The Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (the “Act”) came into force on September 1, 2011 and revises the Power of Attorney Act (“POAA”), Representation Agreement Act and Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act (“HCC”).

The amendments to the POAA provide greater legislative certainty in both creating and exercising enduring powers of attorney.  Although existing enduring powers of attorney may be grand-parented under the Act, it would be prudent to review your power of attorney with a lawyer to determine if it needs to be modified to reflect your wishes in light of the new legislation.

Some notable amendments to the POAA are as follows:

• An attorney may not be compensated unless there is an express authorization within the document;
• An individual who is paid to provide personal or health care services is barred from being appointed as an attorney;
• The attorney must now sign the document before they can act; and
• There is an express requirement that the attorney keep and produce financial records.

Another significant change is that as of September 1, advance directives are recognized as legal documents which allow an adult to provide advanced consent to or refusal of treatment directly to a health care provider.  In other words, if an incapable adult does not have a Committee appointed or a Representative pursuant to a Representation Agreement, the health care provider can directly on instructions contained in the advanced directive.

I had the opportunity to speak with CKNW’s Marcella Bernardo this weekend about anonymity of sperm donors in light of the recent landmark case Pratten v B.C. (A.G.) – Listen to or download the interview here

My view is that the underlying idea of the decision – that donor conceived children need to have access to information about their biological origins  – is correct.  That said, any change to the law to open up information available about donors must be accompanied by law reform that makes it clear that donors are not the legal parents of the child and should also give donors who donated in the past the right to veto disclosure about their identities. As with adoption, it is critical for the law to balance the rights of children to information about their biological origins with the rights of donors to privacy and with the interest of parents raising children in having a stable family unit where they are recognized as the full legal parents of the children. B.C.’s reformed adoption law provides an excellent model about how this can be done, but needs to be adapted to fit the assisted reproduction context.

I was on the Bill Good Show on Monday, June 13^th, 2011 to talk about the evolution and increasing use of social media in the context of family law.  A description of and an audio link to the interview are below:

 TURNING TO FACEBOOK TO CATCH A CHEATER: SOCIAL MEDIA AND DIVORCE

New York congressman Anthony Weiner’s marriage is in trouble after reports surfaced that he had taken pictures of his private area and sent them to a slew of women he did not know. And he’s not the only one in hot water after impulsively hitting the “send” button rather than thinking with his brain.  Research shows that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are increasingly being blamed for the breakdown of marriages. How are people getting caught red-handed online? How is this evidence being used against them in divorce court? And what does narcissistic personality disorder have to do with it all? 

For the complete interview: CKNW-June.mp3

Erica Pinsky, M.Sc, CHRP, is a respectful workplace solutions expert.  As a speaker,  trainer, author and consultant she provides a full range of customized services and solutions to eliminate discrimination, harassment, bullying and  destructive conflict in the workplace.  Her highly acclaimed book, “Road to Respect: Path to Profit” is filled with engaging stories, powerful insights and concrete strategies on how to become an employer of choice by building a respectful workplace culture. Erica has been featured in the Globe and Mail, Business In Vancouver and Canadian Retailer Magazine

Heritage Law is featured in Erica’s June edition of her newsletter Reflections On the Road to Respect.  The link to the newsletter is here and the full text is below:

I heard about Heritage Law quite by accident. I met lawyer Monique Shebbeare at a networking event.  I learned that she was working in a firm focused on estates, wills and family law. Then she shared that she is the mother of an 18 month old.

Given what I know about the huge career challenges that face female lawyers with children I was immediately curious to learn more about her experience. The decision to have children, which research has consistently confirmed continues to be a “career limiting” move for women in the corporate world, is particularly true in the case of female lawyers. While women make up more than 50% of law school graduates, very few of those women ever make partner at most firms.

I was all set to hear a story of stress, guilt, conflict and long hours when I asked her about her experience parenting as a  working lawyer.  Much to my surprise, she told me was thriving. The reason directly relates to the culture of the firm she works for: Heritage Law.

Heritage Law broke the mould with respect  to traditional  law firm cultures. Founded by Nicole  Garton-Jones when she was pregnant with her first child, the firm was structured to support its lawyers to be successful at both the practice of law and parenting.  Six years later, the firm is enjoying healthy growth and success.  The female employees, their families and their clients are all reaping the benefits of Ms. Garton-Jones vision.

