Domestic adoption in Ireland: a shifting paradigm?

Adoption: the Irish context

All adoptions of children in the Republic of Ireland, whether domestic or intercountry, are governed by the Adoption Authority of Ireland (AAI), an independent, quasi-judicial body appointed by the Irish Government. Under the terms of the Hague Convention, all agencies handling adoptions are required to be accredited by their country's central adoption authority. Under the Adoption Act 2010 all organisations that wish to facilitate adoptions must do so with the recognition, supervision and accreditation of this body, and accordingly it is solely responsible for the maintenance of the Adoption Societies Register and the regulation of adoption practice. When the Adoption Act 2010 was brought into operation, many adoption agencies responsible for the arrangement of both domestic and intercountry adoptions were immediately rendered ineligible and lost the accreditation they had previously held with the (former) Adoption Board. The work of adoption agencies is now defined by the AAI as consisting of a number of different activities. In order to gain accreditation, agencies are now required to apply for separate approval in respect of a number of different adoption activities in accordance with section 4 of the Adoption Act 2010 (see McCaughren and Parkes, 2012).

Domestic adoption in Ireland incorporates step-family adoption, extended family/relative adoption and non-family infant adoption, which is the area investigated by this article. Of the 49 domestic adoption orders granted in Ireland in 2012, 33 were family adoptions (incorporating step-family and extended family/relative adoptions), and 16 were non-family adoptions (Adoption Authority of Ireland, 2012). As of October 2013, there were 6486 children in care in Ireland, with just over 90% in foster care (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2014). In 2013, the number of children adopted from long-term foster care was 17 (Adoption Authority of Ireland, 2014 – personal communication). Unlike the system in England, very few children from the care system are placed for adoption and many children subsequently live for long periods in long-term foster care.

Narratives from those directly affected by adoption: birth mothers

A stronger societal focus on the operation of Church-run institutions in recent times has highlighted the difficulties faced by those affected by adoption in the past, particularly birth mothers whose adoptions were managed by Catholic-run mother and baby homes. Recent disclosures (e.g. Redmond, et al., 2012) have illustrated that these placements offered as a shelter were not always the places of safety and protection that these single women may have hoped for. As some authors (Milotte, 2012; Raftery and O'Sullivan, 1999) have documented, entering such a home was often seen as a last resort for young pregnant women who had no other options. Women who became pregnant outside of marriage turned to mother and baby homes such as the Magdalene laundries to hide the ‘shame’ of their pregnancy from a society that was unwilling to accept it. However, it was often the case that women were stigmatised even in the place from where they sought refuge. The discrimination suffered by women and the punitive manner in which they were treated were highlighted in the recent report on the Magdalene laundries (Department of Justice and Equality, 2013). It was noted that the term ‘second offenders’ was often used when referring to women who had more than one child born out of wedlock. Their perceived moral wrongs were measured against Catholic and societal norms, a system that worked to promote a form of social control for women who had ‘fallen from grace’. Many birth mothers who for years remained silent about their experience of adoption are now expressing frustration and distress with the way they were treated under the Irish adoption system (Kelly, 2005).

It is notable that birth fathers have traditionally been largely absent from Irish adoption literature. Historically, birth fathers were not always named in the adoption records. Additionally, the information held on file by adoption agencies relating to the birth father may simply be inaccurate in many cases. The power to identify and therefore include him in the adoption process thus rested largely with the birth mother. However, this has since changed and now, if identified by the birth mother, accredited adoption agencies are legally required to obtain the birth father's permission before a child can be adopted. However, if despite being identified they cannot be engaged with, or contact with them regarding the adoption is deemed inappropriate, the AAI can take steps to proceed with the adoption without their expressed permission (Adoption Authority of Ireland, 2014).

A number of voices have spoken out against the traditional closed model of adoption that involved the complete severing of links between the adoptive and the birth family. Birth mothers have conveyed their deep sense of disgust with a system which they found to be disempowering and oppressive. Many were coerced into internalising their despair and given clear instructions to move on as if nothing had happened (Pertman, 2000). However, birth mothers' narratives have indicated that the reality was quite different. For many, it was very difficult to move on with a secret they were forced to suppress. The recent film Philomena, based on the book, The Lost Child of Philomena Lee (Sixsmith, 2009), has again highlighted the repressive, disempowering and dehumanising nature of the closed confidential system of adoption. It tells the story of a mother who was forced to put her son up for adoption through the Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in 1952 when she was aged 19.

