Saturday, September 22, 2007

The wants of the few

outweigh the needs of the many.

More on the sad state of affairs up north. Separated families in Ontario have nothing but my deepest sympathy this week.

The way some of these news articles carry on, you'd think there was a huge Times-Square-esque billboard in the center of Ontario broadcasting the names and addresses of every adoptee and mom, as well as random dudes who might be dads.

This is the worst part of it. This law was overturned based on 4 PEOPLE - three adoptees and one guy who might be a natural father - that's it!

Want to get angrier - two of the three adoptees have their freaking identifying information.

Joy Cheskes, who is so protective of her right to remain private she has appeared with her full name, location and occupation on every single news article and TV broadcast, as well as Denbigh Patton, another scared and frightened baby tom quivering in her benedict bastard boots while she allows her name to be plastered all over the news --- both of these women were born prior to 1970. This means they have not only the original surnames of their mothers, they can receive their adoption orders on request.

Wow, who do these two remind you of?

Read it and weep friends. When separated families overwhelmingly support their names being released to relatives, and all it takes is four people to overturn that, there's something very fishy in Denmark.

Ontario ruling shuts door on adoption records

9-23 Correction: Patton is a guy

38 complaints from ingrates:

Anonymous,  September 22, 2007 at 1:50 PM  

Try & check facts before you spew.
Canadian adoptees have twice, when surveyed, demanded disclosure vetoes. Birth parents supported the adoptee right a disclosure veto even more strongly. Ontario ignored this, so adoptees got mad & sued. It's a lot more than 4 people -it's most of us.
also, Denbigh Patton is a man.

Anonymous,  September 22, 2007 at 2:05 PM  

well said, anon: the judges decision was a slam-dunk. NOWHERE else in the world has a law like the one that ontario passed - except for New South Wales - which doesn't have a bill of rights like we do. The right thing was done in this case. Bravo to clayton ruby and the 4 applicants who challenged this law and won!

Unknown September 22, 2007 at 4:19 PM  

the legislation had a NO CONTACT CLAUSE for those who did not want their names released to their children and parents.

The law also made special provisions for children adopted thru foster care.

the law was over turned on the faint chance that a woman was promised anonymity.

It isnt in family law anywhere on the books or in any legislation in Ontario was NEVER PROMISED and there are thousands of names on the list waiting for the info.

this was about CHOICE.
thanks to these 4 idiots, theyve taken EVERYONES CHOICE AWAY.

Anonymous,  September 22, 2007 at 6:44 PM  

erika, the contact veto didn't stop information from being released. records would still be released. Please read the law (as it used to be, as it has now been struck down), and then read the judge's decision. It's unfortunate that the fanatical lobby groups (including marilyn churley), and the liberal gov't refused to include a simple disclosure veto. That way, at least 95% of applicants would have received the information they were looking for. (in other jurisdictions with disclosure vetoes, 3-6% of eliglble applicants exercised this option). They wouldn't budge, took the risk and lost.

Unknown September 22, 2007 at 7:04 PM  

the disclosure veto involved a lot more. you are the one who is not educated.

Ruby wanted records to open but not retroactively. that means the only people who could search are those who are affected by adoption post 2007. that would mean it wouldnt take effect for another 18 years.those of us searching would not be able to get information.

the no contact clause and other provisions were sufficient.i think the legislation as it passed covered all the basis and had no flaws.

and i think marily churley is a champion. shes a personal hero of mine.

i find your language offensive as a first mother and as a family who is now 3 generations affected by adoption.

hate has a reason for everything.

LOVE is unreasonable.

Anonymous,  September 22, 2007 at 8:19 PM  

Two anon comments - one giving congrats to the first - both within 15 minutes of each other.. What are the chances of that happening?

Anonymous,  September 22, 2007 at 9:04 PM're joking, right?

Anonymity from one's own parents? hahaha...Ontario is a joke...people are afraid to meet their parents....ohhh, sacry, scary stuff.

