The Evan B. Donaldson Institute came out...?

Question

with the most comprehensive study on adoptees and our access to our records that has ever been done. This institute has no financial interest in adoption, they do not profit off of adoption, they are not involved in the surrendering or adopting of children.

They base their studies off of facts only. Infact, the entire study can be downloaded for free off of their website (click here for their website: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/research/2007_11_for_records.php)

The study concluded that there is NO LAW that protects the surrendering parents anonymity, there are no legal papers in the country that promise confidentiality.

My question is, where does this leave the country and remaining 44 states with sealed records in regards to giving adoptees UNCONDITIONAL access to our records?

Shouldn't this be ENOUGH for the states to unseal adopted persons currently sealed records? In your opinion how much more will we need until our equality is restored by unsealing adoptees records?

Answer 1

Whew!  Amen to Say_What!!!  give that guy a round of applause!  Let me buy that guy a drink!!!!

thank you for recognizing that so many other people are involved in this and that one's blinded "right" to know should not always override one's right to go on with their lives.  the birthmoms that are surveyed are those who are wearing their status as some badge of courage and combing these boards -- they don't get an accurate census from birthmoms because a lot of them have gone on with their lives and don't troll around on these boards looking for someone to pity them.

evan b. donaldson is just as biased as NCFA so i take it with a grain of salt.  I do, however, consider my feelings a lot more than Evan's and my feelings are all about privacy for me!

p.s. i've had to order my birth certificate a few times (silly me) and i've always gotten it . . . my life is not defined by what's on a piece of paper.

ETA::::  I thought since they were MY records and they were sealed no one could open them so i incorrectly assumed i had a right to privacy but no, that's not the case!!  someone can open them and hunt me down.

don't we have mutual registries for you guys?  if people want to meet you, they'll sign up on a registry instead of you just barging into their lives.

Answer 2

DARN TOOTIN IT SHOULD BE ENOUGH!

The sealing of records was never intended to protect natural parents, it was intended to protect adopters. Bringing n-parents into the mix is just another way to ensure that adoptees will never have access to what is rightfully theirs, their own identity.

It stinks, it blows and it is horrid! The positive is that people are starting to see how wrong sealed records are, it is only a matter of time before they are opened.

***edit

The ignorance is stunning!

Answer 3

GET 'EM GIRL!!!!

IF YOU WERE HERE I'D KISS YA!!

(clap,clap,clap) standing ovation to you. i have nothing to say that  you didnt cover. thanks for the link

Answer 4

Yes it should be enough.

These are OUR birth records, a record documenting OUR births.

It is not a record of our adoptive parents' births, so why should they have any say in whether or not we access it?

It is not a record of our birth parents' births, so why should they have a say in whether or not we access it?

This is about having the right to obtain a copy of the legal record that documents the time when we came into this world.  It is not about reunion, it is about having the same rights to our records as anybody else roaming the countryside.

We are ADULTS and we do not need anyone's permission,  Not our adopters, not our birth parents (who, as everyone likes to drive down our throats, gave up parental rights anyway, so how should they be able to give any permission in the first place?)

Perhaps some people ought to hunt down a good therapist.

Answer 5

Human rights have to be fought for. Just because it is right and just doesn't mean the slow wheels of justice will grind any faster.

Apparently some of the posters to this question have never been denied a driver's license or passport because they were only able to obtain an amended BC, which (post 9/11) is no longer acceptable in many situations. I have read of several regular posters to this section who have had to deal with this serious problem.

And apparently they condone the death penalty for innocent victims. I nearly died of a genetically inherited disorder because the doctors didn't know what we were looking for. This isn't theory: real people are losing life, health, and legal rights because some people are ashamed of their choices in life and want to keep them hidden.

The truth will set you free. And it just might save the life of your offspring.

Answer 6

OK.  I just have to say it.  I love this site!  There are so many Type A personalities in here I feel very at home.  I was a governmental analyst for years and all of the analysts I worked with were Type A personalities, most of them doing their darndest to come up with the most facts that could be verified by a legal authority of some type.  So, even if I don't feel I can add anything pertinent to the process, just reading the information makes me feel good.  Thanks for giving my brain something to do in my retirement.  I came on here originally to better understand and communicate with my adopted children, just in case I was missing something that they might need me to address with them.  And now I thank you all for opening my eyes to so many view points on such a variety of issues related to adoption.  As always, thanks for the question.  It was a doosy!

Answer 7

Discrimination is discrimination.  And adoptees' rights are being discriminated against.  That is the issue!!  That is the only issue!!

This question and the responses it has elicited is a perfect mirco-example of what happens in the real world debates about unconditional access to records.  The pro-access side provides studies, statistics, and facts to support their claims.  The anti-access side ponders what-if's, worries that "other" people might be shocked or embarrassed by the truth, and hypothesize about what might go wrong...all the while ignoring the facts that prove their worries and fulminations are simply unjustified.  Makes me crazy!

Answer 8

Apparently you mean no FEDERAL law since you say states do restrict this information.   I would challenge even that since Supreme Court decisions including Roe vs Wade have been decided solely on a "Constitutional right to privacy".

