinquished the child for adoption. For many of these birth parents, the prospect of meeting the adoptee and revealing the adoptee’s existence to family was daunting. They felt a betrayal similar to that expressed by adoptees and adoptive parents opposed to the legislation.

5.20 A dominant theme amongst birth mothers was that the experience of relinquishment was not of a ‘clean break’ but, on the contrary, was associated with enduring grief and pain. The focus on the act of relinquishment and its consequences was of central importance for these birth mothers, for at least two reasons. First, for many birth parents access to information, and where possible contact with the adoptee, was seen as a major step in the resolution of issues associated with intense grief, in some cases mixed with feelings of guilt and shame. It provided a key to many aspects of the motivations and intentions of birth parents. Others told of their anger at the way they had been treated, their feelings of emptiness and unfinished business. One submission said “relinquishment is like a storm that lasts forever”. It was common for birth parents to say that they wanted the opportunity to explain to the adoptee how it came about that they gave consent to the adoption, and that despite the relinquishment the child had not been unloved or unwanted.

912 Birth mothers have carried their pain silently and often alone: they “harbour deep, unresolved feelings and sharp memories of the bearing and relinquishing of a child” ... By effecting a reunion, they have been ‘given permission’, as it were, to privately and publicly acknowledge the child who was surrendered to adoption. They have been able to ‘come out of the closet’ in the first step towards healing the grief of separation from their children and working through unresolved guilt.

49 I have spent nine years in therapy resolving this issue ... Mine was a tragic loss. My own hard work and humanity have resolved all this for me - along with the help of the Adoption Information Act 1990 - just as I had finally given up hope of ever letting go of a very anguished mystery within, a door opened.

5.21 Second, the evidence about the circumstances in which consent was given is highly relevant to the force of arguments on the extent to which it is now appropriate to treat birth parents as having voluntarily given up all rights to information about, or contact with, the adoptee. Many birth parents argued forcefully that an understanding of the circumstances in which they gave consent showed that it would be unfair for the law to treat them as uncaring, or as having rejected the child, or having forfeited all rights to information or contact.

5.22 As always, there are exceptions: the act of giving consent to the adoption was not necessarily the key issue for all. Some birth parents, for example, expressed their views more in terms of the ordinary wishes of parents separated from their children to learn how they had fared in life, and if possible, make contact with them. Some birth parents, too, lacked the intensity of expression indicated in many submissions. They appeared to have no strong feelings either about contact or about privacy. They wanted to be available if the adoptee wanted them, but did not feel inclined either to apply for the amended birth certificate or to lodge a contact veto. They were content to accept what happened.

5.23 Lack of action, however, did not always indicate a lack of intensity. The Commission has heard from birth mothers who expressed a deep need to see the child, but felt that they had no right to take the first step, or to take action that had the potential to distress members of the adoptive family. Some birth mothers may not have taken advantage of the legislation yet, but appreciate that they have the opportunity to access information in the future.

188 ... the Commission [should] take into account, when looking at statistics on reunions arranged to date ... the fact that an unknown number of birth parents have not acted as yet but who have every intention of doing so at some time in the future and when they feel that a reunion is most likely to be coped with in the context of their own lives.

5.24 The experience of contact and reunions, not surprisingly, also varied greatly. For almost all information recipients, even those who have encountered vetoes or whose discoveries have disappointed them, the exercise has been valuable and has assisted them in coming to terms with the consequences of relinquishment. For some birth parents who are contacted by the adoptee, on the other hand, the experience has been very distressing, although as we shall see for the majority it appears to have been positive or at least acceptable.

Consenting to adoption

5.25 We now turn to a more detailed account of the central themes in relation to birth parents, starting with what emerged as the main focus for many birth parents, the consent to adoption.⁵ The evidence consistently stressed a number of circumstances which seemed common to a great number of birth mothers who consented to the adoption by unrelated adopters of their new-born babies. These circumstances were of great significance to many who made submissions to the Commission.

30 After relinquishing my son in 1969 and, in fact, never touching or seeing him after birth because I was told it would make it harder for me to forget him, I believe nobody can understand the years of guilt and torment a birth mother goes through as she literally “pines” for her lost child ... I never gave up searching and hoping that one day I would be reunited with my child, and in fact the only thing that kept me going sometimes was to realise that he had my genes and was possibly also searching for me with the same intensity.

485 I was sixteen when I became pregnant to my (now) husband, I was so frightened and didn’t tell my parents ... I truly wanted to keep my baby and thought that we would be married and live ‘happily ever after’. But the father of the baby was unemployed and boarding in a room somewhere. Where were we going to live? What were we going to live on? How would we, just children ourselves be able to care for a baby? ... The ‘Social Worker’ stepped in and told me that my only option (if I really cared about my baby) was to give ‘it’ up. This person then went to my parents and told them that it was my wish to relinquish my baby. They didn’t ask me - they had also been convinced it to be ‘the right thing to do’. She then told me it was my parents’ wish that I give the baby up.

My experience at that time was horrendous - what cruelty - to lie ‘open-faced’ to a child already uncertain of proceedings and the future of herself, the man she loved and their beloved baby!

I felt I had no choice! After I was admitted to hospital I went into labour - I was left alone, I asked for my boyfriend and my mother (who had requested they call her so she could be with me) - they refused. Finally the baby was born - they didn’t even tell me that she was a girl until I begged they tell me. I didn’t see her, they took her away immediately. My heart broke - I was helpless, alone and hopeless. I begged to see her - NO ...

My baby was ‘stolen’ from me - I didn’t give her up by choice. The system at that time was criminal. Like vultures they swooped - ‘Go home and forget’, they said. In my heart I never gave my baby away. She was with me always - in my thoughts, my dreams and in my heart...I knew nothing of how my baby was - alive or dead, happy or sad, so many questions, so much heartache, grief and guilt.

105 For ... eighteen years, I had no knowledge of [my son’s] fate, and, contrary to the assurances of the social workers and others connected with adoption, I did not forget about him. Rather, I remembered him frequently and with great emotion. The adoption had a profound effect on me, especially as I was expected to keep it a secret, and “get on with my life”, as if the adoption had not occurred.

5.26 Not all birth parents feel this way. Some, a small minority of those who made submissions to the Commission, described their decision to relinquish the child as a deliberate choice which they wanted to be respected:

805 Some years ago, I gave birth to a child who I decided to have adopted out. I am now married with a family and although my husband knows about my past, my children don’t. I honestly live in fear that my adopted child will one day turn up on the doorstep and that I’ll be forced into a situation where I will have to tell, not only my children, but also other relatives and friends about the whole thing. The prospect of that, and all it implies, really terrifies me ... [W]hen I gave up my child for adoption I accepted the fact that I was giving up my child to another couple for them to bring up as their own. As far as I was concerned I also gave up my rights as a parent at that time and I understand it to be permanent. The adoption was not made on the understanding that “you can love my child as your own, educate it, clothe it, feed it, provide a home for it - but I may choose to come along in 20 years time to claim it back again."

5.27 Although the diversity of individual situations must be kept in mind, the evidence available to the Commission indicates a number of circumstances that were usually associated with consents to the adoption of new born babies to unrelated adopting parents.

5.28 First, birth mothers were frequently young and single. Many would have become pregnant unintentionally, and carried their pregnancy to full term, against the background of a lack of sex education, contraceptives and availability of abortion.⁶

5.29 Second, there was a lack of social and financial support for unmarried mothers. The supporting mothers benefit was not introduced until 1973. For many single mothers, it would have been difficult or impossible for them to manage on their own with a baby unless their own families provided a great deal of assistance. In many cases of children surrendered for adoption, this family support was not available: indeed the families often encouraged the young mother to relinquish the child for adoption. In many cases there was no support available from the fathers: the mothers were discouraged from involving them, or placing their names on the birth certificate; social norms tended to weaken any sense of responsibility that father might feel; some did not know that they were the father, while others refused to acknowledge their paternity.

