| Home
FAQ'sla
ption search reunion ireland |
23rd April 2010 If you disagree with what Barry Andrews says below write to the Irish Examiner and write to Barry Andrews himself. Click here for links to email addresses for all TD's and Senators. Barry Andrews Opinion Piece, Irish Examiner Recent
media coverage on the highly sensitive subject of adoption has focused
on tracing and the child's right to access information in respect of a
birth parent. Ireland had by international standards one of the highest
rates of adoption in the second half of the last century. Many of those children were placed for adoption against a
backdrop of secrecy and
stigmatisation. The accusation that the Government is at pains to
preserve the ethos of secrecy redolent of a darker period in Irish
history is wide of the mark. Legally,
there was no differentiation between a family comprising a child who was
adopted and a family with children born to the parents. This was not the
experience in most other European jurisdictions. Contact with the birth
parents was expected, encouraged and facilitated. If you disagree with what Barry Andrews says above write to the Irish Examiner and write to Barry Andrews himself. Click here for links to email addresses for all TD's and Senators. 22nd April 2010 Legacy of illegal adoption By PJ Coogan, Cork Independent When I wrote for a previous incarnation of this newspaper a number of years ago I used to touch regularly on the topic of adoption. Some time around the year 2000, through a series of coincidences, I found myself involved with adopted people and birth parents. I was not impressed with what I learned. Much of it not only saddened and angered me, but made me somewhat ashamed to be Irish. Ireland's first adoption legislation was signed into law in 1952. Dev was Taoiseach and Sean T O'Kelly was President. Neither of these men, however, influenced that legislation in the way that the former Archbishop of Dublin, Dr John Charles McQuaid did. The Archbishop (and this is now widely acknowledged, in fairness) insisted that he be consulted on the content of the law, so that it would "reflect Ireland's Catholic ethos and the constitutional position of the family." Dev, tough nut that he may have been at the time of the Civil War, cowered like a puppy when John Charles wielded the crozier, and so, as they say, it came to pass. Over 40,000 people were subsequently adopted under the terms of that legislation. They were, I have no doubt in my mind, adopted, in the main, by good people, with lots of love to give a child, and who were unable to have children of their own. I have many adopted friends, and I would find it hard to think of any of them, who don't love their adoptive parents to bits. The legislation worked well. However, when these children grew up to be adults, and began, as is completely natural, to wonder "who gave birth to me, and where is she now", or when the mothers (yes, and fathers too) wondered "I wonder where my little baby is – is he happy? Is she healthy? Is she loved?", there were no answers. There were only secrets and lies. Mothers, fathers, and people who had been adopted, were, for decades, at best given the brush-off, and more often than not, fed a tissue of untruths, half truths, and not putting a tooth in it here – bullshit – as they set out to try to find out that which the rest of us take purely for granted. They were systematically denied the human right to know who they are. Thankfully, there is now a network of organisations in place across the country, including 'Know My Own' here in Cork, where help, support, guidance and friendship are available. The skills of tracing have been perfected and honed to a point where there is very little that can't be tracked down or found out. However, there's a large group of adopted people, for whom even the expertise that's out there might not be enough. In adoption circles, we call them the 'de factos'. They are people who were illegally adopted, with no proper paperwork, no proper file, and who were raised in the belief that they had actually been born to their adoptive parents. This scurrilous carry-on was regularly facilitated by men and women of the cloth, and even went on behind the closed doors of licenced adoption agencies. I have been given solid evidence of a 'de-facto' taking place here in Cork in the mid 1980s, so we're not talking ancient history, either. A brilliant young journalist, Conall O'Fatharta, told the story this week of Tressa, a woman still searching for her son, who was illegally adopted 48 years ago. Sadly she may never find him. Even more sadly, there are many more Tressas, and many more sons. It's believed there may have been 60,000 'de facto' adoptions. Even the very best searchers find it agonisingly difficult to help. There's no paperwork. You can rely on nothing, not even a date of birth. Illegal adoption has left tens of thousands of people in a terrible limbo. Those of us working with adoption have known about it for years. It now seems as if the lid has finally been lifted, and the hidden truth is beginning to emerge. Trust me, folks, I hope you have a strong stomach, because Ireland’s legacy of illegal adoption, will turn it. 21st April 2010 Surge in calls to adoption helplines http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/surge-in-calls-to-adoption-helplines-117759.html By Conall O Fátharta Wednesday, April 21, 2010 ADOPTION support groups have received a surge of calls to their helplines following the Irish Examiner’s special investigation into the issue of illegal adoption. As part of the investigation we revealed the heartbreaking story of Tressa Reeves and her 50-year search for an illegally adopted son. Chairwoman of Adoption Loss – The Natural Parents Network of Ireland, Bernie Harold, said the group’s helpline had been "extra busy" since the publication of the investigation. "Most calls have been from women who were very reluctant to go back to the adoption agency through which their child was adopted because of the traumatic memories it evokes. "They were glad to hear that they don’t have to – they can go to any agency of their choice. Those women were relieved to be able to talk about the loss of their child with someone else who’d been through the same experience." Ms Harold also revealed how other calls were from adopted and fostered people who weren’t sure how to start their search. The Adoption Rights Alliance, a group representing adopted people, also reported its website traffic and calls to its helpline had increased up to five times the dailyaverage following the publication of Tressa’s story. Commenting on the increase in calls, Susan Lohan of the Adoption Rights Alliance, said Tressa’s case was similar to others the group had encountered. "When the truth about their origins is inevitably revealed, they discover that they have little or no chance of tracing their natural mothers as their birth certificates were falsified and their real names were never recorded," she said. Ms Lohan criticised the new Adoption Bill and once again called on Minister for Children Barry Andrews to implement legislation that will allow for tracing and information rights. "Twenty-first century legislation is urgently required because there is nothing to stop illegal adoptions from happening today. Barry Andrews’ proposed Adoption Bill makes no changes to the core 1952 Act on domestic adoption. It doesn’t allow for adopted people to know they are adopted, just like Tressa’s son, and persists in a closed, secretive system damaging to all involved," she said. This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/surge-in-calls-to-adoption-helplines-117759.html#ixzz0lgjzoe4H
20th April 2010 Click here for an additional section from the Irish Examiner today containing anecdotal evidence regarding agencies. Adoption Rights Alliance Opinion Piece in Today's Irish Examiner: Unlike horses, we've no right to a birth cert Adopted people have no legal rights to their birth certificates and will most likely remain ignorant of their natural parents, writes Susan Lohan and Claire McGettrick. On 2nd
March 2010, in response to a parliamentary question as to why the
tracing and information rights of adopted people and natural parents had
been excluded from the 2009 Adoption Bill, Minister for Children Barry
Andrews said that there is ‘an effective administrative system in
place to deal with the issue of adoption information and tracing’. Had the Minister taken the trouble to read his predecessor,
Brian Lenihan’s recommendations
following a costly national public consultation or any of the Adoption
Board’s annual reports over the last two decades, he would not have
made such a dishonest statement considering that Ireland’s 42,000+
adopted people have so far been unsuccessful in achieving the same level
of family tracing as the country’s race horse stock. Those recommendations
included the setting up a National Contact Preference Register, a
National Adoption Records Index, a National Adoption Information and
Tracing Service on a
statutory basis and to grant the new Adoption Authority the
power to seize adoption records where an agency was dilatory in carrying
out traces or releasing information.
None of these provisions have been included in the proposed bill. Unlike racehorses,
adopted people have no legal rights to their birth certificates and will
most likely remain ignorant of their natural parentage for their entire
lives. They also have no right to know that they are adopted, no right
to information on their natural family members, no right (and more
importantly no information) to make contact with those same family
members; the sort of rights enjoyed by adopted people in the UK since
the early 1970’s and in most other developed countries. Adopted people
routinely experience year long waiting lists to even see a registered
adoption agency staff member who is just as likely to be the society’s
administrator rather than a qualified social worker.
They experience unconscionable delays in accessing vital
information leading e.g. to the endangerment of a sick child’s life
for want of medical information held on his mother’s adoption file.
These delays, whether by design, incompetence or convenience, by
adoption agencies are used to cover up past illegalities, which in the
worst cases prevent or delay reunions until a parent or child has died.