Given that what I was hearing sounded like a workplace culture aligned with the value of respect, one that is creatively finding new ways to embrace diversity, I was most interested in learning more about the workplace culture at Heritage Law.

I had the opportunity to do so recently when I went over to West Vancouver to speak with Ms. Shebbeare as well as Ms.  Garton-Jones. Here are some of the highlights of what I learned.  To hear more, please listen to the entire interview.

Innovation and  Technology
Like many business innovators, Ms. Garton-Jones was looking for a solution to a problem.  Having worked in both large and small law firms, she was familiar with the challenges faced by female colleagues when they decided to start a family, challenges which result in many choosing to leave the profession, a choice she was not willing to make.

Her vision involved the creation of an alternative model, one that would effectively manage the competing demands of building a new law firm and being a new mother.  The question was how to do it.

Technology provided a large part of the solution.  “We put an IT structure in place to facilitate high level legal services that could be done on a flexible basis.”

Heritage Law is “paperless” and utilizes practice management software to centrally manage billing, time tracking, matter information, contacts, appointments, documents and document assembly.

One of the first things I noticed when I walked into Ms. Shebbeare’s office was that she had two monitors.  That is one aspect of the paperless structure.  All of the  firm’s data and specialized software applications are stored in a remote, secure “cloud” server.  All of the information that she and her colleagues need to do their jobs can be accessed from anywhere as long as there is an internet connection.

Another piece of technology that supports the kind of flexibility working parents need is provided by the VOIP (voice over IP) phone system which allows ten staff in ten different locations to use the same phone line and system.  They use a remote answering service which answers client calls during the business day if a staff member is out of the office and routes the message to the appropriate person to deal with.

All staff have a computer, high speed internet, a VOIP phone and a scanner at their home offices.  The firm’s core philosophy, one intricately aligned with the value of respect, is to create a “caring and supportive culture that really fits each lawyer’s life needs.”

NGJ – “I focus on keeping the overhead low to provide flexibility.  It is really about finding a balance between keeping the overhead low and providing enough resources so that they can be the best lawyers that they can be. Technology allows us to make more money in less time.”

Culture Attracts Talent
Work-life balance, or work life integration as I refer to it, is largely seen as a “woman’s issue.”  Unfortunately, this tends to side line the bottom line business value of creating a workplace culture that truly respects the whole person at work.  In addition to being a critical factor in supporting employee health and promoting workplace wellness, Ms. Garton-Jones described the firm’s culture as a “significant strategic advantage in terms of attracting great talent.”

It was Heritage law’s “culture of flexibility and autonomy” that interested Ms. Shebbeare (who Ms. Garton-Jones described as a brilliant lawyer).  “Quite a few of us were at top firms, but those cultures didn’t work for us. Here we decide how we want to live our lives as lawyers.  There is a  shared understanding among the lawyers about that.”

Ms. Shebbaere shared her experience working in both the 300 person Bay Street firm as well as smaller traditional firms, with “fixed requirements of when and how you do your work as well the level of output required regardless of the business outcome of the firm.”  What appealed to her about Heritage law was that it was structured so that she could meet the same business results but do it in a way that worked with her life as a new mother. “No one is looking over my shoulder to say is Monique here, or where is Monique?  Rather the focus is on how your practice is going in terms of building your practice. Are our clients being served? What are the business results at the end of the day?  I can meet all of those objectives and still have a great deal of flexibility.”

The culture at Heritage Law is values based. At its core it is about shifting from a power based, paternalistic, command and control framework to a collaborative, partnership model based upon a foundation of trust, mutual respect and accountability.

Ms. Garton-Jones chose to combine the traditional law firm values of professionalism, commitment to client service, professional excellence, integrity, ethics and contribution to the community with other core values including innovation, collaboration, caring and nurturing to create the work-life balance that was, as she stated, “a business necessity,” as opposed to a “nice to have.” Work life balance was not an option.  It was necessary for the survival of the firm.

NGJ  “We don’t have command and control hierarchical model which you see in most traditional firms. We don’t have the senior partner who tells everybody what to do.  It is truly more collaborative.  You can say that a lot of those values are female values, and interestingly enough we are all women.”