5.30 Third, the lack of social services such as financial support and child minding facilities was accompanied by a great deal of stigma associated with birth outside wedlock. This stigma attached both to the mother and to the child. For the mother, it was a factor that would inhibit her bringing up the child herself. For the child, it was a stigma that would be capable of causing continuing embarrassment and stress. For both mother and child, adoption was seen as a way of removing this stigma. The birth mother was frequently urged to surrender the child because the child would obtain not only a new family that would be well placed to give the child a desirable and loving home and conventional family, but it would also remove from the child the stigma of illegitimacy. To the extent that the mother was able to conceal the facts, or forget them, the stigma associated with unmarried parenthood would also be lifted from her. Such stigmas would also have been a significant factor in the minds of many of the families of the birth mothers.

5.31 Fourthly, the young mothers were subjected to a great deal of persuasion and pressure to give up their children for adoption. This was presented to them by family members, hospital staff and social workers and no doubt many others, as the best thing to do, especially for the child. Many of them were told, and accepted, that the best way they could express their love and concern for the child was to give the child up for adoption and allow him or her to have a far better childhood, and far better opportunities than the birth mother would be able to provide. In view of the matters mentioned in the previous paragraphs, this advice must have seemed, and to a large extent no doubt was, well grounded. Many birth mothers have said, and there is no reason to disbelieve this, that they relinquished their children for adoption essentially because they thought it was the best thing they could do for their child.

5.32 The final factor was a combination of hospital practices relating to the delivery and birth. The Commission heard of birth parents who were drugged immediately after giving birth and were then transported without their consent to another hospital or convalescent centre where they were completely separated from their child, who had remained at the hospital. Some practices involved a deception of the birth mother: examples included concealing the words on the document of consent or misrepresenting the document, and telling the birth mother, contrary to the fact, the child had died shortly after birth. Another practice, which was employed in at least one major Sydney hospital, was to hold a pillow or sheet over the mother’s body during the delivery so that the child could be removed without ever having been seen or held by the mother. Many of these practices were illegal. They all appear to have been directed to ensuring that the mother did not exercise her right to withdraw her consent, and, in the case of the practices preventing contact between the mother and child, were no doubt designed to prevent any ‘bonding’ between the birth mother and the child. The evidence to the Commission indicated that these practices may well have been successful in preventing the mother from withdrawing consent, but were manifestly unsuccessful in creating an emotional ‘clean break’ between mother and child: their main effect seems to have been to engender in many birth mothers a deep resentment about the experience.

5.33 These factors, while common, did not apply in all cases. Sometimes consents were taken only after careful and thorough counselling. Some mothers may have had the necessary resources and family support to bring up the child, had they cared to do so, but chose otherwise. Some, indeed, may have abused or abandoned the child and the child may have been adopted only after proceedings in which the mother’s consent had been dispensed with. It is not possible to determine with any reasonable precision the proportion of birth mothers who fall in these different categories. We do not have systematic evidence that would enable a judgment to be made about the frequency of particular practices and circumstances over the long period, between 1923 and the mid-1970s, relevant to this review. However it is the Commission’s belief, based on the evidence available, that the majority of birth mothers consented to adoption in the circumstances which led them to see adoption as the only course open to them to serve the needs of their children.

5.34 The Commission’s view of the evidence is similar to that of the Willis Committee, and is supported by a number of submissions⁷, recently published autobiographical material⁸ and research.⁹ A major study conducted in 1984 summarised its findings as follows:

A national study of 213 women who relinquished a first child for adoption when they were young and single found,

(1) The effects of relinquishment on the mother are negative and long lasting.

(2) Approximately half the women reported an increasing sense of loss over periods of up to 30 years, with sense of loss being worse at particular times, eg. birthdays, Mothers’ Day.

(3) For the sample as a whole, this sense of loss remained constant for up to 30 years.

(4) Relinquishing mothers, compared to a carefully matched comparison group of women, had significantly more problems of psychological adjustment.

(5) The major factors which made for worse adjustment to the relinquishment were

• absence of opportunities to talk through feelings about relinquishment
• lack of social supports in dealing with the relinquishment
• most importantly the continuing sense of loss about the child
(6) However, it was not the case that all women who had relinquished a child for adoption reported negative adjustment to relinquishment - there was approximately a normal distribution of outcomes.

(7) The relinquishing mothers expressed a clear view that their sense of loss and problems of adjustment to the relinquishment would be eased by knowledge about what had happened to the child they gave us for adoption.

The research shows clearly that it is inappropriate to view relinquishing mothers as women who have “put the problem behind them”. Nor should they be regarded as callous and heartless in giving their child away - the majority of women felt they had no alternative to the difficult choice they made.¹⁰

5.35 A more recent review of the literature summarised the situation as follows:

The relinquishing parents in the past were told that they would get over the loss of the child quickly, even forget. The mother could shed parenthood like an overcoat and move out into the world as if nothing had occurred. This fiction was quickly realised to be false by the mothers who had relinquished, but most, believing the “experts” to be correct, assumed that their grief and pain was a sign of their own badness or madness. Society, via parents, friends and professionals also told them to forget and not to discuss their relinquishment experience nor their feelings. This advice, in effect, further isolated them from others who had relinquished and from any support and understanding. The myths were perpetuated out of the ignorance, fear and the resultant low self concept that surrounds relinquishment.¹¹

5.36 It is clear that such summaries accurately describe the experiences and attitudes of a large number of birth mothers. It is less clear whether the mothers interviewed in these studies, and the birth parents who gave evidence to the Commission, are representative of relinquishing mothers in general. It should be emphasised that although the research on this matter is often of a high standard, it is based on self-selecting samples, that is, individuals who volunteer to participate in research. It is possible that those birth mothers who participate in such research feel more strongly about the issues than birth mothers who do not, or perhaps they feel differently. It has been stressed above that a small number of birth mothers who participated in this review did regard their consent to adoption as a deliberate act which should make a ‘complete break’, although even in these cases the submissions often indicated that this had been, and continued to be, a painful decision, rather than that the birth mother had succeeded in dismissing the matter from her thoughts and feelings.

5.37 Although there is room for doubt about the precise proportions of birth mothers who consider that they have made a ‘clean break’ and those who have a very different view, the evidence leads the Commission to conclude that for the majority of birth mothers, the decision to sign the forms of consent to adoption was made at a time when they could not be reasonably regarded as being indifferent to the child’s welfare, or as having abandoned the child for selfish reasons of their own. This finding is very helpful in understanding the needs and attitudes of those birth mothers who do seek information. It also shows that there is little justice or compassion in the argument that birth mothers, because they chose to give up their children for adoption, should necessarily be seen as people who have no legitimate interest in the welfare of the child, and no legitimate reason to ask the law to acknowledge and respond to their desire to obtain information about the child and perhaps make contact. On the other hand, it is obviously important that the interests of the significant number of birth parents who do regard their consent as marking a permanent and complete severance between themselves and the adoptees, and wish to conceal this chapter in their lives, should be kept carefully in mind.

Birth parents seeking information or contact

5.38 The submissions indicated that for the vast majority of birth mothers who used it to obtain information, the Act relieved the pain of never knowing if their child was alive or dead, happy or sad, healthy or ill. For many it provided an opportunity to meet as adults the children they had never known and to establish a relationship with them. For the overwhelming majority of the birth parents who participated in the review, this experience was positive. It has allowed them to finally come to terms with the relinquishment and to resolve some of the anguish that they have lived with for so long.

75 [F]or relinquishing mothers who gave up their children to adoption because they did not have the resources available to care for them, the pain of this relinquishment can never be expunged. To go through life not knowing what has happened to their children is an emotional experience difficult to imagine. That some of their anguish and suffering can be alleviated by knowing that when their children are 18 years they will be able to access information about them must be regarded as a basic human right.