Mike Millotte in the epitaph to his excellent 1997 book “Banished
Babies” on the 2100+ Irish children trafficked to the US by church run
Irish adoption agencies, more accurately describes this “effective”
service as “deny till they die”. Those adopted people
lucky enough to have a face to face meeting with an agency worker
commonly experience dishonesty, intimidation, false and inaccurate
information, bungled searches and breaches of confidentiality (where
agency workers inform and seek the views of the adopted adult’s
adoptive parents before releasing any information). In an unusual turn of
events, a government department –
the Department of Health and Children – and its junior Minister –
finds itself working in tandem with conservative church bodies, each
striving to ensure that adoption files remain resolutely closed; the
church backed adoption agencies for fear of revealing their involvement
with illegal adoptions and Minister Andrews for fear of committing the
State to expensive overseas search and reunion services as the first of
the 4,500 children adopted into Ireland from overseas reach maturity
over the next five years. No
qualms for Minister Andrews in allowing the church free reign over this
area of social policy….. Nor too for the
Adoption Board whose website section covering “(Agency) Standards and
Inspection” has displayed the message “Nothing to display” for
months. In a parallel move, the detailed document, Framework for a
National Adoption Tracing and Information Service produced by an
Advisory group of adopted people, natural and adoptive parents four
years ago has also disappeared from the website and we have been told by
some insiders that certain social workers are refusing to adhere to the
standards set out therein – a perfect example of what happens when
service is not placed on a statutory basis. In a recent debate on the proposed 2009 Adoption Bill, Minister Andrews
informed a Joint Oireachtas Health and Children committee that he had
excluded any statutory provision
for Information and Tracing rights for Ireland's 42,000+ adopted people
and their 80,000+ natural parents because the
Adoption Board staff hadn’t yet learned enough about inter-country
adoption aspects of tracing and they wanted to bring both aspects into
legislation simultaneously. What
efficiency measure next? Perhaps
the Mater Hospital will suspend their kidney transplant programme until
they have mastered the intricacies of combined lung, heart and liver
transplants. Minister Barry Andrews
has ignored the advice of most of the main players in adoption and
children’s rights including adopted people, natural parents, adoptive
parents, Barnardos, the Council of Irish Adoption Agencies, the
Children’s Rights Alliance as well as the Ombudsman for Children –
all of whom have called on Minister Andrews to include information and
tracing in the proposed Adoption Bill.
This out-of-touch minister does not have to suffer the anguish of
not knowing from which family he hails – he and his relatives have
access not only to ordinary public records but also to the expertise of
the professional family researchers on the excellent “Who Do You Think
You Are?” programme, which recently traced the lineage of the Andrews
and Tubridy families. Adopted people also
can’t enjoy the same level of genealogy services that are made readily
available and advertised to the Irish Diaspora scattered around the
globe – perhaps our histories and heritages are worth less or is that
worthless? If this 2009 Adoption
Bill is passed in its present form, the voluntary organisations, who
have been picking up the slack for successive Irish governments due to
the lack of legislation will be committed to a further twenty years
dealing with the emotional fall-out of legislative failure and this time
ignorance will be no defence. It
seems clear to us that Barry Andrews has no interest in doing the right
thing and he therefore has no place in the office of Minister for
Children. Susan
Lohan and Claire McGettrick are co-founders of Adoption Rights Alliance,
which campaigns to ensure that the rights of the adopted child and the
rights of Ireland's 42,000+ adult adopted people are protected in
legislation.
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/a-hidden-heritage-117728.html A hidden heritage By Conall O Fátharta Tuesday, April 20, 2010 "OUR whole social history as a nation is in those files and some of it is not pretty but it’s my heritage and it’s the heritage of 42,000 other people." The words of Angela Murphy, an adopted person, who like so many adopted people and natural parents is deeply frustrated at what are felt to be woefully inadequate tracing and reunion services. Despite years of lobbying on the issue, Minister for Children Barry Andrews deems what is currently in place "an effective administration system" for tracing and information for adopted people and natural parents. Although tracing, information and reunion services are provided by adoption agencies, the HSE and the Adoption Board, such services are not provided for in current legislation, nor will they be in the new Adoption Bill 2009. This is despite a national public consultation process in 2003, under Mr Andrews’ predecessor Brian Lenihan, recommending tracing and reunion services on a legislative footing. This consultation led to a controversial Adoption Bill which sunk without trace after the government had suggested criminalising adopted people for tracing their natural mother without consent. Out of this process came the Standardised Framework for the Provision of a National Information and Tracing Service. These are essentially guidelines for information and tracing providers. However, as Mr Andrews has acknowledged, they are being implemented on a "consensus" basis and the Adoption Bill "does not make any specific provisions in this regard". Due to become law later this year, the latest Adoption Bill, is primarily focused on ratifying the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation and consolidating previous adoption legislation. It avoids giving adopted people and natural parents any legal rights relating to tracing and information. Mr Andrews has said in the Dáil that the reason there are no tracing and information rights provided for in the new bill is that the issues are "complex, not very easily resolved, and it is not easy to legislate for them". The view is that it is a legally difficult area to legislate for and also because of a Supreme Court ruling – the I O’T v B and the Rotunda Girls’ Aid Society – which held that the right to be told the identity of a natural mother is not absolute and must be balanced against the natural mother’s right to privacy. The current system allows for people to contact the adoption agency and trace the person from information on the adoption file. People can also put their name on the National Adoption Contact Preference Register (NACPR) and hope that the person you are looking for has done the same. Run by the Adoption Board, the NACPR has been in place since 2005 but its success has been somewhat limited. However, guidelines are just that, guidelines and without services being provided for in law, adopted people and natural parents are left to depend on the goodwill of nuns and social workers to help them with accessing information. Such goodwill is not always felt to be forthcoming. Angela Murphy is one of the lucky adopted people who have managed to trace their natural parents. However, this was not before she had to watch her five-year-old son fight for his life while the adoption agency which held her file refused to release crucial medical information requested by doctors treating her son. Angela’s son was in for a routine one-day operation for adenoids in Temple Street Hospital in 1999 when he suffered a severe allergic reaction to anaesthetic causing much of his lower body to go rigid and seize up. Needing both parents’ medical histories to treat what was a serious allergic reaction, Angela quickly realised she had no knowledge of her medical history – information most people take for granted. "My husband got all his information and could make calls to confirm certain things but, of course, I couldn’t. I just sat there with a blank look on my face. I didn’t know. I rang the adoption agency and told them about my son and said I needed immediate information concerning my medical history. "At this point his life was on the line. I wasn’t looking for the name and address of anybody, just my medical background. I was told my file was closed and they couldn’t do anything. I was in the consultant’s office at the time and he even spoke to them but they had less to do with him than me," she recalls. A frantic Angela, as well as doctors, were stunned by the reaction. However, under legislation, including the current Adoption Bill, adopted people and natural parents have no right to copies of all material held in their files. Natural mothers do not even have the right to read their own adoption files. "I couldn’t believe one human being could do that to another human being. The doctors couldn’t believe anybody could leave a child in that situation. They told me they didn’t know if he would last the night. I was in bits, I can’t tell you how agonising it was. All the agency said was to write a letter and I would go on the waiting list. That was the response," Angela recalls. Doctors were forced to take a muscle biopsy from both Angela and her other two children to get to the root of the allergic reaction and her son made a full recovery. However, the trauma of the event made her realise just how little information she had about her past and how it potentially could have damaged generations of her family. When she eventually traced her birth mother, she discovered the vital medical information she needed that day in Temple Street hospital and which the agency refused to release, was on the file. "When I did the trace, it turned out they had that information on file. Yet, my adoptive mother was never told it at the time I was adopted. It could have killed me. "Now, nothing has changed in legislation since then so it could happen again to someone else. The agencies regulate themselves. They do what they do because they can." Angela’s story is just one example of how adopted people struggle to gain access to basic information concerning their past. Groups such as the Adoption Rights Alliance and Adoption Loss – Natural Parents Network talk of countless stories of agencies and social workers refusing to implement the 2005 guidelines. There are other stories of religious agencies providing false