Bill No. 29 clearly holds PEI’s adopted citizens to a greater set of birth record access requirements than the not-adopted who can access their record for the asking, Disclosure and contact vetoes, fines and jails cells all go against best practice adoption standards. These provisions are not only insulting to PEI’s adoptees but are cruel and ugly. They pathologize adoptees and adoption as a social institution. They make adoption and adoptees shameful and suggest to the public that we are dangerous. Continue Reading →
If you think your state or province is bad, try this on for size. The bill contains the following provisions:
*criminally enforceable contact veto with a threat of a $5,000 fine and 1-year jail term
*prohibits adoptees from “publishing any identifying information about the person who provided the content preference.” Continue Reading →
The easy way out of this quandary would have been to amend the language of Sections B and C from “authorize” to “prefer.” This would have guaranteed the meaning of equal protection and equal treatment under law and maintain the integrity of adoptee civil rights.
Unfortunately, no such amendment was accepted. Instead, an amendment was added to the bill that places a limitation on the time frame (July 1, 2016) that a natural parent may change her or his mind mind or file a Contact Preference Form and a Medical History Form. After that date, it is in the discretion of the Registrar. Of further concern, for adoptions after July 1, 2016, it is an adoption agency, not the Registrar, that issues and collects the forms. No language in the bill provides the date for compliance and there is no oversight or penalty to an agency that fails to adhere to the law. I can think of no other state that has a CPF on the books that puts that kind of power into the hands of either the registrar or adoption agencies. Continue Reading →
This is not a language nit-pick. Language matters, and there is a world of difference legally between the words “prefer” and “authorize.” These sections take the traditional language of the CPF and turns it on its head exchanging the word “prefer” for “authorize;” thus, creating a “Contact Veto” (without that specific term in the bill) that will act as a restraining order against an adopted adult with no opportunity for that adult to appear in court and stand against the accuser. No reason needs given, and no court adjudicates the request. We believe that a Contact Veto by that or any other name is unconstitutional and actionable.
Continue Reading →