Why shouldn't an adoptee have his/her birth certificate?

Question

I'm feeling tired of having do defend my reasons for equality and wanting my birth certificate. So I thought I'd turn the tables and ask why shouldn't an adoptee have his/her birth certificate?

We know that there is NO LAW promising mothers and fathers who surrendered or were forced to surrender their children to adoption.

So what are the reasons? Why shouldn't I get my OBC?

Answer 1

You're right. There is no law. They may have been lied to about it and given promises about about the adoptions being permanently closed and secret. But there are no laws. I am for open adoptions and open records. I think you should be descrete about first contact just in case. Maybe you don't agree and think that rocking their world is the way to go.  I also think if you make contact and are rebuffed (either way, parent to child or child to parent), you should respect that.

Answer 2

You have every right to have your birth certificate.  Good luck, I hope you can get it.  You deserve to have it.

Answer 3

There is no law for privacy, but birthmothers do complete a Continuing Contact Agreement, and despite being urged to consider an open adoption, most choose to have no contact, which includes opting out for being contacted by their child.

And perhaps you could clarify for other readers why you want your OBC, as most people assume that it is because we want to find our birthmothers.  That misconception is one of the main reasons I see when it comes to birth certificate reform.

I want to have, and I want my children to have their OBC.  But not if it means that women do not feel any privacy in an adoption plan if that is what they need in order to make the  decision which may very well be the child's best or only viable option.

Answer 4

I think its an absolute and utter d**n discrace that any adoptees shouldnt have access to their birth cert. (my spelling is terrible...sorry)

I was lucky enough to be allowed mine, and I would have been lost without it. It made me feel real.

Its apauling that adoptees are kept from seeing who they really are. I just pray to god that someday, things become better and adoptees can have access to their lives!!

There is no reason what so ever why you shouldnt get your OBC. I would like to hear the american government give an REAL reason as to why you cant. For your own protection is not a reason, its just the governments way of trying to make themselves concerned for adoptees. Its a load of bullshit if you ask me.

Answer 5

I think that as long as you are 18 or over, you should be allowed to have it. Good luck!

Answer 6

You should. Just because someone else on here is aganist, does not mean they speak for everyone. I have told them before why does it bother them, if an adoptee wants their OBC. If i went to get my OBC it has no direct bearing on anyone else, unless i choose to use it for a search. But my a-parents are not insecure about my love for them,so they wouldn't object to me getting my OBC.

Answer 7

That is correct.  There is no law that promises parents who have surrendered to have any kind of anonymity.  In fact, surrendering a child does NOT result in the sealing of the original birth certificate.  Therefore, any argument stating that the fact that the records are sealed is proof of such a promise is faulty.

It is ONLY is an adoptive placement occurs and LEGALLY FINALIZES that the original birth certificate seals.  It unseals if the adoption disrupts.

The birth certificates of relinquished children DO NOT SEAL.

So, why should an adopted person not have his or her birth certificate is s/he wants it?  There is absolutely no legal, moral or ethical reason to deny adopted persons this same right that all other citizens, including relinquished citizens that are not adopted, have.

ETA re: Sarah's question,

In a couple of states with full open access to adoptees, birth parents can fill out a form stating whether or not they wish for contact.  Alabama and Oregon are two examples of this.  When the adopted person requests his/her OBC, the contact preference form is sent with it, so the adoptee already knows the birth parent's wishes without having to make contact in order to find out.  With sealed records, adoptees can't find out if the birth parent doesn't want contact without making contact first.  Since reunions happen all the time under sealed records law, opening records and including a contact preference form is much more of a guarantee that a birth parent who doesn't want contact won't get it.

Here are some stats from states that use contact preference forms:

Oregon:

From 2000-2007,  eighty-five (85) no contact preferences have been filed

New Hampshire:

From 2005-2007, twelve (12) no contact preferences have been filed

Alabama:

From 2000-2007,  one-hundred-eighty-six (186) no contact preferences have been filed.

No breaches have been reported in any of these states.

Answer 8

There is no reason in h**l that a adoptee should not have their OBC

No reason in h**l

Answer 9

There is no law promising anonyimity. If a mother was led to believe she will get a lifetime of anonymity from her daughter or son, then she needs to take that issue up with the agency that lied to her. Nowhere on any adoption contract is their a proviso for privacy or anonymity.

