4.1 Chapter 5 of the Report presents the results of the Commission’s inquiry into the second major aspect of the terms of reference, “the impact of the legislation on birth parents, children surrendered for adoption, adopting parents and the extended families of all parties”. It is difficult enough, even in the full Report, to describe the richness and variety of people’s experiences; the present treatment will have to be brief indeed.

BIRTH PARENTS

4.2 The Commission found that the information rights created by the Act are greatly welcomed by the majority of birth parents, although in most cases the birth mother is the one who seeks information. It is difficult to estimate the proportion, but in a significant number of cases, the birth parents were, or later had married. They were both involved in seeking information and shared the results. For many, these rights provide relief from years of wondering about the child they relinquished long ago, and whose loss they may continue to grieve. Many feel that they relinquished the children in circumstances that gave them little choice, and claim that it would be unfair for the law to treat them as if they had lost interest in the child, or forfeited all rights to information or contact. Birth mothers who exercise their information rights mainly want current information about the health and happiness of the adoptees. Frequently they are keen to meet the adoptee to see for themselves how he or she has fared in life, and, often, to explain to the adoptee how they came to sign the consent to adoption. The vast majority are very anxious not to disturb, hurt or shock any members of the adoptive family; many make their approach through intermediaries. Typically, they know they cannot take the place of the adoptive parents, and do not want to do so. However, they often would like to establish a friendly relationship with the adoptee, if he or she is willing. A sizeable number take the view that they are available should the adoptee want or need them. They feel unwilling to take the first step, and wait for the adoptee to take the initiative. It is rare, though not unknown, for birth parents to act insensitively or to intrude against the expressed wishes of the adoptee or the adoptive family.

4.3 A significant minority of birth parents, especially those whose present families do not know about the birth or relinquishment of the adoptee, are opposed to the Act, and feel that it violates their privacy. Of these, it seems that few have forgotten or feel indifferent towards the child they relinquished, and maintaining the secrecy of the original adoption may often involve continuing tension. However they are willing to accept this in order to avoid what they fear will be the more painful consequences of disclosure to their partners, children, and other family members. Some birth mothers, fearing the worst should the information be disclosed or contact made, in fact have experienced understanding and acceptance as a result.

4.4 Most birth parents who contributed to the review were mothers, although the Commission also heard independently from a small number of birth fathers. Birth fathers were upset that the law and practice tended to prevent or discourage their involvement: that the mothers were encouraged to keep their names off the birth certificate, and, in some cases, that they were not even aware of the birth, or of the adoption. These fathers greatly valued their rights to information, and the opportunity to contact or be contacted by the adoptee.

ADOPTEES

4.5 The majority of adoptees appreciate their rights under the Act, and are very pleased to receive their original birth certificate and other information about their birth family. Typically, those who exercise these rights do so in order to resolve uncertainties in their lives, to “discover who they are”, or find “the missing piece in the jigsaw”. More prosaically, they often want to see who they look like, and learn about any inherited traits or health problems. They frequently want to trace their birth mothers, and other family members. Sometimes they want to learn why they were relinquished for adoption, or to reassure their birth mother that they bear her no ill-will. In the vast majority of cases, they do not want to replace or hurt their adoptive families, nor is their search usually associated with an unhappy family life. Often they say, especially where the adoptive parents have been supportive, that the experience of discovering their origins and meeting members of the birth family has brought them closer to their adoptive parents.

4.6 A significant minority of adoptees strongly disapprove of the information rights given to birth parents, and even to adoptees themselves. They feel that the Act exposes them, their adoptive family, and also birth parents to unwanted interference and invasion of privacy. They feel that this is not fair to them or to their adoptive parents, of whom they are often protective. Many considered that the contact veto system was insufficient protection. They argue that the legislation should be amended to prevent identifying information being supplied without the consent of the person to whom it relates, or, at least, that it should be possible for the person to prevent it being released - the so-called “information veto”. Quite a number of adoptees who expressed these views were under 30, and in some cases attended public hearings or private interviews with their adoptive parents: in such cases their views (which were obviously strongly held) coincided with those of their parents. Adoptees who contributed separately to the review were more likely to express views supportive of the legislation.

4.7 Despite the pressure placed on adoptive parents over many years to tell adoptees of their adoptive status, some adult adoptees still have not been told. Evidence to the Commission shows that it is not uncommon for adoptees to have the distressing experience of discovering their adoptive status by chance, or even in the heat of a row with an adoptive parent or spouse who “knows”. Often these adoptees do not disclose their knowledge to their adoptive parents, for fear of offending them. The number of adoptees who do not know of their status is unknown, but the PARC “found persons” survey (described below) indicates that it might be substantial. Adoptees who do not know of their adoptive status are in a vulnerable position under the Act, since they will not have had the opportunity to lodge a contact veto and thus they are unable to exercise a measure of control over any contact that might take place.

