Birthmoms, did you sign any legal contracts saying you did not ever want to be found?

Question

Is there anything in the relinquishment papers you signed that said, protect me from my child ever finding me, because I do not remember that part. Can someone jog my memory please?

Answer 1

Dear Snowwillow,

I never signed ANYTHING that said me or my kids would have "privacy" from each other - nor would I have signed any such paper. Had I been asked to, my kids would still be with me because I would not have placed them at all. As a matter of fact, I have a paper stating that we will have ongoing contact (created & signed by the APs and their lawyer), although the APs decided they didn't wish to adhere to that statement after the adoption was finalized.  

Answer 2

Some parents do sign papers saying that they want their privacy respected and does not want to be found. I think it depends on the mother. Some  moms may want to be found. Not every mother feels the same.

When a birth mother gives up her children, she has to know there is a strong possibility that she will never see that child again. I personally couldn't live with that possibility therefor i would never give up my baby.

Answer 3

Absolutely not and quite the opposite. I begged for an open adoption and for my son's records to be made available to his adoptive parents. Social services promised me this would happen then closed the adoption the second I signed my name.

First parent privacy is a myth set in place to protect adopters, nothing more.  

Answer 4

In the consent to adopt forms, in any adoption that is not stated as "open", the forms state something to the folowing:

After the ten day (depending on what state), waiting period, the birth mother/father hereby surrenders any rights to the child.

In that surrendering, it also surrenders the rights for contact, unless the adoption is considered open, which legally means only the paperwork, not visitation.

Answer 5

i gave up a child for adoption but we have an open adoption. and besides i really didnt read the papers relinquishing my rights because my eyes were way to watery to see anything. good luck to you

Answer 6

[Actually, i personally don't consider myself to be a "birthmom" as i am still a mother to my eldest son: that did not cease after his birth and if were just his 'birthmother" then by definition i would not be his mother.  :) ]

However, to answer your question, I did not sign anything stating i never wanted to be found. In fact, I told the social wrecker that I would be back in 19 years, back into my son's life, so even though she was forcing me to surrender (she had a waiting list of over 500 people wanting to adopt and it was hospital policy to remove babies of unwed mothers right at birth without their consent or fore-knowledge) I refused to relinquish my right to love him as my son and find him again, which I did.  

Answer 7

Absolutely not.  There were no such papers in existence.

The "privacy" and sealing of records was (and still is) designed to get the natural mother out of the picture.  

Adoptive parents don't want those scary mothers showing up, do they?

Answer 8

My mother went through exactly what Botz's mother went through - almost word for word.

No counselling - just go home and forget it ever happened.

No legal contracts to never be found.

They never existed.

The adoption industry like to use this fabricated piece of mis-information to keep records closed.

Answer 9

i don't remember reading anything like that when i filled out the paper work. all i remembered was that they wanted to know my STD hx and if i knew who my baby daddy was...

it's the ole "the birthmother doesn't want to be stalked, so we must p**s on adoptee' rights" myth....another piece of propaganda from your friendly neighborhood adoption agency.

Answer 10

I am not a relinquishing mother, but I'd like to answer your Q, if you don't mind, based on what my natural mother told me.  She was never told that she would be 'protected' from being found by me.  She never asked to be protected from me.  She was told to go home, forget about me, forget she had given birth, and "get on with life" as if the whole experience was so easily erased.

She was also instructed to NEVER look for me herself.  She was told I would be "better off" not knowing her.  That I would not want my life "disrupted" by her.

I'm baffled by the presumption of an agency worker (or many, as in my mother's case) in thinking they could speak for ME.  I was, at the time, an infant.  They had no authority to speak for me then -- or ever.  They had certainly less right to speak for me (my mother's OWN child) than she did.  And, for the record, they were wrong.  Dead wrong!

In addition to all the above, they told her (and even put in a letter, which she kept and I have read) that I would be given all the necessary information needed to contact her when I was "of age" (meaning 18) if I asked for it.  In other words, they LIED to her.  They told her not to expect me to want anything to do with her.  They set her up to think that I hated or was indifferent to her.  That's one of the things I'm still angry about.

Anyway, I hope you'll excuse my answering as an adopted person, rather than a reliquishing mother.  Thanks for asking.

Answer 11

nope those papers do not exist.  

Answer 12

I never signed the Surrender, since they took my son away when the father came to take us home.  The Home had him arrested, knocked me out with drugs, and removed my son to save him for adoption.  So, no, I didn't, nor did most of the mothers I know.  In fact, of the hundreds that I am in contact with, ALL of them want contact or are in reunion with their lost children.  

Sandy Young

Senior Mother

SMAAC

Answer 13

For ANYONE who believes that surrender papers promising privacy from the surrendered child exist:

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

Those papers DO NOT EXIST. They never have. Never will.  

Answer 14

Because no records seal UNLESS an adoptive placement

1. occurs and

2. is finalized by the court,

it would be absolutely impossible to legally promise any sort of anonymity.  If no adoption actually happens, then the original birth certificate remains the child's only legal birth certificate.  If an adoption does occur but fails, the original becomes the child's only legal birth certificate once more.

Further, many adoptive parents have the names of the first parents because they were mentioned in the adoption papers that the adoptive parents received during the period of time that the adoption was in motion, but not yet finalized.  

Records do not seal because a child is given up for adoption.  They ONLY seal if a finalized adoption occurs.  Therefore, there is absolutely no way to guarantee this idea of anonymity.

As a side note, ten years ago the voters of Oregon voted to reinstate birth certificate access for adopted adults.  They did this by passing Ballot Measure 58.  (http://www.measurablerights.com)

When a court injunction against the passage of Measure 58 was sought based on the idea of "promises of anonymity," no one was able to come forth with any legal documents promising anonymity.  Not even the NCFA, the greatest opponent of open records, was able to do so.  This was one of the factors in the court's decision to uphold the passage of Measure 58.