Disclosure - DivX Version (Normal Quality), DVD (Good Quality), PDA Version
|
IMDB rating: 5.80 Plot: With his company about to merge, a happily married and successful computer expert is expecting a promotion. Instead the job goes to a woman from another plant with whom he had an affair in his bachelor days. His new boss, not only dangerously sexy but equally dangerously ambitious, tries to pick up where they left off but he just about manages to resist. As his position at work comes under increasing pressure he decides to file charges of sexual harassment. This is the last thing the company needs. |
Available versions:
DivX Version (Normal Quality), DVD (Good Quality), PDA Version
Actors: Douglas Michael,Sutherland Donald,Baker David,Baker Dylan,Miller Dennis,Sadler Nicholas,Urla Joe,Chieffo Michael,Attanasio Joseph,Drama,Thriller,
how could unsealing records cause harm?
"Under the new system, adoptees and birth parents can access records that were previously sealed. Adoptees can learn their original name, and birth parents can learn the current name of a child they placed for adoption. These details could ultimately lead to reuniting a long-separated parent and child.
There are now four Canadian provinces which have unsealed their adoption records: British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Newfoundland. However Ontario remains the only province without a "disclosure veto", which would allow anyone to keep their records sealed if they specifically requested it.
The Ontario legislation does give birth parents and adoptees the option to request they not be contacted (a "contact veto"), but to keep their records sealed they would need to prove to the Child and Family Services Review Board that revealing their identifying information would cause harm."
I am not adopted but two of my brothers are. They are Haitian. My mom ensures that they have regular contact with their father (they call him once a month) and has pics of their other sibling and family all over the house. There is no way she could deny that they aren’t hers biologicaly… she is caucasian and they are very very dark skinned.
We know that it is absolutly in their best interest to keep them as connected as possible to their roots. I can not imagine telling them that they are not alloud to know about their birth parents.
why would some people think that revealing such info would be harmful?
yeah… 10 provinces and 3 territories
i know not many have nsealed them but hey… it’s a start =)
mommy with puppies… you are right. I’m not saying what my mom does is always the right way… i just wanted to better understand the issue… and you make a very good point
We are the very rare case where a reunion could cause harm. Our son’s mother has tried to kill him twice and is mentally ill. He can know and meet the extended family, but the decree specifically forbids any contact with her whatsoever.
Rosie | Nov 18, 2009
There are two things people fear the most (should I’ve said some people?), anyways… these things are, number 1: Fear to change; and number 2: Fear too much information.
The might just be some of this people with fear to have/give too much info. So, just take calmly.
Now, on the other hand you mentioned four provinces and Ontario (total 5 provinces), Isn’t there more provinces up in Canada?
Sephard | Nov 18, 2009
My husband is adopted and we are in Ontario. He has no desire to meet his parents as he feels like he already has the parents he wants. Him meeting his parents would not be harmful, however his younger sister, who is also adopted has a very different birth history and her birth mother has a number of problems. If she were to meet her mom she might be harmed by knowing what she really comes from since she is only 15 and still very impressionable. My mother-in-law has explained to her what her birth-mothers problems are, however it would be totally different to actually meet her and see how she really is…
Just because contact with your brother’s biological family works for you doesn’t mean it works for everyone
Mommy of 1 baby and 2 puppies! | Nov 18, 2009
Ontario does actually have a veto. I attached a link to the post adoption info for ontario.
I’m not sure how unsealing records could actually cause harm, but it’s been an argument for those in favor of keeping things locked up tight for a long long time.
Anha S | Nov 18, 2009
I’m wondering about someone who is now a member of an extremely strict religious sect, where if they found out she’d had a child years earlier she might be shunned or thrown out of it? We might think that would be a _good_ thing, but as an adult it’s her choice to make.
And it definitely might be in a child’s best interest for a parent not to be able to find out where they are, if, say, the parent had attempted to kill them.
In the vast majority of cases, though, no, it wouldn’t be harmful.
cathrl69 | Nov 18, 2009
This is mostly from what I understand to protect the first mothers who don’t want their dirty laundry aired. In cases of rape and incest, these women feel traumatized and that the trauma would reappear. Some didn’t tell their husbands that they had a child out of wedlock. No mother wants her own (other) kids to look at her like she’s a whore and this worries a had full of women.