or inaccurate information or failing to put adopted people and natural parents in contact with each other even though both parties have contacted the agency seeking a reunion. In the case of Tressa Reeves, the agency has refused to inform her son that he is adopted, even though a legal adoption never took place, and that his natural mother would like to meet him subject to his agreement. Instead, the agency spoke only to his "adoptive mother", who declared she had no intention of telling him of his origins. Despite the best will in the world, without being placed on a statutory footing guidelines can be ignored and agencies will essentially regulate themselves in terms of tracing and information. This system is the one Mr Andrews deems "effective" and will be allowed to continue under the new Adoption Bill when passed. In practically every other western democracy, such rights are provided for in legislation. In Britain, the 1975 Children’s Act allowed for adopted people to receive unhindered access to their original records and adoption files on turning 18. The same rights were extended to Northern Ireland in 1987. Belgium, Portugal, New Zealand and Germany all offer similar rights. To ascertain just how "effective" search and reunion services are in this country, a look at the NACPR is revealing. Launched in 2005, the register is designed to assist adopted people and their natural families to make contact with each other, exchange information, or to state their contact preferences. According to the Adoption Board, some 5,916 adopted people and 2,628 relatives have to date signed up to the NACPR. It made just 77 matches in 2008 with the total number of matches since 2005 standing at 429. To put that in context, there have been some 42,000 people adopted in Ireland since the introduction of legal adoption in 1952. One adopted person Gráinne Mason, searching for her natural mother since 2002 and now conducting the trace herself after hitting numerous brick walls with the adoption agency, sighed when the NACPR was cited as an effective a tool for search and reunion. "Look, I’ve been on the register since 2005 when it was set up and where has it got me. It only works if both sides are on it and can be matched. It can be helpful I’m sure but it doesn’t work for everybody," she said. Gráinne eventually decided to handle the trace outside of the agency, whose records are now held by the HSE. If the current system – a non-statutory set of guidelines and a contact preference register, is deemed effective by Mr Andrews, it was not deemed good enough by Minister for State for Health Austin Currie as far back as 1997. "I have had detailed discussions on this matter with organisations representing adopted persons, adoptive parents, birth mothers and adoption agencies, and I have received a very clear message that the establishment of a contact register on its own would not be sufficient to meet the needs of adopted persons. "The establishment of a comprehensive legal framework for access to birth records is a priority of the Government," he said. More than a decade on adopted people, natural mothers and adoptive parents are saying the same thing. Yet Government seems determined not to listen. This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Tuesday, April 20, 2010 Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/a-hidden-heritage-117728.html#ixzz0lawPJJK6 Letter to the Editor: http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/letters/same-old-shameful-story-of-lies-cover-ups-and-denials-117641.html Same old shameful story of lies, cover-ups and denials Tuesday, April 20, 2010 I JUST would like to say thank you to Tressa Reeves for having the courage to tell her story (April 19) to the nation in your special investigation. I cannot for one minute begin to understand what she went through since she gave birth to her son. The feeling of helplessness must be overwhelming. I am adopted and trying to trace my natural parents so I know, personally, the red tape, the secrecy and the lack of co-operation that we encounter when dealing with the state and the church. To know a file with all the information that she needs to find her son is just sitting there in some filing cabinet is hard to bear. I would just like to say that the people who "adopted" Andre should be very ashamed of themselves. Their greed and selfishness at wanting a child at whatever cost and by whatever means fed into this illegal practice that continued in Ireland for decades. Did they ever think of his natural mother and the fact that she would probably never know her son or have any way of finding out about him. Or if their "son" ever found out the truth what would it do to him? We have the same old problems, lies, cover-ups and denials at the hands of the state and the church. When will we get an independent inquiry into what happened in this country? Or are the powers that be too afraid of the fallout of what they created and allowed continue. Grainne Mason Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/letters/same-old-shameful-story-of-lies-cover-ups-and-denials-117641.html#ixzz0laxLewCR
19th April 2010 Scans of Examiner Articles: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Illegal adoptions - A chance to make amends Monday, April 19, 2010 THERE are few enough events in life as traumatic has feeling obliged to give up a newborn child for adoption. Decades ago thousands of women felt they had little option but to follow this well-worn path. They may have been heartbroken but they can take comfort in the fact that they enriched the lives of thousands who wanted a child to call their own. These women, and their children, were sometimes denied the protection our laws promised and today, many years later, some still feel the wrench in a raw and deeply emotional way. Each of us longs for emotional stability and if the State can help those involved in this process the chance to establish a relationship with a child or a natural parent then it should do so. Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/editorial/illegal-adoptions--a-chance-to-make-amends-117534.html#ixzz0lV9pMgix Tortured journey By Conall Ó Fátharta Monday, April 19, 2010 TRESSA REEVES stares at the framed piece of paper on the wall. The birth cert takes pride of place in her home. After a battle with the state lasting almost 50 years, she finally has official recognition that she gave birth to a boy in 1961. Following a journey involving religious secrecy, denial, an illegal adoption and a false birth registration, she registered André as her own last October. She was 70. He was 48. But it was a something of an empty victory. She has never seen André since the hours after his birth nor does she know where he is. October 14, 2009, is the closest she has come. It was the day the state recognised what she had battled for. She admits being given the piece of paper that day overwhelmed her. "I was very moved actually. I didn’t think I was going to be. It was a piece of paper I had been trying to get for a long time. We went into this office and we talked to this very nice lady and I signed something. She went out and brought this piece of paper in and I burst into tears. "It was amazing. It actually hit me then that the whole thing wasn’t just something that is going on over there in Ireland but that this is my life. It’s difficult to explain. I was very shocked and disturbed by it, that all this really happened." Tressa firmly believes hers is not the only case involving illegal adoption authorities here are aware of. André was born in 1961, when Tressa was just 21. Just hours after giving birth he was placed in the care of a religious run adoption agency St Patrick’s Guild in Dublin. In its offices she signed consent forms which, she presumed, would allow for her son to be legally adopted. However, in 1997, more than 30 years later, she discovered the agency had allowed for her son to be illegally adopted. In short, a couple seeking a child was given the baby boy by the agency to take as their own and no formal adoption order was ever made. It took another four years for St Patrick’s Guild to inform Tressa that André’s birth was falsely registered through the nursing home where she gave birth. This had the effect of removing all legal evidence that Tressa ever had a child and was done without her knowledge or consent. Even though the Adoption Act of 1952 was introduced to ensure such activity did not occur, St Patrick’s Guild admitted to Tressa it allowed other children to be placed in the same way, including another boy to the same family that took André. Despite this, St Patrick’s Guild remains a fully accredited adoption agency through the Adoption Board. The Adoption Board, as well as two previous ministers for children Mary Hanafin and Brian Lenihan are aware of the case. In response to queries from the Irish Examiner, the Adoption Board said it is aware of "only one case" of an illegal adoption. This is despite the fact St Patrick’s Guild admitted in correspondence with Tressa to having placed numerous other babies in the same way. Director of St Patrick’s Guild Sr Francis Fahy declined to answer a series of questions put to her concerning the exact number of cases of illegal adoptions on file at the agency but said it dealt with every matter "to the best of its ability". "No matter what the circumstances surrounding arrangements made however many years ago the guild deals with each and every matter to the best of its ability and does all it can to assist in any case no matter what the circumstance. We recognise that ‘one size does not fit all’ and thus work with everybody to assist where we can," she said. Chairperson of the Council of Irish Adoption Agencies (CIAA), Sheila Gallagher acknowledged agencies had engaged in illegal adoptions but said it was "very unclear" as to how many cases were on agency files and that she did not believe such practice was widespread. "CIAA are aware that situations did occur in the past where a child was placed with a family and the legal process of adoption was not adhered to, it is very unclear how many children were placed in this way. It is extremely regrettable that these situations occurred in the past and as far we can understand there was a strong motivation of secrecy for all of the parties involved," she said. Tressa’s sense of grievance over what was done to her and her child without their consent is palpable. She feels by telling her story, more women who have lost children to adoption might come out and start to ask questions about the manner in which it was done.