70 I hope they never change the law back ; it is HELL on earth not to know if she lived or not. Don’t do to another generation what the law has done to me and so many other mothers and children.

8 For us [birth mother and daughter] finding each other has made our lives complete. Both families have met and enjoy the fact they have extended family. I know not everyone is as lucky my daughter and myself to have found mutual love and friendship, but if we have found happiness and put a lot of guilt and worry behind us, there must be a lot more people who will benefit as well.

5.39 The evidence indicates how satisfactory arrangements can often be made, even in difficult situations:

In Case 2, the birth mother who is in her late fifties had never told her husband, nor her older children, that she had a child prior to the marriage. The daughter met her birthmother and they are in regular contact. However neither families - the birthmother’s nor the adopting parent’s - are aware of the reunions ... The daughter has met her birth father but has agreed to carefully guard his identity and privacy.¹²

5.40 Many birth mothers received no documentation in relation to the adoption, so for some, the amended birth certificate is the only concrete acknowledgment they have of their child’s existence, the only acknowledgment that the baby they relinquished was a tangible being they had lost. One birth mother told the Commission that, until her reunion, she slept with her daughter’s amended birth certificate under her pillow and kept it with her always.

5.41 The evidence consistently indicated that the approach of birth parents seeking information or contact is careful and sensitive to the needs of other parties in the large majority of cases.¹³ This was amply demonstrated in submissions to the Commission:

178 Giving up my son for adoption has meant nearly 18 years of guilt and feeling that something is missing for me ... Personally I am not yet sure whether I will try to make contact with my son as soon as I am legally able to when he turns 18. Perhaps the last thing an 18 year old boy needs or wants is another adult in his life! However, regardless of what I decide to do and more importantly than that, I feel strongly that he has the right to know where he came from. If he is anything like me he will have a great curiosity about his family and where certain physical traits may have been inherited from. More seriously, he may need to know something about our medical history. Or maybe he would just like to know why he was given up for adoption.



I realise that in these situations the adoptive parents may feel they have the most to lose - after all, they have taken on these children and made loving family homes for them where their birth parents have been unable to provide this for them. However ... it is ridiculous to assume that they would turn their backs on the only family that they had ever known and loved ...

5.42 Centacare Adoption Services made the following submission, based on a survey of their clients:

There has been demonstrated an overall sensitivity on the part of birth parents towards the adoptive parents, their position and the bonds between the adoptee and his/her adoptive family. These attitudes and behaviours are often based on:-

(a) The uncertainty as to whether the adoptee knows of his adoption,

(b) A feeling that in some way they are “breaking a promise not to make contact” that was made when signing the consent for adoption, and

(c) A feeling that they are less entitled to the provisions of the legislation.¹⁴

5.43 Quoted comments of birth parents in this survey include the following:

I have made contact with his parents. It is now up to him to decide whether he wants to contact me.

Because of the intrusion contact may have caused into one’s life and the unknown reaction as to the intrusion I felt it would be better to give my daughter time to adjust to the information and breathing space to make a choice whether she wanted contact or not.

If I never see her again I am greatly relieved that she is happy healthy and has led a good life and has been well cared for.¹⁵

5.44 There is considerable agreement among the research studies and in the submissions to the Commission, about the needs and wishes of relinquishing mothers who experience loss and grief associated with the relinquishment of their children.

5.45 First, they want information about the present health and welfare of their children. As stated by MSJ Keys Young, “the information needs tended to be about how their children had fared, what they had become in life, what they looked like as adults etc.” They want to know “[i]f their children are alive or dead, and whether they are happy and secure.”¹⁶

5.46 Secondly, many birth parents who seek information about their adult adopted children also seek the opportunity to make contact with them. Submissions to the Commission indicated that there were a number of reasons for this. Birth parents wanted to see the adoptee for themselves and wanted to hear directly from the adoptee news about their lives and about their feelings towards the birth parent. In part, this was an expression of the birth parents’ general desire to learn what their children had become and how they had fared in life. However, another important aspect for many birth parents is there being an opportunity for them to explain to the adopted person how it came about that they had given consent to adoption. Many birth parents are apprehensive that their children may have been told that their mothers had given them up because they did not want them or had abandoned them and the birth parents wish to assure their children that this was not the case. As stated in the MSJ Keys Young Report:

The angry tone of messages by some children in association with their vetoes makes it clear to their birth mothers that their child believes their birth mother rejected them. The experience of some adoptees of having their adoptive parents tell them their birth mothers hadn’t wanted them indicates that this message is given to some adoptees. This contrast fell sharply with the truth as the birth mothers knew it, that they feel an even greater need to contact their child and explain that they were wanted.¹⁷

5.47 In some cases, perhaps most, the birth parent’s feelings are mixed, and may include considerable guilt or shame about the relinquishment of the child. For a significant number of these parents, it seems, what they want is to obtain their children’s forgiveness or understanding.¹⁸

5.48 Finally, some birth parents may wish to establish some kind of continuing relationship with the adopted person. It is this aspect, no doubt, which poses the most difficulty for adoptive parents, and perhaps for some adopted persons. What emerges with some clarity from the evidence, is that for the majority of searching birth parents, a continuing relationship with the adoptee is a development which they welcome if it happened but is by no means essential. As one submission stated, it would be ‘icing on the cake’.

5.49 An important characteristic of the evidence in this respect is that overwhelmingly, these birth parents do not wish to displace the adoptive parents. Commonly, attitudes to adoptive parents are generous and understanding. The birth parents usually recognise that they cannot and should not attempt to establish with the adoptee the sort of relationship that they might have had if they had brought the child up. Submissions to the Commission indicated that most are very concerned to handle the situation in a way that does not embarrass or offend the adoptive parents, or displace them in the adoptee’s affections. It is common, for example, for the birth parents to worry about whether the adopted person is aware of his or her adoption: they are anxious that their search should not cause a distressing revelation to the adopted person.

5.50 In the Commission’s view, then, the majority of the birth parents who seek information about their children have a very strong desire or need to have up to date knowledge of their welfare and an account of their lives and, often, the opportunity to talk with them. While many of them would hope that such a meeting would lead to a longer satisfying relationship, they typically describe that relationship in terms of ‘friendship’ and in general they recognise that such a relationship may not eventuate. In that event, while they might be disappointed, they would greatly value the information and brief contact and what they have learned from it. Birth parents who have had an opportunity to meet their children and learn about their lives, but have not had the opportunity for that relationship to develop into a continuing one, are likely to be much less distressed than birth parents who have had no opportunity to meet the adoptees at all.

5.51 These comments are not true of every birth parent who seeks information or contact. It seems that a small minority some birth parents do experience a need or desire to take over a parenting role. There may also be some birth parents who behave in ways that are insensitive or harmful to the adopted person and other members of their families. However, the evidence very strongly suggests that such birth parents are very much the exception.

Birth parents opposed to the release of information

5.52 While the vast majority of submissions from birth parents supported the Act, the Commission received a small number of submissions from birth mothers who opposed contact or the release of information.¹⁹ Some argued that birth parents in many cases really did make a free and considered choice to relinquish their babies, and that their decision should now be respected and enforced, by protecting all parties against having access to identifying information. These people, almost without exception women, felt that the Act was re-opening old wounds and bringing back hurtful experiences that they had managed to put behind them. The majority of these women had not told their other children, or in some cases their husbands, that they had relinquished a child, and they felt that if they were forced to do so they would lose their family’s love and respect.

407 Twenty years ago I gave birth. I was promised that nobody would ever find out and so with a lot of effort I got on with my life. Nobody ever knew my secret. I married and my husband and I have four beautiful children. My husband and children have never been told. The law was changed and now all of a sudden my world has been turned upside down. How do you think I felt when I had to fill out a veto and surrender my child a second time? ... If my husband and children ever discover my past I will lose them and right or wrong they are my life and the people who have pushed for changes will be responsible for my death. It may sound melodramatic but that is how it is... For the rest of my life I am worried that someone will contact me and that will be the end of everything I have worked so hard for.