Silly, silly adoptees....adoption brainwashing at its finest.

Possum September 22, 2007 at 9:41 PM  

I weep for all the adoptees and first mums in Canada.
This decision is an atrocity.
I can't believe how selfish these people that have lead this campaign against open records are.
We have had open records in Australia since the early 90's.
And funny how no one has been murdered or harassed by some scary widdle adoptee or first mother in all those years.
Scared of the boogy man indeed.
Obviously these people have ZERO compassion for their fellow man.

Anonymous,  September 22, 2007 at 9:44 PM  

Erika: page 11, par. 27 of the judge's decision reads as follows-"The applicants do not oppose the new law on a going-forward basis. They do not argue that the registrations and records of future must be sealed. Rather they object to the retroactive application of the legislation...". Again, the disclosure veto was the only thing they wanted in this legislation so that those who operated under the "old" system could make the choice to unseal or not unseal their records. The law makers and lobby groups wouldn't budge. They wanted 100% of records disclosed, and wouldn't settle for anything less. In they end, they constructed their own demise. This past monday, 97% of searching adoptees and birth parents could have applied for access. Unfortunately now, they can't. Was it worth it to deny privacy rights to about 3-6% of people entitled to these rights under the charter? In hind sight, i think you would agree, it wasn't.

Ungrateful Little Bastard September 22, 2007 at 11:23 PM  

J I thought the same thing, I have to check the log.

Erika it's so sad, above and beyond reunion or the possibility of reunion, the fact remains these are your records. It's preposterous that any civil service flunky has access to see your information and you don't. Imagine if you got a divorce, and your marriage certificate was locked away forever.

Possum was there such hysteria in Australia when you guys granted equal access to big bad adoptees?

And Huh I've decided I need anonymity not only from my parents, but from my next door neighbor too. I want the state to lock away all phone books because of it. Someone MIGHT CALL ME! OH NOES!

Aurelia September 22, 2007 at 11:27 PM  


We seem to have the same troll attacking us tonight. At least if I look at the spelling, content & grammar mistakes.

Take care my friend. You and I know that people this defensive must have some sort of deep seated issue.

Anonymous,  September 22, 2007 at 11:54 PM  


Did the adoptees seal their own records? The argument I heard from Cheskes and Patton was that they want control of their information. How is letting the government have even more control over it being in control of their information? They have just said to the government....I can't control my information, I need you to protect me, so please keep my information and identity sealed. When will these adoptees realize they have been duped.

Ungrateful Little Bastard September 23, 2007 at 8:07 AM  

Control I'd respond to your comment, but first I need to file a notarized form with the government asking them what my opinion is and then granting me permission to give it to you. I can't be trusted with my own opinion, sorry. I'm adopted.

Aurelia sorry it took me this sad news to come out of delurk mode. I've been lurking at your blog for a while but I'm such a bad blog neighbor when it comes to comments.

Anonymous,  September 23, 2007 at 1:27 PM  

Dear Anon - check YOUR facts!!

The UK lets ALL adoptees have their OBC request - there is NO disclosure veto!!

That goes for many other parts of the world too - even Venezuela!!

And what survey are you referring to? Sources please! Anyone can say a "survey" which can be five people or five thousand people!

One other thing - Denbigh Patton is a LIAR.

He has the NERVE to say he knows nothing about his birth parents.

Oh really?

Then explain the article in the Toronto Star back in 2005 when he said that his mother was 14 when she had him, he mentioned the exact age of his father and he mentioned the VERY small town of Chatham. Add in the fact he mention his approx age, and anyone can figure out who she is.

He KNOWS these things - he SAID this in a NATIONAL PAPER! Now anyone who was even an aquaintance of hers will KNOW who she was!!

And you can bet that he did NOT ask his mother if he could use those things publicly.

What right has he to use her personal info in this manner> yet she is not even allowed to know who is using her info? He has this information WITHOUT HER CONSENT.

The Data privacy acts in Ontario says that we ARE allowed to know who hold our personal information! Why are birth mothers not allowed to??

