Should adopted people, who are now over the age of 18, be allowed to see their adoption records?

Question

Please state your opinions =)

Answer 1

of course why not? should be their choice whether they want to or not.

Answer 2

I do to some degree..But if it wasn't an open adoption the No that child doesn't have the right. The reason its a closed adoption is because the birth mother doesn't want to be known. And I have to give all the birth moms out there,their kudos because what they did was AWESOME.

Answer 3

Absolutely - all adult adoptees should have full access to their records.

Answer 4

Sure sooner or later they would want to know the turth about their family.

Answer 5

not only is it their right, but they need to know for medical reasons and the future of their own family.

Answer 6

Yes. The only reason someone would say no.... is they have something to hide or are ashamed of others finding out...

Or were forced adoption, illegal adoptions.. unethical adoptions... lawyers and judges turning blind eyes...

The truth is what keeps them closed...

Answer 7

Yes! At the age of 18 you are old enough to take in all of the important information regarding your adoption. I think that you have the right to find your birth parents if you chose as long as you know it might not always turn out like a "Montel show" family reunion.

Answer 8

Of course they should.   Adoptees deserve the same rights as non-adopted citizens, anything else is discrimination.

Answer 9

yes...i have the right as a law abiding citizen...to know who i am and where i came from..anyone who thinks otherwise..has no clue how it is to want to know and not be able to find anything out about yourself..you arent asking for someone else you are asking for you...

Answer 10

YES!

Adoption records should be non-public, but open to the party involved, the child when he/she reaches adulthood.

Answer 11

Absolutely!  They should have the same equal rights as any other citizen of the United States.

Answer 12

of course.everyone else has the right to know who they are. why can't we?

Answer 13

YES. It would help put a stop to whole lot of lies and hold others in check.

Answer 14

I believe they should although in many counties it is held until they are 21.  It is pretty sad that they can go fight in a war, but not know about their birth parents!  I do believe they should be able to see them though!

Answer 15

Yes.

Answer 16

Yes!!

Answer 17

All adopted adults should have full access to ALL of their records, including but not limited to agency, medical, and court records.

Adoptive parents should be able to access all of those records for their minor children, and placing parents should have access  to all of those records as well, unless the placement was not voluntary.

I do not , however, think that all of these records should be available to the general public, only to those identified in the records.

Answer 18

As an Adoptee I would like to see my records, however in Mississippi where I was born and now live the law has not been changed to open the files. The answer is yes everyone has a right to know where they came from

Answer 19

the REAL question in all of this is:  Why can some citizens access their original documents and some can't?  The answer is SIMPLE discrimination.  No two ways about it.

D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N.

Answer 20

Yes.  Once a child is a legal adult, they should have access to THEIR records.

Answer 21

The should have the right to it if they want it.

Answer 22

Positive responses thus far!  However, I do know that there is opposition, so I will give my YES response with explanation.

Adopted citizens are denied unconditional equal access rights to the factual documents of their own births in 44 states. This is something the non-adopted take for granted. In only six states, Alabama, Oregon, Kansas, Alaska, Main and New Hampshire, are all adopted adults granted the sames rights as their non-adopted counterparts.

This is an issue of an entire group of citizens, adopted adults, 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, a condition over which the adopted person had no say or control. No other citizens but adopted adults are expected to grovel before a judge or ask someone else's permission in order to obtain access to their own birth records. This places adopted citizens in a position of being considered suspect and placed in a secondary class compared to non-adopted citizens.  It is also a violation of one's right to freedom from government intrusion (clearly discussed in Roe v Wade) to hold adopted citizens' records of their own births from them.

At one point in history, no one was denied the right to his or her own birth record, adopted or not adopted. The sealing of these records began in the 1930's to hide the shame of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and infertility. Sealing records was also a means allowing adoptive parents privacy from birth parents. Some states did not seal records until much later, while some states, Alaska and Kansas, never sealed records.

For anyone who believes records are sealed in order to protect the anonymity of the natural parents, consider the actual law.

1. 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. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

2. If an adoption fails, i.e. the adoptive parents "return" the child, the original birth record with the natural parents' names on it, is unsealed and re-established as the child's only legal birth certificate. How does this protect the natural parents' anonymity? Incidentally, I'm sad to say that there have been stories in the papers lately about failed adoptions occurring.

3. Adult adopted citizens in states with sealed records can gain access to their birth records as long as they petition the court and get a court order. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

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, has ever been unable to produce such a document.

5. In some states with sealed records (such as California and Ohio,) it is the prerogative of the adoptive parents or the adoptee (if old enough to state a desire) as to whether or not the original birth certificate is sealed. The natural parents have no say. How does this protect a natural parent's anonymity?

Hence, there is no guarantee of anonymity or confidentiality, nor can such be promised under the law as written. Oddly enough, however, I have met natural parents who asked if and when they could contact their relinquished children. They were told that upon reaching 18 years of age, the adopted person could retrieve his or her original birth certificate containing the natural parents' names. Upon reuniting many years later, these natural parents were surprised to find that what they were told didn't pan out because no one had told them that the records were retroactively sealed, despite the information they were given.

Although this is not truly an issue about reunion, the topic always brings with it discussion of reunion. Therefore, I shall briefly cover this issue. Reunions happen all the time under sealed records laws. Several states that allow all adopted adults to obtain their original birth records also have contact preference forms. This is a form that natural parents can fill out stating whether or not they wish to be contacted. The preference can be changed at any time. It is filed with the original birth certificate. A copy of it is given to the adopted person if and when s/he obtains the original birth certificate. Because the adopted person knows right away that the natural parent does not want to be contacted, this greatly, greatly decreases the risk of unwanted contact. In states that do not grant access, natural parents and adopted people will continue to find one another, but there will be no information available as to the preference for contact.

Like other citizens, adopted persons and natural 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.

ETA:

Here is what a federal appellate judge had to say about it when those who oppose open records tried to fight against them:

"Birth is both a private and a public act. The government has a fundamental interest in when and where its citizens are born. It does not have an interest in keeping that information secret from the citizen to whom it pertains."

Answer 23

Of Course..... I have always believed they should have access to all of the records...and don't even think it should be about turning 18.

Answer 24

Yes, they should know and see who their real parents were, and even be able toget in touch with them. It's not fair some kids get to see their parents everyday, while otheres don't even know who their parents are, that's why they should be able to keep, read, make copies of those records.

Answer 25

Yes.  It is a violation of our rights to keep these records (of public events) sealed.