Cynics Unlimited

A recent article in the Globe and Mail caught my eye: “What Makes a Mother?” by Patrick White. In it White describes the plight of Patti Tomasson, a British Columbia woman engaged in a legal battle to give adoptive parents the same workplace benefits as biological mothers. Right now the former enjoy 35 weeks of paid leave from their jobs after adopting a child. Birth mothers on the other hand qualify not only for the 35 weeks off but for an additional 15 weeks of maternity leave to deal with the impact of pregnancy and childbirth. This, according to Ms. Tomasson, the mother of two adopted daughters, constitutes discrimination against adoptive parents.

Nonetheless, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that Patti Tomasson is not entitled to maternity leave because she did not experience the physiological and psychological effects of pregnancy and childbirth (Ms. Tomasson plans to appeal the decision). Other courts handling similar cases have come to the same conclusion. Pregnant women may encounter health problems such as high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, or a low-lying placenta. In one instance a judge stated that reserving maternity benefits for biological mothers alone is necessary to protect women from pregnancy-related discrimination and from the days in which they were routinely dismissed from their jobs on becoming pregnant.

The ruling has, not surprisingly, angered adoption advocates. They say that while pregnant women may face medical complications as a result of their condition, in their own way adoptive mothers and fathers also undergo preparation for parenthood, including scrutiny by social workers, huge expenses for trips overseas if they adopt from abroad (especially now that there are few children available for adoption in Canada), and extra effort bonding with the child if he or she previously lived in an orphanage. In addition, like their biological counterparts adoptive mothers can suffer from postpartum depression.

So does the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling discriminate against adoptive parents, or would the opposite ruling (that is, granting adoptive parents the same amount of time off work as birth mothers) be discriminatory towards the latter? The law already makes distinctions between adoptive and biological parents in other areas. Any child born to me is presumed to be mine, unless I take steps to officially relinquish him or her for adoption. In contrast, if I find a newborn abandoned on the streets of Toronto, I do not have an automatic right to adopt him or her even if I have saved that baby’s life; I must go through the same legal procedures any other prospective adoptive parent would. Once finalized, though, adoption gives the parents (or parent) in question the same rights and responsibilities as a birth mother or father. If I adopt children in the future, I will have the obligation to provide for their health and education, for example, as well as the ability to raise them in the religion of my choice or in no religion at all – just as I do now with my biological daughter. Since parental workplace benefits come into effect after the adoption has been finalized, it does seem discriminatory to deny adoptive parents the same length of time off work as biological mothers. Some might counter that pregnancy poses particular medical challenges that adoption does not. However, every pregnancy is different, and some women breeze through it with no complications at all. The only physical problem I encountered during mine was one slight bout of morning sickness (ironically, on the day I discovered I was expecting). Of course conditions like gestational diabetes or preeclampsia - pregnancy-induced hypertension - could keep even the most dedicated employee from work. But perhaps it makes more sense to grant women who experience such difficulties time off as part of a sick leave than to institute a blanket maternity leave that not all pregnant employees will need.

A related issue has to do with whether the federal government should require companies to provide their employees with any paid parental leave at all, let alone one amounting to almost a full year (in the case of biological mothers). One writer in the comments section following the article noted that women who own their businesses or work under contract do not get any paid time off if they have babies, either by birth or adoption. Other people object to employers being forced to accommodate what is essentially a lifestyle choice, that is, to have children, although even if parental leave were not mandatory many workplaces would probably offer it in order to attract or retain employees. These are relevant questions, for which I don’t have all the answers. But as it stands now, these benefits do exist, and it therefore is wrong for adoptive and biological parents to be treated differently in this respect.