Provincial Adoption
  News   &  Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

News

        On August 6, 1974, Joan Vanstone got a call from a social worker named Honor Mowinckel of the then B. C. Ministry of Human Resources to advise that her background information was ready to be picked up.  Truth in adoption in Canada took a giant step forward that day.  The seed of Parent Finders had been planted. 

Joan was an adoptee who did not know she was adopted until age 16 but after that secret was finally disclosed, her adopting parents would not talk about the matter any further without a row and tears.  Initially, they said they knew nothing of her background, but upon further questioning, scraps of information gradually came out.   Although very happy in her adopted home, this isolation from her past would haunt Joan for many years.

    "In all of us there is a hunger, marrow-deep, to know our heritage, to know who we are --- and where we have come from.  Without this enriching knowledge, there is a hollow yearning, there is the most disquieting --- loneliness."
                                                                                        Alex Hailey
                                                                                            "Roots"

After giving birth to two sons and a daughter, the social and medical need to know became so compelling that Joan finally contacted the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver in April 1974 to ask if they had even one sentence about her past somewhere in their files.  It took four months for the CAS to find the file but at last she had a past and it was an incredible high to finally learn about her original birth background.  She went on to search for her birth parents, sadly finding both of them dead, but she did find a birth half-brother (now deceased) and a birth half-sister who lives in Springfield, Oregon. 

Honor Mowinckel sponsored a meeting of area social workers to have Joan and two other adoptees explain their feelings as adult adoptees in an effort to better educate adoption professionals.  After that meeting, the three adoptees decided to form a search and support group and the first official meeting was held in October of 1974 in Joan's living room.  The name PARENT FINDERS was chosen by the original 15 members to signify to adoptees in search that they could find help and understanding at Parent Finders.

Assistance was sought and generously given by Jean Paton of the Orphan Voyage group in the United States.  After an adoption article about Parent Finders was published in MacLean's magazine in the spring of 1975, Patricia Richardson of Toronto contacted Joan  and she promptly started the Parent Finders - Toronto group.  The word spread rapidly across Canada and the U. S., the phones started to ring and adoptees and birth parents came forward asking for help.

Given today's attitudes about the status of adoption, single parenting and even same-sex adoptions, it is hard to imagine how suppressed adoptees were 30 years ago.   Most calls from adoptees of that day were coming from adults, some over 50 or 60 years of age, who had never before discussed the subject of their adoptive status with anyone.  Parent Finders was their first ray of hope for relief from the crushing isolation of their secret.  Voices on the other end of the phone were initially soft, hesitant, and stilted as they struggled to express feelings and questions that had been suppressed for so long.  Today's new contacts are usually self-confident  voices that have grown up in a much more enlightened culture.  Parent Finders takes great pride in the role it has played in achieving openness and understanding in adoption reform in Canada.   Today there are 20 Parent Finders groups across Canada and 2 in the U. S. providing search and support services.  Joan is still at her desk managing the head office in Delta, B. C. as National Director and Registrar of the computerized Canadian Adoption Reunion Register data base which now contains over 59,000 records. 

Over the years many dedicated and generous volunteer adoptees and birth relatives have joined the open records movement in Canada in the best grass roots tradition.  Parent Finders groups have provided the services that should have been provided by the Social Services Ministries in the Provinces and Territories and have lobbied to have adoption information services made available to all members of the adoption community.  As of our 34th Anniversary in October 2008, all Provinces and Territories provide reunion search and support services, some better than others.  Parent Finders participated in establishing the open records legislation in B. C. in 1996 with 3 representatives on the Adoption Advisory and Consultative Committee.  All Parent Finders groups across Canada have pressured politicians and bureaucrats to provide improved adoption services, stressing the best interests of the child as mandated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child..  Parent Finders will continue to lead the way in adoption reform and co-operate with all groups working in adoption reform.    

All our members, past and present, can feel justly proud of a job well done.  Parent Finders is living proof of the power of truly motivated volunteers whose goal has always been to promote openness and understanding in adoption.  We look forward to the day when Parent Finders services will no longer be needed, and Governments will provide equal access to original birth records for adoptees and non-adoptees without discrimination of any kind.  Provincial and Territorial Governments must solve the problem by providing total access to adoption records for all adult adoptees and the birth parents of adult adoptees.  We would be pleased to see Parent Finders put out of business by enactment of Open Records legislation in all Provinces and Territories. 

