Are you aware that American citizens are denied access to their original birth certificates?

Question

If you are adopted, in 44 states, you are not (no matter your age) allowed access to your original birth certificate, like every other american citizen. Is that fair?

Answer 1

of course thats not fair.

horrible actually. its not ur fault that your adopted.....

Answer 2

No, that is not fair.  Is that because the rights of the mother are being protected? I think everyone should have the right to their own birth certificate

Answer 3

it depends if it's fair or not. I think it's what they call a close adoption so you won't be able to find out who or what the birth parents names are. But I'm not to sure though.

Answer 4

Fair or not, it's to protect the identity of the parent who gave up the child.  I have a friend who did some searching and eventually got her birth certificate.  After more digging and searching she discovered the birthdate they put on her birth certificate wasn't even her true birthdate.  It was the day the mother gave her up.  Although she got answers, she was essentially hurt more by finding out the day she's always celebrated as her birthday is not really her true birthday.  

Answer 5

My husband was adopted in California. They show his adopted parents on the birth certificate he has, but he also knows the names of his birth parents. Does it matter if they're listed on your birth certificate or another sheet of paper? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just wondering if that matters.

Answer 6

What!

Answer 7

totally unfair, Its not like being adopted was ur choice. Man, this country sux more everyday, gee Thanx bush!!!

Answer 8

I guess that makes it easier to lie about your age.

Answer 9

No it isn't but don't inform the british government as they'll implement it tomorrow.

Answer 10

It does seem unfair. What is the reasoning behind this? To protect the parents privacy?

Answer 11

you are denied access to your original birth certificate, but you get a copy which is as good as the original. If they gave everybody the original, then, how are they gonna prove that you are who you are? There is going to be a reason for doubt, because the birth certificate could have been corrupted.

Answer 12

First, that's a very "newspaper headline" way to ask this question.  =)

Second it's a tough question to answer (and I was not aware that it occurs).  I'm assuming it's a matter of protecting the birth parents' identities.  So who gains more?  The adopted child having access to the original, or the birth parents keeping their identities hidden?  On the other side of the coin, who loses more?  The adopted child not having access, or the birth parents losing the anonymity they were promised?

I'd have to say the birth parents' rights should hold precedence, given the nature of the adoption agreement.  Not every story of an adopted child finding their birth parents would turn out like a Lifetime movie.  Some could be quite nasty, I'd think.

Your views are just that...yours.  There are many people out there with no compunction towards harming others.  Err on the side of caution.  An applicable axiom in this case.

Answer 13

Parents that give up their children are allowed privacy from contact from them.  That's why you can't get the birth certificate.

Answer 14

"Yes. Once they sign the papers, you are no longer their child."

Legally, yes.

Does emotionally count?

If not... should it? And why not?

Answer 15

It's not fair.

Answer 16

Thats strange

Answer 17

Some believe the smokescreen argument that there is a right to "birthparent privacy" under the law. However, the law as written proves to say quite the opposite.

This is an issue of an entire group of citizens, adopted adults, being barred from a right non-adopted citizens have. Unequal treatment under the law is discrimination by the state holding the records. This discrimination turns access to one's own birth record from a right to a privilege, based solely on the adoptive status of a person, a condition over which the adopted person had no say or control. No other citizens but adopted adults are expected to grovel before a judge or ask someone else’s permission in order to obtain access to their own birth records. This places adopted citizens in a position of being considered suspect and placed in a secondary class compared to non-adopted citizens.

At one point in history, no one was denied the right to his or her own birth record, adopted or not adopted. The sealing of these records began in the 1930's to hide the shame of 'out-of-wedlock' pregnancy and infertility. Sealing records was also a means allowing adoptive parents privacy from birth parents. Some states did not seal records until much later, while some states, Alaska and Kansas, never sealed records.

For anyone who believes records are sealed in order to protect the anonymity of the natural parents, consider the actual law.