ADOPTIVE PARENTS

4.8 The legislation poses difficulties for many adoptive parents, and the majority of adoptive parents who participated in the review were opposed to it - in many cases very bitterly. They saw the information rights created by the Act as threatening their position, and often the interests of the adoptees whom they wished to protect. They thought that the Act constituted unfair retrospective legislation. They told the Commission that when they adopted their children, they were assured that the law would prevent the release of information that would allow members of the adoptive family and birth family to identify each other. That was the basis on which they went ahead with the adoption and on which they conducted their family life, and they believed it was a grossly unjust to change the position relating to existing adoptions. They often said that the Act advanced the views of a small minority at the expense of the “silent majority”, and that adoptive parents had not been properly consulted, or their position given proper consideration.

4.9 These adoptive parents often added that they had no objection to the new approach applying to future adoptions, for people contemplating adoption are able to choose whether to go ahead on this new basis. Nor did they object to post-adoption contact, or the release of identifying information, provided that all parties agreed to it. They advocated a return to the law as it was before the 1990 Act, when those who wished to contact each other could do so through the Adopted Persons Contact Register. If that was unacceptable, it was submitted that adoptees and birth parents at least should have a right to lodge an “information veto”, that is, a veto that prevented the issuing of a birth certificate or the release of identifying information. These adoptive parents also argued that the contact veto system would not be an effective protection for their privacy.

4.10 Some adoptive parents tended to agree with the Willis Committee that adoptees and birth parent should have similar entitlements to prevent the release of information to the other. However others, including the Adoptive Parents Association, argued that while the information rights of adult adoptees should be maintained, those of the birth parents should be limited. The arguments of adoptive parents and some adoptees opposed to the Act, and the examples they used to illustrate them, mainly focused on what they saw as adverse consequences flowing from the rights given to the birth parents. Recognition was also given to the position of birth mothers who had made a new life and not revealed the relinquished child to present partners and children.

4.11 These arguments, or variations on them, were put by many individual submissions and by a small number of organisations concerned with adoption privacy, notably the Adoption Privacy Protection Group (APPG). They were also put, as noted above, by a significant minority of adoptees, and by some birth parents and relatives. Some adoptive parents had more ambivalent feelings about the Act, and were somewhat torn between what they saw as the injustice of denying information rights to adoptees and birth parents, and their anxieties about the consequences of releasing the information. They were most likely to indicate that they would support their adoptee’s decision in the matter, whether it was for information, contact or privacy.

4.12 A significant minority of adoptive parents, on the other hand, vigorously supported the Act. They considered that adoptees and birth parents should have the right to information about each other. Many had encouraged and assisted their adopted sons and daughters to seek information and contact, and supported their rights to take such action. They held these views even when the outcomes for the adoptees had not been entirely happy. Many welcomed their own opportunity to meet the birth parents. Most supported the contact veto system as striking a reasonable balance between what were seen as the conflicting rights to privacy and information. Some adoptive parents and others involved, suggested that the contact veto system should be removed, since both adoptees and birth parents owe each other the opportunity to have at least one meeting.

RELATIVES

4.13 Spouses, relatives and other members of the extended families expressed a wide variety of views and experiences. Some enthusiastically supported the new information rights, while others condemned the Act as violating their privacy. Siblings were especially likely to want information about their full or half siblings who had been adopted out of the family; similarly, adoptees were often keen to meet their birth brothers and sisters. Grandparents, too, were sometimes intensely interested in contact or information. Some relatives were critical of the limited rights given to them under the Act. In particular there was criticism that other children of the birth parents had no rights to information about their birth siblings who had been adopted out. There was also criticism of the limited information rights given to relatives after the death of a birth parent or adopted person. Families of all people directly involved report that some re-adjustments are necessary in response to the emotional issues which surface and the new relationships that can be created.

IMPACT OF CONTACT VETOES

4.14 The Commission was anxious to learn the extent to which people complied with contact vetoes as critics of the Act had urged that the contact veto system would prove ineffective. Efforts to ascertain whether breaches were occurring were also made by the APPG, which provided to the Commission questionnaires completed by members and supporters, and brought to the attention of the Commission a number of cases in which there were complaints relating to behaviour of people who had obtained information under the Act. Although there were rumours or suggestions of breaches, a careful examination of the evidence revealed only one incident that appeared to be a breach of a veto. Inquiries by the Commission indicated that no complaints of breaches had been made to the police, or the Privacy Committee, or the Ombudsman. No breaches have come to the notice of the Family Information Service or the Registry. It is of course possible that there have been breaches that have not been reported. However a number of people who objected to the consequences of the Act made strong representations to the Commission, to members of parliament, to APPG, and to the media (in some cases to several or all of these). It seems very likely that if there had been numerous breaches, some, at least, would have been brought to the Commission’s attention during the review.

4.15 The Commission’s conclusion is that there has been a remarkably high level of compliance with contact vetoes. Compliance seems to be based primarily on the eagerness of information recipients to respect with the wishes of the persons found, combined with the futility of non-compliance: disregarding the wishes of the other person is hardly a sensible way of commencing what is intended to be a friendly relationship. But the legal status of the veto appears to play a part: not so much because of the fear of penalty, but because it represents a formal public determination that the wishes of persons who lodge vetoes should be respected.

