Birthparent Annonymity?

Question

People keep saying our parents were 'promised' confidentiality and annonymity from their own flesh and blood.

Where is the cold hard proof? huh?

Answer 1

It is clear that there is no legal promise of anonymity.  

Laurie spells out a very good case against this position.  I would just add that if there were a legal promise of anonymity, then it would be illegal for people to search for their first families.  

There is simply no reason to think that first mothers (or other first family members) get a special right of anonymity simply because they relinquished a child.  NO ONE else has that right, unless they are in the witness protection program.  Telephone books, internet databases, public court records, newspaper publications all point to the fact that we do not live in an insular society.  Others can contact us.

The most we have is a right not to be harassed.  Beyond that, NO ONE is guaranteed anonymity.

Answer 2

Embrace the people that raised and loved you and respect the wishes of those who loved you enough to give you up to be raised in a better envorment.

Would you have a real warm fuzzy feeling if you found your birth mother and found out you are the product of a gang rape and by showing up, you force her to relive that h**l.  Just so you can satisfy your curiosity?

Answer 3

The fact that the birth parents decided to have their child adopted out to give he/she a better life is a wonderful gift to that infant.

If they wanted all done confidentially and anonymously, I believe it is their right.

I know to those that are trying to find their birth parents that this is a difficult thing to understand, but it is what they chose to do.  

Many times false names, ages, etc. were given to guarantee their privacy.  The fact that it was a closed adoption is proof of their wishes.

Answer 4

First off to all the people telling Heather to be grateful, you are way out of line. Just because an adoptee expresses the desire or decides to search for their birth parents does not mean they are ungrateful or love their adoptive parents any less. It is natural curiousity that drives some people to search, especially when it comes to medical information.

Now, with that being said.. This is were I think the promise came from. Back in the late 1930's to 1960's where unwed mothers were looked down upon, this statement was told to young girls to get them to give up their babies. Especially by the parents of these young girls. The promise of remaining annyomous and getting on with their lives, led some of these girls to give up their children.

If a birth parent is found and they wish to have no contact with their child, it is their right to say so. However I feel that the birth parent should at least give to the child either thru the adoption agency or by a letter any medical information that is valuable to the child. Also too any information on the child's hertiage, if the child expresses a desire to know about that.

Answer 5

I was born in the early 60s, and my mother wasn't promised anything.

But as she tells me, "Who knows? When I asked for a copy of what I signed, they refused to give it to me!"

What was she gonna do?  Back then the agency held ALL the cards!

Answer 6

Well, there is no proof.  In fact, there is legal proof to quite the opposite, aside from the fact that the overwhelming majority of natural parents say they weren't promised it, didn't want it and support open records.

Here's the legal stuff:

BY THE VERY NATURE OF ADOPTION LAWS THEMSELVES A PROMISE OF ANONYMITY TO BIRTH PARENTS CANNOT BE MADE OR EVEN IMPLIED.  HERE IS WHY:

1. It is highly notable that records only seal upon the finalization of an adoption. 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.  If a child is adopted and the adoption fails, the records reopen and the original birth certificate is again that child’s legal birth certificate.  There is no obligation to inform birth parents if a child is not adopted or if an adoption fails.

3. Upon the finalization of an adoption, in some states, the adoptive parents or the adopted person (if old enough to say so) can choose to leave the original birth record unaltered, with the birth parents' information on it.  There is no legal manner for birth parents to make this kind of choice.

2. Even in sealed records states adult adopted persons can have access to their birth records if they petition the court and get a court order.

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, have ever been unable to produce such a document.

  

5. The sealing adoption records began in the 1930's to hide the shame of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and to keep birth parents from interfering with the adoptive family. Prior to this time, records were not sealed, and were available to adopted persons.  Some states did not close records until much later, while two states, Alaska and Kansas, never closed records.

Adult adopted citizens' access to their own birth records isn’t an issue of reunion, contact or medical information, nor is it about the adopted person's relationship status with his or her adoptive family.  It is an issue of an entire group of citizens, adult adopted persons, being barred from a right that 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.  Returning to the practice of keeping records open ensures equal treatment under the law, ending discrimination.

Despite what those who oppose open records say, there is no special privilege guaranteeing anonymity or confidentiality to birth parents.  

Regarding this whole issue of reunions, since it always becomes a big part of these debates, is that they happen all the time under closed records laws. Birth parents find adopted persons and adopted persons find birth parents.  A simple Google search will reveal numerous birth parent organizations working to restore birth record access for adopted adult citizens.



Like other citizens, adopted citizens and birth 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.