I personally don’t agree with it at all, but that’s just me. I think that time should if not heal some things at least put enough distance between them that they can stand up and acknowledge the children they did in fact give birth to. I think its cruel to reject a person under these circumstances because they are not the one who perpetrated the crime, or the lie that made them a secret.
smarmy | Nov 18, 2009
There is a big difference between allowing adults to have the information and what they MIGHT do with that information. I don’t see any harm from being allowed to have information about your own birth or the child you gave birth to.
That being said, I would place certain restrictions on it.
The "child" must be at least 18.
Either party can file a contact preference.
Extreme cases, such as rape/incest, abuse/neglect, will be a tiny portion of the adoptions and an even tinier portion would disrespect "no contact" requests. Otherwise, I think the majority would have no harm at all. I wish I could convince New York and New Jersey about that.
Romany | Nov 18, 2009
Sealed records was never about protecting the surrendering mother nor the child surrendered. Sealed records and the OBC within was to protect the adoptive parents (upon finalization) from peering eyes and questions..and to keep the pesky burfmudder at bay and in the dark about her child who would be adopted.
One always reads where people write about the O! so scary thought of who that Boogey Lady might be..the adult adoptee should beware, afterall that Boogey Lady may invite her lost now found adult child into her Gingerbread House, throw her/him into a large boiling cauldron and have him/her for her supper!! oooo-we-ooooo! Cackle! Cackle! PUHLEEZE!!!
""Well, well!" said an old woman, peering out with a crafty look. "And haven’t you children a sweet tooth?"
"Come in! Come in, you’ve nothing to fear!" went on the old woman. Unluckily for Hansel and Gretel, however, the sugar candy cottage belonged to an old witch, her trap for catching unwary victims. The two children had come to a really nasty place.
"You’re nothing but skin and bones!" said the witch, locking Hansel into a cage. I shall fatten you up and eat you!"
"You can do the housework," she told Gretel grimly, "then I’ll make a meal of you too!"
http://www.ivyjoy.com/fables/hansel.html
If one is making a case about the Dangers of Reunion..people don’t need their OBCs to reunite…how many thousands upon thousands of people have found each other without the OBC, (though having it could make searching a mite easier). BUT!!!! every single person adopted or non-adopted should have the civil right to have in their possession a copy of their original birth certificate. Having one’s OBC is not automatically indicative that a reunion will take place. Just like non-adopted people have a right to hold in their possession a copy of their OBC…so same should be for any person who was adopted as a baby/child.
I think the subject gets a might confused when we speak of *Sealed Records*. Most definitely any adopted person should have free access to their own OBC, should they desire so. Should an adult adoptee have every manner of record within his/her natural mother’s casefile..is another subject/another question. So anyone really know what *sealed records* are comprised of? Are adult adoptees wanting every piece of paper in their nmother’s casefile or are they only wanting those records that pertain to their own birth, surrender document, fostercare info (if any), social worker notes about the adoptive parents, well-baby visits AFTER surrender, a copy of the adoption decree and of course, most importantly their OBC.
Personally, absolutely no person adopted should be barred from requesting and receiving a copy of their own OBC..this is their natural inherent right…as is given to all non-adopted people. This is not about Nature vs Nurture, this is not about reunion, this is not about who is the ‘real’ parent….but this IS all about having in one’s possession a copy of a legal document, documenting the live birth from one’s own live, *natural* mother/parents, while that mother was the only true and legal mother of said child.
gypsywinter | Nov 18, 2009
All I can tell you is that Adopted Adults’ rights were restored and they were given equal access to their birth records in 1975 and the sky hasn’t fallen yet, no disasters, nothing bad. The rest of the civilized world does not discriminate against adopted people either but keeping their original identities top secret
A start? hmmph a pretty LATE start if you ask me. DECADES too late!
I’ve reunited with my natural family DESPITE sealed and secret records. But will fight until my dying day for the civil and human rights of adopted adults and their natural parents to have equal access to their own and shared vital records
H****** | Nov 18, 2009
