Why is Open Records a state issue and not a federal issue?

Question

Obviously, each state controls its own vital records, but why is that? Also, since I was born/adopted in one state and now live in another...why isn't this a federal issue?

If adoptees claim that we are descriminated against by not being permitted access to our own records as all other American citizens are...why is this not treated as a federal issue since it deals with citizen's rights?

Answer 1

There is actually a uniform adoption act, but it is TERRIBLE and thankfully never got though anywhere.

The first US adoption law back in the 1800's was on the state level in Massachusettes and since then adoption laws are state issues.

Most people will say that it has to be a state issue, but personally I think that's bunk.  There are plenty of federal adoption rulings from the Adoption and Safe Families Act to National Adoption Awarness Month to the Hague to the tax credits to IPC. So it CAN be done. And if there is ANY adoption ideal that is agreed on- on that  national level - it is access to the OBC.

Answer 2

Good question.  I'm no expert on politics (matter of fact, I try to stay away, lol), but my guess would be that there isn't enough public interest, or enough lobbyists in Washington.  This isn't an issue that people pay attention to, and in order for change to happen, more people have to care.  

Which brings up an idea.  I don't think I've ever seen so many well-informed people in one place talking about adoption reform.  This would be a great place to start...get people together, organized, and start some ruccus on a federal level.  Sign me up!

Answer 3

Because some states have a vested interest in keeping records closed.  So they fight to keep it at a state level.  Believe it or not, there are some states that are as corrupted as the agencies that reside in them.  Utah and Florida come to mind right now.  Utah is very adoption friendly, lots of agencies are there.  They ship expectant mothers over state lines to have the child there so the natural father or extended family cannot intervene the adoption.  Florida's child welfare dept is in a bit of a pickle in regards to taking children from families, claiming abuse.  Even when no abuse is founded, they fight to keep the children until the parents give up (state makes money from foster adoption, and as long as the parents "abandon" the child, they can legally adopt them out).  They cannot terminate the parents rights unless the child is considered "abandoned".  They prey on the poor, those who cannot afford to fight too long and hard.  It is states like these that want the reform kept to a state level.  This way they can keep violating the rights of natural parents, adoptees, and even some adoptive parents.  Hopefully, BPD Wife is here.  She can tell you first hand about how corrupted some state systems are.

Answer 4

It is a family law issue.  The way our country was designed was to leave as much control over daily life at the local level as possible.  Since families are part of daily life, family law is handled by the states so that it can be controlled by the wishes of the people it will directly effect.  Since adoption falls under family law, it is under the state rule.  It follows the same pricipal as the "definition of marriage".

Answer 5

I agree, this should be a federal issue, well actually, I don't think it should be an issue at all.  Everyone should have equal rights and access to their vital records -- all of them, this includes the original, unchanged records.

Answer 6

The federal government is (supposed to be) for the regulation of commerce and relationships among the states. Since adoptions take place within the states, there is no good (read: "constitutional") for the federal government being involved.

It is, then, a by-product of our federalist system. Like drinking ages, speed limits on highways, alcohol sales, marriage laws, and so many other state governed laws, having the federal government regulate this would be viewed as an encroachment on the sovereignty of states.

The federal government has tied tax dollars to following federal guidelines (ala drinking age, for instance, and speed limits), and in that way has managed to make some things more uniform. But I strongly suspect there is little interest in tying tax dollars to a uniform adoption system.

I do think consistency would be really good in this area. But it's hard to see how we might make that work in a federal system.

If we cast this as a constitutional rights question, then it shouldn't be a matter of passing a law at all.  Rather, we should be bringing suits before the judiciary to have our constitutional rights upheld.  Even in that case, I don't think federal law is the issue, but constitutional rights.  (And if, as some would argue, the right to our own records is not in the constitution, we would need to amend it rather than pass a federal statute.)