Do you believe all birth records should be sealed upon adoption of a child?

Question

I've seen alot of "pro-reform" folks on this forum advocating that all records be available to adoptees so they know their history & birth family. I agree in most cases and fully understand any frustration they've felt at not being able to access their own information. I suppose my question is: do you think it's right in all circumstances though? I think the states seal the records not only to protect the anonymity of the birth mother but perhaps also realizing that it's not always beneficial for the child to know all the details. For instance, what if a child came from a home where they were sexually abused, the mother put out burnt cigarettes on the child, etc.....can you imagine how painful that would be to learn of those details later? I suppose some might argue "well it's better to know a harsh truth than to wonder for the rest of your life" & they would have their point of view. I guess I can just imagine SOME cases where it might not be so great to have the records...

Answer 1

I think its a two edged sword. Either way there will be someone that gets hurt by it. I think they should be sealed until 18. After 18, I really don't know. There is no easy way to tell someone news that could devistate them (abuse). And the birth parents might not want to be found. At the very least, the parents should be asked if they want to be found, before they have a kid knocking on their door 18 years later. For some families its still a big secret. I don't think its right to s***w up the kid or parents lives just because someone is curious. Medical records fully disclosed, but I don't know about the rest.

Answer 2

I agree that the information should be available if the birth parents want to disclose it.  However, I don't agree with some of the posts that I have read in the past stating that it should be illegal to withhold this information or that birth parents should be forced to disclose it.  

I believe that adoptive parents want to know all of the pertinent information, but privacy should be protected.

Answer 3

It hard to call, which is why my husband and and I after giving birth to triplets and could nt  have any more children chose a private adoption through a private attorney.  The birth mother chooses whether she wants open, semi open, orclosed.  I am glad our b/m chose closed but if she would have wanted to meet us we would have agreed because it was her choice.  It is good to know that the attorney has a set of the closed records in the event a life threatning medical issue ever came up.  as for the right of the mon vs the right of the child to know, it is against everything i stand for but i would have to go witht he right of the mom's privacy, b/c if more and more b-moms are forced to regidter so that their bio child may find them at 18, i am afraid less and less will ultimatley choose adoption over abortion

Answer 4

If the parent/s decide to have sealed records, it should only be until the child is 18 years old.  Everyone has a right to know where they come from, even if its not the best situation.  Even if it is a bad situation, it may help them appreciate their adopted home.  Either way, the parents made the choice to give up the child, but the child did not have a choice, therefore, he/she should have the choice of knowing who their parents are.  Especially when it comes to family medical history!

Answer 5

Open. Open. Open. Open. Open. Open.

Never sealed.

Protecting the 'birth' mothers is a myth.  Read the Girls Who Went Away.  It's agencies and APs who are protected--they have all the power, c'mon!  Since when did a mother desperate enough to give her kid away have ANY power.  Pullezze!

Secrets and lies are never the way.

Adoptive parents who want sealed records do not really love their children, or they do, just CONDITIONALLY, under the condition that you have no other parents before me.

And what child is supposed to settle for conditional love?  Just adopted kids, I guess.

Answer 6

I think that they should have information such as names adress and numbers sealed if the natural mother wants that, but that she should also be able to go back whenever she wants and say 'look, I want my child to be able to access that information'.

I think health information though should ALWAYS be available.

If both parties are in favor of having the information supplied then I see absolutly no reason why it can not be open, without all this red tape and paper work to filed only to result in nothing getting done.

Answer 7

NO! I believe that a child has the right to know their heritage. They have the right to know medical information. When those records are sealed what it tells us is that we are nothings. That we as humans do not deserve to know who we are. I think that records should be open, the birth mother can always put in there if she does or does not want to be contacted. Everyone else that is born to biological parents have the right to know their heritage and their medical information.  Why can't adopted children have the same rights? Plus most birth mothers do hope that the child they give up will some day find them. Also if the child was in a bad environment and that is the reason they were adopted. Still does not mean that the adoptee should not have access to their records. When they become of mature age to understand the impact of opening up their records, then whatever is in them they should have. This is a very charged subject, but I feel that those who wish to keep records closed are people who have no human feeling or compassion. They discriminate against adoptees. In closing having open records is what I feel can start the healing process for birth mothers and adopted children alike that have issues with adoption.

edit---i'm responding to an answer you gave here... Just so you now NOT all birth mothers are these horrible people that you paint them to be. I have just read the book "The girls that went away", it's a very powerful book. Back in the 1950's most girls were made to feel like scum because they got pregnant. I do agree with you that NOT all adoptive parents see themselves as savoirs. But you have an exterme hatred for birth mothers, like they are less of an human being. I know that there are birth mothers that DO NOT fall into the category of crack addicts, alcholics, abusive. The mothers that do fall into this category then should not be having children let alone be taking care of them.