However, It is not just woman that are looking for a collaborative culture that offers employees  flexibility, autonomy and control.  Ms. Garton-Jones, a Gen Xer, shared an experience she had speaking with a young Gen Y man, a really talented lawyer who she would like to have join the firm.  He told her that the culture at Heritage Law would be one which would be ideal for him and others in his generation. “You really get me,” he told her.

NGJ – “We did not set this up for women.  I set this up because of necessity, and then other smart, conscientious women, interesting people contacted me.  In traditional firms a lot of connections are made on the golf course, on the squash court.  We have the female connection.  It was not that men were excluded it was just that they were not in on the conversation.  Now I am pro-actively out there to find a man.  I think it would be good for our culture to have a male lawyer. Diversity is good because having a variety of views at the table creates a better organization.   I think the firm will be improved to have a man, to have different ethnicities. That is what I want. That will only allow us to be better, stronger and have a wider variety of views at the table. Gen Y, they want autonomy.  Their view of success is a little more holistic. I think there are different values about what people expect in the workplace. It is not necessarily a male female divide. It is generational as well.”

According to Ms. Shebbeare “This is more of a horizontal model. There are business goals but how we go about meeting the business goals is more up to us. How do I like to practice as a lawyer? What is my individual personality as a lawyer?  If I need support I have people I can call but I don’t have to answer to anyone. The structure creates an emotional and psychological difference. In other places it was more that other people were in charge of my life and here I feel like I am in charge of my life, I am my own boss.”

It is well known that lack of control, particularly at work, is one of the main contributors to stress, a costly and damaging problem in today’s workplaces.  Ms. Garton-Jones shared some surprising information about the legal profession with me that I had been completely unaware of.  “Studies show that there are extremely high rates of alcoholism and depression within lawyers working in traditional structures. Lawyers have much higher suicide rates than the general population. The traditional model is not conducive to wellness. The pressures of the profession are significant. We want to make it a job, not a sprint.  We are in it for the long haul.”

Given that the firm is all women, I was curious about their experience with this kind of workplace bullying. I have worked as a consultant in many female dominated environments where disrespectful behaviour is a huge problem. What I heard confirms what I consistently hear from respectful, values based employers: it does not happen here because it is at odds with the cultural norms.

NBJ – I have experienced that at other firms.  Bullying happens when it is a highly competitive environment where there are not many roles for women, so rather than supporting each other they start competing with each other. In this office it is not an issue because there are no barriers to advancement, there is no scarcity of opportunity. People are only bound by their vision and the amount that they want to work.  It is not part of our culture.”

Supporting Success
I describe respectful leadership as relationship based leadership.  The practices that demonstrate respectful leadership are designed to promote success, for the leader, those she/he leads and the organization as a whole.  Ongoing, respectful communication is the foundation of this leadership style.

Ms. Garton Jones described a leadership style aligned with the value of respect. “I have a vision.  I hire extremely smart, conscientious people that I respect and give them the resources they need to manifest their potential. Bureaucracy is meant to manage mediocre employees. Get great people, give them the resources they need to be successful and then get out of their way. I am not Monique’s boss.  I happen to be paying the lease but Monique is truly my colleague.  My job is to facilitate the back hand. I make sure that they have the tools that they need to be successful. I ask questions – what do you need to be successful? We communicate back and forth. I make sure that the lawyers have the resources and infrastructure in place to provide the support that they need.”

Ms. Shebbeare commented. “You own the firm and had some expectations which we talked about right at the beginning but other than that I would say to Nicole, this is the practice I envisage for myself.  It is a constant negotiation, about my needs and the needs of the firm.  It is a fluid conversation. Nicole arranged for a coach to support the lawyers, who helped me set up business plan.  We have admin support, web site and support, continuing education.  The costs of networking are paid for by the firm.  All of these factors help me at the initial stage of building a practice.”

Last month’s enews focused on values based company Ben and Jerry’s, and their triple bottom line of people, profit, planet.  I asked Ms. Garton-Jones and Ms. Shebbeare to talk to me about their vision of success;  personal, professional and organizational.  What I heard was consistent with the attitudes of other socially conscious, values based companies.  Profit, measured in strict monetary terms, is a critically important part of the equation, but it is not the only indicator of success.

Ms. Garton-Jones’s perspective was that it was about being “Successful as professionals  in serving  our clients, giving back to our communities, and making sure that we are contributing to our families.  Finance is important because without financial success none of the other things can be accomplished.  It is one piece of a larger construct.  We do have minimum requirements, some set criteria but they are not onerous. They are for financial viability. The goal is not that the lawyers are going to be a profit center.”