This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Monday, April 19, 2010 Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/tortured-journey-117609.html#ixzz0lVAZeDXT
In search of a long-lost boy By Conall O Fátharta Monday, April 19, 2010 TRESSA REEVES was born Teresa Mary Donnelly in England to an Irish father and an English mother. In 1960, at the age of 20 and unmarried, she became pregnant. She had been involved in a relationship with an older man which did not last. Given the stigma which surrounded unmarried mothers and so-called "illegitimate" children at the time, Tressa’s mother made arrangements with nuns in their local convent in England and she was sent to Dublin to enable the birth to be hidden from neighbours and relatives and be placed for adoption. Many years later in her home in Penzance in England, Tressa, now married and with other children and grandchildren, acknowledges that once she had left for Ireland, the topic of her son was never spoken of by her parents ever again. "I never spoke to them about it, ever. I could have been gone shopping for four months. It was never talked about," she says. To understand the stigma around births outside marriage at the time, one statistic is enlightening. In 1967, 97% of all children born outside of marriage in Ireland were placed for adoption. Tressa had presumed her child was to be legally adopted like so many others. However, that was not the case. When she arrived in Dublin, Tressa was told her child was to be adopted through an adoption agency called St Patrick’s Guild, then based in Middle Abbey Street in Dublin. For the first while, she stayed in a private house in Howth along with some other unmarried pregnant girls. This house was run by Marie Norman, who also ran a nursing home called The Marie Clinic on the Howth Road in Clontarf in Dublin. It was in this nursing home that Tressa gave birth to a baby boy on March 13, 1961. She called him André and baptised him herself, alone in her room. Innocently, she thought that by giving him an exotic sounding name, he would be easier to find when she came looking for him. "Yeah, I gave him an exotic sounding name because I thought that when I came to look for him, he would be easier to find that way. Of course, that wasn’t to be the case," she recalls. The morning after his birth André was taken away. She hasn’t seen him since. Nine days later, a 21-year-old Tressa was brought by a Fr Moloney, who used to visit the girls in the house in Howth, to St Patrick’s Guild to sign the adoption consent forms. There she was told to sign the documents and never contact her son again. These forms also contained an address in Dublin where she had never stayed. These documents, Tressa presumed, were signed in order to carry out a legal adoption. However, as became clear many years later, this was not what happened and Tressa, in essence, signed fraudulent documents. In fact, her son was not going to be adopted but merely given by St Patrick’s Guild to a couple seeking a baby. This couple then took the boy and pretended it was their own child. To this day, Tressa’s son, now aged 49, has no idea he was adopted. Mrs Norman, who ran the nursing home, then allowed the birth to be registered in the names of this couple, enabling André to appear as the natural child of the "adoptive" parents. It would be more than 30 years before Tressa would discover all of this. However, her memories of the day she signed the so-called consent forms are vivid. "I signed an address in Northumberland Road and I questioned it at the time. I was told something like: ‘Oh we always have to do that, it’s part of the form’. And I said: ‘Oh alright’. There was no solicitor there to my knowledge and the form when it was sent to me 30 years later was signed by a solicitor," she explains. Tressa first went back looking for the son she presumed had been adopted in June of 1977. She was met with silence, obfuscation and a generally dismissive attitude by the very agency that allowed for her child to be illegally adopted. Upon visiting St Patrick’s Guild, she was told by a nun that no file existed on her or her son and that she "must have imagined" she had given birth to a son. It would be a further 20 years before the agency finally admitted it had her file. Upset by her treatment by the nun at St Patrick’s Guild, Tressa went to the nursing home where she gave birth, looking for answers. There she met the midwife who had delivered her son and with whom she was friendly with at the time she gave birth. "She knew me when I came back all those years later and even told me that she knew I would come back. She said there was traffic from Ireland to America in those days and that was where he probably went and, because I was quite shocked, I didn’t say that I remembered her telling me he was going down the country to a family. She said that I wouldn’t be able to trace him as you couldn’t trace them when they went to America," recalls Tressa. Indeed, "traffic" was the right word as, many years later, it was uncovered that St Patrick’s Guild, along with many other religious run agencies, was to the forefront of exporting Irish babies to America. Done with full official sanction and facilitated by the state, by 1967, when the practice finally ended, the agency to which Tressa entrusted her son, had dispatched a total of 572 children across the Atlantic, more than any other adoption society. After hitting brick walls with the nuns in St Patrick’s Guild and with the midwife in the nursing home, a devastated Tressa resigned herself to putting her search on hold. By this time she had married and went on to have four other children, all of whom were told about their older brother, who they hoped they would meet in the future. Tressa next tried to contact St Patrick’s Guild by letter throughout 1995 and 1996 but received no reply. She finally received a response when she phoned then director of agency Sr Gabriel directly. The nun suggested her file might have been "lost in a fire". The following year, after St Patrick’s Guild had hit the headlines for giving adopted people false and misleading information about their natural parents, Tressa decided to try the agency yet again for information about her son. It was at this point that new director Sr Francis Fahy finally admitted to Tressa, over the phone, that it indeed had a file on Andre and that he was adopted through the agency. LATER that June, Tressa received her first letter from Sr Fahy at St Patrick’s Guild which stated that the family with which André was placed "appears to have taken him as their own and there was no formal adoption order made. The family had another child adopted in the same way". Tressa did not realise the significance of this statement at the time but gradually the murky affair was to come to the surface. Sr Fahy eventually made contact with the "adoptive mother" who told her that neither of the two boys she had obtained through the agency had ever been told they were adopted and she was not about to tell them now. Since then, and despite numerous correspondence, St Patrick’s Guild has refused to tell André the truth about his identity, nor about the fact that his natural mother would like to meet with him, subject to his agreement. Sr Fahy did mention attempts could be made to bypass the ‘adoptive’ mother but nothing was ever forthcoming on that front. By this time Tressa had been in contact with the Adopted Peoples Association and the Natural Parent’s Network of Ireland, the latter of which continue to assist her with her case. Representing natural parents, the group advised her to seek André’s birth certificate from the General Register Office (GRO), as well as to seek out the original consent and surrender forms from St Patrick’s Guild, and which she should have been given copies of at the time. When the GRO responded to Tressa, it was with the news that they did not have a birth certificate for her son André on the register. Shocked by this revelation, and how it could have occurred, a letter from St Patrick’s Guild on November 22, 2001 shed light on the story. In the letter, which also included the original surrender and consent forms Tressa signed, and which she should have been given at the time, Sr Fahy admitted the birth registration had been falsified and also that the agency was involved in placing numerous other children in the same way. "As I explained to you previously, I do not know the reasons for the particular arrangement that was made in regard of André. In the course of my work here I have found that there were a number of babies for whom this arrangement was made. "Generally speaking, in these cases, the birth of the child is registered under the name of the ‘adoptive parents’ and this was usually done from the Nursing Home, Sr Fahy wrote. Later in the letter she admitted: "André was placed with a married couple in March 1961. His birth was registered by Mrs Norman from the nursing home in their names." Such activity occurred routinely prior to 1952. However, the very reason for Adoption Act of 1952 was to regulate adoption so as to prevent such murky activity from occurring. Even more troubling, Sr Fahy admits in her letter that there were numerous other cases on file at St Patrick’s Guild, with the tone of the letter suggesting the practice was not out of the ordinary. Despite this, the Adoption Board has said it is only aware of one such case as ever having occurred post 1952. Given that the Board refuses to discuss specific cases, it is safe to assume that the one case it is aware of is Tressa’s. Although St Patrick’s Guild has admitted its involvement in such practices and the Adoption Board’s awareness Tressa’s case, the agency nonetheless remains fully accredited by the Adoption Board. Following this letter, the Adoption Board wrote to Tressa in December 2001 noting it "had no record of an adoption application or order having been made in respect of your son". The Adoption Board also then requested the consent and surrender forms Tressa had already received from St Patrick’s Guild and also advised her to take legal advice if she believed her son had been "directly registered". THE obvious question in all of this is why St Patrick’s Guild allowed such an illegal adoption to be carried out when legislation providing for legal adoption was in place for almost a decade? Such a scheme had many benefits. By falsely registering the birth, the couple could have obtained a child without having formally adopting them. By having the birth registered in their names, a serious offence in itself, the couple could maintain the child was born to them and the child would never know he or she had been adopted. Through this pretence, any stigma they may have faced as a result of being infertile would have also been removed as far as friends and neighbours were concerned. Such a system was also perfect for those who may have been refused permission to adopt a child by a social worker for whatever reason. Throughout 2002, Tressa received correspondence from the Adoption Board informing her it was "actively pursuing" the matter with the agency. However, in May 2002, the board wrote to inform her it had received and considered legal advice in relation to her case and apologised for delays in dealing with the matter. On March 20, 2002, Tressa also received a letter from St Patrick’s Guild informing her it had sent the contents of her file to the Adoption Board "with the exception of the name and address of the adoptive mother". Despite this admission, chief executive of the Adoption Board John Collins assured Tressa by letter in 2004 that the Adoption Board was also given the name and address of Andre’s "adoptive parents" on the same date. In July of 2003, Tressa took a legal case against St Patrick’s Guild, The Registrar General and Ireland and the Attorney General. Her Senior Counsel (SC) outlined she has an "arguable case" in seeking information relating to her son. Any hope of a solution to her case being offered by the law was dashed however. Despite battling for five years, Tressa was eventually forced to withdraw her case. Her SC, while initially confident in 2003, put forward a far more pessimistic opinion in 2008. In the five years she had battling her case, St Patrick’s Guild failed to file a defence of any kind. On advice that she would lose her case and possibly her home if she had to pay costs, Tressa reluctantly withdrew the case. However, her battle was not fruitless. On her wall now in her home in Penzance in England is a small framed piece of paper. It is André’s birth certificate. Denied to her in 1961 through the actions of others, André’s birth was correctly registered for the first time on October 14, 2009. She admits being given the piece of paper that day overwhelmed her. "I was very moved actually. I didn’t think I was going to be. It was a piece of paper I had been trying to get for a long time. We went into this office and we talked to this very nice lady and I signed something. She went out and brought this piece of paper in and I burst into tears. "It was amazing. It actually hit me then that the whole thing wasn’t just something that is going on over there in Ireland but that this is my life. It’s difficult to explain. I was very shocked and disturbed by it, that all this really happened," she explains. Tressa’s sense of grievance over what was done to both her and her child without their consent is palpable. Her anger towards the legal system which offered her no sense of justice is also raw and close to the surface. However, despite all this, she has refused to lose hope. She feels by telling her story, more women who have lost children to adoption might come out and start to ask questions about the manner in which it was done. There may be many other cases like hers languishing in adoption agency files, gathering dust due to the lack of legislation surrounding tracing and information. "I remember when he was coming up to 40 and being sad that he would never see me with red hair because I used to have red hair. I remember thinking that he would never know he had a red headed Mum. Now he’s nearly 50. I hope I live long enough to see the end of this. I never really lost hope. I did a bit when the court case ended and I didn’t think I could fight anymore but I am fired up again."