The no-contact preference is garbage too. Anyone on the planet can contact anyone, anytime. If the person doesn't wish to communicate with the person contacting them, then they can say so. If the contacter persists and this interferes with the person's life, then there are

legal options to ensure it doesn't happen again.

All adoption does is legally change a person's name. It seals the original identity  at the request of the people adopting. On paper, it has nothing to do with privacy, confidentiality, searching or reuniting.

It is discrimination when a government denies a specific group of citizens the same rights all other citizens have.

Answer 10

NO Reason.  No reason at all.   Unless of course you believe in discriminating against a select class of people due to their adoptive status; but that's not a reason either

WAKE UP AMERICA - NO OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRY DOES THIS TO ADOPTEES ANY MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ETA   Joslin - nobody should have to clarify why they want their own birth certificate.  There you go, a classic example of how adoptees are stigmatized and treated with suspicion.  It is DISCRIMINATION

oH, and another thing.  Decisions made when an adoptee is a baby should not be binding long into adulthood.   Also a mother who makes a decision to have no contact when she is say, 17 years old, may feel differently when she is 40 years old - should she be chained to a decision she made years ago

Let ADULTS decide for themselves what is in their own best interest for heavens sakes!

Answer 11

First off, let me say that I DO think that adoptees deserve ALL rights anyone else has.  

I do also see your add details that say "access to birth certificates and contacting our first parents are completely different issues and situations".

That said, I don't think all birthparents agree with your add details, or believe that that would really be the case.  I've said before, I'm a birthmom who had a nasty break with my ex upon my getting pregnant.  He handed me a blank check (literally) and pointed me towards an abortion clinic.  I made the mistake of telling my attorney his name, and almost had to keep her because I know he thought about not signing the relinquishment papers.  (Now before anyone gets their panties in a twist, he would NOT have been a good father, he was already a dead-beat dad to three girls and undergoing paternity hearings in another state about another child- so he would NOT have kept her, I would have, he was just wavering to spite me- that's another saga for another day).  

What I'm trying to get at is that he, as a biological father, wants NOTHING to do with the baby.  He would rather have her dead so that she can't come back and "ask questions someday".  So I'm sure there are those (again, NOT me included) who feel that even though you may honestly feel that those are two separate reasons to want a full, acurate OBC, they very strongly do not want you to have that info.

Also, what does this mean:

We know that there is NO LAW promising mothers and fathers who surrendered or were forced to surrender their children to adoption.

No law promising them what?

Gotcha- I saw Laurie's answer.  Well, then I guess I'm answering a question you're not asking-  

You want a full, acurate birth certificate, right?  Then perhaps your energies should be spent on promising birth parents the right to not ever be contacted.  Maybe there is a way they could fill out extensive history reports, medical and otherwise, but still be protected from contact.  

Or.. I really don't know.  I know I wouldn't name the father if I were in that situation again, because of him almost not signing.  If there were a way I could name him for the sake of an accurate OBC but not have him have a chance in h**l of keeping her, I would still name him, for records purposes, for the adoptees' sake.

*Well, perhaps if there was a law promising privacy you'd have more access.  (That's basically the gist of my answer.)

**Great info., Laurie.  If those contact preference forms were part of the relinquishment documents, I can't think of a reason anyone might have to NOT allow adoptees their OBC's.  These should be available with any adoption, in my opinion, and they should be talked about by anyone discussing the legalities of the adoption.  Had my agency and/or my attorney mentioned this, I would have been much more at ease.

I've seen your point that the OBC's are not sealed at relinquishment, but at adoption.  Maybe that's part of the problem- if the contact preference form was available at relinquishment it would be a different story altogether.  Because as is, the child still has rights to her OBC if he/she is in foster care, right?  So say the baby I had went to foster care instead of a private adoption.  Then my ex would not have sat well with knowing that she still could know who he was, and "show up asking questions".  

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, and I don't try to assume that the possiblity I mention is the majority.  But the records are sealed for some reason... maybe more people feel this way than we'd all like to think?