Birth mother "anonymity"—legitimate question?

Question

Okay, so I am just curious for everyone's input on this.. I am NOT trying to stir any kettle, I've just been thinking about something, and I wanted everyone's opinion..

#1 I absolutely believe that adoptees have the right to their original birth certificate and adoption records.. This is NOT in dispute here..

BUT.. I also think that a birthmother has rights too.. This MAY be rare, but I KNOW it happens.. what if she really wants no contact.. of course her child will know her name, from adoption records and OBC, but what would be the smoothest way for her child to know whether she wants to be "found or not" some possibilities are

any woman wishing to relinquish should submit a detailed family medical history for both her, and the father, if possible..

THe woman maybe could make a "Do not contact" notation in the adoption records

BUT there should also be a way for her to "Change her mind" at any point down the road, So when the child at 18 looks at the adoption records

TBC

Answer 1

Adoption is not the witness protection program

Adoptees are not stalkers, harassers or people looking for new mommies and daddies, and I resent the implication that they are.

Any who are can be dealt under current laws just as any other person, Adoptees do not need a restraining order put on them 'just in case' that is discrimanatory against a whole class of people and only serves to perpetuate the stigma of adoption and adoptees as people

Grown adults are capable of handling their own adult relationships and that include being able to use the magic word "No" just like any other person in the world.

Tell me which other grown adult has to ask their Mommy (who by the way didn't even raise the adoptee) if they can pretty please have the true and accurate record of their own birth?  We need to stop treating Adult Adoptees as children. NOw.

Answer 2

Shelly,  I understand you did not mean to ask about "anonymity," but surely you realize you set yourself up for it by including the word in your question, right?  In any event, while you might think parts of their answers talk about something you didn't mean to discuss, I believe Julie, Laurie, and Theresa have all raised excellent points to your question.

It is distressing to see yet another attack on adoptees as zealous stalkers, however, and distressing that you commend the author of those remarks.  (Though not those remarks in particular.)

All of that aside...  Most adults in this country are quite capable of expressing their wishes to not be contacted.  When an ex-girlfriend gets in touch with a friend of mine to find my address and renew contact, I told her that I was not interested, and I asked my friend to not facilitate contact in the future.  I am adult enough to express my wishes to the person directly.  If she had continued to try to have contact with me, I could have, at that point, asked the government to intervene.  

The question is whether the government should intervene before the adoptee has engaged in any unwanted behavior.  (This may not be your question, but this issue is in the neighborhood.)  I think most adoptees who search are worried enough about rejection that they are not likely to seek contact if they discover that the parent has indicated a no contact preference.  Including such a preference in the file seems sufficient.  More than that is overkill.  Adoptees are not, as a rule, stalkers out to ruin lives.  Unless there is evidence that a particular adoptee is a stalker, we should not impose a permanent restraining order on adoptees without any due process.

Answer 3

A natural parent who relinquishes looses all rights.  Those individuals don't get new rights when they relinquish.

In adoption, natural parents transfer all rights to the adoptive parents including the familial right to privacy.  In abortion, contraception and parenting, the mother is practicing the right to familial privacy.  When the parental rights are transferred, the adoptive parents get the familial right to privacy because the natural parents are no longer parenting.  Anyway no woman has the fundamental right to place her child up for adoption.  Thus no fundamental right to privacy.  This was per the Oregon courts when their adoptee access law was contested.  This is only in regards to the OBC.  That is it.

That is what I fight for.  I have been read private HIPPA information on my natural mother. Now that is a violation of her medical privacy.  Both sets of parents also never received anything that they signed.  It makes you really wonder who exactly are we protecting?  If the adoptive parents, natural parents and the adoptee don't have access to the paperwork, who is getting the real protection here?  Its the adoption industry itself.

Answer 4

Hi Shelly,

I do not think the birth mother should have the right to a "do not contact" request.  I believe every adoptee has a right to trace their roots.  If a birth mother is not interested in having a relationship with her child then the least she can do is tell that child in person.  

If for some odd reason (which i highly doubt would happen) the adoptee became a stalker then the birth mother could file a restraining order like the rest of us.

So i guess i respectfully disagree with you but i do recognize all of the thought that went into your question.  All the best.

Answer 5

Hi Shelly,

Thank you for recognizing that everyone has a right to their original records of birth.  It is a normal trait, common to all humankind, the desire to know who we are and where we came from.  You are right about we should all have rights, the same rights.  Adoptive parents have their records, natural parents have theirs, in fact, ALL citizens have rights to know their origins, except the adoptees in 44 states.  Adoptees having their own rights to their own records does not impede upon their parent's rights to access their own records.  Balanced rights means everyone has access to the SAME things.  Granting anyone something extra is NOT a right and should not be allowed any more.

In order to grant anyone additional rights, such as becoming anonymous from your children, that would entail TAKING AWAY another individual's right to know who they are first.  There is no law granting natural mothers this.  Studies prove they overwhelmingly do not want to be anonymous anyways!  No evidence exists of any signed contracts of anonymity in relinquishment papers.  If anyone had made such a promise to any mother, they had no authority to take away the child's rights in order to do so.  Adoptees in the remaining states simply want their rights restored to what they were before they were stomped on while they were still babies.

