Birth certificates - should adopted be able to have them?

Question

I just joined a group who is fighting to have the original birth certificates for adoptees unsealed so that adoptees can have easy access to them.

Do you think this is a good idea?

I do!

Answer 1

I think its a great idea!  I would love to know where I came from and just have my dang birth certificate.  Doesn't matter who raised you or any of that nonsense that others are saying on here, its about a basic right to know WHO you are.  Everyone else is allowed to have their OBC...why not me?

Answer 2

I don't believe anyone should have the right to privacy from their own children, I know that may sound harsh, but I don't think you should birth a child that you don't want to parent, I think it is amoral, and that terminating a pregnancy is more humane.

Answer 3

I am adopted and I need my birth certificate for tribal enrollment and cannot come up with it so I am just documented...it is different

Answer 4

yes i greatly agree with this idea. its wonderful.. i have a friend who's adopted and she wishes she could have access to it.  so yea i definitely AGREE!

Answer 5

Yes. Everyone deserves the right to know where they came from.

Answer 6

ABSOLUTELY,

Being and adoptee, I have found it difficult to find out anything about my self. I have no medical history, no family history, and no idea at all where I came from. In the state that I was born, it is Illegal for any adoptee of any age to search for information about their family of origin. My information has been so far buried that I do not think I will ever find it. You might ask if my motivation is about having a relationship with my birth family. I can honestly say that I do not know . I do know that I want to know my medical history and that I think that I have a right to that . It is ashamed that in this day and age, that there is so much shame and secrecy surrounding adoption. I hope that some day this changes.

Answer 7

Mixed feelings.  I mean, if they birth parents don't mind, why on earth not?  

But if they do mind, no.  They already carried a baby they didn't want or knew they couldn't take care of for 9 months and did the right thing and gave the kid to a good family.  If they want to pretend like it never happened after that, they should be allowed to.  

So I guess I'd like to see an easy way for birth parents to unseal 'em if they want to.

Answer 8

I have a copy for my son if he wants it. I feel it's always best to be truthful, if you want your child to be happy!

Answer 9

Yes, adoptees should have the same rights as others to have access to their government records.  

So-called "privacy promises" have no legal standing, unless the birth mother signed a contact preference form declining contact and adding the required family medical history. Existing laws protect individuals from unwarranted intrusion.  

In general, the courts have determined the right to privacy to mean protection of individuals from government intrusion, not the right of one individual to remain anonymous from another.

Answer 10

Yes!  It's about time!

Adoptees deserve the same rights to everyone else.

Adoptees deserve their original birth certificates.

We deserve our medical histories.

We deserve the truth.

No matter what that truth may be.

And to those who feel that the privacy of first families need to be protected: First, that is never legally guaranteed in any adoption.  Second, the needs of few should never come before the RIGHTS of many.  There are MILLIONS of adoptees out there who are being denied basic human rights.  This has to stop.

Answer 11

I think it's a wonderful idea.

Kansas, where I live, has never had closed adoption records. When the adoptee is 18, they can request their original birth certificate, which will have their birthparent(s) name(s) on it, allowing them the information to initiate a search for them.

The rate of adoption is higher in Kansas.  I believe this is because birthparents feel more confident relinquishing a child for adoption in a state where the child will eventually be privy to their identifying information.

Birthmothers are NOT promised anonymity when they relinquish.  They are given the hope that someone can raise their child when they are unable to.  This is not an iron-clad promise or guarantee that the child will never contact them upon adulthood.  Unfortunately, in "closed record states" (such as New York, where I was born/adopted), even when the adoptee reaches adulthood, we are forever treated as children by adoption agencies and social workers who handled our adoptions.  On the flip side, birthmothers who WANT to know their children's identities are lied to and shut down from knowing the truth.  

Initially, adoption was meant to help the birthmother.  So who are these agencies/social workers trying so hard to protect?

My feeling is, records should be open, and birthparents/adoptees should use them responsibly.  Adoptees should contact birthparents understanding that the birth parent may not want a reunion.  The birthparent can be an adult and tell them if they still wish to have no contact.  The adoptee can be an adult and respect that.

For adoptees that wish to reunite (for so many compelling reasons, such as knowing ethnicity, family medical history, birth story, how they were conceived, etc.), it is wonderful to find birthparents eager for a reunion as well.  

It's unfair to an adoptee to claim that a wish to meet the birthparents translates into being disloyal to their adoptive family.  Don't let efforts by "closed" adoption agencies/social workers nationwide fool you.  It is really an entirely separate issue.