This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Monday, April 19, 2010 Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/in-search-of-a-long-lost-boy-117627.html#ixzz0lVC8VqRj
Madam, – I, too, am one of the 42,000 adopted Irish children in this State (Joan Reidy, April 16th). I was born in 1966 in St Patrick’s Nursing Home, Navan Road, Dublin. Having initiated my own search for my birth mother last year, what I am uncovering has astounded and shocked me to the core. What these poor unfortunate girls and women were put through at the hands of the Catholic Church and the State is truly unforgiveable. It seems that the State and the church collaborated together, one could not exist without the support and backing of the other; and society, through the power of church, allowed the abuse, humiliation and punishment to go on. These girls and women had done nothing wrong other than fall pregnant. Not a shock today, of course, because society is not told what to think and how to act any more. The HSE says its hands are tied, that under the 1952 Adoption Act (only brought in as a result of the babies-to-America scandal, but more importantly which was passed after Archbishop McQuaid gave his agreement to its wording), it cannot disclose identifying information to the child should he or she come looking for his or her mother. The Catholic Church felt at the time (and still does) that a full and final separation is best for all parties and that at no stage should either party ever meet each other. Coming from a church that does not allow its priests or nuns to marry only they can understand their reason and logic in this practice. It is only when you have had children and become a parent do you fully understand the need to know they are, at the very least, safe, healthy and happy. It appears the State takes the “pick and mix” attitude towards which laws and rights it recognises. It clearly and consistently discriminates against adopted people purely because they are adopted. If any other group of people were denied access to their files there would be a public outcry. It is an Irish solution to an Irish problem: keep them quiet and they will go away. Thankfully, society’s views are changing and for the better. It is now okay to question the Catholic Church, to go against them, to stand up to them and tell them that what they did was wrong. Until you find all the pieces you cannot truly find peace. This is my life now. I am not at peace and won’t be until I know that I matter. It seems that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 8.1 applies for other nationalities but our own Government refuses to acknowledge and comply with it. Where was its duty of care to me, the child, when I was born? It was supposed to be my voice, my protector, my guardian. It has failed me and the thousands of others out there just like me. – Yours, etc, GRAINNE MASON 18th April 2010 http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2010/apr/18/i-am-now-my-moms-kid-says-tristan/ I am now my mom's kid says Tristan It was a case that shook the nation: two-month old Indonesian baby Tristan was adopted by an Irish accountant and his Azerbaijani wife. Two years later, they gave him back to an orphanage. Now, reunited with his birth mother, Tristan is a happy eight-year-old, write News Investigations Correspondent John Downes and Sarah Sayekti in Indonesia 'I like it here, my mother is here... I am my mom's kid". The playful and inquisitive boy who greets the Sunday Tribune at his home in the port city of Tegal, Indonesia, is virtually unrecognisable from the two-year-old who used to cry uncontrollably in the orphanage to which he was sent by Joe and Lala Dowse in May 2003. Now almost nine years old, the boy formerly known as Tristan Dowse still identifies himself by the first name which his adoptive parents gave him as a two-month-old child. But there is little doubt as to where his loyalties lie. In the years since he was reunited with his birth mother Suryani, they have rebuilt a relationship that was fractured as a result of his illegal adoption by the Irish accountant and his Azerbaijani wife. Speaking in the local Javanese language, Tristan says he liked living with the Dowse family "because I got to eat bread with butter and cheese every day". He describes Joe Dowse as "nice", but cannot say the same of his wife. Suryani adds that Tristan used to tell her how the Dowses often took him to church, and to vacation in Bali on a plane. He had a closer relationship with Joe than with Lala, she says. His memories of his time in the orphanage are far less pleasant, however. Tristan does not speak about the "bad experiences" of the past, his mother confides, "unless you ask him." "The people there are not nice, they are sharp and mean. They hit my head with a jar or glass bottle when we made noise," he says. Suryani has never had any direct contact with Joe or Lala Dowse. But through one of their friends in Jakarta, who lives in their old house there, she sends greetings to them from time to time. Sometimes, she hears back from this friend that Joe sends his greetings back, asking how Tristan is doing. She doesn't hear from Lala, though. The house that Joe and Lala Dowse bought, on foot of an Irish High Court order that they should support Tristan financially until he turns 18, stands out from the rest of the village of Debong Wetan. It has white ceramic floors and storage areas, unlike most of the houses in the town. The first floor also has a terrace, a living room, a kitchen and a bathroom, as well as a bedroom which Tristan shares with his mother. On the second floor is another bedroom, and a terrace for hanging out some washing. Suryani bought the house in July 2007, with the money she received from the Dowse family for Tristan. Everything was arranged by a local notary, and the certificate for the land is under Tristan's name. The overall cost of buying and furnishing their home was around €10,500. Before they moved to their new home, Tristan, his mother and his two older brothers Wahyu (16) and Agung (13) shared a house with her parents about three kilometres away. Suryani's mother still lives there with her other son and his family. The ability to buy their own home, which is a direct result of Judge John McMenamin's landmark 2006 High Court ruling, has meant a huge improvement in their lives. Every month, without fail, she receives half the monthly money to which Tristan is entitled – €175 – into her local bank account directly from Ireland. She says this is enough to pay their daily expenses, with the remainder of the €350 a month paid by the Dowses invested by the court on Tristan's behalf. He will also receive a further lump sum of €25,000 from his former adoptive parents when he turns 18. Tristan's school is free, but Suryani still has to pay for school books and other considerations such as food and clothing. As a single parent whose ex-husband does not contribute financially to the family, she struggles to make ends meet. Suryani spends her days taking care of the kids and making pillow cases and bed sheets with her home sewing machine, earning the equivalent of less than one euro a day for the 20 pieces she manages to make in that time. Tristan is now in third grade of elementary school, and goes there from 7am until 11.30am each day. After school he attends a Koran reading play group until 2.30pm every day, something which he says he enjoys. He says his favourite subject at school is maths. Suryani brings Tristan to school herself, and picks him up on her red motorbike afterwards. His friends and family now call him Erwin, because his Indonesian name is Erwin Reynaldi. But on official papers, his name is still Tristan Joseph, reflecting what is written on his birth certificate and school reports. Asked which name he prefers, he answers simply: "Tristan, because that is my name." His mother says he is a healthy and happy child, who gets along very well with his neighbours and friends. His older brother, Agung, is always there to accompany him or watch him from a distance. If he has trouble with his kite he would come directly to Agung. Sometimes they argue and Tristan will cry just like a younger brother does. But most of the time Tristan makes Agung and his mother laugh with his funny facial expressions. During the conversation, he shows a real interest in what is being discussed, and tries to add what information he can. "I like it here, my mother is here. And my friends are here and my school and Koran reading play group too," he says at one point, before heading outside to play in the rain. Suryani would love Tristan to go to university in the future, maybe in Jakarta. She doesn't care what he studies, although she suggests he may be suitable to a mathematics based discipline such as engineering. Perhaps understandably for an eight-year-old-boy, she says Tristan still has no idea about what he wants to become. It is hard for her not to worry about what Tristan will decide to do when he turns 18, and receives the remainder of the monies due to him as part of the High Court judgement. Her concern is that his head will be turned by the money, and he will forget about her. "I am also confused about the status of Erwin [Tristan] now, because they said that Erwin is a foreigner so that's why he is still supported by the Irish government," she says. "I am worried that Erwin will be deported when he reaches the age of 18." But she says she is not angry with the Dowses anymore and is grateful to have her son back in her life. Instead, she reserves much of her anger for a shadowy Indonesian baby smuggler named Rosdiana, who has since been convicted for her crimes. "I am angry at Rosdiana, the woman who 'helped' me pay my hospital bill after giving birth to Erwin. Because she promised me that she and her daughter would take care of Erwin and not sell him to other people. "So I would be able to come see him later. If I knew that she was in the kid trade syndicate, then I would never have given Erwin away to her." When Tristan first came back to live with his mother he was always afraid of being left behind by Suryani. But he adapted quickly to his new life, and spoke the Javanese language tinged with the local dialect within a few weeks. His mother says he is no longer afraid of strangers. But every time he is naughty, Suryani only has to ask him if he wants to go back to the orphanage and he will stop his bad behaviour right away. She remains fearful of the risk that he will be kidnapped due to the financial support he receives from the Dowses, which is a significant sum of money by Indonesian standards. It is a situation which was not helped when a local newspaper ran a front page story a few years ago describing him as the "millionaire kid". Thankfully, nothing has happened to him to date and he has had no threats of kidnapping. But the fear is still there, and she always keeps a particular eye on him, explaining why she brings him to and from school herself. If he goes out of the house, she sometimes directly follows him too, just to find out where he is. Towards the end of our interview with Tristan, we ask if he would ever like to visit Ireland one day. "No, I don't want to go to Ireland. Because I'm afraid I won't understand it if people are talking to me," he says matter of factly. He falls silent when we ask him if he understands what happened with the Dowse family, answering simply: "I am my mom's kid." He shakes his head when asked if he ever wants to meet his one-time parents Joe or Lala Dowse again. Unusually for such an outgoing and friendly young boy, he continues to remain sullen and silent when asked why not... 