1. It is highly notable that records only seal upon the finalization of an adoption. They only stay sealed if an adoption remains intact. They do not seal upon relinquishment, are not sealed while the child is in foster care and are not sealed while the child is in an adoptive placement that is not yet finalized by the court.  So, a person given up for adoption but never adopted has complete access to a copy of his or her original birth certificate.  In fact, it is the person's only legal birth certificate, as no amended certificate is issued if there is no adoption.How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

  

2. If an adoption fails, i.e. the adoptive parents "return" the child, the original birth record with the natural parents' names on it, is unsealed and re-established as the child's only legal birth certificate. How does this protect the natural parents' anonymity? Incidentally, I'm sad to say that there have been stories in the papers lately about failed adoptions occurring.

  

3.  Adult adopted citizens in states with sealed records can gain access to their birth records as long as they petition the court and get a court order. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

  

4. No one has ever been able to bring forth a relinquishment document that promises anonymity. Even the greatest opponents of open records, such as the National Council For Adoption, has ever been unable to produce such a document.

  

5.  In some states with sealed records, it is the prerogative of the adoptive parents or the adoptee (if old enough to state a desire) as to whether or not the original birth certificate is sealed. The natural parents have no say. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

Hence, there is no guarantee of anonymity or confidentiality, nor can such be promised under the law as written. Oddly enough, however, I have met natural parents who asked if and when they could contact their relinquished children. They were told that upon reaching 18 years of age, the adopted person could retrieve his or her original birth certificate containing the natural parents' names. Upon reuniting many years later, these natural parents were surprised to find that what they were told didn't pan out because no one had told them that the records were retroactively sealed, despite the information they were given.

Although this is not truly an issue about reunion, the topic always brings with it discussion of reunion. Therefore, I shall briefly cover this issue. Reunions happen all the time under sealed records laws. Several states that allow all adopted adults to obtain their original birth records also have contact preference forms. This is a form that natural parents can fill out stating whether or not they wish to be contacted. The preference can be changed at any time. It is filed with the original birth certificate. A copy of it is given to the adopted person if and when s/he obtains the original birth certificate. Because the adopted person knows right away that the natural parent does not want to be contacted, this greatly, greatly decreases the risk of unwanted contact. In states that do not grant access, natural parents and adopted people will continue to find one another, but there will be no information available as to the preference for contact. Like other citizens, adopted persons and natural parents are capable of handling their own relationships, without state interference. They do not need others speaking for them or deciding what is best for them as though they were children incapable of doing so themselves. This is an infringement of the free association enjoyed by other citizens in our society.

Sealed records are also an infringement of an adopted citizens' right to privacy under the Constitution. he right to privacy in the Constitution refers to privacy from government intrusion, not from other citizens making contact. There is no Constitutional right to anonymity. Just as adopted citizens are asking only to have the same rights, no more and no less, as other citizens, birthparents should have the very same rights, no more and no less, than other citizens. This means no special anonymity provision.

Answer 18

This is the law of the land.  A lot of people would be hurt badly if they got a knock on the door or a phone call (e-mail?) saying

"hey! I am your child" to many people would use this to get some bad advantage.  No these records should always be sealed and maybe

a clearing house for the parents if they wanted to volunteer this information to hook up with their kids? but this would have to be a volunteer thing

I have a 39 year old daughter and a 38 year old son that are strangers to me and 5 step children from two other marriages and the step kids are closer then my own blood.  Because there mother poisoned their minds against me and now I don't want these people around as they are brainwashed against me and I have a new wife (23 marriage) that would suffer with them mucking up the works.  Yes, my wife knows my ex wives and she does not want me to have anything to do with these *hateful* people..life is too complicated..so this is why there is laws like this...this is not an injustice..there is a reason why the records are sealed and access is no allowed.  Privacy?

Answer 19

fair?  not to the one who is adopted.  But, to the parent who may fall victem to the wrath of the adopted child who finds them later in life, scorned from being given up, perhaps lied to, and raised without the bond of a "real family" (speaking of bloodline).... i'd have to say it's very fair.