You also seem to imply your right to know is more important than your birth parent's right to privacy regardless of law.  While this may be a strong OPINION on your part it is not a FACT and certainly would be at odds with many of the birth parents or such restrictions would not exist.

Further you completely ignore the fact that adoptees have have adoptive PARENTS and don't seem to think it necessary to discuss how those PARENTS would feel to know their child felt it necessary to find "real" parents.

You also ignore the impact to others that may or may not be aware or involved.  Suppose the birth parent gave up the child when they were a teenager themselves then later as an adult married and raised a family but never told them about the child given up.  The impact to other children on learning they had a sibling they never knew or perhaps do NOT want to know could be devastating.  Or the impact to the husband who doesn't know this about his wife's past.

In point of fact most states do have mechanisms that allow adoptees to contact them to request that the birth parent be contacted to see if they have an interest in hearing from the child they gave up.   If the birth parent agrees the information is then passed along and the contact is made.  

My half brother was given up for adoption many years ago and did EXACTLY this as an adult.  Our mother on hearing from him contacted each of us to insure we had no problems with it.   We were all happy to do so and in fact did.  

However, I can imagine that other families this would NOT be the case.  It seems selfish in the extreme to suggest your DESIRE to know somehow should outweigh the FEELINGS of everyone else involved.

Answer 9

Roe vs. Wade is the constitutional right to privacy.  Uhm no I don't think so.  It is the right to be free from governmental intrusion.  Not the right to be private from someone else. It is impossible to be private from someone else. Roe  went up against the state of Texas because Texas banned abortions.  She was trying to get the state out of her personal business of an abortion.  Read Roe Vs. Wade a little more thoroughly.

Answer 10

Okay, for those who think there is a right to "birthparent privacy" under the law, here's the adoption law as written.  Adoption law, by the way, is only under state jurisdiction.  

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.

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, 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.  

Sealed records are also an infringement of an adopted citizens' right to privacy under the Constitution.  The right to privacy in the Constitution refers to privacy from government intrusion, not from other citizens making contact.  There is no Constitutional right to anonymity.

Just as adopted citizens are asking only to have the same rights, no more and no less, as other citizens, birthparents should have the very same rights, no more and no less, than other citizens.  This means no special anonymity provision.

eta:

I'm sorry that the desire for equal rights under the law is considered whining by some.  I guess the suffragettes were just whining.  They should have been grateful that they had husbands and fathers to take care of the nasty business of politics for them.

eta:

Again, it's about equal rights, not reunion. Funny thing is that a high percentage of the people fighting for equal rights already know their natural parents.  We just want to be treated the same as all other citizens.  Plain and simple.  No more, no less.

Opening records means opening them to the adopted person, btw, not to anyone else.  

Privacy is NOT the same thing as anonymity.

Answer 11

Hmmph! It sure should be! Gotta love the Evan B. Donaldson Institute. They are for the rights of first/natural/birth parents as well:

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/researc...

But, here's the rub -- how much money do they have? And how much does NCFA have?

But if we all contact our state legislators about this, and post the link to all our friends and adoption related groups -- maybe we can have an impact beyond money.

Answer 12

To "Alisa" and "Say What"

I would think that the AP'S  would be the very first to want to see that their children have access to their records. They are the ones who had to drive them to and from the doctor's office and know the pain and humiliation they had to endure in filling out the forms and answering the questions the doctors asked.

AP's aren't that cruel and heartless that they would want to deny their child that, are they? If that same child needed a kidney and a family donated their loved ones organs, and that child lived, wouldn't any parent want to see and thank that person for saving their child's life? I would think that they would feel the same about the First Mom. Heck, I can't stand my EX, but everytime I look at my son, I have to say if it weren't for him, I wouldn't have him, and for that I give thanks.

The right to a person's birth certificate doesn't necessarily mean they are / will seek out the first mom and family. That's a totally separate issue. Bottom line is that adoptees are being discriminated against and it's just wrong. They can handle the truth. If the families of murdered victims can go to court and hear the gruesome details of the crime, I think an adoptee can certainly handle whatever comes their way, which in MOST cases is the fact that a woman for whatever reason relinquished her child and did the best she could at the time.

It's not the adoptees fault for any of this! Why should they be treated differently? Nowadays, well, actually for some time now, everyone knows that eventually the adoptees will request their OBC, for medical purposes alone, if nothing else, and by God, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT!

You really lost me when you said that "birthmoms" are "trolling" this site... we are looking for support, understanding, and a place to vent.

MAY I ASK, IF YOU'RE SO "HAPPY", WHY ARE YOU HERE? YOU ARE TROLLING! It seems to me that your time would be better spent in the family or financial section. A FICA score of 400 is bad, real bad. You need to focus on fixing that. You need to find out how defaulting on your student loan is going to effect your life and job. You are in such serious "doo, doo"... I wouldn't waste my time here if I were you.  

I happened upon this site by accident. I hope more adoptees, PAP's, AP's, and first moms find it also, so they can learn from what people say. Especially pregnant women (MOMS) who need to know exactly what they are going to experience if they are thinking about adoption and all the ramifications that go along with it.

I have nothing to hide, I'm a first mom, open the records.