'The adoption did not work out' Joe Dowse Wicklow-born accountant Joe Dowse was working for the well-known firm KPMG in Baku, Azerbaijan when he first met his wife Lala. The pair married there on 18 June 2000. A few months prior to their wedding, in September 1999, the couple had moved to Indonesia to further Joe's career. While there, he engaged in voluntary work with local orphanages. Unable to conceive a child of their own, they took steps in 2000 to adopt a child in Indonesia. Having decided to adopt Tristan, they brought him to their family home where he lived from August 2001 until May 2003. But both Joe and Lala claimed the adoption simply did not work out, contending that Tristan did not react or bond with them. They eventually sought and were granted permission by the Indonesian courts to hand him over to an Indonesian couple, while the couple planned to return to Azerbaijan. But he was in fact placed in the unlicensed Emmanuel orphanage in Bogor, South Jakarta in May 2003. In April 2004, Joe Dowse wrote to the Irish adoption board seeking to have Tristan's name removed from the register of foreign adoptions. In March 2005 the couple also applied to the Indonesian authorities to formally revoke the adoption order of 2003. In the only interview Joe Dowse gave at the time, he said the pair "came to a painful realisation that the adoption wasn't working out, an extremely difficult and painful realisation to make." Lala Dowse "(We) are delighted to announce the adoption of Tristan into the Dowse family. Tristan was born on 26 June 2001 and is a healthy little boy who has now taken up full time residence effective yesterday. We are thrilled and would like to thank everyone who helped and supported us throughout the whole process." So wrote Azerbaijani born doctor, Lala Dowse and her husband Joe in an email reportedly sent to his family and friends not long after they adopted Tristan. Less than two years later, they gave up the toddler and effectively abandoned him in an orphanage. He was a few weeks short of his second birthday at the time. In their application to the Irish High court, the Dowses claimed that he became disturbed in the presence of Lala. They said they had sought the assistance of a psychologist, who advised them that the long-term adoption of Tristan was not in his best interests. Coincidentally, Lala had also become pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl on 29 May 2002. She already had a daughter, Tata. In an April 2004 letter to the Irish adoption board, solicitors instructed by Lala and Joe Dowse stated that her pregnancy and the subsequent birth had " interfered" with the adoption and the bonding with Tristan. Tristan Dowse The boy, given the name Tristan by Joe and Lala Dowse, was born on 26 June 2001 and adopted by them in August 2001, when he was two months old At the time, the married couple were living in Indonesia and had tried unsuccessfully to conceive a child of their own for some time. After they decided they no longer wanted him, Tristan was placed into an orphanage in Bogor in May 2003. He spoke only English, was one of only two children under five there, and reportedly cried uncontrollably. Although he settled into the private orphanage and formed friendships with older children, in May 2005, the Indonesian authorities decided to move Tristan to a larger state-run orphanage for Muslim children which segregated the children according to age. But the High Court here was told that by July 2005 "Tristan was described as being hurt, confused and somewhat bewildered". Things began to look up for the boy, after an RTÉ documentary found his birth mother, Suryani and they were reunited later that year. Suryani explained that she had been pressurised and deceived into giving up her son by a baby broker named Rosdiana and a nurse at the maternity unit where she gave birth. Investigations by the Indonesian authorities found she was not paid for the adoption. Eventually, after a lengthy reunion process, Suryani was allowed to take her son home to the port city of Tegal, about 350km from Jakarta. Tristan is now known as Erwin Reynaldi. Rosdiana was subsequently convicted of her crimes and sentenced to nine years in prison. Her daughter Reta, who took part in the illegal adoption of Tristan and up to 80 other babies, also received an eight-year sentence. What the High Court said Tristan's case caused major public concern in Ireland and around the world when details of his situation emerged. In July 2005, the attorney general commenced proceedings on behalf of Tristan, as an Irish citizen. As part of these proceedings, he sought a declaration that the Dowses had failed in their duty of care for and support of Tristan, and seeking orders that they should do so. But Joe and his wife took a counter action that August seeking to have his name removed from the register of foreign adoptions. The hearing of both applications together took place in camera, as they involved a child. However, Judge John McMenamin ruled that much of the judgment should be made public. In his High Court ruling delivered in January 2006, McMenamin acceded to the Dowse's application. But he made clear that since Tristan had been reunited with his natural mother, compelling the Dowses to take care of him outside Indonesia was not an option. As a result, he ordered that the boy receive a €20,000 lump sum, a monthly payment of €350 until he is 18 – half of which will be invested for him by the High Court – and then a further lump sum of €25,000 when he reaches maturity. Under the ruling, Tristan's mother, Suryani is his guardian while he retains his Irish citizenship and he is a ward of the High Court. He also retains succession rights to any estate of Mr and Mrs Dowse.
17th April 2010 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0417/1224268542017.html Adopted
people wait 2½ years to see social workers JAMIE
SMYTH Social Affairs Correspondent Sat,
Apr 17, 2010 ADOPTED
PEOPLE can face delays of up to 2½ years before they can get an
appointment with a social worker to begin tracing their natural parents
due to staff shortages and a lack of funding. Birth
parents hoping to trace the 42,000 children put up for adoption in
Ireland since 1952 can also face similar delays when they approach
private adoption agencies or the HSE to start a trace. The
longest waiting list identified by The Irish Times is at the Cunamh
adoption agency, formerly known as the Catholic Protection and Rescue
Society of Ireland. People currently have to wait up to 2½ years for an
appointment to begin tracing their parent or adopted children. The
waiting list at St Catherine’s Adoption Society in Clare is 18 months,
while delays of up to two years are expected for people applying to the
HSE in Cork. Some
HSE local area health offices such as Wicklow do not even have a single
social worker dedicated to information and tracing at the moment. Other
HSE health offices, such as Mayo and Carlow, face significant demand for
services, which has pushed waiting times out to a year and eight months
respectively. In
the Republic adopted people have no legal entitlement to their birth
certificate or information in their adoption file, which would help them
to trace their natural parents. However, they can apply to their
adoption agency to help them find parents and relatives. The
level of service offered by different adoption agencies varies
considerably across the State. “I
am very concerned waiting times are increasing. We know of cases where
people have died while still on waiting lists hoping to contact
relatives,” said Bernie Harold, chairwoman of the Natural Parents
Network of Ireland – a group that supports parents who have lost
children to adoption. Ms
Harold said one of the biggest problems was that the Government has not
put information and tracing on a statutory footing in the new Adoption
Bill. “This means it is not given the same priority as other adoption
services, including assessing parents who want to adopt children,” she
said. The
HSE has the equivalent of 33 full-time posts dedicated to providing
information and tracing services. But not all of the local HSE health
offices have a social worker due to staff shortages and resources. For
example the single social worker dedicated to tracing in Wicklow left
her post in August 2009 and has not been replaced due to the public
service recruitment embargo, according to e-mails from the Adoption
Board seen by The Irish Times . Aidan
Waterstone, HSE director of childcare services, said adoption services
fall within the unit dealing with welfare of children and it was a
question of competing resources. “Under
statute we have to prioritise the welfare of children and we also have
to prioritise the use of resources. The priority must be children
immediately at risk,” he said. Sheila
Gallagher, chairwoman of the Council of Irish Adoption Agencies, said
there was a need for new legislation to be enacted to provide adopted
people with a statutory right to information and tracing services. “This
right exists in Northern Ireland and Britain. But it is not included in
the Government’s new Adoption Bill,” she added. Cunamh,
the adoption agency formerly called the Catholic Protection and Rescue
Society of Ireland, said yesterday it had a “big resources problem”
relating to information and tracing services. A
Cunamh spokeswoman said it is the biggest Irish adoption agency handling
15,000 files. ©
2010 The Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0417/1224268527605.html Why
the secrecy on adoptions? Sat,
Apr 17, 2010 WHO
AM I and where am I from? These are the basic questions that Gráinne
Mason, a 43-year-old mother of two living in Co Wicklow, has asked
herself almost every day over the past decade.Mason is one of more than
42,000 people adopted in the Republic since 1952 who has no legal right
to obtain her own birth certificate or to gain access to other personal
and medical information contained in her adoption file. "You
don't feel whole. Unless you are adopted you can't really explain what
it is like not knowing who you are. I am not ashamed of myself. I did
not sign up to be someone else's secret. I just want acknowledgement,
for my birth mother to tell me 'yes, I had you, you exist'," says
Mason, who began searching for her birth mother in 2002, a few years
after the death of her adoptive mother. "We are the only people
blocked from using the Freedom of Information Act to get basic facts
about who we are. And when I approached the HSE to help me trace, I
quickly became aware that they weren't acting in my interest but in the
interest of my natural mother. It is like hitting your head off a brick
wall." As
she speaks, Mason is clutching a thick folder of documents, the product
of several years of research into her past. Since
1975, all adopted children in Britain have had the right to their birth
certificates and the identifying information in their adoption files.
