Objections to closed adoption;
ethical, moral, legal and practical
(Note: This piece was originally written in July 2013 and sent to a Citizens Convention examining the Irish Constitution and making recommendations for changes and additions. Many of the ethical and moral objections to closed adoption are common throughout the world and a few are legal issues related to international documents such as UN’s Charters. Some relate to Irish law only and are probably of no use outside Ireland, however all text may be copied and used freely with credit to author/Adoptionland/Vance Twins/Against Child Trafficking)
Submission to the Constitutional Convention
by Paul Redmond
The campaigning group, Adoption Rights Now, respectfully petitions the Constitutional Convention to consider how current adoption legislation and court judgments adversely affect the lives of over 50,000 adopted adults and children with it’s removal of numerous human and civil rights from Irish citizens in violation of the Constitution, basic common law, and natural justice.
The present Adoption Act of 2010 allows only for entirely closed adoption for life. The evidence below shall prove that this is a gross violation of the rights of the child and the family and also clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of several articles of
the Constitution and numerous international treaties to which this country has signed up. And then ignored.
Adoption Rights Now respectfully petitions the members of the convention to read the evidence presented herein and give careful consideration to the impact on tens of thousands of adopted adults and future generations of children.
Many issues that the adoptee community of Ireland have, can be addressed with one carefully worded article in the new constitution.
Definitions: Open and Closed adoption. A spectrum of choice:
An ‘open’ adoption can range from the occasional letter or birthday cards or pictures between natural parents and their children from the beginning, to full ongoing contact between natural and adoptive parents, and the adopted child. The adopted child’s original name can be retained or incorporated into a new hybrid name or as middle names, and there are no secrets withheld from the child about their background. There are many more options available to an enlightened society along the spectrum including Permanent Legal Guardianship (PLG) to long term fostering, etc.
A ‘closed’ adoption involves cutting a child off from his background at least for their entire childhood and in extreme cases, for life. Those countries which still seal adoption records during childhood normally open them at ages varying from twelve to eighteen years old.
Ireland has always chosen the extreme option of lifelong closed adoption since the first Adoption Act was passed in 1952.
Every reputable study carried out into the effects of adoption on the individual has concluded that the more open an adoption, the better the psycho-social development of the adoptee. These studies have been carried out by reputable Universities and Colleges around the world and they universally agree that closed adoption is detrimental to the overall welfare of adopted children; emotionally, psychologically and medically. Research shows that when the child reaches adolescence and begin to question themselves and the world around them as they strive to find their identity and place in the world, that the closed impenetrable wall surrounding their origins will in many cases impact negatively upon their development towards adulthood. Many adopted people are known to shy away from exploring this part of themselves and may react by becoming a ’compliant adoptee’ who always follows the rules and do everything expected of them because of a deep-seated fear of rejection and abandonment if they ‘misbehave‘. Although they can often become very successful in life, their deep-seated insecurity will usually manifest at important times in the adoptees life such as births or deaths. The passing of an adoptive parent or the birth of a child are well known “triggering” events. Adoption Rights Now urges the members of the Convention to research these matters independently online and see for themselves the ongoing damage that closed adoption is doing to the 50,000+ adopted people men, women, and children in Ireland today.
Adoption Rights Now petitions the Constitutional Convention to insert a referendum on adoption into the future referenda on the constitution. Without this referendum, adopted people are doomed to remain, second class citizens actively discriminated against by the state as the objections below clearly show.
We are seeking a referendum on the following specific points:
1. All future adoptions to be varying degrees of open as agreed by the mutual consent of natural and adoptive parents.
2. All adoption records to be fully unsealed at 16 years of age.
3. All adoptees to be granted full minority rights.
4. ‘Matching‘, which is international best practice in adoption be enshrined in the constitution as a fundamental human and civil right of people who are to be adopted.
5. The Adoption Authority of Ireland to be staffed entirely with adoptees and/or mothers of loss.
“Adoption is the only trauma in the world where the whole of society expects the victim to be grateful”. — Rev. Keith Griffith.
Chairperson, Adoption Rights Now.