That is discrimination as it does NOT treat us equally before the law.

And now he says he doesn't know??

How short does he think our memories are!!!???

It seems that some are "more equal" than others. Ontario has become "Animal Farm" (George Orwell).

And I for one will not let this rest.


Anonymous,  September 23, 2007 at 1:30 PM  

Another FACT - Clayton Ruby himself said it is only 3 percent of you that want this!

3 percent is not "most of us".

Not very good at math, are you?

Most of us 97 percent WANT this.

That is more than 3 percent.

Go back to school and learn your math!! You obviously were not paying attention the first time around.


Anonymous,  September 23, 2007 at 1:41 PM  

One other point - not one mother stepped forward to be Clayton Ruby's client.

There have been over a quarter of a million adoptions in Ontario!

It says a lot when NOT ONE mother came forward to help him!

That's because most were promised that their offspring would find them.

I was one of those mothers that was told that.

I was NEVER told that I would be hidden from my son.

The confidentiality is a LIE and a MYTH!

Didn't the dad realise that?

God help him when he is tracked down.

And now there is no contact veto, there is NOTHING to stop the adoptee from doing so.


Anonymous,  September 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM  

Disclosure vetoes are ONLY against the province.

If you get your information from somewhere else, there is NOTHING you can do.

For example, the US Freedom of Information Act gives Canadian adoptees their FULL BIRTH PARENTS NAMES if they were adopted by Americans. That is a fact.

How is a disclosure veto in Ontario supposed to stop that?

Well anon, explain that one!

And there are THOUSANDS of adoptees that were adopted by Americans.

The information is in their immigration papers and it even applies to those that were adopted at birth.


Anonymous,  September 23, 2007 at 9:48 PM  

i honestly feel very badly for those of you searching. Unfortunately, you had two strong lobby groups working closely with the gov't to pass this law. They refused to budge when it came to the disclosure veto. Only 3-6% of people in other jurisdictions have used it. That means that had the disclosure veto been included, about 97% of all searchers could have successfully applied last monday to get their information. How sad is that. Instead, they get nothing. Now no one is getting access to their records because the lobby groups refused to give up 3% !!!! They cared more about making a statement than truely coming up with a law that would help the vast majority of searchers.

Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 8:55 AM  

The judges decision has factual errors in it. I pointed this out to the Toronto Star.

They are not too pleased that the judge had mistakes in his statement and they have told me to write to him!!!

Many others are now writing in about this too.

I am now writing to the Attorney General as a judgement that is not based on facts is a faulty one.

There now could be an appeal based on this.

It is NOT over yet.

Also, the judges ruling is a discriminatory one too.

The privacy laws of Ontario says that we are allowed to know who holds information on us.

ALL adoptees adopted pre-1970 are entitled to their adoption order.

ALL the adoption orders of this time period HAVE the mothers surname on it. This is identifying information.

This information is given to the adoptee on request WITHOUT the consent or knowledge of the mother.

The Ontario data laws say that we are LEGALLY entitled to know who has our identifying information - period.

The data laws say we can have this.

The judge says we can't have our LEGAL right to this under his ruling.

That makes his ruling discriminatory and worthy of challenge in the Ontario Court of Appeal (as well as the judgement being based on FACTUAL ERROR).

One of my friends is hoping to speak to the Attorney General today about this.

I will keep you posted.


Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 3:29 PM  

I'm the first "anonymous" who posted, the one who started this thread.

Facts: two Canadian surveys of triad members report majority support for disclosure vetoes. The first was by Paul Sachdev, in his book "Unlocking the Adoption Files" esp. at p. 141. His survey was properly constructed - not just self-reporting, as many adoption ones are. Majority of adoptees wanted the right to use a disclosure veto.

