Original vs. Reissued Birth Certificate?

Question

I've been thinking lately about alternatives to new birth certificates being issued for adopted children. What is the alternative? Why did they start reissuing birth certificates with the APs to begin with? I know that BCs used to be stamped "Illegitimate" - and the adoptee was stigmified for life. Was the idea that reissuing with the APs names would take the stigma away, and allow adoptees some anonymity in their adoption (as in, the woman at the passport office doesn't need to have that information - that adoptees don't have to have it broadcast everywhere they are adopted.) And hasn't that all just led to this idea that adult adoptees need to be "protected" from their adoption, long after they are of age and quite capable of taking care of themselves?

But what is the alternative? The adoptee should have the right to their own information, obviously - but what is the other option? Adoption certificate? APs added as an addendum? How do you address the legal issues (applying for ....

Answer 1

Actually, Alabama does something which feels weird to me, but after hearing the dilemma that adoptees have had about getting passports,etc., I guess  Alabama does  better than most places.  When our children were adopted we received new birth certificates.  Everything on them was correct.  The only things changed were the names of the parents, and the children's names.  So, the bc shows their actual place of birth, actual weight, time of birth--everything.  It just makes it look like I gave birth to them!  That's weird to me.  It's like a lie.  It is a lie.  Still, it does at least give them something to use to get a passport.  And it does give them some accurate information abou their birth to help them get started searching for their first families.

Personlly, I thought it was creepy, and just not right to do the certificates that way.  I think they need to have both their original BIRTH certificate--will all the accurate and truthful information on it, and then have an ADOPTION CERTIFICATE, which merely shows that they were adopted by whoever.  Why try to pretend that the adoption certificate is a birth certificate?????

Answer 2

My question (and I know that this is going to cause a stir, but it is a valid question) is, "What is the child being deprived of by using a amended birth certificate?"  The ONLY information that is different is the names of the mother and father.  EVERY OTHER thing on the BC is an exact representation of the child's birth.

Would you rather have the child be required to provide additional paperwork whenever he/she wanted to use the BC for anything?  How about the fact that the original BC often has "Baby Boy [Last Name]" rather than the name that they have known from the time that they knew their name?  This means that the BC will be inadequate to verify identity without the adoption paperwork.

Answer 3

The birth certificate is a record of who the parents are, so once adopted the parents change.  A birth mother can actually put down any name she wants as the father if he is not present.  So technically a birth certificate isn't always real.  Several women who keep their children and raise them as single parents keep the birth father line blank.  The woman does not even have to put her true name.  You could have a couple named Smith, but they do not like their last name so the name the Baby Johnson.  

I imagine it is hard for adoptees who want to know who their biological parents are so they want an original, and that is what should happen, an original should always stay with them also.

Answer 4

This started in the old days.... When Adoption was considered to be "the same as birth" and that was that!

It continues today because their has not been a different legal way to provide parental rights without changing the Original Birth Certificate....

My personal feeling is that there should be a Different Method of establishing parental rights and even if it is the case that a name will be changed it should not HAVE to demand an "ammended" birth certificate....

I would like to see some kind of change in this. As a woman when I apply for a Passport or need to prove my birth and my name it requires both my birth certificate and marriage records. I don't see why we can't come up with an additional document that does not Re-Write the truth....

I don't have a problem getting legal things accomplished with my BC and My marriage certificate... It should not be so hard to have an adopted child with an Original Birth Certificate and an Adoption Decree or Adoption Certificate that would serve just as well for parental rights and identity issues....

Just don't get the reason in 2008 that we continue to use the same methods done since Birth Certificates were established as the only means of Identity proof???

Answer 5

Hi Wholelottacats,

At the finalization of an adoption, an "adoption decree" is signed and issued by the judge.  This shows that the adoptive parents are the legal parents of the child.  It is a separate document that is already issued and is separate from the child's birth certificate.

The altering of the birth certificate is unnecessary.  A birth certificate is intended to record just that - the facts of a birth, as it happened.  The fact that an adoption later occured, in some cases years later, does not change who originally gave birth to that child.  It is silly to try to rewrite history to make a legal document showing that two people gave birth to a child when they clearly did not.  In some cases, the parents are of another race, or were in another country at the time of birth, or were pregnant with another child at the time.  It's no wonder many adoptees consider the amended certificate a forged document.  

Whether it's legal or not, adoptees know it is still a lie.  Regardless of how much they may love the people who raised them, they did not give birth to them.  A piece of paper saying so will never change that fact.  It's time for the lies to stop.  Adult adoptees can handle the truth.  If others cannot, that is still no reason to permanently alter anyone else's identity so that we can all pretend a single person did not give birth or that an infertile one did.  Other advanced countries have recognized this for decades and do not try to change a child's identity in order for him/her to be cared for in the absence of his/her parents.

You asked about the history of changing identities.  Single parenthood used to be looked at as socially unacceptable.  So did infertility.  Society stigmatized all of these parties.  Adoption was touted as the solution to all of these problems.  Those who profit from the adoption industry claimed that reissuing a new birth certificate for the child would solve all of these problems.  They claimed children were blank slates who would never notice and never care about their other families.  Adoptive parents bought into that.  So the great experiment known as closed adoptions was tried in most American states during the 50's, 60's and 70's.  Those babies have grown up now & it's safe to say that was a failed social experiment!  Adoptees do still have a need for knowledge & to be connected to their roots.  Sealed records is an infringement on their rights.  Single parenthood is more socially acceptable today.  The stigma is no longer attached to the mothers or the children of single parent families.  It is detrimental to pretend to wipe them out as if they never existed.

Yes, children should always be taken care of.  The fact is it is possible to do that without doing further damage to them by permanently concealing their identities from them.  A birth certificate is not a deed showing anyone as having ownership over anyone else.  It's an historical document to which the person named has every right to a factual copy.  It need not be changed to reflect whoever has current custody of the child.  Let's take care of the child, and leave his/her birth certificate alone.  If anything must be changed, I'd recommend just adding adoptive parents' names in addition to the existing information, but not deleting any information that has already occurred.  For those who say outside people do not need to know an adoption took place, I say keeping adoption in the dark only perpetuates the idea that something is wrong & shameful with adoption.  Thank you for asking.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 6

i know with my own birth certificates..there are three of them....two from before my adoption...one with 1970 and one with the year 1971 ...the one after my adoption is 1970..they have no clue when i was born they arent even sure my birthday is right..nor any of my siblings...i do know when i got my first passport when i was going overseas with my husband in 1990 he is in the military..it took six months to get it....i have often wondered if its because i was adopted...noone else then took that long...but i do know from talking to the adoption agency for the state of ky...my birth certificates all three of them are tied together...because she is how i found out about having two before the adoption one..