NationStates Jolt Archive

Rights of Adoptee's Parents

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Description:
NOTING that some pregnancies are not on purpose, and may result in unwanted children.

OBSERVING that unwanted children tend to be abused, beaten, and otherwise deprived of a good life.

NOTING that adoption is a method of removing said unwanted children, which some people may prefer over abortion.

NOTING FURTHER that in some areas, when a parent gives their child up for adoption, they are not allowed to keep their identities secret from the adoptee, allowing him or her to track down the parent later on. The parent many times would like to forget about the child as much as possible, and pursue a "normal" life.

OBSERVING that this may deter some parents from giving their children up for adoption.

MANDATING:

1) That all parents who give their children up for adoption be given the choice to hide their identities from their child. They may also choose to have their names given, but have them be given with a request not to seek the parents. For couples, if one person wants to keep him/herself secret, they may do so without consent of the other person.

2) Parents must be informed that they have these choices.

3) That this choice is not to be affected by the government in ways including notices promoting one of the choices and prosecution for choosing one of the choices.

4) That no person is to breach the privacy, should the parents decide to keep their identities secret, with the sole exception of the person whose identity is being kept secret.

5) Medical history of the parents must be provided when they give their child up for adoption. Names must be removed from these documents should the parents decide to hide their identities.

6) That neither parent may be punished or prosecuted because of information contained in the history they provide.

STRONGLY SUGGESTING that, should a close relative of the child be diagnosed with a serious illness, that the parents contact the adoption agency or adoptive parents, and inform them of the possibility.


--------

Questions, comments, and constructive criticism is welcomed.

PLEASE, Don't post if all you want to say is that you don't like it. At this stage, I don't need to know yet. This hasn't even been put into the line yet. The purpose of this right now is to get the resolution to perfection BEFORE HAND, to ensure that it has the best chance of passing.

I like the idea, I agree with you, but I don't think this is an international matter. I also don't think your mandates are quite as good as they ought to be. I'll write a more in depth response in a bit.

I don't like it.

Because I think this is something best dealt with at the national level. Adoption is not something international law need concern itself with, at least not in the terms presented.

Nonetheless, I'll try to be constructive. I don't see the rationale for clause 5. Submitting whole medical records would seem to be a breach of confidentiality. Furthermore, it might discourage parents from giving children to state adoption agencies, if their medical records included details that might lead to their being placed under criminal suspicion.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

I actually made a proposal like this one a while ago and got the opposite argument. Most of the people back then said that the parents need to give medical history in case they have a Disease . But I think that it might be a good idea to put in a clause that the government can't prosecute from medical records given at the time of adoption. I'll start working on that.

Here it is. It goes right on the end of that long bunch of "MANDATING"

6) That neither parent may be punished or prosecuted because of information contained in the history they provide.

I'm only going to partially disagree with Ms JiffJeff on clause 5. There is great concern about confidentiality in this case and is possibly in conflict with other passed resolutions. However, I do understand the reasoning behind it - there are many institutions that ask for family history in various nations and not having access to this information would put the child at risk of not being able to access many of these facilities. There is also a (distant) consideration about whether it is pertinent for the child to know the family history in certain areas when it comes to possible future health concerns - but considering we're talking about increased risk rather than putting them AT risk (as in, we're not moving from 0% to 80% chance, but instead moving from 20% to 25%) on most of these diseases....it is a much smaller consideration.

The proposal, overall, I'm edgy about. It goes more heavily into the details issue while remaining capped on how deep it can go thanks to the character count. I'll need more time to consider what has been proposed before I can offer advice.

Ms JiffJeff
Mrs, please - I'm proud of my status, unlike those Wena-damned feminists.

There is also a (distant) consideration about whether it is pertinent for the child to know the family history in certain areas when it comes to possible future health concerns - but considering we're talking about increased risk rather than putting them AT risk (as in, we're not moving from 0% to 80% chance, but instead moving from 20% to 25%) on most of these diseases....it is a much smaller consideration.
Every child of a Huntingdon's chorea parent is at at least 50% risk of contraction. I was not saying there were not certain cases where it would be very important to obtain detailed records - I was simply noting that even given that, there is a confidentiality aspect.

Well, the names are removed, and there's now a clause that says that the parents can't be prosecuted because of the medical history, so I'm not sure what else I can put in there. Please do make suggestions, though.

although well intentioned, I must agree with the other delegates that this proposal is somewhat ill sited to international legislation. Not only due to it's general nature, but because varying cultures, pre-existing legislation and other difficulties make this a proposal that shouldn't be passed in my opinion.

However, the overal issue is still one worth considering, perhaps something more to due with the treatment of orphans, and minimum standards regarding who can adopt them, and how they must be treated are in order?

You need to have more mandates on the adoptors. For example, they should have to sign a document concerning the child, in question, about full medical and education needs. Also the adoptors should also have to report to the child welfare service at least twice a month for a certain amount of years. This should be done so the welfare service can remove the child from the home if need be.

Twice a month is a bit much, don't you think? I agree that the adoptor(s) should have to show that they're treating the child right, but I think that may go beyond the scope of the resolution. And placing restrictions on who may or may not adopt not only goes beyond the resolution, but may also interfere with other international debates. For instance, don't want this to be a debate about gay people being able to adopt, when the resolution is intended to help people with unwanted children.

I would say it is probably too limited in scope, but also might be a problem with national sovereignity. I see a problem with the second OBSERVING clause - many nations may want to discourage adoption.

And what would you suggest I replace it with?

BTW, I will be submitting the proposal this Saturday. So please come up with SPECIFIC problems that stay with in the scope. This resolution is to ENCOURAGE ADOPTION, as a means of removing children from homes where they are not wanted.

What about cross-border adoptions? Would mentioning them be worthwhile, and do they need any extra rules?

What about cross-border adoptions? Would mentioning them be worthwhile, and do they need any extra rules?

A very good point. Where most people consider adoption a matter not needing of attention from the UN, cross-border adoption could well be. Do some research about that, as I'm sure you could be onto something in the international case.

What about cross-border adoptions? Would mentioning them be worthwhile, and do they need any extra rules?

If the other nation is a UN nation, then it wouldn't need any extra rules. However, if it isn't, then there will be a need for additional rules.

I'm not entirely convinced there should be international legislation on this topic, but why not...

The rationale for this resolution seems to hinge on this:


The parent many times would like to forget about the child as much as possible, and pursue a "normal" life.

OBSERVING that this may deter some parents from giving their children up for adoption.

Which is probably a valid observation, but how many parents would decide to keep an unwanted child out of fear that the child will later track them down if put up for adoption? It seems a somewhat shaky reason to deny a child knowledge of the identity of his or her biological parents.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

OFFICIAL MESSAGE
I still agree with the other representitives that Adoption should be something that individual nations should write legislation on and not a matter concerning the United Nations as a whole. Also, might i remind the estemed deligate from the Nation of Teklet that the United Nations cannot dictate policy to nations that are Not members of the United Nations. This is just something for you to think about.

George A. Loak
Emperor
The Dark Empire of Shazbotdom

I know the UN can't dictate policy on non-UN nations. Thank you for pointing that out for me. I needed a reminder, I guess. Thanks again.

Robert Matthews
Teklet Department of Foreign Affairs

I know the UN can't dictate policy on non-UN nations. Thank you for pointing that out for me. I needed a reminder, I guess. Thanks again.

Robert Matthews
Teklet Department of Foreign Affairs