 

 

 

        All the confusion and distress of adoptees' genealogical bewilderment has it's roots in archaic adoption law, which, at the time of it's enactment, may have seemed fair and reasonable to the customs of the 1930's when secrecy and shame were connected to a birth out of wedlock, then known as an "illegitimate birth".

Social workers and adults made decisions on the future well-being of the infant - but there was no advocate solely safeguarding the life-long best interests of the child.  The infant was just an object, being transferred by adoption from being the child of the birth mother to the lawfully adopted child of the adopting parents.  There was no consideration given to the legal and moral rights of adoptees to know all their medical and genealogical heritage.  Consequently, only the interests of the birth parents and adopting parents were considered in the adoption process.  Given the (then) stigma of illegitimate birth, it is not surprising that secrecy was a prominent consideration.  It has taken over twenty five years to educate Provincial and Territorial Governments and raise their awareness that the old adoption laws are discriminatory and in violation of the Canadian Human Rights legislation.  Parent Finders have been in the forefront of lobbying for open records legislation and access to the information contained in adoption files on behalf of adopted persons, birth relatives and adopting parents.    

During the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies (NRGT) Commission hearings and in the subsequent report issued from these hearings, it became obvious that the same mistakes were about to be made all over again with respect to the rights of children born through the use of these new techniques.  This time a new generation of children were about to be condemned to a life time of genetic anonymity even more crushing that the anonymity imposed upon adopted persons.  In their rush to satisfy the needs of couples unable to conceive in the usual manner, the medical community have developed a whole new industry to serve what may be viewed as a new and lucrative consumer market. 

HISTORY MUST NOT REPEAT ITSELF!

Parent Finders felt compelled to enter the debate and position themselves as an Advocate For the Child.  Parent Finders are not consumers nor users of any NRGT services, but are, in a truly altruistic sense, stepping in to  act as a Guardian figure for the children as yet unborn.  In the United States where the procedures are unregulated, NRGT has been running out of control.  Law suits and custody fights over which party own the sperm and embryos in a divorce action or in the event of the death of one of the parties are becoming all too commonplace.  Legal guidelines must be established to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of the child against the self-serving motivations of parents who will go to any lengths to conceive and Doctors who are only too willing to charge whatever it takes to satisfy the desires of their patients (clients?).  Technologies driven by profit often go wrong, and where the life of a child is concerned the new legislation must be written with the best interests of the child as it's paramount objective.  All other interests must take second place.

Prospective NRGT parents are urged to look down the road to the future needs of the child they wish to have and raise, to the time when he or she will approach adulthood.  Your desire for a child is a natural longing but by only considering your needs to conceive now, you may seriously impair the foundation of your parenting role by forfeiting your child's future medical and mental health.  All that is required to satisfy both needs is donor identification, access to records and an open, honest approach to the subject of conception.  Talk to today's adult adoptees.  You will find that generous parenting will not take the place of honest answers - secrecy and deceit can not produce a loving and healthy family relationship.  

In 1996 Health - Canada brought in a moratorium with which fertility clinics in Canada were supposed to comply. In spite of this moratorium,  a recent Health - Canada audit found that, of the 47 clinics in Canada, nine were found to have not carried out specific screening and testing procedures of sperm imported  from the United States.  As at June 3, 1999, two Canadian clinics had not reported back to Health-Canada whether they were properly testing sperm for implant purposes for HIV, Hepatitis C and other diseases.  The medical profession who are involved with fertility clinics, are not in favour of regulations governing their activities.  They seem to espouse a  We are the Doctors, we know best, leave the important decisions to us  type of attitude.  They are resisting regulations which would inhibit their ability to do whatever they choose in order to deliver a healthy baby to couples soliciting their services.  Secrecy of donors is still being proposed as the only way that donors will come forward.  We have heard of cases where donor secrecy was accomplished and guaranteed by mixing the sperm of several donors .  Parent Finders considers this practice reprehensible!  

Commercialization and marketing considerations are being placed ahead of the future needs of the child.   Payment for sperm and treatment for embryo donors is continuing in most parts of North America and the United Kingdom.   However, several countries in Europe have outlawed payment for reproductive materials.  Some unidentified so-called experts have put forward the view that if anonymity and payments to donors is made unlawful, then the supply of materials will dry up.  Some clinics have been advertising on the Internet and in college newspapers for donors in order to stock up prior to pending new legislation in Canada.  Our answer is:  Are donors who need to hide from the product of their genes a good source of character?  Only donors who have the strength of character to forego anonymity should be considered as worthy donors.

