At last, it appears, the question of the information rights of people involved in adoption is to be addressed in a serious way - but it is doubtful if the answer will be, or can be, entirely satisfactory. Adopted people and birth mothers have suffered enormously for decades because of the secrecy surrounding adoption. The search for a birth parent or for an adopted child has come to dominate the lives and thoughts of many such people. For too many the search was made immeasurably more painful by the deceit practised on them by some of those to whom they turned for help - a deceit which sometimes ensured that a parent or, in at least one case, a child was dead before contact was made. From this perspective, providing birth records to all adopted people at the age of 18, and adoption certificates to all birth mothers, would appear to be the most effective and most just course of action for the Government to take.
But some birth mothers would not welcome such a move. It may be that nobody in their community knows that they gave birth to a child outside wedlock many years ago. It may be that the consequences for their marriages would be grave. It may be that they dread the anger of the adopted children who cannot understand that they were born into a world in which single mothers were often bullied into giving up their children and in which every hand was turned against them. The recent Supreme Court judgment is being interpreted by some observers as meaning that the need of adopted persons for information on their origins must be balanced by the need of some birth mothers for privacy. The judgment is lengthy and complex and has not yet been fully analysed by the Department of Health and Children or by the various interests in the adoption field.
The Minister of State for Children, Mr Frank Fahey, has committed himself to safeguarding the interests of those mothers who do not want their identities revealed while making birth records available to adoptees. It is hard to see how this can be done without leaving some adopted persons dissatisfied or even distraught. Similarly, it is hard to see how birth records can be made available on demand without leaving some mothers dissatisfied and distraught. Fortunately, Mr Fahey has committed himself to consulting very widely on this issue. He would also do well to examine what has happened in Britain and in Northern Ireland since adopted persons won the right to birth certificates - in that way he can test the assertion of the Adopted People's Association that nothing terrible happened since adopted people got that right.
The issue does not concern only birth certificates. It is known that some birth certificates were falsified to protect the identities of mothers, whether with or without the mothers' knowledge we do not know. Only if records in adoption agencies, in the Adoption Board and in Government departments are made available will the people in question have any hope of making contact with their families of origin. People who lost contact with their families of origin through the fostering system or through informal adoptions also need to know what information is held about them. The culture of secrecy may well have caused more pain than the culture of openness that is now called for. Yet that minority of birth mothers who do not wish to have contact with their children may, it must be remembered, have been bullied and browbeaten into giving up those children. Is it fair to take the final decision out of their hands as to whether identifying information should be given to those children? But do the children not have rights too, in this case to information about their origins? Mr Fahey faces an unenviable task in tackling this issue.