Sarah asked
“My question is about adoptions that have already taken place. Once the law is changed, women choosing to place will know from the beginning that the information will be available. They will be able to make decisions about whether and how to place and about who to tell and when with that understanding. If we passed a law now that opened up all past original birth certificates, it seems like there would be a generation of women for who the rules would be changed in the middle of the game. They made all of those decision assuming that information would never be available, and suddenly it is. Instead of being asked to tell who they needed to tell from the beginning, they would be asked (in some cases) to admit to those people that they haven’t told them for years.
So should there be a ‘grandfather clause’ that says that the law only applies to future adoptions? If not, is it because the situation this places some women in is no different than the current situation, in which some adoptees search successfully even without a birth certificate? Or is it because the right of adoptees to know their story outweighs the right of the women who placed in this case?”
I’m going to use a heavily edited version of Marley’s testimony to answer this question (note: Bastard Nation brooks no compromise — i.e., no grandfathering — on this issue and I agree with them):
The not-adopted need not justify why they want their vital records nor are they forced to ask their parents permission, appear before a judge, join a government-run registry, seek mental health counseling, or spend years getting a bill, such as HB 7, passed to get them. The not-adopted have a presumed right to their own birth certificates and can do with them what they please. All arguments for passage of HB 7 as written must then flow from the presumed right of all adults to unrestricted access and ownership of their true birth certificates, not just some. If adoptees are not equal legally to the not-adopted in terms of identity, then the right of anyone to possess their own birth certificate is not a right but a state favor. The real question, then, is who owns your identity? You or the state? …
I know of no adoption reform organization in the United States today that does not support unrestricted access. The Evan. B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, The Child Welfare League of America (which sets best practice standards), The National Association of Social Workers, The North American Council on Adoptable Children, the National Adoption Center, and Ethica: A Voice for Ethical Adoption all support unrestricted access. In November 2007, the Donaldson Institute, the premiere adoption research organization in the country. released a report: For the Records: Restoring a Right to Adult Adoptees, in which it calls for the unsealing of all birth and adoption records to adult adoptees. In December I attended a meeting in New York sponsored by the Donaldson. Attendees came from as far away as Tennessee, Florida and Texas. They all agreed that the day of compromise is over. Records for all. …
Rights are for all citizens, not favors or privileges for some US law does not privilege rights by race, religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. I cannot think of any other judicial procedure where records are sealed from those to whom the procedure pertains.
When access to original birth certificates is understood and accepted as a civil right, there is no justification — not even “protection” — to limit an adult person’s right to his or her records. As Marley also says in her testimony, it’s “about rights not reunion.” This has nothing to do with what people might choose to do with the information; it has to do with whether or not they have a right to access it. I believe they do.
In this and other testimony, proponents of Ohio HB 7 point out that there are ways for people to get their birth certificates. Here in Ohio, you can go before a judge and hope that he or she will approve your request to access it. As Bestsie Norris testified:
The original birth certificate is not sealed upon relinquishment or termination of parental rights.
When a child is placed for adoption, the original birth certificate is not sealed or altered in any way. It stands as the child’s legal birth certificate, and in Ohio is available to the public as are all birth certificates, until the adoption is finalized. Not all children who are released for adoption are adopted right away (and even if they are it does not finalize for at least 6 months). Some children released for adoption are never adopted.
This is important because I think most of us don’t realize it. (I didn’t realize it until after Madison came home.) It’s not surrender that seals records; it’s adoption. Any adoption professional who has told a woman that her child’s birth certificate will be sealed upon surrender wasn’t told the whole truth. Further Betsie says:
Although birthparents may have wanted privacy from the public, or even friends and family, at the time of the birth and adoption that does not extend in the vast majority of cases to not wanting their now adult child to have information about them. They placed their child for adoption under the only system that was available to them at that point in time. Birthmothers who did get to see their child before adoption often report that, during the short time they had to say good bye to their baby, they whispered to their child how much they loved them and how much they hoped to see them again in the future.
Many more birthparents say that they were told, or otherwise thought, that the records would be open to their adult child, than say they were told they’d be closed. Given this information, it only makes sense to allow those records to be open to the adult adoptees.
This is important, too, but I think that when it comes right down to it having access to your original birth certificate is a civil right and any argument against it is irrelevent.
I am a mother who lived through a law change. This occurred in 1988 and meant that when my daughter turned 18 I would be allowed identifying information of her and she of me.
When I relinquished I knew I would find her again, I just assumed it naively at the time. However, had they not changed the law it would have been really difficult to have made contact as quickly as I did after her 18th birthday.
For me, this law change had a profoundly positive effect on my life, and I am eternally grateful for that.
When I relinquished my daughter it wasn’t because I was ashamed of her nor was it because I never wanted to see her again.
I don’t want anybody to be making or enforcing laws that prevent family members from knowing each other. We are all adults, if we don’t wish to have an ongoing relationship with somebody, family or non family then we can work those issues out. We don’t need the goverments to make those decisions for us.