Second survey: Sullivan and Lathrop, 2004 Child and Youth Services Review. They surveyed people who had been reunited through the BC registry (before the newer law came into effect). Only adoptees who searched or who consented to disclosure were surveyed - those who refused to disclose their names were not, nor were non-searchers in the general public. Still, despite the fact these people ALL consented to disclosure, 58% said their info should NOT be released without their consent, i.e., they wanted the right to veto disclosure, even if most didn't actually use it (page 402). The authors admit their sample is actually biased toward reunion because only the those people were surveyed - the desire for vetoes in the general triad population is higher.

So yes, maybe only 3-6% of adoptees will file a disclosure veto, but the majority of us want them. The math is pretty simple, actually.

I am the same as the majority - I did not file a contact veto, because if my birth parents insist they "need to know" I will not deny them that information. But I might feel differently if my circumstances were different, and I am very angry the gov't didn't respect our opinions.

It is sad that no one can get any info now, and I hope that the gov't will put a temporary disclosure veto system in place while they appeal the case (if they do). Since they stopped the old active search registry last year in prep for the new law, NO ONE has been able to search, and that continues today (there is only a passive registry in place at the moment, less than before the new law). Blame the gov't, not those of us who demand our rights.

Note that most places that allow both adoptees and birth parents access to identifying information do not have entrenched bills of rights. Most other places only allow this to adoptees, who are differently situated than birth parents. Other jurisdictions' laws are not comparable.

I hate the invective that flows on these sites - I don't hate people who think differently than me, but many of you obviously are consumed with hatred. I do dislike it when people speak before knowing the facts. You shouldn't be publicly commenting on adoption law & policy if you have not read the actual literature - most adoptees aren't crippled up with the need to find birth families. There's a huge difference between search activist literature and actual research. Check it out some time.

Unknown September 24, 2007 at 5:30 PM  

the pathetic 3 adoptees, how sad, and weedy they are.

What Baby Toms, I pity them.

hardly surprised they would post her as "anons"


Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 5:58 PM  

cathy - which star was you comment in? what were the factual errors?

Lizard September 24, 2007 at 6:06 PM  

You shouldn't be publicly commenting on adoption law & policy if you have not read the actual literature...

Oh really? Not even if it affects your entire life and the lives of your progeny personally? I guess that makes ANY government business NONE of the citizens' business as well? I hope you need a bone marrow transplant soon.

...most adoptees aren't crippled up with the need to find birth families.

Ha ha ha ha ha. That old wive's tale was thrown in the trash several decades ago. The opposite is now accepted as true. But according to you, anthropologists and archaeologists are all crippled up too. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 6:58 PM  

The third post by the original "anonymous":

The reason you shouldn't post until you have adequate background knowledge is that you weaken your argument when it contains factual errors - and thank you for providing such vivid examples for me to demonstrate the point.

1) "I hope you need a bone marrow transplant soon."

First wishing someone have a deadly illness isn't exactly winning over your opponents - which, if you want the case to be overturned, you should want to do.

Second, if I did need one, Ontario allows you to request a "severe medical search" in those sorts of cases, without disclosing identifying information, if that is what the parties wish. They've done this for many years, and it is in fact the only type of search you can get right now. So I'm not sure what your comment accomplishes, either than making you look really mean.

2) "archaeologists" - what would they have to do with adoption law? They dig up artefacts from long-dead cultures. Anthropologists, yes - they do work on human kinship (you should read Marilyn Strathern & Janet Dolgin if you want two anthro folks who disagree with your assertion - and there are many more like them). But archaeologists? And you expect to be taken seriously?

If maybe you mean psychologists and sociologists, you are still wrong - many, many researchers now recognize the "need to know" is not universal and in fact is likely social construction in many cases. Read Katrina Wegar, Harold Grotevant, Anne Marie Ambert, Charlene Miall, Karen March, Ulrich Muller & Barbara Perry etc. etc. - or just read E. Wayne Carp's summary of the literature.

Sachdev found that half the adoptees he interviewed didn't want identifying info, and he's done one of the very few good random sample surveys, instead of just interviewing people who search. I have plenty of adoptees tell me the same thing - they just don't tell it to people who wish them bone cancer.

