What perpetuates the continuance of sealed records?

Question

for adoptees, besides an ancient law? why is there so much disregard for adoptees? who in particular (republicans?) are trying to keep this law alive?

Answer 1

happy mom, "promises" aren't upholdable by the courts if they're not "legal promises" and there are NO LAWS that promised mothers a right to privacy.

So whoever made those "promises" was lying.

Find me a legal document upholdable by the courts that guarantees a mothers right to privacy that wasn't enacted AFTER the sealing of records( ie: Contact Vetos. )

For ANYONE to think that another human beings ancestry ( did I mention its against the united nations child rights treaty to be discriminated against due to ancestry ) identity and medical information should be kept from them because his/her mother doesn't want to "dig up the past" is not only IGNORANT, but just plain stupid.

( see zaza, I tried, but the ignorance, it brings me down every time, oh well )

What people who believe in mothers "right to privacy" need to do is separate the idea of "right to a record" from 'right to relationship" the two are COMPLETELY separate. There is no right to a relationship, and a right to records doesn't "infringe" on someones "privacy."

Mothers and fathers who grow up and don't have relationshps with their children who aren't adopted, aren't allowed to seal the non adopted childs or adults birth certificate from him or her.

Adoption is NOT the witness protection program. Nor does it make me a criminal that my own flesh and blood needs protection from.

Ontop of that records are sealed UPON THE FINALIZATION OF AN ADOPTION. NOT UPON THE SURRENDER. that means, that if the records were sealed for the "surrendering parents privacy" they'd be sealed upon the finalization of surrender.

For example, I was surrendered into foster care where I stayed for 6 months with no chance of going back to my mother. my records at this point, WERE STILL OPEN.

Not until my adoption was finalized 6 months later, DID MY RECORDS SEAL. Therefore my records COULDN'T have been sealed for my surrendering mothers privacy because what if I had never been adopted, they'd STILL BE OPENED.

I wanted to add that the Right to Lifers are ignorant on this matter too. they spout "abortion rates will increase this and that" all over the place, and they're too busy "saving" babies to take a look at history and the states who have opened records and what happened to their "abortion rates." EVERY SINGLE STATE that has opened records for adoptees HAS HAD THEIR ABORTION RATES DROP THE YEAR OF THE OPENING.  I'm too lazy to find the stats, but if someone itching for them that bad, I have them!

Its the right to lifers, the bush administration, NCFA, LDS, Gladney who is right in the mix with all of the above, and Bethany who is in there as well. Hmm...who am I forgetting oh! My state representative Audra Strickland a big F U to her. and add in my other one Tom McClintock. F U 2. both republicans, although my adads a republican (he voted for bush TWICE?!?! ) and he supports open records for adoptees so it can't be all....but its alot.

Its just mis-information remember the same people behind the "propoganda" of getting mothers to surrender, thought coercion, studies going into what terminology gets the most surrenders etc. these are the same people who advocate for sealed records. They're good with twisting laws around and lying. Well, they're the same people who get the babies and make money off of them. Like Gladney for example grossed just over 16 million last year. They have invested interests in keeping them sealed. If they open, and many find their mothers from the Baby Scoop Era and through the modern day coercion class action lawsuits can happen and these agencies and baby rings held completely responsible. I'm talking BILLIONS.

Once Australia opened its records, it was the crash of their system right aussies? thats the trigger, the domino. It didn't happen without the mothers coming forward though, the mothers voices were the strength for Aust.  

They're ( sealed records supporters ) not idiots, they watch history, they know...thats why there are millions of dollars invested to work against us. They can't stop me though, i have the will, and I know tons of others with the will too. And you know what the saying is...where theres a will, theres a way.... grassroots is powerful!! We're building our army.

Its only a matter of time... :)

Answer 2

Well, if it were about keep birthparents' identities concealed, the records would seal upon relinquishment.   But, that's not the case.  They seal if and when an adoption finalizes.  That can be at least 6 months from the time of relinquishment, but certainly longer.  If an adoption fails, the records unseal.  In some states, like California and Ohio, it's actually up to the ADOPTIVE parents and the ADOPTEE (if old enough to state) to decide whether or not the records seal.  The birthparents have no say in it.  Adoption records that adoptive parents have often contain the names of birthparents.  So, it's not about that.

What then?  This is a practice that began for a few reasons.  One was to appease adoptive parents who didn't want it to be obvious that their child was adopted.  This was especially obvious when a person's birth certificate was stamped with the word "illegitimate" or "b*****d" on it if the person was "born out of wedlock."  The stigma and shame that went along with this needed to be hidden in the minds of many during the 1930's.  At that point, records were only sealed from the public, since birth records are normally public record.  But, that wasn't good enough.  Having them available to the birthparents made people fear they would come back for the child or blackmail the adoptive parents by threatening to "tell" that the child was adopted.  So, birthparents were crossed off the list of people who could access the records.  Of course, at that point, the fear became that any access could lead to people knowing about this, so eventually, in the mid-1940's records were sealed to everyone in all but 2 states -- Alaska and Kansas.