Adopted persons

Similarly, adopted people have highlighted the effects of growing up without even the most basic information about their families of origin. The research literature has documented the negative effects of closed adoption systems on adopted individuals, with a sense of loss, grieving and difficulties in identity development, risks intrinsic to all adoption but in this case exacerbated by a lack of information about birth parents (e.g. Groza and Rosenberg, 2001; Lifton, 1994). The information-seeking process has been described as an inevitable by-product of adoption, which begins as soon as the adoptee is aware of their adoptive status (Lifton, 2007). However, it must be acknowledged that there are a variety of levels at which adoptees seek information, from simply considering the birth family, to pursuing medical records, to an active search whereby individuals attempt to trace or reunite with a birth relative. So while all adoptees may give some level of consideration to their birth relatives, not all will seek to reunite with them. For those who do, there may be a number of psychological reasons why an active search process is considered. People seek out birth parents to rectify a sense of loss, mourning, envy or jealousy (Schechter and Bertocci, 1990). Adoptees may also seek to address sexual development issues or a perceived sense of difference and body image. Some search to satisfy a need for attachment, connectedness or to make sense of their personal identity, while the reconciliation of ‘cognitive dissonance’ and internalisation of the ‘locus of control’ relating to an adoption have also been identified as possible motivators (Schechter and Bertocci, 1990). The literature on searching points towards one strong trend: when adoptees embark upon the process, in the vast majority of cases they begin by looking for their birth mother (e.g. Passmore and Feeney, 2009; Schechter and Bertocci, 1990; Triseliotis, Feast and Kyle, 2005). A number of influential factors could account for this, including practical (Passmore and Feeney, 2009; Trinder, Feast and Howe, 2004) and socio-cultural issues (Passmore and Feeney, 2009; Sachdev, 1991).

In her study of adopted Irish individuals, McGrath (2012) reported that their reasons for embarking upon a search process could be classified under three themes. Many of those interviewed wanted to satisfy curiosity about themselves and their birth families. They wanted answers to basic questions about themselves, such as their medical history. In other cases, they searched to alleviate fear. A common one was that they might miss the opportunity to reunite with birth relatives if they left their search efforts too late. This group were concerned that their birth parents might die before they had the chance to make contact. However, some participants were afraid of the unknown. In such cases, they had concerns about finding unpalatable information at the end of their exploration, and so they searched to allay their fears, hoping that the reality would be more positive than they anticipated. Finally, they reported searching because they wanted to take back control of information relating to themselves, their families and the circumstances of their birth.

It was apparent in this study that, regardless of the initial, possibly superficial reason for contact, searching is rarely a simple case of seeking an answer to a question, but rather is part of a more detailed process that requires the time and emotional space to unravel, assimilate and comprehend (McGrath, 2012). The study also found that although all of the 12 participants commenced by seeking their birth mother, the birth father was seen by many as playing a minor, incidental role in their adoption story. However, it is noteworthy that once contact with the birth mother had been attempted or established, participants then began the process of seeking their birth fathers. It is possible that this is for practical reasons; the birth mother provides a gateway to the birth father, either through identifying him to the individual or through providing contact details. To this effect, one participant commented that the Irish adoption system more readily facilitated reunions with birth mothers as generally their details are the ones recorded in official documents, such as the birth certificate, adoption order or in records held by the adoption agency.

In the closed system of adoption, children were taken into families who gave them a new name and birth certificate, and they were given little or no information about their genetic background. To their utter frustration, many have encountered the strict limitations of the Irish legal system and are now speaking out about the barriers they face when attempting to trace their birth relatives (McGrath, 2012). Adopted persons do not have a legal right to information; nor do they have an automatic right to their original birth certificate. While someone can apply to an accredited adoption agency or the AAI for birth information, they will only be given non-identifying details. This includes items such as first names (original name given to child at birth), birth/weight details, physical description of birth mother, her level of education/employment and medical information. ⁴ Any information that could potentially identify the birth mother is withheld. Although this has been challenged through the Irish court system, the most notable case being I'OT v. B ([1998] 2 IR 321), the right to privacy of the birth mother has tended to take precedence over the rights of the child to know his or her identity. In practice, an adoption agency can initiate a trace on behalf of the adopted person, but ‘there is no way to compel a birth family member to engage with the adoption services in this regard’ (Adoption Authority of Ireland, 2014: 3). Many adopted people see this as a complete infringement of their fundamental human rights and it continues to be a source of controversy for those directly affected by adoption.

