Adoption and accidental Incest

Robin Harritt

2008-01-19 11:28:42 UTC

Post by Robin Harritt
By now I think most people will have seen this article or another like
it in the media
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/ntwins111.xml
________________________________________
<quote>
Lord Alton said: "They were never told they were twins. They met later
in life and felt an inevitable attraction, and the judge had to deal
with the consequences of their marriage that they entered into, and all
the issues of their separation.
"The right for children to know the identity of their biological parents
is a human right.
"There will be more cases like this if children are not given access to
the truth. The needs of the child must always be paramount.
"If you start trying to conceal someone's identity, sooner or later the
truth will out.
"And if you don't know you are biologically related someone, you may
become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur."
The Government has faced stiff opposition over changes to fertility laws
in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
The changes, which are being debated in the House of Lords, would relax
rules on who can have fertility treatment, with fertility clinics unable
to bar single women and same-sex couples from having treatment.
Critics say the Bill removes the need for fathers and will make it more
difficult for children to find out about their biological parents.
Ministers have already been forced to rewrite the bill following
objections by peers to the original wording.
It had said children born through fertility treatment needed a "social
network", not a father and mother.
The Lords will vote on the revised bill on Tuesday.
<end quote>
________________________________________
Isn't it the case that problem with incestuous marriage and inherited
health problems tends to be more of an issue in endogamic communities or
groups where it happens over and over again within the same family, e.g.
the European Royal families
In exogamous cultures such as ours the problem is the social stigma that
traditionally surrounds incest even when it is accidental incest as a
result of the parties involved, not knowing that they are within the
prohibited degree of consanguinity
That adoption is still set up in such a way that it is possible for
people to marry not knowing that they are brother and sister is an
absolute disgrace in modern Britain. I wrote to Alan Milburn the then
Secretary of State for Health and Social Services about this via my MP,
at the time of the Adoption and Children Bill. He signed the Bill off as
conforming to the Human Rights Act, which of course in this respect, it
does not. We did not get an answer from Milburn. Jacquie Smith the
health minister overseeing the second Bill was equally unconcerned at
the time
The problem with issues such as this and getting the law changed is that
it needs more than just a few people at a time to express their concern
In the recent Sexual Offences Bill some people involved in the post
adoption field tried to get the law changed so that it would no longer
be a criminal offence where incest took place between two people who had
a relationship as result of unknowingly being of the prohibited degree
of consanguinity. I believe their attempts at changing the law were
unsuccessful and that incest between adoptees is still criminal offence
once they become aware of their relationship. Though quite unlikely to
be prosecuted, it seems
Under the 1956 Act
10 Incest by a man
(1)It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman
whom he knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother.
(2)In the foregoing subsection ³sister² includes half-sister, and for
the purposes of that subsection any expression importing a relationship
between two people shall be taken to apply notwithstanding that the
relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock.
11 Incest by a woman
(1)It is an offence for a woman of the age of sixteen or over to permit
a man whom she knows to be her grandfather, father, brother or son to
have sexual intercourse with her by her consent.
(2)In the foregoing subsection ³brother² includes half-brother, and for
the purposes of that subsection any expression importing a relationship
between two people shall be taken to apply notwithstanding that the
relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock.
So therefore although they may have lived a normal married live and have
perfectly happy healthy children, not knowing them selves to be brother
and sister, once they discover their genetic relationship, any kind of
normal married life between them becomes a criminal offence!
At least this case and the publicity that it has attracted in the media
across the world may help to get the adoption laws changed and the
necessary amendment to Sexual Offences Act to ensure that no one is ever
prosecuted for accidental incest
So from the point of view of legality, if you are a couple in that
situation, in many ways it's best not to know
However if you were born to a mother or father who is a carrier of an
inherited disease, it is quit important that you do know. You can then
at least have a chance to have early foetal tests to decide whether to
continue a pregnancy. If you have religious or ethical objections to
termination of pregnancy you can be tested yourself and avoid having
children if you are positive and don't want to risk having a child who
is affected
Of course what is so for adoptees in this respect, is also so for those
born as a result of gamete donation. We all need to know who our genetic
parents are, that is surely a basic human right
Robin Harritt
http://harritt.eu
*

Here in England were the story too place, there is I hope no
"baby selling", but this is what the government said in 2001 in
connection with the Adoption and Children Bill

<quote from John Hutton MP minister with responsibility for adoption in
2001>

"The Draft National Adoption Standards make clear that the child's
safety, welfare and wishes are the most important concern when deciding
about contact. No child should be put at risk or made to see people they
do not want to see. Of course, in some cases it may be in the child's
best interest to maintain contact with their birth family. Where it
isn't, birth families should be able to give the agency up-to-date
information about themselves and their situation so that this can be
passed on to the child when he or she wishes to have it. Birth parents
can, of course, use the contact register to try and contact their
children, if their children wish to contact them. Furthermore, the Draft
National Standards require that birth family's views about adoption and
contact will be recorded to enable these to be made available to the
child at an appropriate age."

<end quote>

Although that was changed a little before the Bill became law, it looks
to me as if attitudes have improved very little since the Adoption and
Children Act came in to force in 2005, though some recent adoptees will
be kept in touch with their natural parent it is not they who will be at
risk of unknowingly having a relationship with their siblings but those
who were adopted in the past. Unfortunately openness about who an adopted
persons relatives are was not made retrospective

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmadopt/431/431iv
09.htm

I believe it is time our laws were reviewed yet again here in the UK.
I'm in my 50s now so perhaps a bit past caring about the incest side of
things, but I am still meeting with resistance in finding information
about siblings on my father's side from the agency involved, Barnardo's
(or Barnardos for the sake of search engines). My guess is that younger
adoptees would not find it that much easier to obtain their full
information from that agency and like me they will have been lied to
about what information exists in the files. There need to be a law
requiring agencies to exercise a 'duty of candour' on heath and welfare
grounds. At least we are perhaps a wee bit closer to that than most of
the USA

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.eu

*