Answer 8

I don't think the state should decide what is best for someone to know about their own past.  The state should not be involved in my personal development and the development of my identity.  If we allow that, then would we let the state decide that adoptive parents shouldn't even tell the child they were adopted?  No.  I don't think the state should decide.

But of course, having the records open does not mean that adoptees must go get them.  If an adoptee does not have the right to see the records, they don't have a choice.  But if the records are open, the adoptee can choose whether or not he or she wants to know.

The right to privacy for birth mothers is, I think, a bad argument.  If it were a good argument, then we should not allow adoptees to search at all.  (After all, searching would invade the privacy more than the the adoptee having access to the birth certificate.)  If it were a good argument, then we should outlaw phone books.  After all, if people have a right to stay hidden, don't all people have that right?  (I don't want to be found by some of my ex-girlfriends, after all.  That could create a great deal of emotional distress for me.)

The real situation is that the birth of a child is not a private matter.  If a birth certificate was created, then many people know who the birth mother is.  But we keep this a secret from the person it most affects.  That is an intolerable situation.

There is a recently released report from the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute that discusses these issues (and others) in great detail.  I would recommend it to everyone.  You can find it here:

http://adoptioninstitute.org/research/20...

Answer 9

Firstly, I will answer the question with a few questions, then go into more information about adoption law.  If sealing records upon the finalization of an adoption has anything at all to do with birth parent anonymity, then why do they not seal upon relinquishment?  Why do they remain open if an adoption never occurs?  Why do they reopen if an adoption fails?  Why do the adopted person (if old enough) and the adoptive parents have the option of keeping the record unsealed at the time they finalize the adoption?  Why are records that are sealed unsealed if a court order is obtained?

So, now it's clear that sealing records has absolutely nothing to do with so-called birth parent anonymity/privacy/confidentiality.  Sealing records, by the way, has not always been a part of adoption.  In some states is has never been law.

This is an issue of an entire group of citizens, adult adopted persons, 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.

Sealing adoption records began in the 1930's to hide the shame of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and infertility.  It was also a means allowing adoptive parents privacy from birth parents.

As stated previously, 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. Records may be unsealed by court order in cases where they were sealed upon adoption.  If the adopted person or adoptive parent chooses, they record will not seal at all.  Hence, there is no guarantee of anonymity or confidentiality, nor can such be promised.  

Birth parents already have all of the same privacy rights as other citizens.  No one has a right to anonymity (unless he or she is in the witness protection program, which requires that someone's life is in jeopardy if not provided with anonymity.)

For those who wish to attempt linking abortion and adoption together, no significant data links open/sealed records and abortion rates.  If one chooses to link them anyway, it is interesting to see that abortion rates have lowered in Oregon in the 9 years since adopted citizens regained access to their own birth records.  Alaska and Kansas never closed records, yet have lower abortion rates than average.  Some women have stated that they would choose abortion over sealed records.

Frankly, I don’t see the point of discussing the whole issue of medical records and the possibility of reunions, good or bad.  Under HIPAA, no one has a right to anyone else’s records.  Regarding reunion, it happens all the time with closed records. Birth parents overwhelmingly support open records, anyway.  Perform a simple Google search and find organized groups of birth parents supporting open records. Like other citizens, adopted persons and birth parents are capable of handling their own relationships, without government interference. They do not need other speaking for them or deciding what is best for them as though they were children incapable of doing so themselves.

Adult adopted citizens are the only citizens in our society without the right to access the record of their own births, due to an event over which they hold no control or say.

Answer 10

Sealed records are a relic left over from the past.  They were sealed to protect all parties from public scrutiny due to the (then) stigma of adoption

The State has no right interfering in 'free' citizens' adult relationships.  Birthmothers and adoptees are capable of handling their own relationships.  If someone is imposing themselves and this is not wanted there are already laws in place to deal with stalking and harassment

Sealed records were NEVER about birth mother privacy.   Birthmothers and adoptees should be given the same privacy rights of every other citizen - no more - no less.  

Adoption is not the witness protection program and adoptees are not dangerous people who need an unwarranted restraining order placed on them without due cause.  

Sealed records perpetuate the stigma of adoption and stigmatize adoptees as somehow 'harmful' to other people!

Sealed records are not in the best interest of the adoptee

Adoption has lost sight of what adoption is all about - the best interest of the adoptee

The USA is one of the last countries in the entire world to hold onto the outdated practice of sealed records

Answer 11

"I think the states seal the records not only to protect the anonymity of the birth mother"

False.  We are not protected by sealing records.

Please read this blog entry as an example of why I think this.

http://paragraphein.wordpress.com/2007/1...