Although medical records are important, it is not the only reason adoptees want their records.  To allow medical information only, would be to still treat adoptees differently when it comes to rights compared to what other citizens get.  Other citizens do not have to deal with "Do not contact" notations, so it is unequal & inappropriate for adoptees to be subjected to that.  If a woman does not want a relationship with someone, including her child, the simplest way is for her to just SAY so, to the adult child.  Intermediaries or "nannies" are not necessary.  Nobody wants to hear that 3rd hand.

A natural mother does not OWN their child's identity.  A record of birth is just that - it records the facts as they were.  If custody of a child later changes, that does not retroactively change the facts of a birth.  A child is a person in their own right.  While everyone owns the right and privacy to their OWN medical records, for example, their hospital or contraceptive records, or even records of abortions, adoption does not fall into that category because it is not just the mother's record, it is also the child's.  Once a child is here, that child's rights are equal to everyone else's rights.  If a child is later adopted, that is not a part of a woman's medical records!  That is a part of that child's personal history of which he/she has a right.  Choosing to bring a child into the world obligates one to a minimum of responsibilities, and acknowledging that child is one of them.

Please do not confuse right to know with right to a relationship.  Nobody, not even adoptees, have rights to relationships with others.  There is a right to association and to contact others, including relatives.  If either party is not interested, they are free to say so, and that must be respected.  Adoptees are not stalkers, and should not be presumed to be guilty of any criminal activity.  "Vetos" assume that  adoptees are dangerous criminals from whom mothers need to be protected.  That's ridiculous.  There is no evidence of that.  Please read reports from the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute in support of rights for adult adoptees.

Hope this helps explain what you were asking.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 6

Carnie is right about birth mothers.

A do not contact request doesn't stop an adoptee from contacting them or other birth family members.

My husband just found out he has a biological sister and brother. His mothers family new about the first child but she never told anyone about the daughter. She moved to another state, said it was for work, had the baby and came home. Her daughter just found her this year. She recently told my husband and his sister about the other children. She is now having to tell her other family members too it is very difficult for her after 45 years. I don't think she would have ever told anyone.

I am very glad his sister found them but his mother definitely has no choice in the matter.

I think adoptees have rights to all their info but do worry what bmoms may do to stay anonymous or unfound.

Answer 7

Such anonymity doesn't exist under the law.  

Even the adoption laws themselves do not allow for anonymity to occur:

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. 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?

Contact preference forms are used in some states that have reopened records, such as Alabama and Oregon.  The natural parent can file a form stating whether or not s/he would like contact.  It is filed with the birth record and given to the adopted person along with the birth record, if ordered.  The contact preference may be updated at any time.  This has proven successful.

Actually, it's a much better guarantee that the natural parent won't be contacted if s/he doesn't wish to be.  Since reunions happen with sealed records anyway, the only way a natural parent can state a desire for no contact under sealed records law is AFTER s/he is contacted.  With a contact preference form attached to the birth record, that issue is handled.  If the natural parent chooses no contact, an updated medical form is also filled out and attached.

Parents who have relinquished already have all the same rights to PRIVACY as everyone else.  There is no basis for creating ANONYMITY laws solely for parents who have relinquished.  Since relinquishing a child does not seal a birth record, it would be impossible to guarantee than anonymity, anyway.

ETA:

Shelly, I know you understand about equal rights and don't advocate for anonymity, but I also know some of the people who read/answer this question may not be familiar with the law, so I take the time to cover this area as well.  Thanks, Laurie

Answer 8

I don't think birth parents deserve anonymity.

Answer 9

when a child is adopted the birth parents give up all rights of child all the way to 18. although there should be in the records that in case someones mind change they can call the adoption agency to try to contact child and adoptee. a letter should be sent to adopted mother. pertaining that the bmother wants to meet or be in the life of the child. if the adopted child and mother disagree a letter should be sent to bmother stating if they agree to meet  or not.

Answer 10

anonymity was never even brought up to my birth mother!

Answer 11

Hi Shelly.

The best way to answer this would be to look at Oregon, which was the first state to repeal the sealed birth certificates law. Oregon has a contact preference form, which is a way for a woman to let her preference be known. In the time since birth certificates have been available to adult adoptees, no one has contacted anyone who had a 'do not contact' preference listed

Further info:

"In the six years since adopted adults obtained access to original birth certificates, 9,193 have received copies (as of February 1, 2007). Seventy-nine birthparents requested no contact in year one, one in year two, and one in year three. According to The Oregonian newspaper, there are between 66,000 and 132,000 adopted persons in Oregon. Assuming half of the birthparents are deceased, the percentage in Oregon requesting no contact is less than 0.25%"

The report that source is from has information on the other states as well. However I use Oregon as that's the state with the most data, seeing as the laws were repealed there first.

Source:

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/researc...

