1/ This is a welcome apology, as is the commitment to reflect. However, in this regard, I offer some food for thought.

Firstly, I would urge the  @IASW to read the  @clann_project report. Putting it mildly, the Commission missed quite a lot. https://twitter.com/IASW_IRL/status/1361274083518857221

2/ As you'll read in the @clann_project report, because of the continued denial of access to personal data & administrative records, the abuses of the past are perpetuated in the present through social work practice with adult adopted people & their relatives.

3/ In most cases, TUSLA & its SWs are the current custodians of our files. They are the gatekeepers of our narratives, our family histories, the records that tell the story of how we came to inhabit our current identities.

4/ According to TUSLA, before providing us with our personal data, it must consider the harm that might be inflicted on others: https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30937257.html

5/ Rather than take the opportunity to address TUSLA's failings, the Commission characterised adopted people, natural mothers & family members' criticisms as 'quite vitriolic' and 'unfair'. (Again, please read the  @clann_project report)

6/ Many SWs are deeply troubled by current TUSLA policies but feel they have no choice but to comply. But SWs are required to act where they see unjust policies at play. This principle is built into the standards of proficiency for SWs in Ireland: https://www.coru.ie/files-education/swrb-standards-of-proficiency-for-social-workers.pdf

7/ Secondly therefore, I would urge SWs to revisit your standards of proficiency & reflect on whether they're being met in terms of the current treatment of adopted people, mothers & family members. (The below from  @IASW notes to editors is of course welcome)

8/ Thirdly, I'd ask SWs to reflect on whether they should be involved in the provision of information & tracing services to adult adopted people at all. (My research in this area primarily concerns adopted people, but much of this applies to mothers & family members also.)

9/ We in  @adoptionrights & @clann_project have long argued that info should be provided by archivists & that tracing should be carried out by genealogists. There's no reason why SWs in an overburdened child protection system should be doing this work (seriously, think about it).

10/ Relatedly, I'd encourage you to read my article in a recent special issue of the Éire-Ireland journal here: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/763494/pdf

In the article I discuss how adopted people are constructed as damaged, a danger to our mothers.

11/ The evidence simply doesn't support this construction of adopted people as a threat.

We act responsibly. We're not 'psychological vagrants' (see Haimes & Timms:  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adoption-Identity-Social-Policy-Relatives/dp/0566008882).

12/ But this construction of adopted people as dangerous is very real in its consequences. Adult adopted people are not generally in crisis, we don't require SW interventions in our lives. Yet, in order to obtain even basic info we must subject ourselves to such interventions.

13/ SW involvement in Irish adopted people's lives happens in a very specific context: as I said above, TUSLA's policy is to assess the damage associated with the release of personal data to adopted people.

14/ Adopted people's identities were obliterated to facilitate closed, secret adoptions.

TUSLA's policies further compound this human rights violation.

The abuses are continuing in the present.

15/ The @IASW apology & commitment to reflect is welcome & I truly hope we will be able to count you amongst our allies.

Time is of the essence however.

The abuses are continuing in the present.

Apologies to @IASW_IRL (and the person who runs @IASW), I had you incorrectly tagged in the thread!