Robin Harritt
2006-12-30 09:56:17 UTC
Hi All
I first aired this on the Norcap Forum, because they seem find it difficult
to get beyond the triad concept of adoption even to the point of using the
impossible triangle illusion as their corporate logo.
I've always disliked the use of the words triad and triangle in adoption,
which invariably involves a whole network of different people and interests,
not just three. I find the triad and triangle symbolism a constant burden
especially when trying to communicate with the government departments
involved in adoption, they sometimes seem to find it difficult grasp just
how complicated the network of broken and re-formed relationships in
adoption can be.
One of the questions in the Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change
Consultation here in England & Wales was Supplementary Question S6: Do you
have any views on the proposed definition of family in respect of accessing
registration records? My answer was as follows
<<<........ I can see very little merit in the Government taking some
arbitrary definition of family and making it a mandatory definition for the
purposes of this legislation. A family should be defined by those who
comprise it, and not by the state.
Families come in many shapes and sizes and different kinds. I and my
brothers and sisters consider ourselves to be a "family". But we have been
adopted or kept by nine different other "families" some of which include
other adoptees from different "natural families" and there are probably
eight different fathers involved whose "families" one or more of my half
siblings also belong to.
But the law sees me only as a member of my adoptive family and my
brothers and sisters as members of entirely different families.
I am pleased to be a part of my adoptive family, but it is the least
useful definition of family to me in terms of investigating my genetic
heritage.
It would be far more practical for the government to restrict access to
information on vital records either on the basis of need to know or leave it
as it is now with the proviso that anyone who feels that access to their
records will endanger them can seek a Confidentiality Order.
However if the Government does decide that it is essential to have a
definition of family, that definition should be as wide as possible, to
include people who are related whether by blood or by adoption. In terms of
blood relationship, access to cause of death information should be extended
to aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, cousin, and second cousin
relationships.....>>>
Since I first wrote that I've become involved in trying to find my agnate
siblings by several other mothers that my father had relationships with. It
is very difficult it is to get civil servants and their Ministers to
understand all of this when those of us who are supposed to understand it,
all continue using the over simplified language that we often do, and I'm
probably just as guilty as everyone else. Sorry to ramble on but In my
opinion we really do have to be more thoughtful about the terminology that
we use.
Robin
*
I first aired this on the Norcap Forum, because they seem find it difficult
to get beyond the triad concept of adoption even to the point of using the
impossible triangle illusion as their corporate logo.
I've always disliked the use of the words triad and triangle in adoption,
which invariably involves a whole network of different people and interests,
not just three. I find the triad and triangle symbolism a constant burden
especially when trying to communicate with the government departments
involved in adoption, they sometimes seem to find it difficult grasp just
how complicated the network of broken and re-formed relationships in
adoption can be.
One of the questions in the Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change
Consultation here in England & Wales was Supplementary Question S6: Do you
have any views on the proposed definition of family in respect of accessing
registration records? My answer was as follows
<<<........ I can see very little merit in the Government taking some
arbitrary definition of family and making it a mandatory definition for the
purposes of this legislation. A family should be defined by those who
comprise it, and not by the state.
Families come in many shapes and sizes and different kinds. I and my
brothers and sisters consider ourselves to be a "family". But we have been
adopted or kept by nine different other "families" some of which include
other adoptees from different "natural families" and there are probably
eight different fathers involved whose "families" one or more of my half
siblings also belong to.
But the law sees me only as a member of my adoptive family and my
brothers and sisters as members of entirely different families.
I am pleased to be a part of my adoptive family, but it is the least
useful definition of family to me in terms of investigating my genetic
heritage.
It would be far more practical for the government to restrict access to
information on vital records either on the basis of need to know or leave it
as it is now with the proviso that anyone who feels that access to their
records will endanger them can seek a Confidentiality Order.
However if the Government does decide that it is essential to have a
definition of family, that definition should be as wide as possible, to
include people who are related whether by blood or by adoption. In terms of
blood relationship, access to cause of death information should be extended
to aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, cousin, and second cousin
relationships.....>>>
Since I first wrote that I've become involved in trying to find my agnate
siblings by several other mothers that my father had relationships with. It
is very difficult it is to get civil servants and their Ministers to
understand all of this when those of us who are supposed to understand it,
all continue using the over simplified language that we often do, and I'm
probably just as guilty as everyone else. Sorry to ramble on but In my
opinion we really do have to be more thoughtful about the terminology that
we use.
Robin
*