952 I gave up my child for adoption a long time ago because the child was not my husband’s. The trauma that time brought me to the brink of suicide. It has caused me enormous pain ever since, but I know that the decision was the right one to protect the happiness of my husband, my other children and, not least, the child ... I am in danger of losing all that is most dear to me if the past comes to light ... I can’t believe that it will bring happiness to my child to know the circumstances of her birth.

5.53 Some birth mothers, in addition to objecting to the release of information, resented having to pay for their privacy.

151 I am a relinquishing mother. ... I was forced by this law to attend FACS Offices and pay $50 to lodge a veto to ensure what I had always assumed was my right - my right to privacy and my right to deny access to confidential and potentially damaging information ... I object to information of a private nature being given to what is essentially a stranger ...

5.54 Some of the strongest objections to the Act came from a small number of submissions from women whose child was conceived through incest or rape. These women were fearful that despite vetoes, their child would knock on their door and they would be forced to reveal the sexual assault to their family. Like may adoptive parents, these birth mothers feel that the government has betrayed them by removing the secrecy they were promised so long ago.

5.55 There is no denying the intensity of these submissions, and the Commission has given careful thought to meeting the anxieties of these people. Most, it seems, are experiencing continuing stress as a result of trying to maintain the secret; as submission 952 states, “it has caused me enormous pain ever since”. It is important that counselling and support facilities should be available.²⁰ It may be that the anxieties would be eased, in some cases, if the birth parents were aware of the evidence relating to adoptees who search and the usual outcomes of contact: in fact, it seems very rare for contact to lead to abandonment by spouses and other family members. In a number of cases known to the Commission it turned out that a birth parent’s ‘secret’ was already known to members of the family, or even to most of the local community: in such cases the ‘disclosure’ involved not so much the discovery of information as the beginning of a period when the facts could be discussed openly, often to the relief and benefit of the birth parent.

5.56 These comments, however, may be of little comfort to those who are convinced that in their own case the effect of contact would be disastrous. No amount of evidence about other people can establish that in a particular case the result of contact will not, in fact, be as bad as feared. More important, perhaps, the Commission’s impression is that many birth parents who have such fears would be loathe to seek counselling or support. Birth parents in such situations, however, would benefit if they were able to send anonymous messages to the adult adoptees, if they could arrange for the release of information to be deferred for a period such as two months, and if, in a rare case where they had reason to believe that they might be harmed by the adoptee, they could seek an order preventing the disclosure of the information: the Commission recommends all of these measures in Chapter 7.

Birth fathers

5.57 There is great variation in the involvement of birth fathers in the events surrounding the birth and the adoption. Some were fully involved, and may have married the mother either before or after the adoption. Others were uninvolved, and may not even have known that the child was born, or that they were the father. Many refused to take any responsibility for the mother and may even have refused to acknowledge the child as their own. As noted earlier in this Chapter, a number of factors combined to prevent most fathers’ names appearing on the birth certificate.

5.58 Few birth fathers made submissions to the Commission. Perhaps because their names appear infrequently on the birth certificates, the Commission heard very little from birth fathers who opposed the release of information and the possibility of the adoptee making contact. It appears to be the general experience in many jurisdictions that men are less actively involved than women in seeking post-adoption information. However it was clear from the evidence that some birth fathers are very involved, and may very much wish to obtain information about, or to contact, the adoptees. Many have unresolved feelings in relation to the adoption and would like to make contact as a result. Some, as the Willis Committee found, feel very angry about having been disregarded, and having their names omitted from the birth certificate.²¹ Others feel guilty at having ‘abandoned’ the mother and child, and wish to make amends.²²

5.59 Evidence to the Commission indicated that birth fathers may have a range of experiences which may lead them to seek contact, or welcome it when it happens:

Martin, now in his forties, is the father of a 20 year old son. He was denied all contact with his pregnant girl friend during the last months of pregnancy. Martin has always felt a need to know his son and, after constant and prolonged effort did finally succeed in having his name added to the birth registration. He located his son, made the approach to him through the adoptive family and has found warm acceptance. He finds that he has many things in common with his son and his family. Both he and his son acknowledge and respect the birth mother’s refusal of contact of any sort.

Luke, in his twenties, encountered a veto from his birth mother but, because of information recorded for him by his mother at the time of the adoption, was able to contact his birth father. He had been unaware of Luke's existence but has been happy to acknowledge him as his son. He has shown him photos and given him information about his mother with whom he had long lost touch. He offered to make contact with the mother but Luke indignantly refused this offer. He has no wish to compromise his undertaking or intrude into his birth mother’s life.

5.60 Criticisms of the adoption information legislation are often based on claims or assumptions that it will have adverse consequences for birth parents. The Adoption Privacy Protection Group (APPG), for example, wrote to the Commission that:

Unwelcome interference in the life of a relinquishing parent, undermining the stability of a subsequently created family, creates very grave concerns.

5.61 Such apprehensions appear to be associated with a number of assumptions. One is that birth parents would have put the matter out of their minds, and that there would be no problem if it were not for adoption information laws. Another is that due to the guilt and shame associated with birth outside wedlock the birth mothers would want to keep this event secret from others, even close members of their families. Another assumption is that revelation of the facts might be shocking to other members of the family, and indeed destructive to the family.

5.62 There is a striking difference between these assumptions and the view of birth parents that emerged from the Commission’s study of their evidence, and from their face-to-face presentations in interviews and at public hearings. It seems to the Commission, as was suggested in some submissions, that the difference may be partly due to false information given to adoptive parents at the time of the adoption and partly to ignorance of the circumstances in which many birth mothers consented to relinquish their children. The view that birth mothers normally forget, or that they are so ashamed that they value secrecy above all else, may also reflect an acceptance of some of the myths of adoption, and, in some cases, a degree of stereotyping and moral condemnation of birth parents. It is possible, too, that such views are partly influenced by the needs of the some adoptive parents, who may find it more comfortable to see the process of relinquishment as involving a ‘clean break’ from the birth mother.

5.63 No doubt the apprehensions indicated by APPG are true for some individuals. As PARC says, the claim that the Act has caused pain is undeniable.²³ But it is important to determine, as far as possible, what sorts of experiences are commonly encountered when contact is made with a birth parent.

5.64 The evidence strongly suggests that these assumptions are true only in a minority of cases. As mentioned above, experience has shown that it is very rare for birth mothers to be unaffected by the experience of relinquishing a child for adoption. The stigma associated with extra-marital birth is now greatly reduced, and for many birth mothers may not now be a significant influence on their behaviour. In the present climate, it is likely that in many cases birth mothers have already told members of their present families, and that those family members would be understanding and supportive.

5.65 Individual accounts given to the Commission illustrate the diversity of impacts of contact on birth parents.

Rita, now in her 60s, is a birth mother who surrendered 2 children for adoption over a period of 5 years. Each child was placed in a different family. She subsequently married and had more children, although the marriage ended unhappily. She was thrown into a state of near terror and confusion when contacted by Mary, the eldest of four adopted children. She has, however, had a very satisfactory reunion with Mary and has found to her surprise that she has been warmly accepted by Mary's extended family.

Kevin is an adopted man who traced his elderly birth mother. She was living with Jo, an elderly relative. At Kevin’s request, a social worker made contact with the birth mother. The birth mother was initially confused, and gave the letter to Jo who knew nothing of Kevin’s existence. Jo spoke to the social worker and, though shocked to learn of Kevin's existence, was not opposed to contact. The elderly mother was very pleased to meet Kevin. She has however assented to Jo's wish that Jo’s family not be told of Kevin’s true identity.