This provides them with the facts they need to trace their biological
mother: their birth name, mother's name and a last known address. But
successive Irish governments have refused to legislate to give adopted
people the right to information that could help them to trace their
biological parents. Due
to staff shortages, adopted people face delays of up to two and half
years to get an appointment with a social worker at an adoption agency
or the HSE to begin a trace. Birth certificates are generally only
handed out by agencies if a natural mother gives her consent. The
Minister for Children, Barry Andrews, told the Dáil last month that he
would propose a separate Bill to deal with the issue because it is so
complex. However, legislative change has been promised many times before
and has never been enacted, leaving adopted people feeling that the
issue is being shelved again. A
1984 adoption review committee recommended that the law on information
for all new adoptions should be changed. But the proposal was quietly
dropped. A
draft Adoption Bill dealing with information and tracing was torpedoed
in 2003, amid acrimony when the government initially suggested
criminalising adopted people for tracing a natural mother without
consent. The
new Adoption Bill currently passing through the Oireachtas, and due to
become law later this year, has been designed to steer clear of giving
adopted people a legal right to information. This leaves the 1952
Adoption Act, which was framed in an era when bearing a child out of
wedlock brought huge stigma and shame, as the dominant legal framework. "This
old law is completely out of touch with society today and is now being
shoehorned into this new Bill," says Susan Lohan, a member of the
Irish pressure group, Adoption Rights Alliance. "The new Bill
supports closed adoptions and doesn't recognise that adopted children
grow up as adults and, like the rest of the population, need to
establish their heritage." Lohan
believes that the Government does not want to open up the adoption files
for fear of focusing attention on Church-State collusion in the setting
up of mother-and-baby homes, which placed tens of thousands of children
up for adoption in the 20th century. "It is cynical. The Government
is kicking this issue to touch knowing that many adopted people's
parents will die," she says. This
is what happened to Kathy Finn, a mother of three girls, living in
Lucan, who was adopted. "When I turned 18 I immediately tried to
trace my biological mother. In 1988 I went to Cunamh - the agency that
handled my adoption - and asked them to find my mother. I was given
wrong information and told they would get back to me. They never
did," says Finn, who appealed to the Adoption Board for help in
2003. "It took three and a half years to get an appointment with a
social worker. When they finally got back to me I was told my mother had
died in 1993." Finn
subsequently met her biological father and half-brother, and several of
her mother's sisters. "From them I learnt that there is a history
of breast cancer in my family. This is the type of really important
medical information that many adopted people don't get . . . There is
just so much ridiculous secrecy, and the whole process of search and
reunion is not controlled by you," she says. Geoffrey
Shannon, chairman of the Adoption Board, says providing identifying
information is legally difficult because the 1952 Act introduced
"clean break" adoption. Secrecy is an inevitable hallmark of
"clean break" adoption. The Supreme Court has also ruled - in
I.O'T v B and the Rotunda Girls' Aid Society - that the right to be told
the identity of a natural mother is not absolute, and must be balanced
against the natural mother's right to privacy. Shannon
says this is one of the reasons the Adoption Board set up a national
adoption contact preference register, a voluntary list where adopted
people, natural parents and any natural relative of an adopted person
can sign up to facilitate contact and meetings. "This has proved
very useful in providing a medium by which these rights can be
balanced," he says. Some
5,916 adopted people and 2,628 relatives have signed up to the contact
register since its launch in 2005. There have been 429 matches so far. For
the Adoptive Parents Association of Ireland (APAI), the register and
mediated meetings facilitated by adoption agencies and HSE social
workers are the right way to go for tracing and reunion. "A
natural mother has the right to turn down a reunion. She might not be
ready or might not have told her family. It is not a black-and-white
issue," says the APAI's Helen Gilmartin, who opposes giving adopted
people an automatic right to birth certificates and identifying
information. "Ireland is very small, and getting a birth
certificate means it is often very easy to just pick up the telephone
and contact someone. People don't need access to their birth
certificates. What they need is the ability to contact their families
and that is currently provided by the register and through mediation.
The horror for a lot of these women is that someone just turns up on
their doorstep." The
British experience of giving access, however, suggests such fears may be
exaggerated. "Research shows opening the adoption files has been a
very good thing, and the world didn't fall apart overnight. Most people
were responsible and used the mediation services provided," says
Julia Feast, of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering. A
2005 report, The Adoption Triangle Revisited , found that nine out of 10
birth mothers had a positive contact and reunion experience. "A
piece of the jigsaw is missing if you don't know who you are or where
you came from. I think Ireland has changed dramatically in the last few
decades, and the stigma attached to having a child out of wedlock is not
as great as it was," says Feast. Gráinne
Mason isn't prepared to wait for a change in the law. Despite being told
by a social worker that her natural mother does not want any contact,
she is determined to trace her. "I'd like correspondence and
answers. I want to find out who my birth father is and I can't do this
without my birth mother's permission. I'm not angry at her for not
wanting contact. I don't know what she went through," she says. She
finally managed to locate her own birth certificate in the General
Register Office in recent months, which provided her with her birth
mother's name. By trawling through the office's records, she believes
there are 10 possible matches for the name. "I've been able to
eliminate five of these women already," she says, showing me a
letter from one woman she contacted. "But I'm not giving up now. I
won't stop until I find her." © 2010 The Irish Times 12th April 2010 Irish
Times Mon, Apr 12, 2010 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0412/1224268134012.html
Giving
up a child for adoption
Madam,
– I recently found out that I have a sister who my mother gave up for
adoption in the early 1970s in Ireland. The story is heartbreaking, but,
overall this has been a very positive experience for me. Having
researched the subject of adoption in Ireland during the past decades, I
felt a strong need to raise awareness and ultimately to remember each
and every mother who entered a mother and baby home throughout the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s in Ireland. It
is devastating to learn of the number of women who, due to their
unmarried status, had no choice other than to endure the unpleasant
environment of these homes for the duration of their pregnancy, give
birth to their child (for adoption) and then return to society and carry
on as if nothing had happened without anyone giving a thought for their
emotional wellbeing. This
letter is dedicated to my mother, as well as the thousands of other
women who, due to their circumstances, very sadly had to go into mother
and baby homes to have their babies alone and in secret. The majority of
these women still live every day with the burden, the painful memories
and the secret of having given up their child many years ago. Often
they have not been reunited with their child, and can only wonder about
their well-being and hope that they have led or are leading a prosperous
life. Please take a moment to remember these incredibly brave women and
their children. – Yours, etc, CJ
O’REILLY, Garratt
Lane, London, England. 12th
April 2010 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0416/1224268447171.html Searching
for true identity
Madam,
– I was one of those babies “given up” for adoption (April 12th)
and I believe it must have been a heart-rending event from which the
mothers never fully recovered. I salute the mothers, the “lucky”
ones who got away to England and those who spent a lifetime in the
Magdalene laundries. When
I tried to find her the agency did not help. Eventually I found her
family and was welcomed by them, but I never met her since we parted
over 57 years ago. So I know half of who I am. I want to know the rest.