The law clearly states that no one can buy or sell a baby.  Therefore it must be equally illegal to buy and sell the parts used to create a baby.  The idea of some fertility clinics asking couples who have 'left over' embryos to donate them to be 'adopted' by other couples is incredibly immoral in view of the laws of consanguinity which forbid marriage between brothers and sisters.  Anonymity in NRGT procedures increases dramatically the possibility of such forbidden relationships when NRGT babies, 20 years down the road, have absolutely no idea of who their possible brothers and sisters may be.  

Over the last 40 plus years since Artificial Insemination has been practiced, we feel that it is fair to say that most parents have failed to tell their offspring that they are not the product of familial material but of an anonymous sperm donor.  These donor created persons are at risk because they also have no medical history from the sperm donor and secrecy has perpetuated the risk to their offspring as well.  This generation of people created through anonymous donor sources are increasingly coming forward to fight for their rights and to condemn secrecy and lies in NRGT procedures past, present and in the future.

Minister Allan Rock and the Health - Canada policy staff are presently working on draft legislation to table a New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies bill in the Fall 1999 session.  The new bill will replace Bill C-47 which died on the order paper in the Spring of 1996 when an election was called.  

This is the most important piece of legislation moving into the year 2000 and it will vitally affect the lives of generations of Canadians as yet unborn.  Parent Finders urges everyone reading this message to fax (613) 952-1154 or write to Minister of Health Ann McLellan at House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6, urging him to bring in New Reproductive & Genetic Technologies legislation to serve the best interest of the child.  The bill must be written in clear language, stipulating that all names and histories of donors must be preserved permanently.  Regulations accompanying the Act must specify methods of storage and sharing of this vital information with persons born of any NRGT procedure at any age. This information must also be available to the guardian of an under-aged child where it is needed to safeguard that child's health, safety and well being. Regulations must also include regular inspections of clinics, and all medical personnel, counsellors, etc. must be subject to standards of training and background review.  Strict penalties under the law must govern all persons engaged in NRGT processes.  Legislation must be established covering the disposal of unused NRGT materials and custody issues must be addressed.  Adoption of embryos must be banned.

Legal responsibility for and accountability to the child must be clearly defined in law and if a child is born mentally or physically handicapped, the parties involved in the creation of that child must assume full responsibility for the child's life time care.  The child cannot simply be dropped off at the nearest Children's Aid Society, as suggested by a reporter for a national Canadian newspaper.  That was her solution to the arrival of an infant born with physical or mental problems.          

The new legislation must be retroactive to cover all New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies procedures which have taken place over time in Canada in order to guarantee equality between children already born and those who will be born in the future.  The rights of children as guaranteed under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child must be the cornerstone around which new NRGT legislation is written.   

PARENT FINDERS is committed to act as an Advocate For The Child and welcome your participation in this most important process.

For further information or comment, please contact: 

 PARENT FINDERS OF CANADA
 19 English Bluff Road
 Delta,  BC,  V4M 2M4

Tel:  (604) 948-1069
Fax:  (604) 948-2036
e-mail  jkelly@shaw.ca        

 

 

Dear Sir, 

Since you seem to have taken an interest in this issue, I thought I would direct some of my opinions and thoughts on it to you.  First - I am an adopted person who had no information about my past or genetic or medical origins until I was approximately 35 years old.  Then as the mother of 3 teenage children, I finally refused to live any longer without background history and medical information.  I took matters in my own hands, searched for and found the biological and historic facts of my creation.  This was a health, safety and well being issue and the information which had previously been denied to me cut right to the core of who I am as a whole human being.  There are no words to fully describe the joy and liberation finding my lost past brought to me at the deepest level.  It is quite probable that only another adoptee can fully understand the value of that liberation of spirit.  What is needed on the part of media people such as yourself, is respect for and an acceptance of the fact that the need for knowledge of one’s biological background is an absolutely essential component or building block in the very foundation of one’s being. 