EDIT:

For those who "guess" or "assume" that there was a promise made in the case of current closed adoptions, just looking at the LAW as laid out above shows that this is entirely not possible.

The above laws exist in both FULLY CLOSED or FULLY OPEN adoptions.  The exist in ANY kind of adoption.  Closed adoption or anonymous abandonment does not negate the validity of the above laws.



Also, Heather's question is not really about whether you like the idea of closed or open records.  It is about PROOF of whether or not a confidentiality promise exists.

Answer 7

The proof would be in if it were a closed or open adoption. If it is closed, the parent could have any number of reasons not to be contacted by the child that was placed for adoption. If you succeed in finding that person, you have no idea what problems you can cause for them. They have a reasonable expectation to believe that what they did will remain closed. Be thankful that they gave you up to hopefully find a loving family. I am.

Answer 8

I think it depends on when the adoption took place.

I believe the adoptions that took place decades ago were never promised anonymity, although it must have been implied given the circumstances.  

My adoption was a closed one, in 1977.  My natural mother had given a letter to my adoptive parents with all of her contact information.  My natural mother was however told that the adoption was closed and the chances of her ever finding me were nil.  Given that she had provided her contact information, I am under the impression she never really cared if she were kept anonymous or not.  I'm guessing most biological parents were given the impression of anonymity, but didn't really want the adoption closed, but since open adoptions were not an option back then that's all they could do.

In the adoptions that take place today, most of them are open.  I'm guessing the ones that are not open (I'm talking domestic here) are either due to either the biological parent's not wanting it open or the adoptive parents not wanting it open.  For the ones that are closed due the biological parent's choose for it to be closed, I'm guessing those do have a promise of confidentiality or anonymity.  I'm guessing that if the adoptive parents are wanting it closed, the only confidentiality promised there is for them.

Answer 9

You know Heather, that is a really good question. The agency I lost my daughter to, promised me that she would be able to find me, would have access to all my information, and asked me to keep the information updated. Funny huh? Especially in light of the fact that when my daughter did find  me (As was my express wish) it was from an online registry. EH would not release any information to her about me, even with my permission.Citing my right to "privacy" in other words protecting me. Protecting me from what? My own flesh and blood, whom I desperately hoped would not hate me for what happened to us. The child desperately hoped would find me?

Funny isn't it? No one ever promised me privacy, in point of fact they made it a point to let me know she would be able to find me should she desire to do so.

Liars! They told so many lies, and to so many mothers and in so many states.

Want information about this agency? go here-

http://www.babybrokerwatch.com

That is the man and agency that took my daughter. The same agency that told me when I wanted to back out, that, I would have to pay all the bills before I Could take her home, that they would sue my parents, (I Was 21 at the time and legally an adult and responsible for myself) that it was already too late her "Family" knows she is coming already and how can you do this to them?

I wish I had listened to my heart, I wish I had listened to my friends, I wish more than anything that I had not believed the lies I was told.

And the biggest lie of all is to say "We have a right to privacy" how dare anyone speak for us? How dare anyone who has not stood in a mothers shoes dare to speak for us? I can speak for myself, and I am telling you there was never,ever any promise of privacy for me, or any other mother I know.

Edit: Lauries answer is right on the money! Thank you for expressing it so well.

Edit: Myra you are very wrong, we were not promised privacy or confidentiality ever, anywhere, not verbally or in the written word. Reality check here, can you find it in writing in your kids papers where it says they promised the mother privacy, anywhere at all that those words were written? I think not..

Answer 10

My son's aparents knew my name, my mother's name, my son's nfather's name, and probably a whole lot more than that. I was given the general fields in which each of the prospective adoptive parents worked - that's it. I was also told that I could register to search for my son in 18 years, so I don't think anyone was asking me if I wanted to remain anonymous, they were pretty much telling me that I WOULD remain anonymous - at their discretion.

To my knowledge, no document has ever been produced that states a nmother has requested or was promised confidentiality, which as has been stated, would be impossible to uphold legally.

From Ethics in American Adoption by Linda Anne Babb (2000) pg 128: "Birth parents, and birth mothers in particular, argue that not only were they never promised perpetual confidentiality of identity, but that had never wanted it (Jones, 1993; Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1989)."

...more interesting reading to do.

Answer 11

I don't know.  I figure any promise of anonymity was also said verbally with other gems such as:

* You'll pick up your life like you were never pregnant and go back to all the plans you had.

* Sure you will be sad for a while, but eventually you won't be sad anymore and it won't hurt.

* Adoption won't have harmful effects on your child.

All of which is promised on their honor as being the whole truth, and yet just as filled with hot air.

Answer 12

You want cold proof?  OK.  Flesh & blood.  That's the biological issue not the Parent issue.

