What do you think about this New Orleans newspaper article about the Adoptee Rights Protest?

Question

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-6/121679058439520.xml&coll=1

Sounds like they did a good job and got their point across but based on the last few paragraphs it seems working to make open adoption legally enforceable may be the next best step.

You never know though........never give up!

Answer 1

It's all about equal treatment under the law.  Adopted citizens are the only citizens in 44 states who do not have unfettered access to their own birth records.  

People relinquished for adoption but not adopted have access.  That's because the birth record never seals unless an adoption finalizes.  If the adoption fails, the original birth certificate is unsealed and again becomes the child's only legal birth certificate.  Clearly, the sealing of the birth record, then, is not about any sort of "promise" of confidentiality for first parents.

One's status as "adopted" should not cause one to be treated unequally by the law.

Answer 2

I think that this Mr. Huey is well-named, because that is what the premise upon which his entire argument is based is...pure hooey!!!  Neither I nor any of the many other mothers that I know have ever desired, sought or worried about privacy from our children.  We were not promised it, and most of us didn't even WANT it!  

I believe that every person in the US is entitled to their original birth certificate and support every adult adoptee's quest for it.  I believe that adoptees should be entitled to the same rights, neither more nor less, than every other citizen in this country.  

I believe that the sealing of vital records is a criminal act anyway, and that the birth certificate should never be sealed under any circumstance.  It should be amended, as any other birth certificate is, with an addendum attached.  To falsify any other vital record is a crime, punishable by imprisonment, and yet it is sanctioned and even ordered fallaciously, by the government, in opposition to the Constitution of the United States.  

I, and many of the other mothers, heartily resent being used as a reason to perpetuate this fraud perpetrated on adoptees and mothers in order to protect the jobs, the wallets and the asses of the perpetrators of these crimes.  

JMHO, of course.  

Sandy Young

Senior Mothers 1967

Answer 3

I'm glad the protest got coverage, but I take serious issue with the last guy who commented.

A) why is a man speaking for n-moms? Isn't this a wee bit like men who force pro-life propoganda down people's throats? Just a thought...

B) Where oh where are these waivers of confidentiality? Our country no longer runs on a handshake and a person's word...therefore...if somehow it was spoken about in the adoption process it cannot be guaranteed...maybe it could be if it was put into writing, but even then...

N-moms were told LOTS of things before the relinquished, and I don't see the law trying to really uphold the end of the deal like 'child will have a better life,' etc.etc. If confidentiality was guaranteed then so should everything else spoken about before the relinquishment...which is not the case...

C) sealed records promotes the autonomy of one individual and sacrifices the autonomy of another. this is unethical. if, per chance, the n-mom (18 years later) decides that they do not want contact then...fine...there are laws about unwanted contact, but that is a completely separate issue...

Answer 4

As our dear friend Laurie has pointed out on several occasions, sealed records are not done for the benefit of the "birthmother".

Nothing changes on a birth certificate UNTIL the child is adopted.  If the child is never adopted, nothing is SEALED.

It's always been about the desires of those in control--agencies and adoptive parents.

The adoptee certainly can't be blamed for the sealing.  Who's next in line?  "Birthmothers" of course!  Let's blame her!

What these articles often leave out, is the fact that most (over 90% I believe--someone give me the exact percentage, please) mothers want desparately to meet their children.

Answer 5

I think its wrong for an adoption advocate organization to speak for natural mothers considering they are representing adoptive parents and their desires "only".

Answer 6

Well that's retarded. People have a right to there own birth records, and to know who there birth parents are.

Answer 7

" "We're not opposed to open adoption or open records. We're concerned about the right of privacy for the birth mother," said Rodney Huey, spokesman for the National Council for Adoption.

"A birth mother, for whatever reason, decided at one point to have her own confidential adoption, and that (confidentiality is) what she was guaranteed," he said. "

That is what New York always says about why they don't open their birth records.  This always bothers me, because it says right on my social workers papers, "When Rania's mother was asked whether she would be willing to meet her at one point in her life, she replied that she would want to meet Rania if it was important to Rania, but she doubted she would search for Rania herself'"  So basically, my bio-mom was completely willing to meet me, she just wasn't going to go out of her way to do so.  Doesn't sound like they were promising too much confidentiality, and despite this being ON RECORD, I still can't have any information about her lol!

Answer 8

I see no reason why the laws cannot be changed to allow the birth mother the choice to seal the record or leave it open to the child's option upon turning 18.  That seems like a simple solution in the middle.  Right now it appears there is no choice.

Answer 9

Ironic, Cam, I just finished reading that and then saw your question...

The last couple of paragraphs bother me.  The NCFA is still spouting the lie that mothers are promised confidentiality, when there is no evidence, in either the paper work or the law, to support that claim.  And a federal judge has found there to be no such right.  

But overall, I'm glad that the protest got some coverage.  I wish I could have been there.  Thanks for sharing the story here.

Answer 10

Thats such BS. Basically they are saying the birth mother entered into a contract to maintain confidentiality with WHO??? We didn't sign anything and we were minors anyway!

So that means someone else signed a contract to maintain such confidentiality and deny us our intellectual property... our information.. FOR LIFE.  Its not right.  Someone allowed to act on our behalf because we are minors should only be allowed to sign a legally binding contract that lasts until we are no longer minors and then get to decide for ourselves.

Thus, I claim that my info was sealed without my full understanding or agreement and/or under duress.  the confidentiality agreement is therefore null and void.  My birth mother got knocked up and squeezed me violently, (I'm sure there was blood and screaming even though I cant really remember) into this world.  Then my birth certificate was FALSIFIED to pretend none of it happened.  Well I'm proof it did.  I can get my parents to take a paternity test which would hold up in court to prove this falsification.  Isn't that against the law... perjury?  Fraud? Falsification of public documents?  Maybe we need to sue not for unsealing our info but to bring class action suits against the organizations that destroyed and falsified our documents, bring criminal charges for the destruction of our property (our birth certificates), fraud and sue for damages based on the  emotional hardship we have all been forced to endure because of it.

I've never understood how ANY court can maintain that its OK to keep the proper records away from us...  It should be so cut and dry, the ONLY right and proper thing to do.  That info is MINE / OURS.  I can write up a contract that I own the moon... But it doesn't matter, its not mine.  That info DOESN'T even belong to the birth mother.  It belongs to us.  At best its only half hers and half ours...  Which mean she can say or do whatever she wants but we still have the right to know.

I would have marched... I didn't even know it was going on.