Because secrets and lies were part of my growing up, I feel that secrets, lies and deception must not be passed on to children created through Artificial Insemination or through any New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies (NGRT).  The bureaucratic obstruction and interference that was built into the old adoption laws must not be allowed to corrupt the NRGT legislation.  Adoptees can tell you what it is to live with unanswered questions about "who am I" - they are really the only true resource. Only adoptees have experienced the deep unresolved grief that can result from a hidden past.  Doctors, lawyers and so called “professionals” cannot speak from life experience and they do not know how it feels to have parts of your basic identity hidden from you in government files controlled by politicians and bureaucrats.  Their protests to the contrary aside, professionals have a vested commercial interest in NRGT.  There is nothing altruistic in their contributions to this debate - there is an enormous potential market in satisfying the needs of infertile couples and others wishing to add a child to their life.  The professionals can see their own interests on  a clear and parallel path with those of the needy parents; but who is looking out for the future needs of the resultant child.  Just as early adoption legislation failed to consider the future needs of the child, so the professionals are allowing short-sightedness to enhance their own interests.  We believe that the child to be created is the potential victim of science running out of control in laboratories.  This is being treated as consumer legislation when it should be human rights legislation.  We pray that the media and ultimately the politicians will be able to see through the professional’s fervent assurances that NGRT is good for society.  It is only “good” for the clinics, doctors, lawyers, and consultants.  In the short term, it may also be good for the prospective parents, but eighteen or twenty years down the road, those parents are going to find it extremely difficult to explain to their “child” about it’s biological background.  They should be considering the quality of relationship they hope to have with the child and, hopefully, they will realize that the rights of the child to be able to identify the source of their genetics and medical history must be paramount.

 The Government, Doctors, clinics, lawyers and adults who would presume to create a child through NRGT procedures would seem to me to be vicariously liable for any harm done to a fetus created through NRGT.  That is, liable to prosecution by the child after their birth because the above persons could be viewed as joint abusers in the process of causing the child to be born without due consideration of the child's best interests.  If physical damage occurs to the child created through NRGT then those parties to the creation must be liable for their joint actions in the process.  How would you apportion blame if a child is born physically or mentally imperfect through science playing God?

 As far as I read, no one is looking at NRGT from the child's perspective at twenty years down the road when they want to know who they are.  To hide the truth of a child's conception through NRGT is to set up a dishonest relationship between parents and child from the very beginning.  It is a child's human right to have an open and honest relationship with their parent figures or caregivers.  Laboratory rats who are experimented upon have no rights, but children created through NRGT must have their human rights protected in any new Federal legislation and their rights must be viewed as paramount before all other considerations.   The term "best interests of the child" was coined around 1890 and it meant that a child is a separate being.  (Senator Anne Cools made this statement during the recent Committee Hearings with respect to child custody and access matters and the proposed changes to the Divorce Act.)  The rights of the child must be separated from the wishes of the parents to achieve a pregnancy.

 Most members of the general public are quick to recognize the rights of the child but they do not seem to realize that children, by their age, are not able to fight for their rights.  Therefore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section on age is violated every time children's human rights are ignored or just plain forgotten about.  I am determined to fight for children's rights in this issue because they cannot speak for themselves.  They will be the ones who will have to go through life not knowing where they came from, who their blood relatives are, who they may or may not marry because of the laws of consanguinity, what their medical history is.  They will be forced to live with a disquieting emptiness simply because two adults wanted to become parents and could not see beyond that need.  I do not have a problem with a couple using available technology and their own reproductive materials to achieve a pregnancy; but where the eggs or sperm of a stranger are used, the child would realize that their genetic makeup is from unknown or hidden sources and without full disclosure of that information, their life would be continually haunted by those “ghosts”; and furthermore, placed in peril both medically in the area of consanguinity.

 In the event of Divorce, the custody of unused familial reproductive material must be decided on the basis of a future child's rights as embodied in the embryos.  Disposal would eliminate any sale or use for research purposes of this

Material, or misuse by one of the donor parties.  How a child would feel upon being told that he or she was conceived through an "adopted embryo" is incomprehensible to me as an adopted person.  Having your own children is said to be a first choice, adoption  a second choice.  Is Artificial Insemination the third choice and adopting someone else's left over embryos the last resort?  My mother taught me that "man proposes but God disposes."  Man cannot presume to play God in the laboratory!  Adoption of non-familial embryos must be banned -the future child must not be sold or traded in this manner - it is morally repugnant!

 The physician's oath exhorts doctors "to do no harm".  Doctors always ask for family medical history in order to arrive at a diagnosis of a medical condition.  Adoptees have been unable to complete these forms for generations.  How will an embryo from a non-familial source answer the family medical history questions?

