It has been said that adoptees & first families need state protection from each other...?

Question

This has been used as an argument to keep adoption & birth records sealed, and family members apart.

1) For how long, if any amount of time, do you believe mandatory protection is really necessary?

2) Why is it assumed protection is necessary without cause? Why are ordinary measures, available to society at large, inadequate for adoptees?

3) Whose interest is this really serving? Is this practice right or wrong?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Answer 1

Hi Julie,

I am addressing this from the perspective of infant adoption as that is the only experience I have.

If a woman is making an "adoption plan" then she isn't consciously planning to harm her child - regardless of the fact that she may not be told of the emotional/psychological harm separation can cause either herself or her child - she isn't purposely setting out to harm her child.

"Mandatory protection" just sounds over the top from my own experience. I wouldn't have harmed my son had I been able to keep him, so mandatory protection? Doesn't make much sense to me.

I would like to see children get the opportunity to meet their first parents around the age of 11 - 12 - 13 - at the latest. (Better yet open adoptions should be enforced from day one.) I've read enough about child development to know that our children go through crucial stages where they may be more likely to need answers.

I know that there are some adoptive parents who post here who have tried to connect with the first parents while the child is still young. That to me is an indication of their sense of security with their own position as a parent, understanding of the child's issues, and empathy for the first parents. Unfortunately, that combination probably occurs even less often than the perfect "birth" family.

I assume that ordinary measures would be adequate for protecting adopted children.

Closed adoptions serve the adoptive families and adoption agencies, facilitators, lawyers, etc.

I believe that sealed birth records serve the adoption agencies first and foremost, and secondly those adoptive families who want nothing to do with the child's first parents.

It is wrong to keep records sealed - certainly past the age of 18 - for adopted persons. It is wrong to amend birth certificates. It is wrong to keep legal documents sealed from women who signed them - often in front of a judge in a court of law. We, adoptees and first parents, are treated like criminals. How could I prove that something illegal occurred during the surrender of my son if I can't see the documents involved in the "transaction" of parental rights? Don't I have the right to look at these documents and come to my own conclusions now - 20+ years later - especially if everything was all on the up and up?

Sealed records and amended and sealed birth certificates are all part of the greater conspiracy. And I know how people love to hate the word conspiracy, but I can't think of a better term when it comes to infant adoption.

Answer 2

I think that records should be closed until the child's 21 birthday. Unless the child has an illness ( cancer, etc..) then the records should be opened up for the childs health. Then if the child wants to know, he/she should have the right to know everything. Just like any child born to their own natrual parents.

   As an adoptee I believe that I have a right as an adult to know everything. Sadly being 35 this will never happen.

Answer 3

Hi Julie,

If, in fact, adoptees and first families need state protection from each other then i would offer them a restraining order.  That is the option offered to the remainder of the population.

I must state that i believe this needed state protection is a "Myth" and this practice is wrong.

Birth certificates should not be closed for any reason.  I think we all should be playing by equal rules here.

Who gains from this practice, it would be the people with the money since money talks.  Who has the money?  Agencies.  Adoptive parents:(    (might add not an easy answer to choke out since i'm an aparent.)

Answer 4

I firmly believe that children should be legally protected from anyone that harms them.  Doesn't matter who it is or what relationship they have to eachother.  

Honestly, I cannot imagine whose interests are being served by sealed records or closed adoptions.  

However, I know that many adoption agencies lobby strongly for sealed records and closed adoptions.  Some how it must be beneficial for their business.

Answer 5

I live in a state that has never sealed records.  So i don't understand how the other 44 states have this problem but we don't.

now unless the child has been removed from an abusive situation, I can't seem to find one court case where after an adoption the child knowing their origins and history have cause a problem.  

There isn't anything to prove that any amount of time is neccessary to keep the biological family away from the child.   Again unless it's in cases of abuse.  But even then a medical history should be readily available and contact with non abusive family members.  

My child has had contact with her biological family from the start.  I can not see any reason for why we would have needed to wait.  

In my open adoption state there not only isn't an abundance of restraining orders agaist biological families, I can't even find one to show that it has happened.

I can't honestly tell you whose best interest it would serve.  It doesn't serve the biological parent's interest to not know anything of their child after placement.  It doesn't serve the child not to know anything of their biologial history.  

And as an adoptive parent it wouldn't even serve me.  I like being able to honestly answer any questions my child may have.  And if it's a question i can't answer i find it reassuring i can point her directly to the person who would know.  

I find this practice to be so very wrong on many levels.