Mark is an adopted man in his 70's who discovered by chance the whereabouts and identity of his elderly birth mother. This came about through the agency of an acquaintance, Beth, who was compiling a history of his birth family. Beth indicated to the birth mother that her son had been searching for her but that no contact would be made if it were not her wish. The birth mother rang Mark and asked for time to tell her other children. They had in fact already been made aware of Mark’s identity, but everyone felt that the birth mother’s dignity be respected and that she be given the choice. The children reacted with appropriate surprise and acceptance when told of their lost brother. All are delighted with the way things have turned out and are now looking forward to a reunion, involving as well children and grand children.

Lucy is a birth mother who was approached by the daughter she relinquished over 20 years ago. She has met the daughter secretly on one occasion. After the surrender, Lucy went on to marry another man and have a daughter. Neither the daughter nor her husband knew of Lucy's relinquished daughter. Lucy felt “suicidal” and “desperate” fearing the consequences of exposure. She eventually went on to tell first her husband and then her daughter of the relinquishment and a meeting was organised. Some months later Lucy said she still felt fragile but greatly relieved that there were no more secrets in her family. She reported her husband's remark that an invisible wall between them had disappeared.

One adoptee has contacted her birth mother, who did not lodge a contact veto and whose husband and children do not know of the adoptee’s existence. The two are arranging to meet in private. The birth mother is more concerned that the adoptive parents should not be upset in any way, rather than that her own husband and family find out.

5.66 The evidence relating to the impact on birth parents of adoptees’ access to their original birth certificates, and identifying information may be summarised as follows. First, we now have considerable experience in a number of jurisdictions with laws granting to identifying information to adoptees. Studies of experience in these jurisdictions, described in Chapter 6, indicate that for most birth parents contacted by adoptees the experience appears to be a positive one. The two Victorian studies based on random samples are particularly important in this respect.

5.67 Second, those organisations in New South Wales which have been most closely involved in counselling parties affected by the Act strongly support the Act: while they acknowledge that reunion experiences are not necessarily happy, and may on occasion be very distressing, they consider that the benefits far outweigh the detriments. This view is consistent with available surveys, although these are not decisive because it cannot be shown that they are representative.

5.68 Third, the ‘persons found’ survey conducted by PARC at the Commission’s request echoes the results of other studies.²⁴ Of the 41 cases, 12 involved birth parents, all except one being birth mothers. Their experiences were as follows:

Birth parents in 'persons found' survey

Contact experienced as positive/acceptable	8	(67%)
Contact experienced as negative/unacceptable	3	(25%)
Experience equivocal or unknown	1	(8%)
Total Cases	12

[Link to text only version of table]

5.69 Available evidence, therefore, supports the view that for the majority of birth parents who are contacted by adult adoptees, the experience is more positive than negative. In a significant number of cases, however, the experience is unhappy, and the availability of identifying information is disapproved by the birth parent.

Impact of the law on birth parents: conclusions

5.70 The review confirms the results of other recent inquiries and studies on birth parents who have relinquished children for adoption. It shows that most birth mothers consented to the adoption of their children in circumstances where they felt they had little choice. The relinquishment was a source of grief and stress, of varying intensity, that continued through their lives. While some wish to prevent others from knowing of this part of their history, and regard the Act as an invasion of their privacy, the majority are grateful for the opportunity that the law has given them to learn about their birth children, whether this comes about as a result of their own initiative or that of the adoptee. Many birth mothers want to have the opportunity to talk with their children, and explain the circumstances in which they consented to their adoption. While many would be glad if they develop a friendly relationships, few wish to disrupt or displace the adoptive parents or interfere with their lives. For birth mothers, the Act has been beneficial in the majority of cases.

5.71 It seems likely that experience of the legislation in the future will be at least as positive as it has been to date. While many had been thinking about possible reunions for many years, those birth parents ‘found’ in the first year of operation of the Act had little time to come to terms with the reality of contacts. In many ways, this initial period of operation is likely to have been the most difficult. With time, the people immediately affected, and their families, will become better prepared for the consequences of the Act, and post-adoption contact will increasingly be perceived as an everyday occurrence, although it will remain stressful for many.

ADOPTEES

Introduction

5.72 The Commission received written submissions from adoptees, and heard many others at public hearings, in telephone submissions, and in interviews. Their ages ranged from 18 and younger to over 70. Some approached the Commission independently, others (usually the younger adoptees) with their parents. Some shared and echoed the views of their parents, while others said that their views were not shared by their adoptive parents and family, and in some cases that their views were not shared by their adopted siblings (even, in one case, by a twin).

5.73 There is now a formidable literature on the desire of many adoptees to trace their origins.²⁵ Their experiences and needs have been described in autobiographies, research papers and conference presentations, and have been described in the Willis Report. Many of the submissions to the Commission retraced this familiar ground, which the Commission considers does not need to be set out in more detail in this Report. The following comments will focus on aspects of particular importance to the assessment of the Adoption Information Act 1990.

5.74 There is no single ‘adoptee perspective’ of the Act: their views cover a wide spectrum. A clear majority of the adoptees who participated in the review were in favour of the information rights given under the Act, although a substantial minority were critical of the Act insofar as it provided information rights without the prior consent of the persons concerned: these concerns related mainly to the information rights given to birth parents.

5.75 The Commission also received submissions from adoptees whose views fall somewhere in between these two positions. Not surprisingly, adoptees who are not very interested in searching tend not to volunteer for research projects and do not figure largely in the literature. An insight into the attitudes of these adoptees, however, is provided in the MSJ Keys Young Report. They quote such adoptees:

I felt I was happy with my life and didn’t want to do anything. I don’t know the people on the other side - they could be quite nice people ...

I’m a wimp, I guess I’m lazy and a bit fearful of taking on a search. What if I get so far and couldn’t find them? If someone else did the work ...²⁶

5.76 Like other groups, adoptees differed on the merits of the contact veto system. Many adoptees thought that the contact veto system was an appropriate protection for people’s rights, but were also firmly of the view that the law should not go further than this:

354 If [our natural parents] do not want any further contact or involvement past identification, the current law provides to let that be their way out. However, do not let their inabilities to face their actions of the past cause the people who are the results of their previous poor decisions to suffer further by reversing the current legislation or making it more difficult to obtain the data needed to allow us to identify our real selves ...

Awareness of adoption

5.77 There is no reliable evidence on the proportion of New South Wales adoptees who are unaware of their adoptive status. New Zealand evidence cited to the Willis Committee suggested that the figure was as low as 1%. The vast majority of adoptive parents who made submissions to the Commission said that they had told their children of their adoptive status, although a small minority said that they had not done so and claimed that their adult adopted children were unaware of their status. Of course, this is not necessarily so: as is well known, and was reflected in many submissions to the Commission, many adoptees discover accidentally and from sources other than their adoptive parents, that they are adopted. Some adoptees who contacted the Commission learned of their adoption as long as 40 years ago, when they were teenagers. Adoptees at all ages noted in their submissions that their adoptive parents were unaware that the adoptees knew of their adoptive status. The Commission also heard from adoptees who were in their 30s, 40s or 50s when they learned of their adoption: few of them had learned of their adoption as a result of the Act. PARC’s submission, pointing this out, suggested that “[i]t is clear that with or without the change of legislation the concealed adoption will always be a time bomb waiting to explode”.²⁷

5.78 Typically, since the question has never been raised by their parents, adoptees who learn ‘accidentally’ of their status do not mention the subject for fear of upsetting their parents, who may go on believing that the adoptees think that they are the biological children of the adoptive parents. Even where children know of their status, they often respond to cues from their parents indicating that the topic is a sensitive one. This point is frequently noted by researchers. In a recent study, for example, Seale notes that “children who recognise that their parents are uncomfortable when they raise questions about their birth family and their adoption frequently stop asking. They may collude with their adoptive parents in denying their adoptive status and appear not interested in order to prevent hurting their parent’s feelings”.²⁸ The awkwardness surrounding the topic, as well as the inevitability of discovering an adoption, is captured in a number of submissions:

268 All my life I have had a feeling that I was adopted despite my parents making every endeavour to dispute this fact. It was not until I was in my late 30s (1984) that my adoptive father confirmed that my long held feelings were true.