 How can an unborn child be consulted and agree to be created through NRGT?  The obvious fact is that they cannot participate in the process that would put them on this earth, but that does not mean that they have no rights in the process.

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the Charter of Human Rights, to both of which Canada is a signatory, clearly states that:

 Law must be enacted to limit the right of private parties to use or trade personal information without prior consent of the affected parties to the instances in which a service to the common good clearly and significantly exceeds any dis-services to individuals.  The child is currently left out of the process and therefore their human rights are violated.  The wishes of parents to have a child cannot override the right of the child to choose to be born.  Impossible dilemna you say - no there is a solution.  Put the child's rights first and all other decisions must then flow from that premise.  If the transfer of embryos from unrelated sources is not in the child's best interests then this practice must be totally banned in Canada.  Once related embryo material is no longer wanted by the donors, it must be destroyed to avoid incest problems and not shopped around like unwanted household goods or out-of-fashion clothing in a resale store.  In the case of unrelated embryo material, it must not be saved for adoption or for research purposes - we are not talking about animal experiments here - we are talking about human beings with feelings and human needs.

 In order to protect the human rights of the child, there must be no secrecy of donors.  If a donor is not willing to submit full identifying and medical and family history to be preserved and shared with the child then that person cannot be allowed to be a donor.  At the moment there are thousands of artificial insemination persons who will never know the names of their birth father because so called professionals and experts failed to preserve and guard the identify of those donors.  So called experts did not look at AI from the eyes of the child - they only provided service to the consumers who were paying their usually high fees. What court actions lie ahead from the children already created through lack of proper long-term record keeping and destruction of donor records?

Yes, Dennis, I do have tunnel vision on this issue - the best interests of vulnerable children who cannot speak for themselves translates to the unanswered questions and problems of those children when they reach adulthood.  We must not impose the worst problems of secrecy and lies in adoption upon a whole new generation of children as yet unborn.  We have the opportunity to make legislation now that will regulate the NRGT industry and make it a criminal offense to breach the laws as set down in new legislation at the Federal level.  The Provinces must also write similar law and fully comply with all childrens' rights as set down in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and the Charter of Human Rights.

 Sincerely,

Joan E. Vanstone

   

 

HAS THE SYSTEM PROPERLY SERVED ADOPTEES?

·         Recent discussions on electronic media reveal anger and frustration with the inadequacies and inequities inherent in past adoption practices.  

Parent Finders has been lobbying to make politicians, social workers and government clerks understand that it is contrary to the Human Rights Code, Charter of Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to continue to discriminate against adopted persons and birth parents through archaic sealed records practices that hark back to the 1930's.  I am now in my 30th year working as an unpaid volunteer trying to achieve open records legislation in every Province and Territory in Canada.  Birth parents, adopting parents and adoptees have come a long way since Parent Finders was founded in August of 1974, but the culture of government secrecy and control dies hard.

Adoptees gave no informed consent to their adoption. They gave no informed consent to secrecy provisions being applied to their adoption file information.  They gave no informed consent to Vital Statistics Agencies to amend their original birth registration or to censor or delete their original surname from their original birth registration document or Order of Adoption.  In B. C., if a birth parent places a Disclosure Veto, the adopted person's birth surname is blacked out and that birthright is being stolen from them. This censorship and interference does not happen  to non-adopted persons.

Adoptees never gave informed consent to censorship being applied to identifying information contained in their personal adoption file. 

Adoptees never gave informed consent to any government agent or Ministry to grant  privacy to their birth parents  No wording appears on any Consent to Adoption document providing a birth parent confidentiality from their child.  The documents  state that upon adoption all legal and parental rights and responsibilities are extinguished.  Birth parents repeatedly state that they did not ask for confidentiality, it was forced upon them by social workers. 

Adoptees never gave informed consent to secrecy that would deny them their birth name, genetic medical information or hereditary background information.

The politicians and bureaucrats do not explain these oversights. They are not held accountable for their actions in adoption matters.  They claim that social workers and adopting parents, set up a system to take care of children in need of a permanent home.  Within ten days after the birth, social workers moved in to obtain the mother's signature on the Consent to Adoption document.  New adopted parents had been chosen by social workers and the child was placed in their new home.  At this point the child's rights were in the hands of adults who were serving their own interests and needs.  The child  was being cut off from their roots and medical heritage and a new identity was being created for them.   No Advocate was appointed for the child to safeguard the child's rights then or in the future.  We are compelled to ask how this process could have been viewed as being “in the best interests of the child".