ARN asks the Constitutional Convention to consider following the eighteen legal, moral, ethical and constitutional objections relating to the current state of adoption practices, in Ireland in 2013;
OBJECTION 1: Separation of the family including siblings is repugnant to the spirit and letter of the Constitution; Personal rights: Article 40
3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may** from
unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person,
good name**, and property rights of every citizen.**
** Emphasis; authors
The state is not protecting the “good name” of every citizen by discriminating against fifty thousand people by withholding their ‘original names’ and birth certificates.
* OBJECTION 2: Separation of the family including fathers, siblings and extended family (even if a natural mother has signed away her rights) is repugnant to the spirit and letter of the Constitution; The Family: Article 41:
1. 1° The State recognizes the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
Note that the Attorney-General of the day, Charles Casey, went on record several times during the debate leading up to the original Adoption Act 1952 with his opinion
that adoption legislation of any kind would be unconstitutional due to the strong legal protections offered to the family. Furthermore, Minister for Justice Gerald Boland when presenting the Adoption Act of 1952 to the Dail stated:
“I am advised … that there is a danger that the Bill would be held to be unconstitutional if it provided for the adoption of legitimate children whose parents are alive. The Constitution declares the rights and duties of patents towards their children to be inalienable, and any provision for the permanent transfer of those rights and duties, even with the consent of the parents, might be unconstitutional. The main need for adoption arises in connection with orphans and illegitimate children.”
* OBJECTION 3: According to the new Children’s Article in the Constitution; Article 42:
4.1: “Provision shall be made by law that** in a resolution of all proceedings-
ii concerning the adoption**, guardianship or custody of, or access to any child,
the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration**.
** Emphasis; authors
Closed adoption and all current adoption legislation is clearly and plainly incompatible with the empathized passage in several senses; for example, it can be proven by a colossal volume of reputable research that open adoption is far better for the psycho-social development of an adopted child than closed; therefore it is not in the best interests of the child to be subjected to the extreme option of life long-closed adoption. Several of the other side effects of closed adoption set out herein will also show that lifelong closed adoption is never in the best interests of the child.
All of the points set forth in this petition prove beyond any doubt that the Adoption Act 2010 is repugnant to the spirit and letter of the Constitution but particularly the new Article 42.4.1. Even though the Children’s referendum is being challenged in the courts at present, the Convention should recommend an entirely new article to address adopted peoples issues. However if the referendum does survive it’s a court challenge, then life long-closed adoption will be clearly unconstitutional.
* OBJECTION 4: Please note the Good Friday agreement Article 6.9: “Comparable Steps by the Irish Government
9. The Irish Government will also take steps to further strengthen the protection of human rights in its jurisdiction.** The Government will, taking account of the work of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution and the Report of the Constitution Review Group, bring forward measures to strengthen and underpin the constitutional protection of human rights. These proposals will draw on the European Convention on Human Rights and other international legal instruments in the field of human rights and the question of the incorporation of the E.C.H.R. will be further examined in this context. The measures brought forward would
ensure at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as will pertain in Northern Ireland.** In addition, the Irish Government will:
• establish a Human Rights Commission with a mandate and remit
equivalent to that within Northern Ireland;
• proceed with arrangements as quickly as possible to ratify the Council
of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities (already
ratified by the UK);
• implement enhanced employment equality legislation;
• introduce equal status legislation; and
• continue to take further active steps to demonstrate its respect for the
different traditions on the island of Ireland.
** All underlined emphasis; authors
Is the right to one’s identity a basic human right? Let us hear the voice of an expert clearly familiar with Articles 2, 3 ,7 to 10 and 21 of the UNCRC (see below): Minister for Children Francis Fitzgerald told the Dail on the 9th of April, 1997 (whilst in opposition) that: “It is universally accepted that denial of access to information about one’s origins is denial of a basic human right. That right is enshrined in the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child…“ [Dail Éireann. Vol. 477, no. 3. Page 24].