113 I was adopted in 1952, my parents decided never to inform me of my adoptive status. I eventually found out by accident at the age of eight, but have never discussed the topic with my parents, even to this day.

361 I was brought up to believe that my parents were my true flesh and blood , but certain serious situations and occurrences led me to believe from the age of 15, that I was adopted. At that age I could not find out. In fact, unless my “parents” told me, which I knew they would never do, I had absolutely no chance of ever finding out. So big was this secret that all our cousins, aunts, uncles, family friends knew, but I was 33 years old before I gained the courage to write to Youth and Community Services, and find out the truth ... It hurts to think that I may have died without ever knowing. It seems ridiculous that anyone could ever think that we would never find out. I personally think that if anyone had the right to know it was me.

5.79 Submissions to the Commission by adoptive parents who had not ‘told’, therefore, do not necessarily indicate the number of adoptees who do not know of their adoptive status. Of course adoptees who do not know of their adoptive status would not have participated in the review, and it is likely that many of their adoptive parents would be reluctant to do so. However the ‘persons found’ survey,²⁹ and submissions to the Commission, suggest that the number is not insignificant, and may be considerably larger than generally assumed.³⁰

5.80 A number of submissions, particularly from adoptees, urged that adoptive parents should tell their adult adopted children, and this was a strong theme of the Willis Report and the Parliamentary debates. It seems that these exhortations, as well as advice to adoptive parents since at least the 1960s, have had only moderate success, with the result, unfortunately, that adoptees who do not know of their status are unable to exercise their rights under the Act, either to prevent contact by lodging a veto or to apply for information. They are often seen as the most vulnerable people in the operation of the Act, but it seems that in the majority of cases, while the initial revelation triggered by contact from a birth relative may be deeply shocking, these adoptees appear to cope reasonably well.³¹ Some submissions went so far as to suggest that if the Adoption Information Act is informing people that they are adopted, then the Act is having a good impact on adoptees. These submissions argued that it is wrong for a person to not know something so fundamental about themselves, regardless of the good intentions of adoptive parents. It was seen as particularly unfair if the ‘secret’ was known to other family members but not to the adoptee. The Commission’s impression is that most adoptees would agree that they should have the right to know of their status, but at least one adult adoptee, informed as a result of the Act, told the Commission that she would have preferred not to have known, and that her adoptive parents (and more recently her brother, also adopted) were the right people to make this decision.

Adoptees with positive experience of the Act

5.81 A large proportion of adoptees were pleased with the new access to information. Many had long desired contact with their natural families and the Act facilitated this contact. Others had already experienced reunions prior to the Act and were pleased that such reunions would now be easier to achieve for other adoptees.

354 We [adoptees] do not generally see ourselves in our daily routine as “lost” because most of us have come from loving families who we respect and love. However, despite the anxieties, worry and emotion that the actions resulting from this legislative change cause us, we all find that fitting that last piece to the jigsaw of our natural family background, completes our personalities.

With this change in legislation we can now go through life knowing we have “found” our true identity. We can see our real origins that identify our appearances, our attitudes our characters, be they outgoing, reticent, sporting, entertaining tall, short and as well our sexual preferences.

400 I am an adopted person who was reunited with my birth family last September. This event has changed my life. It has given me a longed for true identity. It has made me feel that I am a “legitimate” individual and that I am as good as anybody else. The day I found out I had two brothers, I cried tears of happiness! I consider that I am privileged to have had this experience in life.

906 I am an adopted person, and have recently made contact with my natural mother with wonderful results. I know almost for certain that my search would not be over if it wasn’t for the Adoption Information Act.

115 ... I have been reunited with my birth mother and 4 brothers. Fortunately things have worked out exceptionally well and we have a very close relationship. This is something I have hoped for, for about 20 years and when the law changed it gave me just what I needed.

5.82 For many, particularly those who had been searching before the Act, receiving a copy of the original or amended birth certificate was a positive experience in itself. Often the birth certificate had a significance other than simply identifying the other party to the adoption. One adoptee said, “the day I received my birth certificate, was the very first time in my 38 years that I felt important”. Another said, “[i]t’s hard to explain the sheer excitement of receiving my birth certificate, it gave me a beginning”. To another, receiving her original birth certificate with her birth mother’s name, meant that she could put a name to a fantasy she had held to for over 35 years.

5.83 Even for those who have always known they were adopted, and have looked forward to obtaining the birth certificate, the reality can make a strong impact:

279 I did in fact obtain my original birth certificate. At the time of reading it, I experienced emotions which surprised me. It was a rather eerie experience is probably the best way to put it ... To actually see it in writing, seeing something you knew existed for over 30 years, but had never seen it, was a little scary. Once the shock had worn off, it wasn’t a problem ...

5.84 Receiving original birth certificates was a triumph for an number of adoptees who had attempted to obtain them before the passage of the Act. These adoptees were often incredulous that a government department could deny them information about themselves, particularly if they were into their 40s, 50s and even 60s. They perceived the withholding of personal information as an insult to their ability to manage their own lives, as well as a peculiar form of discrimination against adoptees.

5.85 Most adoptees found the experience of applying for the birth certificates and prescribed information positive and empowering. Some however were frustrated by the delay in receiving prescribed information, particularly if there was ultimately only a small amount available. If the adoptee arranged a reunion, the lack of prescribed information was often unimportant as they could fill in any gaps by asking the birth parent personally. For those who were not successful with a reunion, either because they were met with a veto or the birth parent could not be found, the lack of detail in prescribed information was a considerable disappointment. So too was receiving information on a birth certificate which proved to be false, thus any opportunity to pursue the search for identity and blood relatives was lost.

5.86 The absence of birth fathers’ names from birth certificates also presents a problem for adoptees. Often the birth mother will give the adoptee the father’s name and sometimes help contact him. She may even be married to the birth father, so no problem arises. However, if the birth mother cannot be found, has lodged a veto or simply refuses to tell, the adoptee may have no way of discovering who his or her father is. Instances of this situation cited to the Commission included one adoptee who had been adopted by her natural maternal grandmother. She had known who her natural mother was since the age of 12 but no one would tell her who her father was. Her mother had refused to tell her before she died and although she suspected some people in the small country town she grew up in knew, none of them would tell her either. An elderly cousin said she knew who her father was as well, but told her she may or may not reveal his name before she dies. The adoptee said she had a “great need to know who [she] really is - not just half of it”. She suspected that her father’s name was recorded somewhere but she had never been allowed to access it.³² As she was 56 she could not understand why the information was being denied her and who people were trying to protect. Her natural father was probably dead, as was her mother and adoptive parents. She is aware of the possibility that she may have been conceived through incest.

5.87 Adoptees felt that this situation, and others like it, could be remedied by allowing them access to their adoption files and to Supreme Court records, where their birth father’s name may be recorded. Many were angry that they were again being denied information by adoption officials and government departments, when it was information relating to themselves. This was particularly so for older adoptees. While most adoptees are initially concerned with finding their birth mothers, the search for birth fathers assumed a greater importance at a later stage. As was recognised by the Willis Committee, having made contact with birth mothers, adoptees often want to ‘complete the picture’. Just as they had been frustrated in the past by their search for their birth mothers, they were finding the pattern being repeated in the search for fathers, despite the new legislation. These issues are considered in Chapter 8.