I am proud and happy that my child was born in and lives in a state where biological history has never been a secret and something to hide.

Answer 6

1.  The records should be open for those living adoption and whose lives are directly affected by the adoption, adoptee, natural parent, and adoptive parents.  I do NOT think that it is necessary.

2.  I believe it is scare tactics by adoption agencies and the pro life movement.  

3. It protects the adoption industry from what they did to natural parents.  I am hearing more and more about illegal/black market adoptions.  I think this practice is very wrong.

Sealed records were never meant to protect natural parents.  Natural parents lose their rights when they signed the relinquishment paperwork.  They don't gain extra ones.  They lose all.  Any natural parent will tell you that.  The records were sealed to protect adoptive parents from the interference of natural parents. The records were never to be sealed from the adoptee.  Of course the message got lost in the mayhem.  Then you have someone like Georgia Tann.  There were many black market baby dealers all over the United States.  The states do not want to deal with the ramifications of those actions.  So they sealed the records.  There are the Lydia Shapiro babes in the Fort Wayne Area, Cole babes out of Florida, and many others.

Answer 7

In the interest of the adoptee, sealing birth records is not correct. Each of us have the right to know our origin. The purpose may be health, curiosity, or many other thing; but it should always be our right.

Protection should only be a necessity if there is a threat to an individuals well being. Other than that, I see it as a waste of time and money that could be much better spent elsewhere in the system.

Case by case, this has to be measured. Sure, if there are disgruntled bio's that have abused a child, but still want that child; than yes it is a necessity.

If the child belongs to a teenage mother who wants to give the child the she cannot provide, there is no reason to waste the resources.

Adoptees, fosters, orphans, live in a separate world with separate rules. The hardest task that we have to do is to overcome the statistic and make the best ME you can be!

Answer 8

Well your asking someone with a strong opinion. I was adopted in Mississippi in 1962. The state law is that the records remained sealed. In 1962 or before it was very taboo for being pregnant  and not married, usually the parents made the decision and the sent their daughters off to a home to deliver a baby and when the baby was born they would pick their daughters up and never mention IT again. As a mother myself I cannot imagine not thinking about my child on it's birthday, wondering what kind of life it had, and hoping The child had been raised in a hppy healthy family. It wasn't that way for me. I've always wondered where I came from ALWAYS...The records are sealed to protect  the birth mother who was probably  a teenager and who is now remarried with a family of her own.. (not to say she doesn't want to know) she just wouldn't have the support of her family. And it could disrupt her present life. I think when the adopted child becomes 18 years of age they should be allowed access to these reecords. We all have a right to know where we came from, who we look like and sound like, and any necesssary medical information, such as breast cancer, or other family related illnesses. I think the practice of assummed protection is outdated and needs to be reassed. God I am so passionate about this. Today you casn choose a birth family and legally say I want pictures, or this is my real name...Give us something...And a final note I do not believe a child needs  a protection order from  his or her own mother.

Answer 9

I believe that closed adoption records are for the birth mothers protection. It is not in the best interest of the child to not have access to this information but they continue to protect the birth mother instead of what is good for everyone.

1. Every birth mother should be told that when the "child" is 18 they will be given the information about thier birth family.

2. Access should be for every adopted child.

3. The practice is wrong-- it only protects the birth mother - does nothing for the adopted person at all.

Answer 10

I have come to realize that across the board sealed records is not only unnecessary, but harmful.  Certainly, children who were adopted because of abuse must be protected until they are old enough to handle the contact.  I suppose that there is not a particular age that would be right for every child.  But research is now available to show that sealed records are not "protecting" anyone, because there is no one to protect.  Especially for adult adoptees.  They are ADULTS, for goodness sakes.  So, the question is who is it that is so opposed to the adopton laws being reformed?  Or, is it just an issue that has been ignored and placed at the bottom of the list of importance?

Answer 11

I'm on a lot of adoption search groups, and I've met only one or two birth mothers who did not want to be found.  Most are searching, but nobody wants to help.  

I'm an adoptee, and I may never find out my medical history.  I hope I'll find it in case it can help my son and youngest grandson who are sick a lot.  Maybe there's something in my medical background that their doctors need to know.

I don't want to hurt anyone.  If my birth parents want to keep me a secret, I'm okay with that.  I'd like to speak with them at least once.

BTW, I was a grey market baby...  a private deal among the doctor, my birth mother (actually her parents made her give me up), and my "adoptive" parents.  I found out bits and pieces from a-cousins who are 20+ years older than I.