Sealed Records?

Question

What if I am birthmom who placed my child because of the circumstances of his/her conception and do not want contact with that child ever. If my child has acess to his records then my righted have beeb voliated... Where is the line been my rights and his?

Answer 1

Hi,

First, let me state that any person's record of birth does NOT belong to their mother.  Secondly, the adoptee's right to know who they are and where they came from is not in conflict with a natural mother's preference for a relationship.  That's something that can be decided between the two of them, just like it is with any other two adults.  Thirdly,  anonymity could not have been promised because adoptions aren’t even finalized until at least 6 months after relinquishments are signed. Not all children are adopted anyways. Records are not sealed until an adoption is final so if one is not, then how could anyone guarantee that? If in fact anyone did promise that, they would not have had the legal authority to do so, and it would have been unwanted in most cases. Interestingly enough, in more than two decades of fighting against adoptee civil rights, not one single document promising “anonymity” has ever been submitted anywhere by sealed-records lobbyists. What natural moms DID sign were relinquishment of PARENTING rights. They did not agree to not ever have any contact with their child. Most are overjoyed to later learn what became of their children lost to adoption, regardless of the circumstances at the time.

Now for a good article I found online:

"The opponents of open records on both the Right and the Left have tried to connect open records for adopted adults to issues of abortion and reproductive rights. This is a mistake and misuse of words, as all issues of reproductive rights cease once a living child, a separate individual with citizenship and rights of his own, is born. Adoption IS NOT a reproductive rights issue, nor is family preservation, any more than child abuse, breastfeeding, day care, or decent schools are, although all these issues are important and relate to children.

Once an adoption takes place, the reproductive part is done, the child is born and a separate person. There is no longer one person, the mother, and one legal non-person, the fetus, but two individuals with their own rights that have nothing to do with reproduction. I think we need to keep stressing this, to try to make it clear that however one feels about reproductive rights or abortion, it has nothing to do with adoption issues or with open records. Reproductive rights issues are birth control and access to it, abortion, and perhaps infertility treatments and assisted reproduction. Once a child is born, no matter what happens next, the "reproductive" part no longer applies because that is done, ended for everyone with the birth of one who is now a separate human being, not an object or less than a person.

Mothers do not have unlimited "choice" concerning what they do with their children once they are born, nor do they have rights that supersede those of that child when he or she becomes an adult. "Reproductive rights" do not last forever; they end when the reproduction part of the process ends after nine months with a live birth. And men have never had a "reproductive right" to anonymity, as witness the paternity suits filed every day! A particularly virulent outgrowth of the idea that a mother's supposed reproductive rights last forever and always trump the rights of the child are the awful baby dump "Safe Haven" laws that are springing up everywhere like weeds. Generally, where the law must step into family matters at all, it is assumed that protection of the minor child is more important than the rights of negligent or abusive adults. And all laws pertaining to minors but sealed records adoption laws end when the person becomes a legal adult.

There are only two choices, not three, that a pregnant woman makes that fall under the category of reproductive rights; the choice to abort, or to carry the child to term. The choice to surrender a child for adoption, which can only be made a legally binding choice once the child is born and a surrender document is signed, is NOT the third reproductive rights choice, nor is the opposite, the choice to raise the child and the right to assistance to do this. These important decisions that a mother makes once her child is born are in no way connected to the superior rights she had under the law while the child was still a fetus. No mother has life or death power over her child once it is born, nor does she have any right to permanent anonymity from that child under some misguided notion that this is a "reproductive right" that goes on forever. No one has a "right" to adopt, that is a privilege granted by the state for the good of the child, not to fill the needs of the adoptive parents, Nobody has a right to surrender a child and be given any promise of perpetual anonymity from that child either. Nobody has a right to raise a child if they are proven dangerous and unfit. And once again, none of these things should be viewed under the category of reproductive rights, although often they are."

More relevant reading:  # 60-65 Oregon ruling on privacy http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/privacy...

"A birth is simultaneously an intimate occasion and a public event--the government has long kept records of when, where and by whom babies are born. Such records have myriad purposes, such as furthering the interest of children in knowing the circumstances of their birth. The Tennessee legislature has resolved a conflict between that interest and the competing interest of some parents in concealing the circumstances of a birth."

"Neither a birth nor an adoption may be carried out in the absolute cloak of secrecy that may surround a contraception or the early termination of a pregnancy. A birth is an event that requires the generation of an accurate vital record that preserves certain data, including the name of the birth mother. That the state has a legitimate interest in preserving such data is not disputed here. We recognize that a birth mother may well have a legitimate interest in keeping secret the circumstances of a birth that is followed by an adoption and also that an adoptee may have a legitimate interest in discovering the identity of his or her birth mother. Legitimate interests, however, do not necessarily equate with fundamental rights. The state may make policy choices to accommodate such competing interests, just as the state has done with the passage of Measure 58. We conclude that the state legitimately may choose to disseminate such data to the child whose birth is recorded on such a birth certificate without infringing on any fundamental right to privacy of the birth mother who does not desire contact with the child."

Thanks for listening,

julie

reunited adult adoptee

rights activist

Answer 2

First mothers never had a special right to privacy from being found by their own children; that's not why we have closed records.  We have them because they make the adoptive parents feel more secure and because being born out of wedlock used to carry a pretty heavy stigma in this country.

If ANYONE you don't want contact with refuses to accept that, and won't quit contacting you, you as a first mother would have the same right any other citizen has against stalking:  the right to an order of protection.

Answer 3

While you have my sympathy regarding the circumstances of your childs birth, as an adoptee who inherited cervical cancer and cardio myopathy, I would have to say the "rights" belong to the child you gave birth to.  Bear in mind that you can always say no to contact, but please offer medical information if you are asked, it may save your childs life.  I know finding my birth mother saved mine.

Answer 4

In Australia we've had access to original birth certificates since the early 90's.

If either first parent or adoptee wish to have 'no contact' they simply place a 'contact veto' on file.

Information is still given out - once you have signed to say that you will not attempt contact. (large fines exist - but to this day - no one has ever been prosecuted)

This was placed as a safety net for those that really did not want contact - but still allowed those searching for information to receive names.

To this day - most Veto's that are still in place were put on when adoption records initially opened - a knee jerk reaction due to fear. Many have been removed since that time.

My bio sister placed a veto against her first family (she was also adopted at birth 5 years before me - but did not know of my existence) - but only because her adoptive parents scared her into placing it there. They were totally against her ever seeking out her family of origin.

On my request, my local government adoption services sent her a letter to say that I wished to have contact - and she immediately lifted the Veto - and we have been in reunion for nearly 2 years.

(she told me the story then of her reasons for originally placing the Veto)

The many first mothers that I personally know (in the US, Canada, UK and here in Australia) were NEVER guaranteed anonymity - nor do they want it.

Most hope that one day their child will seek them out.

While many adoptees hope that their mother's will come looking for them!!

The stories of rights violation of 'birth' mothers has been an ongoing myth - perpetrated primarily by the NCFA. (National Council of Adoption - a very powerful adoption lobby group made up of adoptive parents)

You can research into the open records issues here -

http://www.b******s.org/activism/

Currently only 6 US states have open records. And to date I do not believe they have had any troubles.

Basically - every non-adopted person in the USA has the right to their original identity.

But not the adoptee.