-------------

Edited to add. From the same study as above

"Anecdotal accounts indicate that the adverse social impact predicted by opponents have not come to fruition. According to the American Adoption Congress, there have been no reports that adopted persons disturbed or harassed birthparents or that divorces were precipitated by adopted persons’ reunions with their birthparents. Oregon reported that over the five years since the new law took effect, “there has been nearly no negative fall out from the open records measure/legislation,” leading the state’s adoption program director to conclude, “we here in Oregon have learned … that in the crafting of public policy, the fears of a few … cannot necessarily be generalized to all of the public that is affected.”(30)

Also cited in support of this argument are the findings of Dr. John Triseliotis, a researcher in the United Kingdom, who has studied the impact of records access worldwide. He has observed that "a policy of open records has been operating in Scotland since 1930 and in England from 1976 onwards. There has been no evidence so far of adopted people misusing or abusing this facility. The experience of countries such as Finland, Israel, and New Zealand, where open records operate, has been similar."(31) "

30 Busharis, B. & Hasegawa, P. (2005). Adoptees deserve access to their birth records. Adoptalk, Fall. St. Paul, MN: North

American Council on Adoptable Children.

31 Triseliotis, J. (1992, June 12). Letter. To Members of the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey.

Answer 12

wow, you're stepping on a landmine here . . .

first, even if the bm provides medical history at the time of relinquishment, it should be updated every 5 years (minimum).  I think we can agree that a lot of the women may be young when they relinquish so not all the medical issues may have popped up yet; therefore, it's important to keep updating medical records.

Secondly, the woman can and should make a Do Not Contact (DNC) notation in her file if she wants and of course, she's welcome to change her mind at update her file any time she wants.

However, she should know that just because she chooses a DNC, it does not mean that an overzealous adoptee won't start contact her adult kids and other relatives so the DNC becomes a moot point.  She needs to be aware of that.  a DNC really won't do much because she'll eventually be coerced into reunion once the adoptee starts contacting everyone around here.

So ultimately, it comes down to the fact that a bmom has zero rights to privacy.

EDIT: Phil, the police generally won't intervene because it's family and unless there's a specific threat of harm, they wont' do much.  also, look at hte jurisdiction issues involved as well.  Not all adoptees are stalkers but SOME are overzealous in their desire to contact anyone, just someone, of their dna origins.

oh and sorry you're so 'distressed' over my comments.  Perhaps a thicker skin might be in order.

Answer 13

My pregnancy occured .... without my consent. Everyday I think about how am I going to explain this? Who would want to know that's how they were conceived? Then I have to think about how am I going to explain my "friends", her AP's. We had an "open" adoption and they closed it. There's more and it gets worse. I can't even talk about it. Let's just say that between her biological paternal side, and the people who adopted her, I just hope that she finds my son, Sam, who is a great little guy, and he can be a rock for her. I hope that as he becomes an adult and I tell him EVERYTHING, that he will be able to find the right words, which I am sure he will. There's no guarantee that I will be alive by the time she finds me. I do know that when / if she finds Sam, she will find a fine young man that will know all my concerns and how to best help her deal with them.

ETA:

To answer your question, it's her truth, she has a right to know. However, I have the responsibility to deliver the information in such a way that she can handle it.

"Lauren's" first mom

Answer 14

Hello shelly,

There is something called a contact preference form that can be inserted into the adoptees and surrendering parents file on behalf of either, showing preference for contact.

This is different than a contact veto or disclosure veto that would seal the file from the adoptee so they couldn't have their ancestry through the names on the birth certificate. In vetos, they white out whatever parents name has requested to remain anonymous keeping us from our ancestry.

With preference forms the adoptee still gets the OBC, but konws that the surrendering parent either wants or doesn't want contact. I support contact preference forms.

These can be updated and changed at the request of the submitting party.

Answer 15

Since my feelings changed everyday about searching or being found, that is a hard question to answer. I would not have wanted 'Do not contact', in the adoption records, but there were many years when the thought of being found scared the c**p out of me for a hundred million reasons. Not knowing scared the c**p out of me too, what if she's dead, what if she hates me, what if....then, would she search for me and what would I say or do or react....and would I do it right.

Of course I loved my daughter, but what if it wasn't enough? What about my family who didn't know? I think if she hadn't been such a secret , things would have been easier for everyone and if we hadn't been told that it was done and over and no one could be found that would have helped too. At least we would have known that we could be found. It's the secrets and lies that cause the problems.

Answer 16

Perhaps if there was a national clearing house for all adoption records, private and public with the birth mom or dad could review and update, with appropriate security in place. And once an adoptee was 18 (or younger with parental permission) they could also access the database for their records. That would be a major undertaking but now that the idea is out there, maybe someone will run with it.

Answer 17

I think that as an adoptee we should be allowed to get our records when we turn 18. But wil that happen probably not. Im right now in court trying to get the right to get my records for medical reasons I dont want to find her anymore. She lost her right to contact with me when she gave me up. I know thats alot different then how I was talking before about finding her but I found out a few things  from the adoption agency I was with that wherent all that good. So I say yes we should, but first the BM needs to put her authorization in so we can. Only then should adoptees be allowed to see their records with no problems.