That doesn't mean, of course, that some people don't have this need to know, or that it should be taken any less seriously. It simply means it isn't universal - and it certainly isn't going to be 97%. Search activists often ignore this fact, even though it is so wide-spread in the literature it is the majority position of people who actually do adoption research - & even though those same researchers generally support opening records despite the non-universality.

There's an argument to be made for a non-disclosure veto regime, but virtually no one here is making it. Very sad. I'm sorry that some of you are so consumed with anger that you can't even have a conversation without uttering death wishes.

It's fine to be angry about things you think are wrong, but not very useful to vomit that on anyone who might slightly disagree with you or point out that you are actually wrong in your facts. It's certainly not helping convince any gov't to open records, that's for sure.

Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 7:08 PM  

The 3 percent paranoids got everything they want - and the 97% got NOTHING because of them.

Now people will DIE because it will be an "invasion of privacy" to tell them that they could drop dead from a disease they don't know about like QT.

The ONLY symptom of QT is SUDDEN DEATH - a bit late for finding out, don't you think?

The ONLY way to prevent death from QT is preventative treatment.

Since NO ONE can tell anyone about life-saving treatment because of privacy paranoids, people are going to DIE to protect secrets.


The Ont Gov was forced to close down the ADR because it with-held medical info and was being sued.

The ONLY way to save the ADR and stop the lawsuits was to open the records, you silly privacy freaks.

Now you have given the Ont gov a get out from having to spend any money on helping anyone because they will be too terrified that everyone's privacy will be invaded.

Great going privacy freaks, now you will NEVER have to worry about anyone ever invading your precious space, even to save your life or your childrens life - because YOUR privacy is SO much more important than life itself.

You just don't get that you walked right into the goverment's trap and now we ALL GET NOTHING thanks to the excuse YOU gave them!!!!

And you don't get that, do you!?

You, Denbigh, Joy, and Clayton have let the Ont gov off the hook from every giving us anything ever again - and you have taken away the right to sue for with-holding info because now the gov will shriek "Privacy"!!!

How stupid are you people!!!!

Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 7:44 PM  

To Karen

It is the Toronto Star that I wrote to - specifically Theresa Boyle.

I pointed out that the article by Theresa Boyle (Sept 20) about the striking down of the law had a factual error in it.

The error was this (and I quote)
"Under the old law, adoption information could be disclosed only with the consent of both parties".

I told her that was not true.

ALL adoptees adopted before 1970 have their mothers surname on their adoption orders. They can get these on request (at least under the old law) AND they got them WITHOUT the consent or even knowledge of the mother.

Even after 1970, a large number of adoptees could get their mothers surname - it depend on who the caregiver was prior to the adoption. ALL Non-crown adoptees have ALWAYS been able to have their mothers surname - many of these would have been private adoptions. The CAS made many adoptees crown wards before adoption just to keep the mother's name off the adoption order - but not all of them.

The Privacy Commissioner estimates that 80 percent of adoptees that apply for their adoption orders get the surname of the mother.

NO adoptee has ever been turned down for their request of an adoption order.

Anyway, Ms. Boyle told me that this statement came directly from the judges statement - he was the one who wrote that.

That makes the decision unsound as it is based on a lie.

That also means it can be challenged.

The Toronto Star (Theresa Boyle) said that I should write to the Judge and tell him directly about this. She obviously did not being misled by his Honour.

Now many are writing in to tell him about his mistake.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I have made the Attorney General aware of this as well. His assistant replied very quickly to my e-mail to him.


Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 8:09 PM  

Yes, Cathy, it will be very interesting to see what happens when the Attorney-General tells you to read the case and you see that the judge mentions this point at paragraph 12. Surnames are helpful for searching - if they aren't Smith & you weren't born in Toronto, etc. They aren't full identifying information.