Success for Ms. Shebbeare is about “being recognized as a professional, as a leader in my area of practice. Being seen as an expert. Making a living. And my underlying belief is that you can do that in a way that still allows you to have a life with your family.”

No doubt the thriving practices of the lawyers as well as the business growth at Heritage Law is proof positive that she is right!

Monique Shebbeare and I recently had the pleasure of chatting with Erica Pinsky, MSc, CHR, a “Respectful Workplace Solutions Expert™,” to discuss Heritage Law as part of a series featuring companies that are “getting respect right”.  Erica offered that “learning about firms like yours affirms my vision of the possibility of respectful workplaces where people are treated like adults within a connected, compassionate community, and inspires me to keep working to spread the message and promote change.”

Thank you very much to Erica for the opportunity to participate in your series.   A link to the podcast is here:

http://ericajpinskyinc.ca/erica_pInsky/Podcast/Entries/2011/5/31_Heritage_Law.html

Erica can be reached at:
(604)266-1267
http://www.ericapinskyinc.ca

I had the opportunity to be a guest on the Bill Good Show on May 31st which was a lot of fun.  A description of and an audio link to the interview are below:

THE WORST FIGHT OF ALL
What could be uglier than children fighting over their dead parent’s estate? Not much… but it’s happening more often than you think. These fights can get vicious, often landing brothers and sisters in court. What are the rules that govern what happens to big assets when someone dies? If they leave a will, shouldn’t that be binding in accordance with their wishes? Or are there loop holes that allow children and other family members to make a claim on their will?
NICOLE GARTON-JONES, ESTATE LAWYER, HERITAGE LAW

CKNW- May 31 11 – Interview with Nicole Garton Jones_Joined

I enjoyed presenting today on estate disputes and how to avoid them on the BC Almanac show on CBC Radio One, hosted by Mark Forsythe.

A link to the podcast is here or here.

One of the main reasons that intended parents choose anonymous sperm donors instead of donors they know is that the current law does not provide a mechanism for a sperm donor to formally relinquish legal parenthood, unless the intended mother has a partner who can adopt the child and the donor consents at the time of the adoption. Anonymity is currently the most simple and practical way to have some certainty that only the intended parent(s) will be recognized as the legal parent(s) of the child. I believe that any law reform relating to disclosure of donor information and identities in B.C. should include the creation of a mechanism for a sperm donor* to relinquish legal parenthood at the time of donation and prior to the conception of any child and for intended parent(s) to formally accept full parental responsibility.

At law, a donor is the natural parent of any child conceived using his sperm. A donor potentially has all the responsibilities and rights of a parent, including the right to apply to a court for custody or access and the responsibility to pay child support if the intended parent applies for support. The intended parent(s)* and a known donor may make an agreement that only the intended parents will have the responsibilities and rights of parenthood, and that the donor will consent to adoption if the intended mother has a partner, but such an agreement is not legally enforceable.

This is completely different than the reality in the adoption context. Under the B.C. Adoption Act, legal parenthood shifts from the biological parents to the adoptive parent(s). The law provides a legal  mechanism for the biological parents to relinquish their legal parenthood – by  consenting to the adoption – where the adoptive parent(s) agree to take on that responsibility. Once an adoption is complete, the adoptive parent(s) are the legal parents of the child, and the biological parents cease to be legal parents. This legal parenthood is reflected in all aspects of the law.

Although legally speaking there may be no difference between known and anonymous donors, in practice anonymity is a primary way that intended parents reach the same on-the-ground result as adoption. If a donor is anonymous, a single mother of a child born in British Columbia can declare that the father is unknown and no information about the father will appear on the birth registration. If the mother is in a relationship, the mother can include a co-parent on the registration (see http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/births/breg.html ). The intended mother, and her co-parent if she has one, will effectively be recognized as the child’s legal parent(s).

A recent B.C. Supreme Court case would require the B.C. legislature to extend to donor offspring the same rights to information about their biological offspring as adoptees, thereby stripping some of the anonymity from sperm and egg donation (see my blog post “BC Court declares an end to anonymous sperm donation” about Pratten v. British Columbia (A.G.)). The case highlights the mechanisms that allow adoptees to obtain information about their biological origins, particularly as adults.