In McGrath's (2012) study the adopted participants, social workers and advocacy group representatives all held similar views with regard to the process of Irish adoption. All concurred that the system was in need of reform and many felt that adopted people should be given the right to information about themselves and their birth families. Unfortunately this issue was deliberately avoided in Ireland's most recent adoption legislation, the Adoption Act 2010. The law regarding information and tracing has remained unchanged since adoption was first legislated for in 1952. While adoption practice has in many respects acknowledged the deficiencies inherent in the traditional model of adoption, the only way that a meaningful change can occur is through the enactment of specific legislation. At the same time, increased understanding by stakeholders of the psychological benefits of communicative and structural openness ⁵ in adoption has led to change in how such placements, and in particular the areas of contact, tracing and reunion, are now perceived and managed by practitioners and families.

A shift towards more openness

One very positive development has been the movement towards more openness that has been largely driven by those directly affected by the closed model of adoption. In the Irish context, the children for whom open adoption agreements are drawn up are mainly those placed in non-family infant adoptions. A large body of psychological literature recommends increased structural and communicative openness in adoption (e.g. Brodzinsky, 2006). The adoptive parents are typically the people who will be responsible for educating the child about his or her adoption in the early years, and so are likely to have a strong influence on the child's early adoption narrative. They generally set the level of communicative openness in the adoptive home (Wrobel and Dillon, 2009). Therefore, what was once treated as a closely guarded family secret now has the opportunity to take on a very different guise, depending on how it is framed in the child's early years. In line with research on the benefits of communicative openness, families are encouraged by placing agencies to openly discuss adoption with their children from infancy (Council of Irish Adoption Agencies, 2009). Whereas adoption used to be viewed as a single event in which a child was permanently removed from its birth mother, it is nowadays perceived as an ongoing process, where a variety of levels of contact between the adoptive and birth relatives and the adopted child are possible. This openness, once unheard of in Ireland, is generally considered important to the healthy emotional development of the child. However, the concept has also generated much debate and controversy as it is a complex and circuitous form of adoption.

The spectrum and benefits of openness

Much of the debate on open adoption centres on the level of contact and facilitating contact arrangements that are in the best interests of the child. The differing levels of contact between adopted individuals and their birth parents may be considered on a spectrum of openness, where there is huge variety of contact type and regularity (McRoy, et al., 2007). The term ‘open adoption’ has come in for much criticism, with no universally recognised definition. In the Irish context the adoption authority (formerly named the Adoption Board) describes open adoption as adoptions where ‘the natural parent or parents retain a degree of contact with the child (usually one or two visits a year) after the adoption order is made’ (Adoption Board, 2006: 16). However, their definition does not explore the numerous variations in open contact arrangements that exist. In a recent study on open adoption within the Irish context, it emerged that even those who self-identify as having an open adoption have divergent views. In fact, it had different meaning for each adoptive family with no consensus as to what it constituted (McCaughren, 2010).

In one of the first studies on open adoption in Ireland, the author looked at a number of families who were parenting children under an open adoption agreement (McCaughren, 2010). ⁶ The majority of these placements were non-family infant adoptions. This study found that there was huge variation in the level and frequency of contact that adoptive families had with their children's birth parents and, in most cases, it was solely with the child's birth mother. At the same time, all of the participant adopters talked about open adoption as something that made sense and most believed that it was a positive choice for them and their children. They regarded it as having short- and long-term benefits both for them and their children. They believed that it was in the best interests of the children, providing them with realistic expectations for the future. They also believed that it would eliminate the problem of their children having to find out about their birth parents and backgrounds as they got older. They considered open adoption as something that would prevent adoptees growing up with the unknown and reduce the likelihood of any surprise revelations in their later lives. Adoptive parents acknowledged their awareness of traditional adoption practice in Ireland, the negative effects it had on many adoptees and their dissatisfaction with it. There was some indication throughout the study that couples did not realise the full importance and significance of open adoption for themselves and their children until they were actually living with it. They felt that contact enabled their children to formulate an accurate picture of their birth parents from the beginning and, thus, normalised their situation.