And to the person who can apparently type but not read, you can get a serious medical search if you have evidence that you or the other party has a genetic condition that is serious. Also, for less serious conditions, everyone can update their non-identifying information in Ontario. Any responsible birth parent and adoptee has already done so, and there was actually a space to do this on the no-contact form.

Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 8:41 PM  

To last Anon - Sorry, but you are wrong too - on so many accounts!

The Attorney General is very interested and is in fact speaking to one of my lawyer friends today at a function about this. He has NOT said what you have said - quite the contrary.

You are also completely missing the point - the judge made a factually incorrect statement - it is completely irrelevant about what name is on there.

As a searcher, I can tell you are wrong about names too. We have just recently managed to find someone with the last name of "Edwards" in Hamilton - which rather disproves what you say.

You are also wrong about medically searches. Our family suffers from a rare heart condition called "Flat Back" Heart Syndrome.
My brother and father almost died from it. If a sufferer of this disease goes to sleep on their back and is woken suddenly, they can DIE - it stops the heart.

I told the ADR about this - do you know what they did - THEY THREW THE INFO AWAY!!! My son could have died!! When I found out that this informatio had NOT been passed on, I threatened to sue the ADR - they gave me a lot of info including my son's first name so that I could find him. They ONLY gave that to me because I was a friend of Kariann Ford. She was an adoptee that sued the ADR and the CAS for MILLIONS - and WON. They did NOT tell her that she had PKD - hereditary FATAL kidney disease.

Do you know what they told her - " your mother had minor bladder problems and she doesn't want to see you".


Kariann had Polycystic Kidney Disease in which big blood cysts grow on your KIDNEYS (the stupid social didn't even have the right organ) and you can BLEED to death.
If that doesn't kill you first, then your kidneys FAIL. Most people DIE by the time they are 30.

The ADR also lied about Kariann's mother. She DID sign up to the ADR - she DID want to see Kariann.

She had a kidney transplant and was desperate to tell Kariann about specialist doctors as it is very rare.

The ADR LIED to keep them apart to stop Kariann from finding out the truth.

So you think the system works?


As for non-identifying info - have you tried to get that recently - Hastings has a 5 YEAR wait!


Some people would be dead from their genetic disorders before that get that.

You are also WRONG about ALL the forms.


The Ontario government has already stated that they are doing NOTHING about this until further notice.

And what makes you think you will get any more non-id?

Combined with the name on the adoption order, it makes searching much easier - to INVADE your privacy!!

Do you honestly think after this that the Ontario government is going to let anyone have any info.

Oh please.

One other thing - the non-id my son got was a PACK OF LIES.

NOTHING - and I mean NOTHING was correct in that.

Ask others - you will find the same thing - if you don't die waiting for it first - and if the Ont gov will let you have it after this ruling!

By the way, one of my friends brothers has pancreatic cancer - it is terminal - and the ADR REFUSED to do a search for him to find his sister before he DIES in a couple of weeks time.

And they WON'T tell her about cancer in the family.

Sorry - but you are SO wrong in SO many things!


Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 9:35 PM  

"The 3 percent paranoids got everything they want - and the 97% got NOTHING because of them." I beg to differ anon. The 3 percent of "paranoids" as you put it really had nothing to do with the current situation that the
97% of searchers are in now. Tell me. Would it not have been better that the 97% of searchers got their records 3% didnt' because they used a disclosure veto, or is it better that no one gets any records. That is the state of things now because the lobby groups wouldn't budge. Please stopp blaming the applicants. Turn your sights on the people that were supposedly looking out for the best interest of searchers. As someone said, and i may be paraphrasing, they wanted it all, and because of their stubborn arrogance, they got nothing. As a Searcher, i'm mad as hell at these people.
searching no more

Anonymous,  September 24, 2007 at 11:25 PM  

Cathy, I am first of all very sorry to hear about disease in your family, & I hope everyone is ok.

I certainly never said the system was perfect - I completely agree about the delays and the errors (sadly, these seem to be common in most regimes). But the law didn't provide for shorter wait times or protect you from the ADR losing your application for identifying info - I bet they had already lost some!