Adoptees do not have the right, upon reaching the age of majority, to speak for themselves and give informed consent to any of the procedures that the old Adoption Acts in Canada have systemically, over time, forced them to live by. 

On November 4, 1996, the new B. C. Adoption Act came into effect recognizing the rights and needs of adopted persons, birth parents and adopting parents.  Adult adoptees and birth parents, named on the Vital Statistics Registration of Birth, can now  request identifying information about each other.  However, a Disclosure Veto plus what Parent Finders believe are excessive censorship practices, allow government employees control over information contained in adoption files. 

Children being adopted after November 4, 1996 have access to all identifying birth information in their adoption file without censorship.  This is blatant discrimination, based on age, being applied to all adoptions which took place under the old Adoption Act.  All adopted persons, no matter what age, must have equal access to information from the Vital Statistics Agency and adoption files without discrimination of any kind.   

The B. C. Adoption Act, which is the most progressive in Canada at the moment, does not address background information contained in adoption files.  Speaking directly with the Manager of Adoptions, she stated that 'because background information is not specifically addressed in the Adoption Act, the Ministry For Children and Families must apply Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation to adoption files'.  What a stunning oversight!  Or was it a convenient way for government to give themselves an excuse to censor adoption files and therefore control the flow of information.  Parent Finders are currently addressing this problem with the Adoption Division in B. C.

Adoptees are not emancipated when they attain the legal age of 18 or 19, as are all other Canadian citizens.  Adoptees remain as part of an analogous group created by government mandated adoption policies.  When you discriminate against adopted persons you additionally discriminate against the parties they are related to both by birth and adoption.  

Any one of the above constraints may be behind the feeling of helplessness that many adoptees and birth parents live with. Even adopting parents have suffered in their relationship with their adopted child/adult because they were not given the information from adoption files that they needed to answer the question 'who were my original parents'.  They were usually given very little medical information to share with their family Doctor.  There is no system to update medical information as the birth mother (or birth father) ages and encounters other serious illnesses.  Adopted persons and their offspring have no access to full disclosure of medical history which is so vital to their health, safety and well being.  

Secrecy and lies have benefited no one and we truly believe that they are the root cause of much of the bewilderment, discontent, frustration and anger felt by some members of the adoption community.  Anger, is the result of extreme frustration over the secrecy and helplessness forced upon adoptees and birth relatives by social workers, many now long gone from the adoption scene.  The secrecy mind-set is still being practiced by some adoption reunion register staff who wrongly feel it is their duty to control the information they give out to adoptees and birth relatives.  They place their primary focus on privacy instead of on openness.  I repeat, old secrecy habits die hard.

Sincerely,

Joan Vanstone,
Parent Finders of Canada

New Parent Finders Affiliate Group in Toronto

   The founding meeting of the Adoption Support Kinship group was held on February 7, 2001.  Their focus is on adoption reunion, search and support.  They will meet monthly on the first Wednesday of every month at the Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor Street West (at Huron, one block east of Spadina) at 7:30 pm.

            Adoption Support Kinship  (ASK)              Telephone: (416) 410-7021
            20 Bloor Street East                                    E-mail  askto@look.ca
            P.O. Box 75040
            Toronto,  Ontario  M4W 3T3
    

            PARENT FINDERS has been asked to post the following request for birth mothers to participate in a very interesting research project.  Since the feelings and needs of young birth mothers have never been properly acknowledged and recorded we feel that this type of research project is long overdue.  Parent Finders have listened to the sorrow and unresolved grief that many birth mothers live with for years after they have had to relinquish their child and this study will provide a valuable historical record.  The details are as follows:

Were You Once a Pregnant Teenager?

       Were you once a teen who became pregnant in Canada between 1945 and 1962?  If so, and you would like to contribute to a historical study of this subject by agreeing to participate in a taped interview, please contact me at the following address or email.

Dr Sharon Wall
History Program,  University of Northern BC
3333 University Way
Prince George,  BC  V2N 4Z9

email:  swall0@unbc.ca  

Please describe your family background and geographic location at the time of your pregnancy.  More complete details and an application regarding informed consent will be mailed to you before any interview is undertaken.

NOTE:   If you are responding by email, please make sure that your spam filter is not active or that you add my email to your safe list.  Otherwise my response to your email will be rejected and I will have no way of contacting you.