Which states allow you access to your birth records?

Question

A poster commented that 44 states denied adoptees access to birth records. If that is the case, then which states allow access? Thanks!

Answer 1

Gersh is one of our resident gurus of all things related to adoption records!!

She also set up this web page for those wishing to search - as to the varying laws in each state -

http://adopteerights.net/nulliusfilius/?...

I heart Gersh!!!

In AUS - all states have open records (although QLD is being a little pesky with vetos - but those laws are being looked at now).

Come on USA - get with the program!!!

Anyone would think adult adoptees are dangerous peoples!!!

Great question.

ETA: and once again Suzy has been completely misinformed - and sadly thinks she's knowledgeable in such things - when she's clearly NOT.

No birth mother - anywhere in the USA - or Australia for that matter - was ever guaranteed anonymity.

Not one.

No one has ever come forward and shown any such paperwork - as it never existed.

Closed records only exist to protect the adoption agencies from having their paper work looked over - AND - those insecure adoptive parents (such as Suzy) - who can't allow their adoptees to know ALL of their families.

Records get closed on completion of the adoption.

NOT on relinquishing.

Foster children who age out of foster care (never adopted) get copies of their original birth certificate like every other citizen in the USA.

Sadly - adoptees don't.

Way to go Suzy for more misconceptions in adoption - and your discrimination of adoptees.

Are you really an adult??

As you certainly don't seem to have the knowledge of one.

Answer 2

As dory has already pointed out, there is no LEGAL (or MORAL, for that matter) agreement that first mothers have to anonymity.  (Indeed, no one has a right to anonymity.)  And various studies have indicated that 90% (or more) of first mothers want contact.  So the states that have sealed records have invented a right for less than 10% of all first mothers and discriminated against ALL adoptees on that basis.  

Answer 3

Ms. Sunshine's statements are incorrect.  She is clearly not aware of adoption law with regard to sealed records.  Records do not seal simply because a child is given up for adoption. The sealing has nothing to do with the "plan" to relinquish.  Here are some facts:

1.  If a child is given up for adoption or if parental rights are legally terminated, the birth certificate remains intact, unsealed, and the child's only legal birth certificate.

2.  It is only if an adoption finalizes that the adoption file, including the original birth certificate, is sealed.  A new, amended birth certificate is issued.

3.  If the adoption fails, the original birth certificate is unsealed and reinstated as the child's only birth certificate.  This doesn't necessarily mean that the child returns to the first parents.  It simply means that the adoptive parents will no longer be the legal parents and the adoption is nullified.  This is not the same as children being removed by CPS from an adoptive placement, either.  It is a choice that adoptive parents can sometimes make when they are unhappy with the adoption and the adopted person is still a minor.  The first (birth) parents are not normally notified of the nullified adoption.  These children frequently go into foster care.  So, you've got an unsealed, reinstated original birth certificate and the first parents don't know anything about it.  

Clearly, this sealing of records has nothing to do with anonymity for first parents.

4.  No organization has ever been able to produce a relinquishment document that promises anonymity.  Since giving up a child for adoption does NOT seal the birth record, it is not possible to legally make such a promise.  The fact that such document could not be produced is what helped to uphold the passage of Measure 58 in Oregon (the ballot measure that reinstated equal access.)

5.  In all states, records were originally open to all.  In many states, records were first sealed from the first parents and left unsealed to the adoptive parents and the adopted person.  They only sealed to all parties later.

6.  Adopted citizens are the ONLY citizens who can be denied access to their own records in 44 states.  This is discrimination, based solely on the person's status as "adopted."

Answer 4

It's important to take a moment and applaud those states who have honored adoption and kept records secure in the face of pressure from very tiny but very active interest groups.

The vast majority of states have not considered betraying birth mothers' legal agreements by exposing their adoption plans. They understand that adoption makes new valid families and that reversing legal contracts based on pressure from a minority of people involved in the triad is not a reasonable choice.

We are very fortunate that most of our State executives and legislators have protected our adoptions.  

Answer 5

Alaska and Kansas have never sealed their records.

Alabama, Oregon, Maine, New Hampshire give unconditional access to unaltered birth certificates upon the age of majority to adoptees.

ETA: If i wouldn't have seen her typing like this for over a year on Craigslist, I never would have believed it. Here suzy, read this:

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

That above link takes you to the Evan B Donaldson institute a n adoption adoptin research institute who doesn't receive money from agencies and has no invested interests in adoption. They set out to see if adoptees deserved open records, they did a national study to FIND surrender papers that promised confidentiality. CONFIDENTIALITY PAPERS DON'T EXIST.

When a women surrenders her rights, SHE SURRENDERS ALL RIGHTS, including any right to privacy. States have no interest in protecting the rights of privacy of women who surrendered because thats too much of a committement that states CAN'T keep for her, or else they'd be very liable when reunions started taking place. Reunions happen WITHOUT birth certificates.

I have to believe that you have been raised to believe this by other insecure people. No adoptee would truly believe that we are entitled to second class treatment and deserve to be discriminated against and continue to be legalized children... would they?

Answer 6

I'm sorry Suzy Sunshine but you are completely misinformed. There is no such thing as a LEGAL agreement made with a birth mother that states that the relinquished child cannot have their original birth certificate. NONE. Never was, never will be. When a child is relinquished the birth certificate is NOT sealed - it is only sealed upon adoption. When I was relinquished at birth I was put in foster care for a few months. My birth certificate went with me - had I never been adopted it would have never been sealed - it was only sealed upon adoption.

Suggesting that we applaud states for discriminating against people simply because they are adopted is ludicrous.