Since the Adoption Act 2010 refuses to grant “universally accepted” human rights (as specifically and explicitly defined by the UNCRC (7) and Minister Francis Fitzgerald’s own very precise definition), it is in breach of the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement which obliges the Government to, “ensure at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as will pertain in Northern Ireland” and as adoption records are unsealed in Northern Ireland when the adoptee reaches 18 years of age, the Adoption Act is, therefore, on this one point alone, absolutely and without doubt, unconstitutional.
*OBJECTION 5: Six articles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights when taken in their entirety are being ignored by current Irish adoption legislation and basic human and civil rights are being denied to adopted people.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Adopted on December 10, 1948, by the General Assembly of the United Nations (without dissent)
Article I. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth or another status.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock**, shall enjoy the same social protection.
* All underlined emphasis; authors
** All bold underlined emphasis; authors
* OBJECTION 6: Currently an adopted person has absolutely no entitlement to their own birth certificate regardless of age and will be given an “extract from the Adopted Children’s Register (ACR) if they request a birth certificate. These ACR extracts have carried and still carry the false legend “birth certificate” on them. This is an official lie and this official refusal of access to original birth certificates is clear blatant discrimination.
It is worth repeating what Minister for Children Francis Fitzgerald said in the Dail: “It is universally accepted that denial of access to information about one’s origins is a denial of a basic human right. That right is enshrined in the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child…“
For the record: Since Articles 2, 3, 7 to 10, and 21 of the UN Children’s Rights Convention are all directly or indirectly related to this issue, the relevant sections (some partial) are reproduced here. They should be read in their entirety and related to lifelong closed adoption with particular attention given to underlined passages in italics. NB authors emphasis)* It is clear that these United Nations principles are diametrically incompatible with closed adoption in any form.
Article 2 Non-discrimination
1 States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her
parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
2 States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Article 3 Best interests of the child
1 In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Article 7 Name and identity
1 The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2 States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.
Article 8 Preservation of identity
1 States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2 Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.
Article 9 Separation from parents
1 States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.
2 In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3 States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.
4 Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further
ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.
Article 10 Family reunification
1 In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9,
paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.
2 A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their
own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.
Article 21 Adoption
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration…
* All underlined emphasis; authors
* OBJECTION 7: There are also serious conflicts between adoption as it exists in Ireland and The European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 8 and 14:
Article 8 (1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law,’… etc. Article 14 The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as *sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or another status.*
* All underlined emphasis; authors.
* OBJECTION 8: Sections 28 of both the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act specifically excludes adopted people from information available to non-adopted people. It is blatant, legalized discrimination. It is worth repeating a previously highlighted section of the UNCRC,
Article 2 Non-discrimination
1 States0 Parties shall respect and ensure the rights […] without
discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s […] birth or another status.
** All underlined emphasis; authors
* OBJECTION 9: Medical records and history are vital to the well being of every citizen and their children. Such records and access to them has been legally withheld under Adoption legislation since 1952 and each successive adoption act has reinforced this wall of silence. These are systematic human and civil rights violations. Stories from adopted people and parents of adopted people are rife and the horror stories are heartbreaking in the extreme. From expectant parents unable to give any medical history to sympathetic mid-wives and doctors, to adopted people being asked for vital but unavailable information in life-threatening situations. Or their adoptive parents being asked to provide basic facts about their children’s history of birth.
Worse again is the situation of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, from the ranks of the one hundred thousand people adopted since the foundation of the state, who are or were unaware they are/were adopted and give false, misleading and potentially lethal family medical histories. This appalling travesty shall continue as long as Ireland persists in the medieval practice of sealing adoption records and medical histories for life.
* OBJECTION 10: Closed adoption ignores one of society’s oldest taboos. Incest. There is at least one recorded case of a half brother and sister marrying in Ireland and numerous recorded cases of cousins marrying. The overwhelming majority are unrecorded. The Catholic Church keeps a register of adopted people and cross-checks when an adopted person applies to get married in a church. However as Irish society has moved away from traditional marriage and over forty percent of children are currently born out of wedlock, this system has completely broken down. The new Adoption Act does nothing to address this problem and will, in fact, continue to play with fire with the lives of innocent citizens. How many children in Ireland have been born with special needs because their parents were closely related? No one knows. And with thousands of more children about to be adopted, this problem will simply be swept under the carpet yet again. Refusing to address this problem will leave the Government the only guilty party in cases where the crime of incest is unwittingly committed by innocent adopted people. This issue is closely related to Objection 10 below.