The changes I would love to see are the phasing out of fake birth certificates. I am angry that another woman holds a legal document that says she gave birth to my daughter when I did. My body, my giving birth to my baby, my stretch marks, my hours of labor pain, my being in the hospital, my breasts full of milk, my hormonal overload, my loss, my physical experience. My bond to my daughter, my blood flowing through her veins. My experience, our history - our deepest most primitive bond.
I just happened to read the following:
According to Dutch law adoptees can undo the adoption legally between 2 and 5 years after reaching majority!
Isn’t adoption always portrayed as in “the best interest of the child”? So why would it change to favor parental rights when those children are adults? It seems ridiculous to me that something as basic as identity can be denied to an adult.
I don’t think that every parent who placed their child for adoption will be happy about this, they may not want to be found, they may want nothing to do with their child. However, not disrupting these people’s lives is not worth denying basic civil human rights to others.
Thanks for the response, Dawn. Lots to think about.
It’s somewhat ironic that the same contracts that disempower first mothers in other ways become part of this argument as well. If the old contracts stated clearly (and if it was explained clearly to those who signed them) that original birth certificates would be sealed, then I think you could argue that those women had a right to assume that the contract would continue to be a valid legal document. Then you could debate whether the adoptees’ right to their history (which I absolutely agree they have) outweighed the first parents’ right to have the contract followed. You could still make valid arguments that the adoptees’ right is stronger, but the situation would be greyer.
I’m sure you’re right, though, that just as those contracts don’t include any promises made about openness, they probably don’t include anything about the birth certificate, in which case the only ‘right’ that has been violated is the right of a woman considering placing her child to be given complete and accurate information. And we all know that ‘right’ gets violated every day, and with no consequences *sigh*.
KimKim, I’m sorry if my ramblings (I’m thinking aloud here, if that’s not obvious) make it sound like I see this issue as adoptees vs first parents. I am sure that the vast majority of first parents would welcome this change and benefit from it. I’m just a little worried about those who might not. That may just be the cost of progress, though.
(As a side note: I can see the arguments for sealing birth certificates. Don’t agree with them, but I can understand them. Creating fake birth certificates? Who the hell does that benefit, and why on earth haven’t we stopped doing it?)
Sarah,
It happens! Things change. How many people were “gauraneteed” retirement pay that thy never saw? Soldiers who thought they served their time are given an additional tour of duty. It happens.
There are no guarantees sin life…AND there are no laws to protect anyone’s secrets.
If a person marries and decides not to tell their spouse about their past, that’s their prerogative. But if their former spouse or love comes knocking at their door - who’s to stop them?
Why should people who’s lives are irrevocably changed by adoption have laws that pertain only to them? That’s called discrimination.
Do not believe the propaganda that mothers want to be “protected” from their own chidlren. Those are LIES spread by the NCFA - those who profit from adoption . Ask mothers and tey will tell you they were never promised anonymity, they never asked for it and never got it. We got NOTHING in return for our children. Not one red cent, and in most case snot even a shred of paper that we signed. Nothing.
The records were never sealed to protect mothers. They were sealed to protect those who adopt..and perhaps those adopted…but NEVER was there any concern for mothers “rights” until the NCFA created that myth.
They stay sealed to protect the paying customer in adoption: those who adopt. No one else!
Read: Growing in the Dark by Baer
Read: The Girls who went Away by Fesllser
Read: The Baby Thief by Bistantz
and read: The Stork Market by Riben
Speaking of things that change and we have no control over…how about the Internet? When I lost my firstborn to adoption - in 1968 - who would have dreamed that people would be able to find anyone with the click of a computer!
And since finding anyone is so easy, I strongly that suggest that anyone with a secret child in their closet tell those in their lives now - before they are suprised by a knock at the door!
Besides, I know of no one who ever told and didn’t get loving support and compassion. The worst reaction I know of is hearing: Why didn’t you tell me sooner?!
There is no shame anymore in “illegitimacy”, pre-marital sex or single parenthood.
Mirah,
“It happens! Things change.”
True. I’ve been pretty much convinced by the way, and I appreciate all of the people who took time to share their perspective with me. I have a tendency to think through things in part by playing devil’s advocate, so I appreciate Dawn letting me take over her comments temporarily for that purpose.
“The records were never sealed to protect mothers. They were sealed to protect those who adopt”
That, I’ve never doubted.
Ditto with Kim’s statement. How astoundingly dehumanizing. Furthermore, I was not told my child’s birth certificate would be altered and assumed the copy I asked for (her real one) was her only one. I was proud of that birth certificate! … and aghast when I discovered it had been tainted with untruths. I figured an addendum would be made to it when the adoption was finalized. I was certainly not assured “privacy” [translate: secrecy] regarding my own beloved child, and desired none of my information to be withheld from her. (You hear this over and over from moms on this end of adoption.) So, that’s my initial gut reaction as a mother.
That said, it’s about human rights. The big-money, industry-driven sector of adoption counts on sealed records and counts on the outdated notion of “as if born to” and “blank slate” theory to appeal to the vulnerabilities of people who (sometimes desperately, and understandably so) want to parent a healthy newborn (to the tune of a great deal of profit for those touting old notions.)