Answer 12

Absolutely!  A person's true identity and the truth of their origins belongs to them - nobody else! particularly not the State.  

It is disgraceful that peoples own birth records are held hostage in this way, just disgraceful.

And to those who ask 'for what purpose?' my answer would be for whatever purpose we choose!!  Most people seeking their original birth records are already in contact with their first families anyway!

It's about equal rights as citizens, not about relationships.  People have the freedom of association to do that anyway - why would you give adoptees any less freedom than other members of society?  sheeesh, ,how insulting!  I was a baby, not a monster who needs to be restrained!!

Fears and myths - that's all that's making people say "oh no!" Fears and myths, is all

Answer 13

no it is not a good idea because u are not there real parents.

Answer 14

I think its a great idea.  I'm adopted and would love to know my birth name.  On the other hand, many women have chosen adoption over abortion because they were promised confidentiality.  How would you feel if you intended to remain anonymous, and now after 20-30 years, that anonymity has been broken?  I'm kinda torn.  I respect the choices my birth mother made, but I also feel slighted not to know everything about who I am.

Answer 15

Yes!  I do too!  It is outrageous to deny humans their right to know their origin.

I really do sympathize with the feelings of the family of origin for their desire for privacy - to some degree.  However, no person chooses to be here.  Our parents created us, so they are responsible for giving us our identity.  The rights of the child supersede the rights of the parents.

Answer 16

Yes, of course.  Adopted people are entitled to know when and where they were born and who their parents are.

-MM

Answer 17

depends on the individules wishes

Answer 18

im adopted and i needed my birth certificate so i tried my local registry office,they gave me the phone number where to get it from and now ive got it so its not that hard to get,i had it within one week of phoning for it.

Answer 19

Yes it is about time.  Allowing adoptees access to their OBC is about civil rights.  It is giving the adoptee  back his rights.  Its about ending the lifetime contract that we, as adoptees, are bound by even though we didn't sign the contract.  

Yes in both Oregon and Tennessee, the judges both ruled that the right to privacy is about the right to be free from government intrusion.  Yet adoptees have to deal with this very issue.

Answer 20

Yes, of course adopted people should be able to have their own records.

And most of us first moms agree 100% with open records. The standard line that closed records are to protect our privacy is completely fabricated c**p. We weren't promised anonymity, and the vast majority of us don't want it.

The other standard line... that if records were open, more women would have abortions... is also fabricated c**p. In the handful of states that now have open records, abortion rates have stayed constant or DECLINED.

Edited to add: Bugwales, the question is about ORIGINAL birth certificates--not the amended ones. Yes, adoptees have access to their amended birth certificates, the ones with the adoptive parents' names on them. But ORIGINAL birth certificates--with the biological parents' names on them--are sealed in most states.

Answer 21

Yes, i think its a great idea.

Answer 22

Yes in today's world an adopted child should know who were the parents and not necessarily why he was left for adoption.

Answer 23

Yes. I believe that all people should have access to their birth records.  All birth records including the original documents.

I find it a bit crazy that other people can have access to these documents but not the people to whom these documents refer!

I am very blessed to have copies of all original documents so my son will not have to go through this ridiculous obstacle.

Answer 24

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

I do...

I know who both of my biological parents are, are on good terms with both of them.

And I STILL don't have my OBC!!

Its like an entire part of me, and my life, no matter how small, is sealed in an envelope that I, as an adult, cannot even have!

Answer 25

They ABSOLUTELY should have the rights to access the same information that everyone else takes for granted!

I notice a lot of people talking about the first mom's right to not let them have it, but why should it be anyone's right whether or not I know my name, birthday, parents names and where I was born? Thats MY information. The first parents dont' have to be forced to meet their child, but the adoptee should absolutely have the right to their info whether or not their parents want to be found.

How would any of you non-adoptees feel if your parents didn't allow you to know your real name, age, birthday, relatives names, birth place, or any other basic info. Is it really your parents rights to keep that from you?

Answer 26

I think its a great idea but at the same time i think its horrible.

I am a bith mom and i never signed a birth certificate. the original says his adoptive parents name.  While i know him and his family and at 4 he can tell you "oh she is my birth mom" if i had wanted a closed adoption is that not my right?

My son's "real" name is the one he was born with and is still his name.  His certificate says his place of birth and the time.  It just doesnt have my name on it.  

Yes the child should hav the right to know the name/s of his/her birth parents. At the same time birth parents should have the right to privacy.  Some women feel horrible that the only viable option is to give their child to a family who can take care of them and dont want to have to be confronted later in life when they may have their stuff together.  