What is not discussed in the case – because it was not the question before the courts – is that the information sharing mechanisms of adoption only work because they exist along with the shift in legal parenthood which is the heart of adoption. Once an adoption is complete, adoptive parents have some certainty about their status as the only legal parents of the child. This is recognized as being in the best interests of the children. No (or only very rare) adoptive parents would adopt children in B.C. if their parental status was not certain.

I would argue that creating a legal mechanism for a donor to relinquish legal parenthood at the time of donation, prior to conception, in favour of the intended parent(s) is an essential part of any law reform dealing with gamete donation. This could include a mechanism for the intended parent(s) using donated sperm to formally accept full parental responsibility. This would create certainty about legal parenthood and reflect the intention of donor(s) who choose to assist others to have children but never planned to parent those children. It would provide some comfort to donors about the implications of any law reform providing for more open information disclosure. It would encourage more people to consider using known donors or being known donors. For the children conceived by sperm donation, predictability and stability of the intended family unit in childhood and the increased ability to obtain information about their biological origins, including identity disclosure in adulthood, are in their best interests.

* This post deals with sperm donation, but the mechanism could also apply to egg donors.

There is a lack of a common definition of a family business but it is generally considered to be a business with two or more family members who have financial control of the company and there is some intent to transfer the business to the next generation. Over 90% of family businesses in Canada are family businesses.

Family businesses employ approximately six million Canadians and an average family business employs approximately 18 employees.  The total annual sales of Canadian family businesses are estimated to be $1.3 trillion.

Family businesses are often reflected as a system of three intersecting circles: the business circle, the family circle and the ownership circle.

The most successful family businesses have a balance and clear boundaries between the three circles with professional business management, responsible ownership and a harmonious family culture.  Assisting families to successfully manage the three spheres presents difficult dilemmas.

How do you balance individual desires and differences with the interests of the family and the development of a shared vision?  Are the interests of the business or the family more important?  How do you celebrate tradition and successes of the past while focussing on the future and a rapidly evolving business climate?

What does it mean to be a successful business owner and how does that differ if you do or do not have a role in the family or business management circles?

How does the business successfully transition from the founding entrepreneur, to the sibling partnership to the cousin consortium stage?

Succession is the greatest long term challenge that most family businesses face.  Less than one third of family businesses make it to the second  generation and only approximately 13% make it to the  third generation.   The failure to plan and manage succession well is the greatest threat to the survival of a family business.  This not only has significant impacts on the hopes, dreams and wealth of individual family members but also on the greater economy as a whole given the pivotal role family businesses play.

The most successful succession plans involve careful planning over many years, and it is the CEO’s responsibility to initiate and manage the process in a timely manner.  The CEO must develop a strategic business plan, create a process to identify and choose successors and train potential successors.  The CEO must ensure that an adequate estate plan is put in place.  The CEO must prepare the family for succession, often through the development of a family mission statement that elucidates the family’s relationship with the business.  The CEO must ensure that the next generation of owners is educated on how to be effective owners and to function well as a co-ownership team.  The CEO also needs to focus on preparing for a financially secure and enjoyable retirement or second career.

Given how high the stakes are and its pivotal role in the future of the individuals involved and the business itself, the succession process can be filled with tension and conflict between individual and collective family, business and owner stakeholders.

One way to manage the complexities of the family business succession process is through professionally mediated family meetings.  A professional mediator can assist by convening the meeting including determining who will participate and obtaining buy in for the process from all the parties; assigning roles and responsibilities including setting the agenda and ground rules; facilitating group problem solving including involving appropriate experts; reaching and recording agreement; and holding parties to their commitments including monitoring changing circumstances and arranging to reconvene as necessary.

Whatever the purpose of convening a family meeting, the process of gathering as a family to communicate in a structured way can encourage members to act on important and shared values, with valuable results for both the business and the family alike.  Family meetings also often spark a desire to codify a family constitution or mission statement articulating the family’s values and the mechanism by which they are expressed in the business, the family and the community as a whole.

Succession may be the most difficult life cycle of a business, but it also has the highest rewards.  Why not start today.

As an adoptee who has reconnected with her birth family, the mother of a donor child, and a lawyer with a particular interest in assisted reproduction, I was very curious to read the B.C. Supreme Court’s new and landmark decision on the rights of donor offspring: Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2011 BCSC 656.