5.88 The Commission was impressed by the generosity and understanding shown by many adoptees to the needs and sensitivities of other people. Many submissions illustrated this, as well as providing insights into the varying experiences and interests of those who sought information or contact. One adoptee describes his experiences on encountering a contact veto lodged by his birth mother as follows:

302 It was frustrating not to be able to make contact, but it was exciting to know that my birth mother was alive and thinking about me. I immediately applied for the brief message she had left for me with the Department of Family and Community Services. This told me that she had had a good relationship with my father; that she was unmarried at the time of my birth; that she had given me up for adoption because she wanted me to have a better home than she could provide; that she wished me well; and that she wanted her privacy protected. I was happy to learn from the social worker who gave me the message that this message was kinder than many she had seen. I was also happy to learn that I was not, for example, the product of a rape or some other tragedy ...

I also wrote a letter addressed to my mother and left it with FACS so that she could collect it if she wished. FACS advised that they could let her know a message was available. In the letter I thanked my mother for persisting with her pregnancy; told her what I had been doing for the last 40 years; assured her of my affection for her; assured her of my concern to avoid embarrassing her; explained my reasons for wanting to contact her; and asked her to initiate further contact either through FACS or directly ...

[The adoptee then engaged in research into the family background, taking careful steps to avoid embarrassing his mother. He learned that she collected his letter, and shortly afterwards she rang him.]

Within minutes we had renewed a contact interrupted forty years ago. My mother had read my letter, judged that its writer was honourable, and decided that direct contact was the appropriate response. Very bravely, I think, she suggested that she visit my wife and I ... We have had several brief meetings and numerous phone conversations and will almost certainly opt for a continuing relationship. My mother had felt confident that I would be well cared for after adoption and that I would not need to seek her out. She did not want her life and reputation disrupted by an unexpected relation ... she is easily able to keep our relationship private, but has yet to decide whether to tell her husband and family about me, and is uncertain whether to tell me about the identity of my father ...

5.89 An adoptee in her 40s wrote:

319 I have gone through all the emotions any other adopted person goes through, at different stages of my life. The resentments of teenage years, the curiosity, the need of medical as well as genetic knowledge as my own children were born and the sheer heartache of wanting to identify myself with my original family. Origins are important to different people at different stages of the individual’s life. I did not realise until my reunion with my natural mother and her (and mine) family how much I was possessing my own children because they were my own flesh and blood. Thank goodness family became a reality and I could mentally let go of the things I should and my whole life seemed to gain more perspectiveness. I had tormented myself for years because of the law of that time and not wanting to intrude in some else’s life. Now I know my natural mother needed to know that I was well and had a good life ... my mum now feels part of my birth after becoming friends with my natural mother ...

5.90 There is considerable discussion in the literature on the extent to which adoptees who seek information about their origins had unhappy family lives, or seek or need some form of therapy. The evidence in submissions to the Commission did not directly bear on these questions. Nevertheless, the Commission’s impression of the large number of adoptees who gave evidence or made submissions was that they were not distinctive in any obvious way, nor did their accounts of their family lives suggest that there was any strong link between unhappy or disturbed life in the adoptive family and the desire to obtain birth information. This impression is consistent with more recent literature, and with the view that the wishes and needs of adoptees should be seen as quite normal and ordinary.³³ They typically want information of practical significance, such as medical information, or they express the sort of curiosity about their biological inheritance that underlies a great deal of recent interest in tracing family history and genealogy. In many cases, of course, the significance of the information and the urgency of the search is greater than for non-adopted people, who already have information about their immediate ancestors and wish to trace family links to earlier generations, or to trace the wider family network. Others wish to do no more than recognise the reality of two sets of parents, and want to know and understand the ones from whom they have so far been separated.

5.91 Some submissions from people critical of the Act expressed scepticism about the phenomenon of ‘genealogical bewilderment’.³⁴ This term, while capturing some aspects of the special experiences of adoptees, should not be treated as if it were a complete account. The term ‘bewilderment’, for example, does not well describe the many adoptees who strongly asserted their rights to information that other people take for granted. The use of this dauntingly technical expression also suggests that there is something pathological, or mysterious, about these adoptees and their wishes. It also seems to have been understood, at least by some critics, as a claim that all adoptees have a similar experience. Nothing could be clearer from the evidence to the Commission than the wide variety of perceptions, attitudes and needs that exist among adoptees. While some feel very intensely that birth information, and sometimes contact with a birth parent, is of the greatest importance in giving them a sense of ‘who they really are’, or in providing ‘the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle’, and some feel that without this information their lives have been incomplete and their functioning limited, others seek information with more of a sense of ordinary curiosity.

5.92 The Commission’s view on this matter is supported by a Victorian study which reported that searching adoptees attending a group interview attached great significance to having the ‘normality’ of their feelings acknowledged:

Confirmation of the normality of needing information and searching was helpful. Many had felt their need to know was a kind of madness peculiar to them. Respondents who had been told they were adopted had sometimes been told not to tell others about their status. For some, this left a sense of shame and humiliation which they expected to carry for life. Much pleasure was expressed in hearing the reasons others searched: “It was my first opportunity to talk to adopted people I didn’t know the need was so great till that day. I felt I wasn’t alone ... I was just the same as everyone else there. It makes you feel as if you could do it ...”³⁵

5.93 The Commission’s impression is that while many adoptees commence by obtaining the birth certificate and only then making a decision whether to go further and attempt contact, most of those who obtain a birth certificate do in fact decide to go further.³⁶ A large number of submissions to the Commission spoke of the benefits felt by adoptees who had obtained birth certificates and information and had made contact with birth mothers or other members of the birth family.

5.94 Centacare in its submission to the Commission included the results of a survey of people who had applied to it for prescribed information. Of 57 adoptees who responded, only one was not in favour of the new legislation. Responses to the survey included the following:-

I think it is an adopted person’s right to find out his or her roots. It was one of the best laws ever brought in.

I was happier that it was going to be easier to obtain the information I feel I am entitled to. I felt I needed to know where I came from and hopefully the circumstances leading to my adoption.

Every person has the right to know their birth parents and especially family history of diseases etc. I think the law is wonderful.

5.95 Adoptees who have not taken advantage of their rights under the Act may also view it in a positive light. Some adoptees said that while they had not as yet applied for their birth certificate or prescribed information, they appreciated having the opportunity to do so in the future. These adoptees, along with those who have applied, were also pleased to have more control over information relating to themselves, instead of the information being completely in the power of government or adoption officials.

5.96 Some adoptees who have had ‘negative’ reunions or learnt information about themselves or their birth family which was distressing, nevertheless expressed support for the Act in quite strong terms. While they had to cope with difficult circumstances or their relationship with their birth parent(s) had not turned out as they hoped, they still believed that access to information was good. Only rarely did the adoptee regret having sought information and contact.

308 I had a face to face meeting with my mother in 1986 - a most unhappy experience for me as my mother made it painfully clear she never wanted to see me again or to have any future contact ...

In my work with Adoption Triangle for the past nine years, I have heard many stories of searching and hoped for contact; some with unhappy endings and some with the happiest endings but most settled down to comfortable relationships. Even with the worst possible scenarios there have always been gains - information, background, identity and a beginning of coming to terms with the grief.

Adoptees who had, or feared, negative experiences under the Act

5.97 The Commission received a number of submissions from adoptees who are unhappy with the new rights to information, and also from adoptive parents stating what they said were the views of their adult adopted children. In some cases the contact has caused distress and disruption to their lives. Most of these people objected to the lack of control they had over their own personal details. That is, they were angry that information about themselves and their adoptive parents would be released against their wishes. Many considered this a breach of privacy.

285 I am a 29 year old adopted person. I feel that it is not fair that I have to pay for my privacy ... Even if I put a veto on, my birth mother can still get my birth certificate and I feel that this is an intrusion into my privacy.

5.98 Others considered it not only a breach of privacy but a threat to their security and peace of mind. Adoptees who had lodged vetoes were particularly angry as they felt that the veto should be able to remove this threat.