As suggested by Modell (1997), it is possible that the increased contact favoured more recently in adoptions could lead to a less dramatic, calmer moment of reunion. McGrath's study (2012) questioned whether contact prior to reunion would lessen the anxiety around the reunion meeting itself. A number of participants had some level of contact before meeting, but this typically involved an exchange of letters or photos once pre-reunion contact had been made via a social worker. Only one adoptee reported having continuous, regular letterbox contact with her birth parents from early childhood. Although she felt quite ambivalent at the time of the reunion, feeling excited but also anxious and nervous, she seemed to process her feelings about it relatively quickly and afterwards forged a strong relationship with both birth parents. While it is impossible to be definitive from such a small sample, this one case provides an interesting point of consideration. Similarly, some participants reported being surprised or shocked upon seeing a photo of their birth mother, as it contrasted with the image they had anticipated. Being exposed to photographic images of birth parents at an earlier age might have countered this element of surprise. Regular photographs, or even face-to-face meetings throughout the person's childhood, have the potential to achieve a smoother transition to an interactive relationship once the adopted individual has reached adulthood. In McCaughren's study (2010) a number of adoptive parents believed that letter writing and exchanging photographs with the birth mother constituted a significant form of contact. They hoped it would lay the foundations for further contact down the line. A number of participants also reported feeling somewhat comforted by the fact that their birth mother was accessible and they could obtain information when they needed to. Therefore it seems important that while different methods of contact are considered, letterbox contact is not in any way minimised or automatically assumed to be less beneficial to adopted children than full open or face-to-face contact.

Adoption agencies in Ireland now advocate openness and play a key role in educating and informing prospective adopters and birth parents of the choices available to them within contemporary domestic adoptions. Accredited adoption agencies are also responsible for the provision of post-adoption services that have become almost an integral element of contemporary domestic adoptions. In some open adoptions, the adoptive parents and birth parents correspond with one another independently of the adoption agency. However, the agency acts as an advisor or an intermediary should either party encounter any difficulties or changes in the open adoption agreement. It plays a more prominent role in the lives of families where one or both parties wish to maintain their anonymity. Social workers then act as intermediaries, often forwarding correspondence between parties and organising face-to-face contact at a neutral venue. Adoption agencies, therefore, play a very significant role in the contracting, maintenance, review and revision of open adoption agreements (McCaughren, 2010).

While it is clear that the practice of adoption has moved forward with recognition of the importance of openness, the law has remained stagnant in this area. The reality is that open adoptions are based merely on voluntary goodwill agreements and although written agreements are put in place at the time of the adoption, they are not recognised in Irish law. Indeed, there are many debates with regard to this issue and whether or not it is beneficial for children and families to pursue the legal route (McCaughren, 2010; Siegel, 2003; Smith, 2005). The adoption authority (Adoption Board, 2006: 16) has called for legal provisions to ensure that ‘where a natural parent wishes to have continued contact with his or her child after the making of an adoption order, such contact can, in certain circumstances, be made a condition of the adoption order’. Others believe that neutral independent mediators could have an important role to play in open adoption and that while the law should have a role to play, it must only be as a measure of last resort (Parkes and McCaughren, 2013).

The impact of the internet on adoption

It is important to remember that the practice of open adoption has emerged against the backdrop of a society that has, in many ways, become more open and where information has become far more accessible. Indeed, the development of the internet has meant that the whole area of contact has encountered new and unprecedented challenges. The rise in internet searches has been documented by Fursland (2010) and is considered a huge threat to the carefully constructed social worker mediated tracing processes. There are myriad issues to consider for those who decide to either look for more birth information or initiate a search for their birth relatives. These include: accessibility and validity of information on the adoption file, the possibility of discovering birth siblings, the expectations and openness of both parties to contact, the possibility that birth members could be deceased and genetic sexual attraction. ⁷ An intermediary, usually a social worker with experience in the field of adoption search and reunion, can provide the support and counselling necessary in order to prepare people for the various phases involved in the process. Recent literature indicates that rather than trying to work against the internet, adoption practitioners and policymakers should capitalise on the opportunity it presents for reform in the area of information and tracing, not least because it is now a permanent feature in the landscape of adoption search processes (Howard, 2012).

Social networking sites have also introduced new, faster and more accessible ways for people to access information. Fursland (2010) has described how these websites are being used by adopted children and teenagers to trace birth relatives, and to a lesser extent, by birth parents seeking their adopted children. Young people who traditionally returned to their placing agencies to find out more information about their genetic backgrounds are now initiating their own searches in private.

An Irish study of domestically adopted young people (McGrath, 2012) found that participants used the internet in different ways. Some reported using it to complement an existing search, or when they became frustrated with the inevitable delays that an official agency facilitated search can entail. For this group, it was a point of interest and a possible source of information but they were aware of its limitations and used it sparingly. A smaller group engaged in more intense internet searches. In addition to trying to trace birth relatives directly, they also went online to obtain more general, practical information on the adoption and tracing process. This group reported that the internet afforded them control of their searches. Often they did not want their adoptive family members to know they were embarking upon a search process, so the availability of the internet as a private search tool enabled them to maintain secrecy until they wished to disclose their tracing activities.