I believe the United Nations addresses free association in its Declaration on Rights of the Child. I’ll have to look. I believe, for example, that Canada recognizes this and possibly New Zealand, but again I could be wrong and am certain Mirah or Marley would know.
I think the NCFA is terrified of open records because then … how would they tout “as if born to” and treat mothers merely as conduits to channel babies to those who were “intended” to have them (and able to pay). Without these foundations, they won’t be able to “sell” the mythology to high-paying clients as convincingly.
Geeze, when I saw Claud’s piece detailing the money some of these folks make in withholding rights and selling mythology, I wonder how they sleep at night.
Another mom in favor of open records, period, no restrictions. It’s clearly discriminatory and a violation of civil rights to have closed records of any kinds.
If there are moms out there whose lives are somehow damaged by the opening of records, then those moms have my sympathy but not my support in keeping records closed. How can a “contract” that promises something it’s got no right to promise–namely, the violation of another person’s rights–be considered a legal contract, anyway? I’m not a lawyer but my guess is any contract (relinquishment papers) guaranteeing mothers the right to anonymity could actually be considered void. There’s got to be some kind of case law precedent for that somewhere, doesn’t there? So… it’s an unfortunate situation if moms were promised anonymity (and I STILL haven’t met one who was promised that in writing), but that doesn’t mean we deny adoptees’ rights to fulfill that contract… it means we start DEMANDING that agencies/”professionals” stop lying to mothers and stop making promises they can’t fulfill.
Open records. Period.
I think that first mothers who don’t want this are probably few and far between (it’s not like they had a choice about it when they placed and they chose sealed records), but as with other basic, civil rights, it isn’t about who WANTS what or what the popular vote says, it’s just about rights plain and simple. There is no excuse for restricting any adults’ access to their own legal and biological history when it is available.
The use of the word “contract” implies something that follows legislations and is legally binding. As noted, there is NO enforceable statute that guarantees mothers anonymity. Furthermore, if mothers had any real rights, any real contracts, wouldn’t open adoptions be fully enforceable and wouldnt closing those adoptions (by either first parents or adoptive) be punishable under the law?
All this legal hooha contract talk is just that. Hooha. Urban legens. Myths.
As a mother who surrendered her child in 1986, I have always expected and wanted her to find me and for her to have knowledge of her birth. In fact, that knowledge was used as a stick to beat me into surrender with. I was told my daughters adoption would forever be “semi-open”. I trusted the agency. I believe them. I later learned it was a bogus outright lie told to me to get me to sign, to give me hope and allow me to believe that I mattered and that my existence would be shared with my daughter.
As anyone who knows my story can tell, this was not the case.
Wholeheartedly agree with LisaV, when does adoption stop becoming in the best interest of the child and in the best interest of the adoptive parents and the industry at large? Most likely as soon as those TPRS are signed.
Grrrr.
There is no legal or moral right to live free of the consequences of our choices, free or coerced by circumstance as they may have been.
Unlike Mirah, I HAVE known a birth mother who was shamed and rejected when she revealed the pregnancy and placement, just as she knew she would be shamed and abused had she chosen to raise her son. It does happen.
But as sad a story as that is, and I could go on, it has nothing to do with states’ sealing original birth records from adoptees and only adoptees.
Sealed records are a human rights violation. There is no right to be free from the consequences of what we do, but there is a right to know who we are and where we came from.
I have been shamed and rejected for being a relinquishing mother too but that’s not my shame to bear. If you are going to try to make me be a leper for that then shame on you. Any friend or acquaintance of mine who tries to shame me is not worth knowing.
I am not ashamed of my daughter and I have no reason to accept anything less than compassion for what I went through.
PhoenixRising is quite right, it does happen. It sometimes happens from people you didn’t expect it from. It’s important that we stand strong and don’t let that shame make us vulnerable. After all it was partly that shame that made me feel I had to relinquish her in the first place.
I am proud to be L’s mother. She’s a beautiful girl. I’m deeply sad that I didn’t get to raise her but I am also overjoyed to have a second chance to know her. I will not be destroyed by this. I fight to be happy. I love her and want her to have a strong and vibrant mother.
I’m not in the adoption triad, and no one (including me) understands why I feel so strongly about this issue. But, if it’s a rights issue, a “contract” doesn’t matter. My analogy is to the restrictive covenants that were common on housing leases, preventing purchase of the house by people of the “wrong” race. At some point, the courts declared those “contracts” unenforcible. True, folks bought into houses and neighborhoods under that promise. But the rights of people to live anywhere, regardless of their race, trumps the promise.
The technical issues are different in adoption, because the courts dealt with covenants by refusing to enforce them, and because real property, unlike people, last forever. So, preventing people from falsifying birth certificates into the future would mean something independent of fixing the past (even if old records are not fixed). Preventing covenants in the future wouldn’t have fixed the existing contracts, and could have grandfathered them into the future.
Politically, though, I fear that the absolutely justifiable right to unseal past records will delay the fixing of the injustice in the future. And, I speak as a bystander, who gets to hear from the average person, since I am uninvolved.