128 I payed a mere $50 for my details to be kept my details, so therefore I think that I should be entitled to live my life, without fear of not wanting to answer the door or the telephone, or looking out the window to see an unusual car parked, it’s called “looking over your shoulder”.

5.99 Many adoptees were concerned about the affect the legislation would have on their adoptive parents. They felt that the birth parents’ rights to information breached their adoptive parent’s privacy. Those with older adoptive parents were particularly aware of the stress release of information and contact may cause and were angry that they could not protect their adoptive parents from this.

802 My mother deserves to be enjoying the fruits of raising a fine family - her children and grandchildren. Instead her reward for providing a loving, stable and hardworking home for two unwanted babies is to be pushed closer to death.

5.100 Adoptees who objected to the new access to information, felt that they, as adults, should be able to determine whether information about themselves was released by a government department or adoption agency. They felt angry at their lack of power to prevent the release to birth parents of information about themselves and their adoptive families. Many believed that their birth parents had given up any rights they had when they consented to the adoption. These adoptees felt that their adoptive parents were their real parents and that their birth parents were simply strangers.

5.101 Some adoptees resented being reminded of their adoptive status, and being required to deal with issues arising from it:

I had resolved the matters in my own head ... I never sought any information. The law forced me to think about it again and then to make a response.³⁷

5.102 Adoptees often resented the potential intrusion birth parents could have in their lives. For those at important stages in their development, for example about to do the Higher School Certificate, university exams, entering the workforce, marrying or having children, the appearance of birth parents presented a potential disruption. Some adoptees felt that they simply did not have room in their lives for another whole family, particularly if they were at a stage when they were growing up and breaking childhood ties.³⁸

5.103 It appeared in some cases that adoptees’ hostility to the Act clearly reflected the anxiety and anger displayed by their adoptive parents. In one private interview, an adoptive parent told the Commission that she ‘reassured’ her (handicapped) adopted child, who was said to be terrified of being taken away by the birth parents, by assuring her that if the birth parents arrived she would “set the police on them”.

5.104 Some adoptees who did not want contact were content to lodge a veto and felt secure that they would not be contacted. The majority of adoptees who did not want contact, however, seriously questioned the effectiveness of the veto. They sometimes referred to the veto as a “joke”, because identifying information would still be released. They felt that this would inevitably lead to unwanted contact on the part of a determined birth parent. These adoptees objected to having to pay $50 to protect their privacy when they considered privacy a fundamental right. For all of the above reasons adoptees did not lodge a veto. These adoptees, it seems, do not want contact, but considered the veto an unjustifiably expensive inconvenience.

Impact of the Act on adoptees: conclusions

5.105 Evidence to the Commission confirmed the well established finding that many adoptees feel a great interest in their biological origins. For some, there is a deeply felt need, for others it is more a matter of curiosity. The evidence to the Commission did not suggest that it was only adoptees who had unhappy adoptive homes, or who were in any way pathological, who desired birth information or contact. It did suggest, however, a certain insistency in the desire to find “the missing part of the jigsaw”, to “discover who I am”, (phrases commonly used to try to express the adoptees’ feelings). It also suggested that for almost all adoptees, the need and interest varied over time. It was often strongly felt, for example, when female adoptees had children of their own. Like other researchers, the Commission noticed that the women appeared to be more likely than men to seek information about their birth family.

5.106 It did not seem that adoptees generally wished to replace or disown their adoptive parents; frequently they said that the experience had reinforced their love for their adoptive parents and links with their adoptive relatives. Nor did the adoptees, in the Commission’s view, generally feel angry towards the birth parent, although they often wanted to hear at first hand the reasons why they were relinquished for adoption.

5.107 By no means did all adoptees favour the information rights granted by the Act, however. A substantial minority expressed concerns about privacy, at times echoing arguments and phrases used by their adoptive parents. In many cases, but by no means all, their views were based on anticipated difficulties rather than actual experiences. In most cases, the main focus was on problems anticipated to arise as a result of contact by birth parents, although many of these adoptees shared the view of the Willis Committee that the balance between information rights and protection for privacy should be the same for adoptees and birth parents.

5.108 As one might expect, the expressed attitudes of adoptees to the issues of privacy and information were often similar to those of the adoptive parents, especially in the case of younger adoptees. This was not invariable: in some families different children, even birth siblings adopted into the same family, had very different views.

5.109 The Commission’s inquiry, therefore, indicates that adoptees are generally strongly in favour of their new rights to birth certificates and information about their birth families. A substantial minority, however, are concerned, whether for themselves or their adoptive parents, about the implications of the rights given to birth parents. They differ, too, on whether the contact veto system provides adequate protection against unwanted contact.

ADOPTIVE PARENTS

Introduction

5.110 The views and experiences of adoptive parents formed a large part of the evidence to the Commission. Over 250 written submissions (including form letters prepared by APPG), were received from adoptive parents, and numerous adoptive parents also participated in public hearings and made telephone submissions. The views and concerns of many adoptive parents were reflected in submissions and materials supplied by APPG and other groups. The Commission attended a public meeting at which adoptive parents were well represented, and held lengthy separate meetings with representatives from APPG, and from Central Coast Friends of Adoption. At both of these meetings adoptive parents were very well represented. The Commission also attended a special meeting of the Adoptive Parents Association (APA), and also received a submission from that organisation. In addition, the views and experiences of adoptive parents are considerably discussed in the literature.

5.111 It is clear that many adoptive parents are very concerned about the impact of the Act, and are very hostile to it. As with other categories of people affected by the Act, it is not easy to determine how far those who have made submissions are representative of adoptive parents in general. Adoptive parents who saw the law as violating rights to privacy, and wished to change the law, might be more likely to make submissions than those who were more content with the law, or who were not very interested, especially in the light of the energetic work of the APPG and other similar groups in assisting them to formulate their views and communicate them to the Commission. Nevertheless, a large majority of adoptive parents who made their views known to the Commission were strongly opposed to at least some of the basic principles of the Act, notably the rights given to birth parents. While the level of disapproval may well be lower among adoptive parents generally than among those who made submissions, it seems clear that a great many adoptive parents, probably a substantial majority, are dissatisfied with the Act at least in some important respects.

Adoptive parents hostile to the Act

5.112 The many adoptive parents who were hostile to the Act regarded it as involving a gross violation of their own privacy and that of the adoptees. They resented not being able to prevent personal information about themselves being released to people they consider strangers.

957 I am angry that many items of private information will be available to persons currently unknown to me. The sources of the information are many and varied. The potential for someone who is disinterested in privacy or unfamiliar with what is appropriate in the circumstances is enormous. Excessive amounts of information about my family and myself may be handed over. Privacy is a basic human right that I value highly.

5.113 A persistent theme of these adoptive parents’ submissions is that in supplying information under the Act, the Government is not only violating their privacy but breaking a promise or contract that it made with adoptive parents at the time of the adoption. They were are upset that information they supplied confidentially for the purposes of adopting a child, might be made available for a wholly different purpose, against their wishes. In some cases, they assumed or feared that the information rights under the Act were more extensive than they actually are:

301 The private details supplied by us (on application to adopt children) to the Child Welfare Department in 1967 were supposedly confidential. When the Government decided (who exactly decided?) to hand over all details of adoptions since 1923 to the Benevolent Society (a private charitable institution) what became of our private files? Are they accessible to the ‘Post Adoption Resource Centre’ - presumably formed for this very purpose within the Benevolent Society? Does this mean our financial and health status as well as psychological reports are now open to an unknown number of people not covered by privacy provisions that cover State Government employees?

5.114 Many submissions expressed resentment that government policy had changed so radically in relation to secrecy for adoptions. In their view, in the 1960s parents were assured absolute secrecy.³⁹ They were told that their files were closed, that the birth parents could never discover their names and vice versa. Moreover, they were assured that for the child, the adoptive family and the birth par