* OBJECTION 11: Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) was first identified in the late 1980s. It is defined as; “the phenomenon of sexual attraction between close relatives, such as siblings, first and second cousins or a parent and offspring, who first meet as adults“. Due to the ‘Westermarck effect‘, which is a technical name to describe reverse sexual imprinting in childhood, GSA is extremely rare among siblings in normal families. The phenomenon of GSA is therefore almost entirely associated with adopted adults and family members reuniting as adults as they have not been desensitized to sexual attraction. It is hypothesized that this effect evolved to prevent inbreeding.
Instances [see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction ] A brother and sister couple in Germany, the Stübings, fought their country’s anti-incest laws. They grew up separately, met as adults, and have had four children. Their appeal was rejected in 2008, upholding Germany’s anti-incest laws.
Kathryn Harrison published a memoir in the 1990s regarding her four-year incestuous relationship with her biological father, whom she had not seen for almost 20 years prior to beginning the relationship, titled The Kiss.
A couple in South Africa who had been together for five years and are expecting a child discovered that they are brother and sister just before their wedding. They were raised up separately and met as adults in college.
Garry Ryan at 18 left his pregnant girlfriend and he moved to America. The daughter, Penny Lawrence, grew up and later set out to find her missing father. When they met, they “both felt an immediate sexual attraction”. They then lived together as a couple and as of April 2012 were expecting their first child together.
In August 2012, a 32-year-old father and his 18-year-old daughter were convicted of incest after they admitted to having an incestuous relationship which began in August 2010 when the girl was 16. The incest continued until May 2012 and resulted in the couple having a daughter, who was born in 2011. The teen, who was conceived in an incestuous relationship between the male offender and his 30-year-old foster mother, told the court she was in love with her father and that they had been living as ‘husband and wife’ after meeting each other in 2010.
OBJECTION 12: The ‘Primal Wound’ was first identified by Nancy Verrier in 1993. It has gained widespread acceptance and Verrier’s book, ‘The Primal Wound — Understanding the adopted person’ is now considered the ‘bible’ among adopted people and adoption therapists. A “primal wound” is defined as a: ‘severing [of] the connection with the birth mother [which] causes a primal wound that manifests itself as a sense of loss, depression, mistrust, anxiety, genealogical bewilderment, and trouble in relationships with significant others. A loving set of adopted parents can help to heal the wounds“.
* OBJECTION 13: Many adoptees suffer from ‘Adoption Attachment disorder’. Defined as a lifelong difficulty in forming deep and meaningful relationships and bonding with other people due to a fear of abandonment, it can be seen as a manifestation of the Primal Wound mentioned above. It is often cited as a reason for significantly higher rates of crime and social problems among adoptees with some hypothesizing that the disorder may explain the over-representation of adoptees among the gay community (although there is significant evidence to suggest that it may be due to stress in late pregnancy). However the single most chilling and undeniable proof to back up both Primal Wound and Attachment Disorder issues is the estimate by American criminal lawyer Paul Mones in comparing the differing rates of parricide between adoptees and non-adoptees, that adoptees outnumber people raised by their natural parents who commit this most heinous of crimes by a staggering 15 times. Or more. The condition “Adopted Child Syndrome” is allowed as a legal defense in American courts.
* OBJECTION 14: Late Discovery Adoptees (LDAs) are people who discover later in life that they are adopted often due to the death of a parent or by disclosure by either hurtful or well-meaning relatives. This revelation often leads to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and can have life-altering effects afterward as the person tries to understand how their beloved parents could have lied by omission to them their whole lives. LDAs are another class of victim of a lifelong closed adoption.
* OBJECTION 15: The state’s social services who are supposed to help natural families re-unite are slow, secretive and often hostile. In the recent past waiting lists have ranged from one to five years for an appointment with a social worker and there are numerous heartbreaking stories of adoptees and/or natural mothers or brothers and sisters missing each other by years, months or even weeks. Several nuns who actively participated in the running of the notorious institutions known as Mother& baby homes, were appointed as state employed social workers. Social workers dealing with adoption have been the subject of numerous complaints, solicitors letters and attempts at court action.