So while i feel the need of wanting to know ones birth parent i can see how it might be hard on the birth parents themselves.

Answer 27

YES - in Australia most are able to get them - why is the US so behind with this??

If any have doubts - watch this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyu4E9Bhi...

(also - please pass on this video to others - rate, comment, view - as the more exposure - the more the myths are shattered)

OPEN RECORDS NOW!!

Answer 28

So that they can have access to what information?  Their mom's name with no identifying information like her birthdate and SSN, etc?

For what purpose?

Answer 29

Yes, I think they should be able to have their birth certificates. I adopted my son 13 years ago when he was 3 years old. My name is now on his birth certificate, but he knows his birth mother's name. I found a picture of her the other day in a bunch of paperwork, and I'm going to keep it just so he has a picture of his birth mother. But anyway, yes, I definitely agree with you 100%.

Answer 30

It would be nice if people could have this.  As far as invading someone’s privacy just get a BC doesn’t really do that.  Sure adoptee would know names of birthparent(s) but sometimes one knows that already.  Its not like the birthparents have to talk to their birthchild if the birthchild decides to contact them. Sometimes someone can find out via Search Angle or agency if the birthparent(s) is ok with contact or doesn’t want it.

Answer 31

Hi IJToomer,

Yes, It's the right thing to do.  When an adoption takes place in most U.S. states today, the original record of birth is sealed. For the last 50 years or so, the adoptee has been left with a government-issued forged document. The information on it is erroneous and/or blank.

Many people in the general public are under the false assumption that when adoptees turn 18, their correct birth information is automatically returned to them. This is untrue. Even in what is known today as "open" adoptions, the adoptee's birth record remains sealed permanently, regardless of both sets of parents' wishes.

This practice is unwanted, unnecessary, and outdated!

Although many states are in the process of restoring this situation to a more humane approach similar to what the rest of the world has, there is still a powerful U.S.adoption industry (along with some, not all, adopters) with a vested interest in making big bucks and sweeping facts under the rug & keeping them there forever.

Records of birth are public information. Every other citizen has a right to their own information. That information does not belong to parents to decide what to do with it.

Who has the greater right to information pertaining to any adult? Obviously the person whose birth is recorded there. What any person does with their information is irrelevant & not in conflict with their right to have it. Potential relationships, regardless of who they are between, always need to be mutual, and should be decided between the individuals.

To those who ask about natural mother's anonymity, I have said this before (check my earlier answers on this topic) & I'll say it again: Any person's record of birth does NOT belong to their mother. Nor does it belong to the adopters. The adoptee's right to know who they are and where they came from is not in conflict with a natural mother's preference for a relationship. That's something that can be decided between the two of them, just like it is with any other two adults. Furthermore, anonymity could not have been promised because adoptions aren’t even finalized until at least 6 months after relinquishments are signed. Not all children are adopted anyways. Records are not sealed until an adoption is final so if one is not, then how could anyone guarantee that? If in fact anyone did promise that, they would not have had the legal authority to do so, and it would have been unwanted in most cases. In more than two decades of fighting against adoptee human rights, not one single document promising “anonymity” has ever been submitted anywhere by sealed-records lobbyists. What natural moms DID sign were relinquishment of PARENTING rights. They did not agree to not ever have any contact with their child. Most are overjoyed to later learn what became of their children lost to adoption, regardless of the circumstances at the time.

* * * Additionally, people in this country are assumed capable of managing all of their own affairs. They can enter into relationships and contracts with one another. They have full rights unless they are deemed incompetent by some reason. (underage, criminal, intoxication, insanity, etc.)

* * * Apparently, some states in the U.S. government have created a new category just for adoptees. They deem adult adoptees incompetent by reason of adoption! To assume they cannot manage their own lives is patronizing and wrong.

Fortunately, children born out of wedlock are no longer stigmatized as being illegitimate. Society has evolved to accept single parenthood and the children born out of wedlock. The laws should evolve as well. Laws that were once created in an attempt to protect children from stigma have today turned against them. It was never the child's fault anyways. They should not be made to suffer permanently. Adoptees are not somebody's shameful little secret. They are humans worthy of the same rights that every other tax-paying, law-abiding citizen has.

In conclusion, adult adoptees should regain their rights to their birth certificates because it is wrong to seal them, it is not necessary, it is unfair, it's discriminatory, and it is outdated. I see the tide changing as more & more people see this issue for what it really is - a human right's issue.

Thanks for asking,

julie

reunited adoptee

rights activist