And plenty of people would still need to access & update non-identifying information, even if the law was still in effect, especially before the adoptee is old enough to be eligible for disclosure, so all of your points are still valid concerns that weren't solved by the law that was struck down.
I'd be much happier if they decided to double the staff & resources, regardless of whether the law was in effect or not, so fewer errors are made & delays are much shorter.

I am not "WRONG" about the forms - I never said they were still on the website! but I previously downloaded them - the space to update info was page three.

PLUS you have never needed a form to update your non-ID info - you could just send a letter or email. I do know people who got additional info this way, or who updated, and this was also mentioned in previous court cases.
I know mistakes were made in this area, but the law didn’t correct for those ADR mistakes – it simply gave the ADR different ways of making mistakes, to add to the old ones - all of which were still available too.

Why do I think I will still be able to get non-ID info? Because the struck-down law had nothing to do with non-ID info. If you were adopted through an agency, as I was, the gov't has nothing to do with that info anyway - the agency is in charge of giving it out.

Also, even if you got ID-info through the new law, there is no guarantee that the person would agree to contact or give you any new health info. I know non-adopted people who found out their families and parents were hiding medical facts - happens all the time - I have a genetic disease & many people in my support group won't tell their offspring they have a chance of inheriting it, which I think is sad.

And while I am sorry to hear about your friend's brother, nothing in the struck-down law gave him a right to get a search because he was dying - and unless he just turned 18, he previously had the right to ask for a search for his birth parents up until the beginning of 2006, and still has a right to meet other birth relatives like sisters through the passive registry - if the other person wants to be found. They had the right to decline to meet him in the new law, just as they did if he had searched earlier.

Also pancreatic cancer doesn't have much genetic predisposition - it's not like some forms of breast cancer where having the genes makes it likely you will get it. It is highly unlikely any genetic family members are at risk.

Most families have cancer in them, of one sort or another. That doesn't qualify for a medical search unless it is actually an inheritable type of cancer, with high probability.

You seem to have assumed that identifying info would lead to reunion and increased background info - but those options were available before, and they weren't guaranteed by the new law either.

If the province appeals, they will of course try any argument, but the fact is that particular line is not dispositive of the case, if you read the whole thing. A poor choice of words in one line does not demonstrate the judge didn't understand the facts - he makes it clear in multiple places he knows people already have other means of searching & other sources of info. A mistake in a set of reasons does not automatically lead to the reasons being overturned - unless you can show that the judge believed the mistake and based the decision on it - clearly not the case here, when you actually read it. I take it you aren't legally trained, however.

And what is the paragraph cite for that line anyway? I couldn't find it. I think the reporter might have misread a bit.

Anonymous,  September 25, 2007 at 5:28 AM  

The new law would have sped up reunions.

I should not have to accept a 10 YEAR wait for my papers to be processed just to have my name put on the ADR list (I put my son's name down when he was 10 so that it would be there when he was 18).

Other people in my list have waited 10 YEARS for their non-id.

It is not good enough.

If the government cannot put in or afford more resources for searches, then we should be allowed to do so for ourselves.

Losing information is inexcusble.

The ADR lost my form 3 TIMES!

They do it all the time so that only the most determined and the most cynical get their rights. It literally is a survival of the most stubborn.

The CAS and the CCAS seem to lie on purpose in non-id.

They told my son I didn't know who his father was so that he would not look for me. It was a LIE.
My son's father fought to get our son back - he even signed a court affidavit. It is OK to lose that too??

Explain to me why NONE of the updates on my son's non-id appeared anywhere?

This happens to LOADS of people ALL the time and it is NOT acceptable.

Open records are the ONLY sure way that I know that my son and others WILL get their information.

I know DOZENS of people (I have over 230 members on my list) who have told me the same thing - that updates were NOT put into non-id, that letters and cards were THROWN AWAY, medical information not passed on, 10 YEAR waits for a scrap of info that is probably a lie, etc.