"If the reason adoptees are denied access to their original birth certificates is to protect their natural mothers’ privacy, then why are those birth certificates sealed upon the adoption finalization, rather than at the termination of the natural parents’ rights?"

Adoptees have a right to their own story, their own truth.  Not a spun story.  Not a myth.  These children grow up into adults, adults who have the same rights as anyone else.  Anything less is ridiculous.

Answer 12

I think all people have the right to know were they came from. I think it should be handle with care. For example my bio's kids and hubby no zip about me. (yes it hurts) but that's her choice and I have to respect it. I get to know my history and see and know about my bio history. I think it gives me a since of who I really am. I can't thank her enough for that and giving me up. No matter what the reason.

Answer 13

I can't believe you actually buy that whole c**p line "to protect the privacy of the birthmother".  It is a load of c**p line the agencies and lawyers use to keep the records sealed.  Regular birth certificates are publicly accessible, so why not an adoptee's?  Did you know that many who want this reform are natural parents?  The adoptee has a RIGHT to his or her original birth certificate.  You must be interning for an adopting agency to be buying into all the myths and other BS.

Answer 14

No, I do not believe all birth records should be sealed, although I do think there should be restricted access until a reasonable age.  I see no reason why they should be sealed beyond 21.  Unless your parent was a serial killer, I really don't see justification for withholding the past of an adult.  The courts don't either. Prosecutors don't hesitate to drag in family members to testify in absolutely horrible murder trials and that includes pulling in the killer's children.   It's just a scam by other adults making decisions for others. Would you like the government to make decisions about your life?

Also, consider this.  I know 1 first mother in my scrapbook group who desperately tried to get information about her hereditary breast cancer to her daughter (she had a double mastectomy at 26). The adoption agency said they would give her or her a-mother the information. Never happened.  She found her daughter earlier this year. The daughter immediately was tested and now has metastatic breast  cancer (spread to other organs).  They are jointly suing the adoption agency.

Answer 15

my thoughts are that the adopted children should have access to the records once they are of age.   and the adoptive parents should have access to the records from the time the adoption is final!!  as well as all the childs records from the time the child was born!!!!   cause there is a lot of medical info that they need or maybe want!!!!  cause i am not sure if the adoptive parents have access or can get the childs birth records or medical records or not!!

Answer 16

No I don't think they need to be sealed at all. There are good and bad adoption just like natural parents. It took my son's lawyer over a year to get his son's birth record because I guess the adoption agency had it sealed. No the child was never adopted and it doesn't say anything but the mother's name and no legal name for the baby. My son kept a copy to show his son not to hurt him when he gets older but our family don't believe in secrets no matter how bad they are. The truth of someones birth should be told. If Jesus had been born to day then God's name wouldn't have been on it. Mary didn't lie when asked about the father of Jesus can you imagine if she did.

Answer 17

Hi Bestadvicechick,

I think it's important to distinguish between filtering someone else's information into something you think they could deal with, and providing equal rights and letting people deal with life issues the same way that everyone else does.

Let's start with filtering someone else's access to their own information.  By doing that, one is making the judgement that THEY can handle the adoptee's information better than THE ADOPTEE can.  That would be a patronizing attitude at the least, to treat another human that way.  We are not talking about children, we are talking about once they are adults.  These are people who are legally competent in every sense of the word, they pay taxes, they run their families & households, hold down jobs, manage every affair of their own lives the same as everyone else.  If the intent is to shield another adult from possible disappointment, well first of all, it isn't your information to withhold.  Adopters are the trustees of that information.  Secondly, it's a fact that we ALL, at one time or another, deal with disappointments in life.  We all learn.  We all move on.  By taking away the adoptee's right to his own information, you are depriving him/her of that right to process their own information and deal with it in the same way they deal with all other issues in their lives.  It is not fair to assume that an adult can not deal with unpleasant details.  Do you know any unpleasant details about yourself or about your family members?  Were you able to handle that information as an adult?  Do you think it would have been fair for another adult to permanently make that decision for you?

By taking away that equal opportunity for adults to have their own information, that is a prime example of the way the adoption system perpetually treats adoptees as children.  The fact is, they do grow up.  The fact is, they are adults the same as YOU.  The fact is, they can handle their own information, regardless of what it is.

Finally, I wanted to mention that WHAT that information is, regardless of what it is, is not the point whatsoever.  That's not anywhere as important as the fact that an adoptee have access to it.  It is his/hers.  While others may have good intentions, nobody has the right to permanently take that away or censor it for them.

Thanks for asking so this could be clarified.  I'm sure other people might have been wondering the same thing.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Edit to add:  You also asked about balancing rights.  Adoptive parents have their birth certificates, natural parents have their birth certificates.  To balance rights, adult adoptees should have their birth certificates, too.  Then everyone would have the same thing & things would be fair.