Another reason records sealed was to cover up the illegal activities that were occurring in black market adoptions.  Infamous people in adoption, such as Georgia Tann, engaged in kidnapping to obtain children for clients.  Open records were surely have cramped her business!  Thus, the push to close records.

Okay, onto today.  Not all agencies are clean today, either.  Some have records that go waaaayy back, too.  The parties to those adoptions are still alive in many cases.  Such agencies fund organizations, most notably the NCFA, to oppose adult adoptee access to their own records.  But, they needed a good reason.  Thus, the birth (no pun intended) of the "birthparent confidentiality" smokescreen.  As can be seen from the paragraphs above, the legal relinquishment/adoption process by no means keeps secret the identities of the birthparents.  In fact, the legal relinquishment/adoption process manages to do just the opposite.  But, those same birthmothers who were "bad girls"  when they were pregnant are now "noble souls" who need to be "protected."  Uh-huh.  That's particularly amusing since various studies show that 99% of birthparents support open records!

Oh, ya, then there are the attitudes of people like Emma who think adoptees are "mistakes" who "turn lives upside down."  Whatever...

Answer 3

What perpetuates the continuance of sealed records is what perpetuates the continuance of any old, outdated system.  B/C "it's always been done this way" even though no one remembers WHY it was done that way in the first place. Even more than that, it might rock the boat for the billion dollar adoption industry in the US. That's a lot of moolah to risk!!

"During the 1930's, 40's & 50's social workers began sealing birth & adoption records. The rationale for the change in practice was guided by the attitudes, mores, and myths of the time. Secrecy surrounding adoptions was believed to protect the triad members from the stigma of illegitimacy & infertility.

Social workers had complete control over adoptive placement decisions. Services were geared toward providing the most perfect baby for adoptive applicants.

The parties involved were encouraged to "get on with their lives" & "put this event behind them." They were given no preparation to deal with future issues which were bound to arise. The very existence of these issues was denied.  Adoptees who held questions of identity, ancestry, & genetics have nowhere to turn for answers.

Adoptive parents were assured that if they were good parents, no curiosity would exist. Therefore, when faced with questions, they often feel insecure & inadequate. If their child had questions, they had somehow failed. A Public Affairs pamphlet from 1969, "You and Your Adopted Child", states, "Instances of extreme curiosity and concern almost never happen... However, should a youngster ever raise the question, it is important, of course, to make it very clear that a search is unrealistic and can lead to unhappiness and disillusionment."  With the sealing of records there was also little or no legal recourse for the adoptee to access information.

Other reasons given for the closure of records, past and present, include: *protection from intrusion into the privacy of all parties; *protection from blackmail; *protecting the adoptee from disturbing acts surrounding their birth - incest, rape, etc."

Seems no one except adoptees and first moms/parents are interested in re-examining the validity of these "claims" made my social workers.  Isn't rather amazing that for over 150 years the US didn't seal records. Then began doing so in the past 60 or 70? Not based on scientific facts or statistical studies, but merely because social workers decided that's what should be done. How bizarre!

Not law makers, not legislators, not senators or attorneys or judges.  But social workers.  

Emma~You need to read "The Girls Who Went Away". And Google the "Baby Scoop Era". Read some of the other posters in here and try to learn from others before making assumptions about what others *might* do.  

And consider how hurtful your comment is to adoptees, FGS!  

FYI~I was not my mother's "mistake". She hoped to have a girl while pregnant with me. She didn't give me up. I was taken (scooped) from her for being alone & poor.  And she was waiting for me to find her! Freaks like you who don't know what the heck they're talking about, who make such rude, hurtful comments & perpetuate false stereotypes about adoption really irritate!

ETA: Juvenile court records aren't "sealed", BTW, to protect the (so called) privacy of the parents in court proceedings involving their minor children.  That's how I found my mom & why I know what really happened in our being separated from each other. It was all a matter of court record.

Yet I still can't get my OBC or adoption papers.  Hmmm...

ETA: Great points, Phil.  And Laurie, didn't you tell me that NOW (the National Organization for Women) has failed to support first moms?

ETA: To Happymom, read "The Girls Who Went Away" before jumping to the conclusion that women were promised anonymity.  Many were not.  And in ANY case, open records does not equal reunion.  Information is not contact. Everyone has a right to refuse contact. Adoptees and first moms/parents alike.  Can PPL distinguish btwn the 2? Sealed records where only all about the adopted parents in the first place. Not about adoptees or birth parents.