All of this is unacceptable - and much of this would have been relieved through open records.

Also, as adoptees have the right to have the birthmother name WITHOUT their consent, then birthmothers should have the right to know who holds this information on them.

The Privacy laws in Ontario say we have that right.

The judges decision says I am not to be treated in the same way as any person in Ontario and that birthmothers have less rights then everyone else in Ontario.

The judges ruling is discriminatory and denies me "equal treatment" before the law - which is a mainstay of the the Canadian Constitution.

My lawyer friend did have a word.
Let's just say it was a worth while conversation.

One other thing to point out - many of us did NOT consent to our childrens adoptions.

I went to the UN who told the Ontario goverment that THOUSANDS of us had been defrauded of our children. I am on the UN Registry for Adoption Fraud victims - as well as the UN Registry for Violence against Womem (by the State) and the TORTURE registry.
To be on the last one, it has to be BAD!! Iraqi prisoner BAD.

I have given the UN permission to leave my complaint about the Ontario government on their official UN Human Rights Commission web site. My complaint is a number of years old - but it is still there, along with others including "dead" baby scam victims.
I have come across at least a dozen of those cases.

The Ontario government was putting in this law at the request of the UN - it is obviously something that you were not aware of.

Many THOUSANDS of good mothers had their children illegally and forcably taken from them - many of them for bribes. The CCAS of Toronto has ALREADY admitted to doing this.

They have also admitted to running "dead" baby scams. Doctors and social workers were paid to tell parents that their babies had died - and then the "dead" baby was put up for adoption without the parents consent or knowledge.

This happened to my friend Tina.

Thankfully, with the threat of a lawsuit, she has been reunited with her "dead" son.

People like her and myself have the RIGHT to know what happened to our STOLEN children.

The UN says so.

And my lawyer friend IS legally trained - and she DOES agree with me.

Look harder - the decision is 68 pages long - you WILL find it there - but I guess you aren't legally trained either. Good job my friend is and she does NOT agree with you!


Anonymous,  October 25, 2007 at 6:08 PM  

Well I finally finished crying long enough to type. I'm so angry. I've been searching for my ONLY biological sibling for 10yrs now, we were so close..and now, now what? is that it? I will never know him? I am 26 he would be 32, I dont want to meet when im 50 I want to meet now when we're young and have time! My kids may have cousins they dont know, I may be a an aunt..I've lost so much family in my life, I've always been hopeful of finding him, my only brother..well it's all fucking gone now isnt it

Ungrateful Little Bastard October 25, 2007 at 7:42 PM  

Anon I have to be honest, I've been really busy and not keeping up with the situation up there. The last I heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, that an extension to launch an appeal until 11/15 was granted. Has something new happened since? Are you a member of the LookinginOntario group on Yahoo? If not they are at

Anonymous,  October 26, 2007 at 2:44 AM  

is there an appeal going on? i had no idea. i called the 1-800 # for the ministry in Ontario and was told it was stopped in it's tracks two days after forms were able to be filed for identifying info and that they couldnt tell me anymore about it. i googled it to death and couldnt find much..thank you for the link

Ungrateful Little Bastard October 26, 2007 at 6:24 AM  

I don't know if it's been granted but I think I read they have until that date to file. I get the list in digest mode daily but I haven't had a chance to really read it. It's a good list and I know they'll be able to give you the latest on the situation. Good luck.

Anonymous,  October 26, 2007 at 3:26 PM  

thank-you ;)

Anonymous,  November 13, 2007 at 10:52 PM  

yes, they were given an extension until the 15th of november. today they voted NOT to appeal the ruling and said they will introduce a new law with a disclosure veto. Better late than never i say. The ontario government has finally realized that there is a charter of rights and freedoms and they need to abide by it.

I'm a Fan of Adoptee Rights

I Digg Adoption News

All adoption news

Adoption news RSS feed

Don't like feeds or widgets? Rather read the news in a blog format? Here you go.

Who I'm Stalking

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP