Since it's OBC Day?

Question

Does anyone know WHY OBC's are sealed upon adoption, or do you just know that they are?

Does the law ever address the "why's"?

Answer 1

They were initially sealed to keep the natural parents from contacting the adoptive parents.  They were also sealed to protect the adoptive parents.

This is the process of adoption and sealing.

A mother signs the relinquishment paperwork.  It was sometimes published in the newspaper.  The relinquishment is often not even sealed with the rest of the adoption.  The adoption was sealed upon finalization.  For many states,  it wasn't even sealed to adoptees until much later.  In PA, in the eighties.  Because of the shame and stigma placed upon adoptees, the records were sealed.  Many of the OBCs of the past also had b*****d or illegitimate stamped on them.  Being the old f**t that I am, it is probably stamped on mine.

The actual concept of adoption doesn't even protect natural parents either.  Adoption is a transfer of rights.  In abortion, contraception,and parenting, a woman is exercising her right to privacy.  In adoption, she is transferring even this right to the adoptive parents.  A natural mother and father lose all their rights to that child.

Answer 2

In order to know about this, one has to go back into the history of the laws.  It was not always this way.  Sealing the OBC's from adoptees only became common after WWII.  Prior to that, states had slowly started sealing them from the natural and adoptive parents beginning in the 1930's.

Part of all of this was an "experiment" begun by social workers who realized that adoptive parents felt uncomfortable knowing that the birthparents could come back for the children or even blackmail the adoptive parents, threatening to tell people the child was adopted.  It allowed the adoptive parents to decide if they wanted to tell the child about the adoption.  

It also sealed away that nasty birth certificate that had the word "illegitimate" or "b*****d" printed on it.  This was the common practice back in the day when a child was "born out of wedlock."  Bastardy and infertility had great stigma and were surrounded by the air of sin and God's retribution.  

Another great push for sealing records in the first place (starting in the 1930's) was headed up by people like Georgia Tann.  Ms. Tann ran adoption agencies, but her practices were illegal.  She would literally kidnap children in order to provide her wealthy and sometimes famous clients with the children they wanted.  She very, very much wanted those records sealed.

Other proponents were those behind studies like the Minnesota twins study.  This study purposely separated twins at birth and adopted out each to separate families.  They did not tell the families that their adopted child had a twin.  The families were studied over the years to see what commonalities the twins would have.  Obviously these folks wanted records sealed.

There is a lot behind sealed records, but the funny part is that records began being sealed from the birthparents well before they were sealed from the adoptees.  Some states didn't seal until much later than this time frame.  Two states, Alaska and Kansas, never sealed OBC's from adoptees.

I don't have the reference with me at this moment, but I remember reading back through some old legislative hearing minutes from Nevada.  They sealed records from adoptees in 1973.  The deciding "argument" that sealed them came from a legislator who said that since the birthparents and the adoptive parents couldn't access the records, it didn't make sense that the adopted person could, as the adopted person could tell their adoptive parents what was on it.  *sigh*

ETA,

Amy made me think about my friend whose birth certificate from Alabama has the word "illegitimate" stamped on it 17 times!  Yep, they wanted EVERYONE to be quite certain this child was the b*****d of a loose woman.  Ugh!