Traditional vs. internet-based searches

McGrath's (2012) study also reported that, in social worker mediated reunions, letter writing was promoted as the initial method of contact. Participants had mixed feelings about this. Some valued its slow, methodical nature, while others expressed a preference for contact by email or text. There are a number of explanations as to why email or text may be preferable – both are faster and are an everyday form of regular communication, while letter writing is associated with formality and delayed responses. Similarly, tracing relatives through the internet can be done with the speed with which people can now routinely access many different kinds of information, and with a level of comfort and familiarity that contrasts with slow, methodical, professionally supported searches. However, while an internet search is certainly a way of managing some aspects of fear and curiosity, there is possibly an increased risk of distress to adoptees, as they are working without the support and counselling that a social worker mediated trace could provide and they cannot distinguish accurate from inaccurate information.

Thus, unmediated, internet-based searches can lead to unnecessary distress for those who are trying to find answers about their biological roots. McGrath (2012) describes a girl who sought information and advice through a group hosted on a social networking site, only to find that although supportive and full of promise, the experience proved fruitless and she subsequently made the decision to consult publicly available birth records herself. It is notable that she did not have any face-to-face support or counselling at her disposal. There is, therefore, some merit in the more traditional methods of searching for information where, with the assistance of social workers trained in the area of adoption, these questions can be anticipated and addressed as they arise. A number of advocacy groups representing those affected by adoption have now made it possible to access accurate and reliable information through the provision of downloadable tracing guides. ⁸ There is value in this method of peer support, not least because it provides adopted individuals with an alternative to contacting their placing agencies for tracing and assistance.

In a very short space of time, the internet has challenged a wealth of carefully planned tracing protocols and the inherent secrecy which they were designed to uphold. Without careful management by adoption practitioners, the internet simply cannot provide the level of personal support that is required when dealing with an area that is so emotionally sensitive, but that, as a tool is now a permanent fixture in the adoption arena (Howard, 2012). It is widely accessible, easy to use, avoids lengthy waiting lists and is now often the first choice for a new generation of adopted people (McGrath, 2012).

Information and tracing in the Irish context

Ireland's current situation is such that the guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity given to birth mothers at the time of adoption takes precedence over an adopted person's wish for identifying information (Parkes and McCaughren, 2013). It has been noted that very little effort has been made to balance openness for some members of the adoption triangle, with the protection of the right to privacy and confidentiality for others (Parkes and McCaughren, 2013). Although this is a complex and sensitive issue to address, it has been confronted elsewhere. Britain, for example, tackled the issue as far back as 1975 when adopted people, on reaching their 18th birthday became entitled to obtain their original birth certificates. ⁹ In New Zealand, although the Adoption Act of 1955 is still based on the closed model of adoption, an Adult Information Act was introduced in 1985. This allowed both adoptees and birth parents to access previously sealed records. There is also a system in place whereby the child or the birth parent(s) may place a veto upon access to information (Law Commission, 2000).

While there is no doubt that the issue of information and tracing is sensitive and delicate to address, it is not insurmountable. It is important that Ireland learns from past mistakes and that, going forward, the commitment to maintaining accurate and detailed records by accredited adoption agencies is placed on a legal footing. Parkes and McCaughren (2013: 107) believe it is imperative that ‘new legislation contains a specific provision guaranteeing adopted children an unequivocal right to non-identifying birth information’ ¹⁰ and that this ‘statutory entitlement should have retrospective effect for current adoptees who have long awaited access to basic personal information’. Similarly, McGrath (2012) has called for the establishment of transparent, legislated access to birth certificates for adopted individuals. It has been well documented that some adopted individuals go to ‘extreme lengths’ in order to obtain such information, and ‘it seems cruel and unfair that they need to work so hard to get something so fundamental to their own development’ (McGrath, 2012: 246; Parkes and McCaughren, 2013).

It is now 62 years since adoption was first legislated for in Ireland and in line with many other countries, adopted persons should be entitled to apply for access to identifying information once they reach the age of 18 years. They should also be entitled to counselling services provided by the AAI or accredited agencies. It has additionally been proposed that, once an application for identifying information has been received by the AAI, the birth mother should be made aware of this and given the opportunity to veto it if she does not want her identity disclosed (Parkes and McCaughren, 2013). While there is currently an Information and Tracing Bill in preparation, it is anticipated that this piece of legislation will not give adopted persons any additional rights with regard to information and tracing.