Overcoming Discrimination

by Renee and Michael van Campen

It is surprising to most that in this day and age, discrimination still exists against adopted children. What makes this worse is that things used to be different. In 1983, the federal government recognized the unique situation of adoptive parents by introducing 15- weeks adoptive parent benefits to parallel the 15 weeks of maternity benefits available to biological parents. This was a major victory for the adoptive community, as it abolished a major source of discrimination against adopted children and their families. However, in 1990, a biological father challenged the fairness of only the mother being entitled to maternity leave. The result of this court case was the introduction of a 10- week parental benefit that either parent could take (one or the other, not both. Biological parents became entitled to 25 weeks of benefits, while adoptive parents became entitled to only 10 weeks of parental benefits because the adoption benefits were cancelled.

For the past seven years, adoptive parents all over Canada have been fighting to have the adoption benefits reinstated. The case to bring equal employment insurance benefits to adoptive and biological parents is currently being played out in the Ontario courts. Two women successfully challenged the government's position. Unfortunately, this victory was appealed by the federal government and the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the original decision this past August. The case is now headed for the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, Canadian law continues to discriminate against families who adopt children. As this case progresses, it is becoming increasingly clear that the best way to change the legislation is not necessarily through the courts. A more productive route may be to campaign our members of parliament to make the necessary changes to end the discrimination.

Members of parliament need to know that the emotional and psychological strain on adoptive parents is significant. With any new child, there is a sense of anticipation, happiness and excitement, followed by the usual disruption in schedules and sleep patterns. However, adoptive parents, in contrast to biological parents, must also face the worries of caring for a child from an often unknown background, with possible health and/or psychological problems. They must accept that this child may have lived in a crisis situation, may have been abused physically and /or emotionally, and may have unknown or undiagnosed medical conditions. Adoptive parents must also cope with the possibility that birth parents may seek out their child at a future date, and live with the scrutiny of a social worker and/or psychologist for the first few months after adoption.

The majority of adoptions taking place in British Columbia are international adoptions. Many of these children have spent most of their lives in orphanages. With the promise of a better life, these children are being pulled away from all that is familiar to them. They move to new countries with different languages and cultures, and they go from being one child in a group of many children, to being part of a much smaller family. They learn what it is like to be loved and cherished, but they need to adjust and bond with their new families. With the way society is today, it is pretty much a given that both parents are required to work in order to sustain the family. Those that can afford to stay home with their children (adopted or biological) are few. The federal government supports biological families staying home and bonding with their children for 25 weeks. Should it be any different for adopted children?

With the inception of BC's New Adoption Act in November 1996, the costs involved in adopting have also risen dramatically. The cost for an international adoption averages from $20,000 to $30,000, and although the cost of a domestic adoption is lower, the average wait for a domestic adoption is over eight years. Rising costs teamed with the lack of an adoption benefit have put the costs of adoption out of reach for many families.

As parents we feel that the Employment Insurance Adoptive Parent Benefit should be reinstated to assist adoptive parents in meeting the financial challenges of adoption. Doing so would enable more families to spend that critical time bonding with their new children instead of working or worrying about finances. Also, more couples might choose to adopt if they could count on the same or similar benefits afforded to couples who have biological children. This alone would make reinstating the benefit worthwhile.

Cost savings to government are another reason for reinstating the benefit. We would like to use our own family history as a case study to illustrate how government can reduce overall costs through the removal of financial burdens associated with adoption.

Michael and I are the proud parents of a two-and-one-half-year-old little girl (Jordyn,) our biological daughter. I have had two open heart surgeries to repair a defective valve; the second operation occurred when I was six months pregnant with out first daughter, who unfortunately, did not survive the surgery. Given this second operation, we were undaunted in trying to have another child, and we are eternally grateful to the medical profession for enabling us to bring Jordyn into our family with my second pregnancy. We are also thankful for the full maternity and parental benefits offered by this country.

We have conservatively estimated the cost to government for the medical attention throughout the two pregnancies to be well over $200,000. We had originally thought to attempt another pregnancy, but due to potential health complications, concluded that adoption was a more acceptable route.

Given that our decision was a health issue and a financial one (as it may have been in another country,) we were very bemused to discover the discrimination towards adoptive parents. If we had chosen to have another biological child, the taxpayers would have picked up the tab for all the medical intervention required, AND I would have been entitled to full maternity benefits.

We are sure that a number of couples who choose to adopt are doing so because having a biological child is considered a high risk and a great deal of medical intervention would be required. If they are discouraged from adopting due to high and unfair costs, we are sure that they will opt to have their own children, which will cost taxpayers significantly more than the cost of the adoptive parent benefit. As a matter of fact, if only a few couples like us were persuaded to adopt children, the medical savings alone would easily cover the cost of the adoptive parent benefit. At a time when all levels of government are looking at ways to save money, some "quick wins" are being missed!

If you feel that adopted children are being discriminated against and that they deserve more time at home to bond with their new families, please lobby your members of parliament to change the legislation. Please feel free to include a copy of this article to support your views.