Answer 4

dont' know who is trying to keep alive but i see reaons for sealed adoptions not records butthat is noather thing i want all to be happy and of coarse the reason for the sealed records is the one part does not want someone else knowing what really went on in court.

Answer 5

I don't think it is only all about the adopted person that some people want to keep records sealed.

In the past many young birth mothers were made a promise... That rather than abort a baby the mother could place the baby for adoption and No One would ever find out.

It may not seem like a valid reason to an adopted child but, for the birth mother who made a decision to give the child life and place for adoption this promise may have been very important.

Sealed records are not just designed to deprive a child information about their biological parent(s)--it is also something many young mothers counted on.

Unsealing the records does not only effect the adopted child--but it effects the birth mother, and her life today after making the decision she made.

There are great stories about wonderful reunions and those are the fantastic stories. However, there are also many reunions that do not go well--many birth mothers who do not want reunion and open records could lead to some major pain for a lot of people.

We need to work on the system this is for sure, but to take away a promise made to a mother who placed her baby is equally offensives and as important an issue as the child's rights to know...

***Added (and many will say they speak for someone else even other members of the same 'group' think they can speak for all members of the group--if you didn't place a baby and you didn't do so because it could remain a private choice then go ahead and rate this answer tumbs down...and speak for me....????)

Answer 6

Well Im a total liberal but im putting myself in peoples' shoes

i could imagine a parent having a perfectly happy life then suddenly this mistake from like 20 years before pops up and turns their life upside down. Its possible someone would reject thier child because they hold painful memories for the person.

just an idea...

Answer 7

The sealing of adoption records isn't as simple of an issue as it seems.  Adoptees feel they have the right to those records and at a minimum a right to medical information.  There are other people involved who still disagree with that.  Sometimes it is as simple as an adoptive parent wanting assurance that they will never lose their child to the birth parents.  Sometimes it is as simple as the birth parent simple wants to move on with their life and pretend this never happened to them and want to ensure it never comes back to haunt them.  Sometimes is is as simple as a Judge determining it is in the child's best interest that the records remain sealed.  All of that seems simple when you look at it from each viewpoint.  The problem is finding some compromise that all involved can live with.  That is NOT simple.  Too many people with too many reasons to disagree with one another.

Here's an example.  I'm adopted and my birth mother was adopted.  She was never able to find any info about her birth family, but gave everything she knew about herself to my adoptive parents and then asked that her contact information be sealed as there was no other info to share and she felt a reunion would be too difficult for her.  What are her rights?  She's an adoptee and a birth parent.  She knows both sides and still chooses to remain anonamous.  Shouldn't she have that right?

Anyway, that's a made up example, but it could be true of my daughter and soon to be adopted grand-daughter.  I guess what I'm saying is you can't pin it on one group trying to keep documents sealed.  It seems to be the choice of individuals from numerous groups.

Answer 8

Fears, Myths, conjecture and a stigma against adoptees that they are dangerous people who cannot be trusted with the truth of their own origins. . .

ETA  happymom had not researched the reason the records were sealed in the first place

Answer 9

I hesitate to attribute motivations to others...

Some argue (out of either ignorance or deceit) that it protects the rights of the original family.  That there is no right to anonymity is clear from the publication of the phone book.  But some maintain, again either because they truly don't understand or because they have ulterior motives, that birth parents have such an extraordinary right.

Others fallaciously (you don't have to go far to find this) that if we unsealed records, then abortion rates would sky-rocket.  These are people who are committed to a pro-life agenda, and don't recognize that adoption and abortion are about very different things.  But they believe that they can end abortions by having mothers relinquish their children for adoption.  (I should say that no only are these unconnected, but the claim is itself demonstrably false, since there has been no evidence for such an increase in states which have open records.)

Historically, records were sealed to protect the child from the stigma of being illegitimate.  Then it became about helping adoptive parents (whether they wanted this or not) maintain the illusion of adoption being no different from giving birth.

Unfortunately, we cannot blame one side of the political spectrum or the other.  There are both Democrats and Republicans who have opposed opening records.  Indeed, if you really are interested in strange bedfellows, some chapters of the ACLU have joined forces with pro-lifers to oppose the opening of records.  There is truly no political rhyme or reason to this.  But there clearly are forces at work to keep adoptees from knowing the truth.

ETA: Oh that's right.  I forgot the bogus "promise" reason.  No one, not even the NCFA which uses this argument all the time, has ever been able to produce one legal document proving the making of a promise to a mother relinquishing her child.  The fact is, such a promise is clearly false.  Between searching, and the fact that a judge can unseal the records right now, such a promise is clearly empty.  Anyone who has made such a promise was lying.  Anyone to whom such a promise was made was lied to.

Unsealing records is not about reunion.  It's about the adoptee having access to information that EVERY other citizen has access to.  Including the issue of reunion (a separate issue) merely muddies the waters.