4.16 Despite what was found about compliance with vetoes, many argued on several grounds that the contact veto system was not an effective protection of privacy. A veto did not prevent the identifying information being supplied. This information could be used, and most probably would be, by a person determined to make contact. The definition of “contact” was unclear and so the statutory provisions could be difficult to enforce. The persons whose privacy was violated would be reluctant to take action to enforce the veto against the person in breach, and the authorities would be reluctant to pursue such proceedings. The penalties were widely regarded as too light to deter people desperate to make contact. For such reasons, and also because they resented the obligation to pay a fee of $50 and attend an interview, many adoptees said that they had decided not to lodge a veto although they definitely did not want contact. In some cases, the unwanted contact had later occurred.

4.17 The Commission also considered other aspects of the veto system. As might be expected, many people applying for certificates dreaded that they might find that a veto had been lodged. Those who did encounter one were typically shocked and upset, but attached enormous importance to any message that accompanied the veto. Even a brief message, giving some information and perhaps explaining why the veto was lodged, was greatly appreciated. However, the lodgment of a veto did not necessarily mean that the other person completely opposed contact. The veto was used by a number of people not to prevent contact absolutely, but to control or regulate it. The veto lodger might want time to consider, or might wish, by exchanging messages prior to contact, to ensure that contact occurred in a particular manner. For example, an adoptee who thought that her adoptive parents might be distressed by contact from a birth parent might want to arrange for contact by the birth mother to be made directly, and discreetly, rather than through the adoptive parents. Several vetoes have been varied (formally through FIS) to allow for a one-off meeting or other communication, and the Commission has been told of some instances when vetoers themselves had contacted the information recipient.

CONTACTS AND REUNIONS

4.18 Each story of contact between people and families who meet after being separated by adoption is different; indeed, the experiences are different for each of the persons involved in any one situation. They range from intensely joyful to extremely distressing experiences. Reunion can involve exciting discoveries and new relationships, but it can also bring less welcome news. Either the birth parents or the adoptee may have died, neither birth families nor adoptive families are immune from misfortune, domestic violence, cruelty, rape or incest, and in such cases the news that reunions bring can be grim indeed. Media accounts sometimes focus on cases that are extremely happy or extremely unhappy, but the evidence to the Commission suggests that the experiences of reunions are more often a complex mixture, with those involved often reacting in very different ways. Those involved typically go through stages: the initial contact is likely to be highly emotional, after which the relationship changes: in some cases it dwindles, in others, it develops. Contact typically involves other family members, and the various interactions that follow make it impossible to describe the “normal” reunion.

4.19 Arguments addressed to the Commission often made assertions or assumptions about what commonly happens in post-adoption contact. Some critics of the Act, for example, presented it as an inherently stressful, and often unproductive exercise, while supporters, recognising the stress, nevertheless took the opposite view. In addition to submissions received, the Commission examined published material in Australia and overseas to attempt to form an assessment of this matter. It also asked PARC to conduct a survey of 41 cases of post-adoption contact in which PARC had been involved in a supportive or counselling role.

4.20 The results of that examination are striking. Those who initiate contact are almost invariably glad that they have done so, even where the reunion itself was unhappy or what they learn distressing. Typically they say that they are pleased to have found the truth and resolved, or at least eased, the uncertainty and anxiety that had been created by the secrecy surrounding adoption. However it is the impact on the persons found that usually gives rise to concern, and this was the focus of the PARC survey. That survey indicated that for the majority of persons contacted, the experience was either positive, or at least acceptable; only in about 20% of cases was the experience described as unwelcome or unacceptable. Although based on limited numbers, this result is consistent with other available evidence, especially from Victoria, but also from overseas studies, and with evidence in submissions to the review.

4.21 The evidence presently available does not enable us to make confident assertions about the exact proportions of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” contacts, and words like “acceptable” are obviously imprecise. But the evidence does clearly indicate that critics of the legislation are wrong if they imply that the Act favours a few at the expense of the majority: nearly all those who initiate searches, and the majority of those who are contacted, are pleased that it has happened, or at least find it acceptable. All of the available evidence strongly suggests that contact, though it is often initially a shock, does not usually damage individuals or family relationships. Where the persons found wish to limit contact (eg to private meetings, or correspondence, or exchange of information and photographs) this is almost always respected by those who sought contact. It is not true, of course, that contact always or usually produces happiness for all involved. Where members of the families do meet, the new relationships can be bewildering initially, and can lead to new alignments that please some more than others. In particular, such meetings may lead to complications that some would have preferred to avoid. As PARC wrote in its submission:

Attempted reunion involves considerable personal risk, the risk of rejection, the risk of discovering adverse and distressing information, the risk of acquiring unanticipated responsibilities. Even “successful” reunion carries its own costs for individuals and families in terms of old sorrows relived, adjustments to be made, new relationships accommodated. The potential gains... are undoubted... [but] there will inevitably be some who regard the experience as a negative one and who see themselves as being worse off as a result...