* OBJECTION 16: 445,731 people or 42.6% of the voting electorate voted NO in the Children’s referendum. This high proportion of no votes reflects the worry the people had over the ambiguity of the wording of this referendum and the power it bestows upon the state. The peoples concerns are legitimate and can not be ignored. Adoption legislation needs to be completely re-written to address all adoption related issues and to further properly and responsibly curtail the extent of the power the state now holds over all children.
* OBJECTION 17: There are several adoptee groups with thousands of supporters in existence in Ireland today and tens of thousands across the world offering everything from emotional support to practical assistance in tracing and re-union. Members are conducting research, writing, lobbying, and considering and pursuing court action to resolve their numerous issues. The existence of these groups and the exceptionally large proportion of adoptees active in Ireland is further proof of the need for open adoption.
* OBJECTION 18: It is informative to note international trends and International best practice in adoption to see how other countries are moving to restore full equality, human and civil rights in a sensitive, enlightened and progressive ways. Meanwhile Ireland is moving backwards. Our new Children’s Rights referendum and the legislation to give effect to it in due course will amount to full scale return to the worst forced and closed adoption practices of the past. Contrast this with…
Australia: Thanks to lobbying by coalitions of natural mothers and adoptees, six of the seven states/territories, Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, have already formally apologized for the forced adoption practices of the past and the final region, Queensland, is apologizing shortly. There has been a formal apology in the Federal National Parliament in March 2013. In 1984 Victoria began opening records to adoptees at eighteen years of age and the rest followed or are following
albeit slowly in a couple of cases. The overwhelming majority of new adoptions in Australia are currently open and the country is consistently moving to a more enlightened attitude towards adoptees, natural families and their basic human rights.
New Zealand: All records open at twenty years of age since 1985.
United States of America: Due to pressure by hundreds of adoption rights representative groups, individual states have begun opening their adoption records to adult adoptees including: Alabama, Alaska, Oregon, Kansas, New Hampshire and Maine. Others are expected to follow.
England and Wales : All records open at eighteen years of age since 1976.
Northern Ireland: All records open at eighteen years of age since 1987 (please note in relation to human rights and the Good Friday agreement).
Scotland: All records open at seventeen years of age since 1937.
Germany: All records open at sixteen years of age.
Holland: All records open at twelve years of age.
The aims of Adoption Rights Now are;
1. An immediate full Public Inquiry into the vicious treatment of Mothers and babies, and the consequent high mortality rates, in Government and Catholic run institutions in Ireland since the foundation of the state in 1922.
2. All adoption records to be opened immediately in line with international best practice.
3. A sincere, genuine, heartfelt, unqualified apology to the hundreds of thousands of victims involved by both Church and State.
4. The Adoption Authority of Ireland to be staffed entirely with adoptees and/or mothers of loss.
5. The granting of full minority status to all adoptees.
6. All Angels Plots in former Mother & Baby homes and Magdalene Laundries to be handed over to a trust committee of adoptees and natural mothers with guaranteed permanent access to these plots across church or public lands.
7. The transfer of ownership of at least one former Magdalene Laundry and one Mother & Baby Home to the aforementioned Trust to be opened as a permanent memorial to all the victims of the Adoption Industry and the Magdalene Laundries.
8. That the Government appoint a civil servant to work full time (and more than one if necessary) to investigate the circumstances of any illegal adoption which is brought to their attention and employ Garda and/or outside resources if necessary and make all results known to the victims of illegal adoption in full accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 10 (1): Family Reunification. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.
9. A good faith attempt by the church and nuns along with the Government to hand over every scrap of paper relating to historical adoption, the Magdalene Laundries, and the Mother & Baby homes in Ireland to a neutral third party until the future of such records can be agreed and legislated upon.
Copyright: © Paul Redmond/Adoption Rights Now July 2013.
(Free to repost/reprint/reproduce with credit to Redmond/ARN)