Prior to this decision, children conceived in B.C. using donated sperm or eggs had no right to any information about anonymous donors, especially the donor’s identity.

Olivia Pratten, a journalist who was conceived in B.C. using the sperm of an anonymous donor, successfully argued that the sections of the B.C. Adoption Act and regulations which provide a mechanism for adoptees to obtain information about their biological origins are discriminatory because they are underinclusive and don’t provide equivalent rights to people who were conceived using the sperm (primarily) or eggs of a donor (“donor offspring”).

The court found unconstitutional provisions of the Adoption Act* that:

• require the medical and social history of the child’s biological family be collected during the adoption process and then preserved
• require that prospective adoptive parents receive a copy of that information
• allow for openness agreements between adoptive parents and relatives of the child
• allow disclosure of identifying information if necessary for the child’s safety, health or well-being
• (for adoptions prior to 1996) allow an adoptee who is 19 years or older to obtain a copy of their original birth registration (which usually contains at least the birth mother’s name) and adoption order unless the birth parent registers a veto preventing disclosure
• (for adoptions after 1996) allow an adoptee who is 19 years or older to obtain a copy of their original birth registration and adoption order, except the adoptee must sign an undertaking not to contact the birth parent if the parent registers a no-contact declaration
• provide for similar identity disclosure to birth parents of adoptees over 19
• provide a registry for adult adoptees and other relatives to exchange identifying information (e.g., siblings who did not grow up together)
• set up government services to assist searches and reunions

The court accepted evidence that donor offspring experience the same sense of loss and incompleteness as adoptees, that their lack of knowledge  causes psychological harm, that their health may be compromised by a lack of family medical history, and that they risk unwittingly being romantically involved with a half-sibling. The court also found that the private sector (which increasingly provides detailed medical and social history of donors for intended parents) is no substitute for government regulation, and regulation must come from the provincial government.

The court found that the Adoption Act violates the equality provisions of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it distinguishes between children who are disassociated from a biological parent based on the manner of their conception, and this distinction disadvantages donor offspring who have the same need for information about their biological origins and suffer the same harm from lack of information as adoptees. The court found that donor offspring are the victims of stereotypical thinking that they don’t have the same needs as adoptees or that it is acceptable to ignore their needs. The violation was not a justifiable limit on rights under s. 1 of the Charter.

However, the court did not find that the lack of regulation requiring medical practitioners to obtain and preserve medical and social history was a violation of the right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter because s. 7 does not create positive rights, such as the right to know one’s origins. That is, s. 7 can be used to attack legislation that deprives a person of a right but not to require that legislation be created to advance a right.

The court suspended its declaration of invalidity of the Adoption Act provisions for 15 months to allow the Province to enact legislation that remedies the discrimination. If the decision stands, anonymous gamete donation will no longer exist in B.C. It remains to be seen what new law the Province will enact for donor offspring.

I have long thought that the reformed adoption law strikes the best balance possible between the  various needs and concerns of children, birth parents and adoptive parents by generally preserving privacy during childhood if desired by the parents and then allowing information disclosure in adulthood, subject to a veto for birth parents who gave up children on the understanding that their identities would remain secret (although the result of this can be very painful for the adult children whose birth parents do choose to register a veto).

I know from personal experience that obtaining information about one’s biological origins and the possibility of knowing one’s biological parents goes a long way to completing one’s sense of identity and place in the world. No matter how close one is to the family they grew up with, there can be great satisfaction in seeing one’s physical characteristics physically reflected in others (something most people talk a lot about and take for granted) and seeing which character traits are biologically innate and which develop through family culture and influence.

This balance seems to me to apply well to donor offspring. When I chose to become the mother of a donor child, I deliberately chose an ‘identity disclosure’ donor. During childhood, we have fairly detailed non-identifying information about the anonymous donor (several pages worth, including medical history and two photographs). When my child turns 18, we should be able to obtain some form of identifying information, which is something the donor specifically agreed to.

This seems to me a fair default system, and one which hopefully will not discourage too many potential donors. The one missing piece that would remain, which I will discuss in my next blog post, is a mechanism – a cornerstone of adoption – for donors to relinquish legal parenthood in favour of the intended parent(s).

*This is not intended to be a complete list or summary, which is found at Schedule A of the decision