Biological parents are promised and get confidentiality, if after 20 or 30 years they still want it and the ball just might land in their court.  Some are curious.  I have 2 sons the eldest is 38 (ok his younger biological brother was born later the same year).  He has a young son and his wife thought they should obtain any medical hereditary information they could.  Once again, I gave him the information he needed. Given a few years here and there he forgets.  Well he did pursue that end.  It was a dead end, he did find out that the biological mother was still alive and didn't want to communicate and that his biological father was dead.  The screening here is a slow process of communication if there ever will be communication.  My son decided to let it go, it wasn't his idea in the first place and his wife is satified that he tried.

Answer 13

Well i know that my birth mother was told that when i was adopted, I would be placed somewhere far away from her town. I actually live just up the road! I dont think there is any confidentiallity in it. thousands of adoptees could walk past birth relatives every day with out even knowing it.

Answer 14

Adoption agencies are no different from cops interrogating a prisoner. They can lie about anything because nobody is going to hold them to their word once the papers are signed.

Answer 15

The "fact" that it was a "closed adoption" is ridiculous.  There was no such thing AS an open adoption until sometime in the 1980's, and even open adoptions are not legally enforceable.  

MOST relinquishing mothers prior to the 1980's didn't even GET to "choose" adoption for their children (including mine) so don't go saying that they "chose a closed adoption" when in fact, most would have given anything to raise their children in the first place.

There is NO mention of confidentiality or anonymity ANYWHERE in ANY adoption or relinquishment paperwork.  Go ahead, I invite any of you to do some investigation on your own and try to find it.

It simply does not exist.  

And if any one subset of the population can really get this legally protected right to privacy?  Then I want MY right to privacy from all those telemarketers...where are MY PRIVACY RIGHTS??????

Answer 16

There is no proof. Because most often they WEREN'T promised secrecy. And if they WERE it was an UNLAWFUL promise which the courts aren't obligated to uphold.

IF parents WERE promised secrecy the adoptee wouldn't be able to petition the courts because that would violate the promise of secrecy.

IF parents WERE promised secrecy there wouldn't be a little BOX that aparents can check in MANY ( not all ) states that give the OPTION of issuing a NEW birth certificfate with THEIR names ( the aparents ) on it instead of the first parents. Sealing records is an option in some states ( california which is mine and a handful of others ) that gives the POWER all to the aparents.

If first parents were promised secrecy the sealing of the records would happen upon surrender, but thats not what happens in adoption and anyone who's been through one ( especially adoptive parents ) can tell you that after parents terminate their rights, the child then becomes a ward of the state, or in responsibility of the agency. Then the agency adopts them to the adoptive parents, and THAT is when the records are sealed.

To answer your question there IS no cold hard proof. Because it didn't happen to everyone, or even most and to the mothers who WERE promised it, its not upholdable in courts.

A "unlawful promise" of secrecy never should trump another human beings human right to not be discriminated against due to ancestry.

6 states in the united state give adoptees access to their original records. 2 of them NEVER sealed them in the first place.

The other 44 states are amoung the last of the most industrialized nations in the world to open up their records to adoptees. the U.S. is the only sovereign country that refuses to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child and I believe it is because 44 states would have to immediately open up their records!

A study in maryland was done by harvard university that questioned mothers who had surrendered and if they wanted a reunion with their adopted children/adults 100% welcomed contact.

In oregon measure 58 was passed by the public voting it into law. read up on that here: http://www.plumsite.com/oregon/

Answer 17

As you know, adoption laws vary by state.  However, in Texas it is possible for a birthparent to request a truly closed adoption.  All they have to do is request that the court seal the relinquishment papers as well as the adoption papers.  The very fact that such an option even exists shows that it is legal for parents to do this.  It also shows that there is a wish in some birth parents to not ever be found.  

I don't think this is healthy for anyone involved in the adoptions (except perhaps in cases of abuse or rape), but the option does exist.  There is a legal recourse for parents who wish to remain anonymous, and adoptees should respect that.  If your genetic donors are going through such lengths to hide from you, there is probably a good reason.  

Also, in Texas (and in many other states) there is what is termed a "Baby Moses" law.  This law states that a child under 60 days old may be legally abandoned by its mother to any personel at a manned Fire Station, EMS Station, or Hospital - no questions asked if they wish.  It is important to note that when the child is dropped off, the parent can fill out a medical history form without actually giving away they're identity.  Those children are made adoption eligible by a CPS court petition, and no legal document will ever link the child to any biological parent.  In other words, this allows a relinquishing mother to remain completely anonymous.  

Is that proof enough?