Who am I? All
this secrecy is denying me my human right to know my genetic origins, my
identity. The laws of Ireland do not allow me to know what is on my
file, although this right has been in place, for over-18s in the UK and
Wales since 1975 and in Scotland since 1930. The UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, Article 8.1 states: “States Parties undertake to
respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity,
including nationality, name and family relations as recognised by law
without unlawful interference”. Who
is my father? For a while I thought I had found him, I even saw his
death notice in your paper, Madam, but his relatives tell me I’m
wrong, the ages and other details don’t match. So
I went back to the agency 27 years after the first attempt – Barnardos
told me “things have changed” – but they haven’t. The nun
didn’t even bring the file into the room, in case I’d try to snatch
it and run out the door. “Only the mother can tell you who the father
was”. Well,
she is dead, so what do I do now? I’m sick of it – I just want to
know what corner of Ireland I’m from, and have a little bit of history
to pass to my son, and maybe a photograph, because my father is probably
dead anyway. It’s time to open up the files under Freedom of
Information legislation. – Yours,
etc, JOAN
REIDY, Margaret
Road, Malahide, Co Dublin. 10th April 2010 Russia puts Ireland on its blacklist for adoptionsJAMIE SMYTH, Social Affairs Correspondent Irish Times Sat, Apr 10, 2010 SEVERAL HUNDRED Irish couples attempting to adopt children in Russia could be blocked from completing the process following Moscow’s decision to put the Republic on a new “adoption blacklist”. This week, Russian authorities stopped accepting adoption referrals from Irish applicants and the embassy in Dublin is refusing visas to couples because the Republic is blacklisted. Oleg Bikmametov, a diplomat at the Russian embassy, said yesterday a block had been placed due to a failure by some Irish adoptive parents to provide post-placement reports on children they adopted. He said Russia was unhappy because 50-70 families had not completed the reports, despite promising they would when completing their adoptions. Moscow requires all parents who adopt Russian children to send post-placement reports to the authorities to monitor their welfare and how they are integrating into the family. It has recently tightened up its monitoring of adoption following the deaths of several children adopted by international parents. The Russian blacklist names several Health Service Executive (HSE) regions where adoptive parents have failed to provide reports, and the Adoption Board as failing to comply with its standards. Other countries such as Canada, the US and Germany have also been placed on the new blacklist, although it is not clear if adoptions are being blocked for couples in these states. Several prospective adoptive parents who contacted The Irish Times yesterday about the updated blacklist criticised the HSE. They said it was responsible for providing social workers to oversee the completion of post-placement reports and to follow up with couples after they adopt. Stephen Brennan, a solicitor in Dublin who is trying to adopt a boy in Russia, wrote to the HSE yesterday threatening legal action over its failures in the matter. The HSE said it would not be in a position to comment until next week as information was not immediately available. The Department of Health and Children confirmed it has been contacted this week by several couples facing difficulties finalising adoptions. It said it was working with the Russian embassy to ensure the matter was dealt with in a timely fashion. Russia is the most popular country for Irish couples seeking inter-country adoptions, following the Government’s decision to suspend adoptions from Vietnam in January. Some 1,229 children adopted in Russia have been registered on the Adoption Board’s register of foreign adoptions since 1991. In 2008, 117 Irish couples adopted a child in Russia. © 2010 The Irish Times
Blacklisting reflects child welfare fearsIrish Times Sat, Apr 10, 2010 Families caught up in the diplomatic dispute over adoption do not know whom to blame, writes JAMIE SMYTH RUSSIA’S DECISION to place Ireland on a new inter-country adoption blacklist reflects growing concerns about the welfare of the tens of thousands of its citizens who have been adopted by foreigners. Several high-profile murders of adopted Russian children in the US at the hands of their parents have prompted Moscow to tighten up adoption procedures in recent years. The shocking incident yesterday where an US nurse placed a seven-year-old Siberian boy she had adopted on a one-way flight to Moscow because she could “no longer cope with him” will probably heighten these sensitivities. Several hundred Irish couples currently in the middle of the inter-country adoption process with Russia face an anxious wait to see if the current block on adoption referrals will be lifted. At least one couple who travelled to Moscow this week were unable to finalise their adoption while other couples are being refused visas to travel because of the current blacklist. The Russian authorities pinpoint the failure of Irish families, who have already adopted Russian children, as the reason they are blocking adoption referrals. The embassy says up to 70 Irish families have not supplied “post-placement reports” to the authorities. These reports, which must be overseen by the Health Service Executive (HSE), are intended to provide information on how the children integrate into the family and their general welfare. Four reports must be compiled within the first three years of an adoption and sent to the Russian Ministry of Education and Science. The Russian authorities say they raised concerns with the Government over the failure to provide the reports last year. At the time the Government worked to reduce the backlog. Now though it appears there are renewed concerns that the reports are not being submitted on time by families, which has led to the new blacklisting. One of the biggest frustrations for the families caught up in the diplomatic dispute (couples who have not yet adopted but are going through the lengthy legal process) is they do not know whom to blame. The HSE, which would not comment on the issue yesterday, must oversee the process of drawing up the reports. Social workers have to liaise with adoptive families in this process and delays are likely to occur. It is also possible that some families, who have successfully adopted a child from Russia, find the process of preparing post- placement reports – which must be translated into Russian – onerous. Wherever the blame lies though, the reality is bleak for the hundreds of families attempting to adopt a child from Russia. Many of these couples, who could be years into the process of adopting, face uncertainty on whether they will be allowed to proceed by the Russian authorities. “Adoption is a long journey. The average time it takes people is five years and this uncertainty is deeply distressing for couples going through the process,” says Derek Farrell, chairman of the Irish Families for Russian Adoptions, an agency helping people to adopt children from Russia. The Department of Health and Children say they are dealing with the problem as a “priority”. RACE AGAINST TIME: WAIT FOR CHILD STEPHEN BRENNAN and Janet Whiteacre met Kirill, the beautiful 18-month-old Russian child they plan to adopt this year, for the first time in February. “He is a loveable and affectionate child. We spent two wonderful days with him at his orphanage in the town of Kudymkar,” says Janet, who remembers the heartbreak when she had to leave him and return to Ireland. “When it came to the time to say goodbye it was very, very difficult. We knew we wouldn’t see him for a couple of months until the adoption was finalised, and to us he is our little boy,” she says. Janet and Stephen have invested six years of their lives in arranging an inter-country adoption in Russia. They are now terrified that the international dispute between Russia and the Republic of Ireland could, at this late stage, sabotage their dream of adopting Kirill. “Kirill turns two on the 21st of July and our adoption declaration is only valid to adopt a child up to 24 months,” says Stephen, who works as a solicitor in Dublin and is threatening to take legal action against the Health Service Executive (HSE) on the matter. “It is the HSE’s legal obligation to follow through on these post-placement reports and make sure they are filed on time,” he says. Stephen and Janet began their adoption journey in April 2004 when they applied to the HSE to be considered eligible for a foreign adoption. Progress was slow. They had to file a huge amount of personal information to support their application, and finally were called to attend a six-week course in September 2007. They faced a further delay while they waited for a social worker to assess them. In November 2008 they finally got a declaration from the adoption board, which allows them to adopt a Russian child. “It is a race against time for us with Kirill. We have invested emotionally big style, and now find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place with the HSE playing games,” says Janet, who is praying that the blocks can be removed. Jamie Smyth © 2010 The Irish Times Russia puts Ireland on 'adoption blacklist'
breakingnews.ie
10/04/2010 - 08:36:17
9th April 2010 Mercy Nuns in Australia Apologise for Illegal Adoptions 9th April 2010 Russian boy returned by adoptive mother Visit rte.ie for video A seven-year-old boy has been returned by plane to Moscow from the US by his adoptive mother with a note saying she 'could not handle him'. The note attached to the boy said his adoptive mother could not care for the boy any longer and was very sorry, but had to send him back. Torri-Ann Hansen adopted the boy six months ago. Until then he had lived in the orphanage of Partizansk in Russia's Primorsk region. Reportedly he was a well-behaved, healthy boy and never caused any problems. At Moscow airport this morning, the boy was taken to a central Moscow police station, but then was taken to a hospital for medical examination. He was said to be in a state of shock. Russian ombudsman for children's rights, Pavel Astakhov, is investigating the situation. As yet, nobody seems to have been able to reach Ms Hansen, his adoptive mother. Questions are also being asked as to ho the boy was allowed to board the plane on his own by American Airlines. The issue of US couples adopting Russian children has become controversial in Russia in recent years, following the deaths of two children in separate incidents in Virginia. In 2006, Peggy Sue Hilt was sentenced to 25 years in prison for beating to death a two-year-old girl from Siberia she had adopted. Two years later, a 21-month-old boy died of heatstroke after his adoptive father left him in his car for nine hours in the sun. Miles Harrison, 49, was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter after a court accepted that he had forgotten the boy was in the car and had driven to his office without dropping his son at daycare.
Unwanted Adopted Boy Sent Back To Russia Go to skynews.com to view video Friday, April 9 03:27 pm Young Artem Savelyev arrived at Moscow airport with the typed note from his adoptive mother which said he was being abandoned after only six months in her care. Torry-Ann Hansen had admitted to having made a mistake and suggested the boy should be re-housed. "I no longer wish to parent this child," the unmarried 27-year-old nurse from Tennessee wrote, requesting his adoption be annulled. She accused the boy's Siberian orphanage of misleading her about Artem's behavioural problems. Hansen had placed sweets, biscuits and colouring pens in the child's rucksack before checking him onto the 10-hour flight as an unaccompanied minor, reportedly telling him he was going on an "excursion" to Moscow. Russia media has reacted with horror to the case and foreign minister Sergei Lavrov called for all adoptions of the country's children by US citizens to be frozen. He said the suspension must be upheld until Russia and the US conclude an agreement on terms "specifying responsibilities" by the host family. Artem is an only-child, whose only known relative - his birth mother - was relieved of her motherhood rights in 2008. He was picked up at the airport on Thursday by a Russian man who took him to the city's education ministry, where the youngster was left. The man told officials he had been offered $200 (approximately £130) over the internet by Hansen to perform the service. Artem has since been taken to hospital, where an examination revealed no signs of violent treatment. But he reportedly told officials he was sometimes "dragged by his hair" by Hansen. The boy will be kept in for a week before being transferred to an orphanage, either at the foreign ministry or in his home town in the far eastern Primoriye region. The regional court had sanctioned his adoption in autumn 2009, a year after he was separated from his birth mother. Coincidentally, the story of his abandonment came on a day American-Russian relations were strengthened in Prague. US President Barack Obama and Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev put their signatures on a historic nuclear arms reduction treaty.
|
