FriendBurst Blog

In the U.S., currently 45 states do not allow adult adopted persons to receive or even look at a copy of their original birth certificate (OBC) (or any other uncensored original record), just by simple application, the way non-adopted persons can, although many who aren’t connected to adoption often assume that they can.

In all states in the U.S., when adult adoptees go through the same process as non-adopted persons* to request a copy of their birth certificate, they receive an amended birth certificate which shows their adoptive parents’ names only. This document contains no information about anything pre-adoption: biological parents’ names, their own birth name if one was given, etc.

As of this writing, there are five states an adult adoptee whose adoption was finalized in that state with a copy of his/her OBC (and perhaps other information) on request, without restriction:

Alabama
Alaska
Kansas
New Hampshire
Oregon

Several other states offer restricted access. Restrictions include vetoes, required parental permission even for adults, mandatory intermediaries, and open records for adoptees born only in certain years. Proposals to change the laws being considered in several states.

Why Records Were Sealed

Until the early part of the 20th century, adoption documents were treated as public records. The practice of “sealing” these records away from the public eye and issuing amended birth certificates began during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. Prevailing attitudes held that all parties named in the documents (adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents) needed to be protected from the social stigma associated with illegitimacy, infertility, poverty, mental illness, addiction, and any of the myriad reasons that might have been associated with the reasons children were placed for adoption and the reasons children were adopted. “Sealing” these records was seen as an effective and necessary (at the time) means of “keeping the silence,” and most states enacted laws to do this.

The main argument put forward by those who oppose open records is that birth parents do not want their identities revealed. Additionally, many feel that if the possibility of anonymity is not preserved, abortion rates will climb as women choose not to risk the chance that their information will be released. Many opponents do support the release of information by court order (as prescribed by law) and sometimes through the use of state-run mutual consent registries where information can be exchanged as prescribed by law if both parties agree.

The expectation of privacy: Opponents claim that many birthparents made their decisions based on the expectation, erroneous or not, of a lifetime guarantee of anonymity, even from their children.

The right to privacy: Open records opponents believe that access to their adoption records would violate birth parents’ fundamental right to privacy.

Abortion: Some believe that abortion rates will climb if women feel their anonymity cannot be preserved in an adoption placement.

Major Players

National Council for Adoption
American Center for Liberty and Justice
The Heritage Foundation

Opposition to open records is based on the premise that many birthparents do not want their identities revealed; that many made their adoption decisions based on what they believed was a lifetime guarantee of confidentiality and privacy, and that giving adult adoptees unrestricted access to that information would violate birthparents’ right to privacy.

The National Council for Adoption (NCFA), a Washington-based affiliation of adoption agencies and attorneys, is a leading voice against open records. Former NCFA president, William Pierce, presented the group’s position during a PBS program examining the issue:

“Tens of thousands of people… made important life decisions based on the fact that there was an expectation of privacy and confidentiality.” And he added, “If you take a look at the people today who are adopting children from other countries and you ask them why… when we’ve got kids that need families here, they’re saying it’s because I don’t want somebody showing up on my doorstep.”

The American Center for Liberty and Justice (ACLJ), founded by Pat Robertson, is another outspoken opponent of open records. ACLJ’s Chief Counsel, Larry Crain, claims that if confidentiality cannot be protected, more birthparents will choose abortion or abandonment instead of adoption:

“In many cases, women choose adoption over abortion because they are guaranteed confidentiality and privacy in these cases.” He added that states must “continue to safeguard the records of birth parents.”

These groups, and others that are opposed to open records, are working to promote a nationwide uniform code of adoption law. The draft proposal, known as the Uniform Adoption Act (UAA), includes specific references to the treatment of adoption records, which can be found in Sections 6 and 7:

all records pertaining to an adoption shall be sealed for 99 years following the adoption, [6-102],
identifying information may only be released by the court under prescribed circumstances, [6-104], and
disclosure of identifying information other than as defined in the Act, would be a misdemeanor for the first offense, a felony for any subsequent offense, with attendant fines and/or terms of imprisonment, [7-106].

A provision has been included in Section 6 [6-107] to allow release of the original birth certificate to a petitioning adult adoptee, adoptive parent of a minor adoptee, or direct descendant of a deceased adoptee, if “the individual who makes the request furnishes a consent to disclosure signed by each individual who was named as a parent on the adoptee’s original birth certificate”.

Others speak out

It should be noted that some adoptees and adoptive parents have also expressed objections to open records on the grounds that their right to privacy could also be violated.

The organized opposition to adoptee rights represents the full spectrum of mainstream political ideology in the United States, ranging from the far-right Christian conservatism of the Family Research Council to the left-liberalism of the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. In a political system where issues are usually framed in terms of conservatism and liberalism, what sense can we make of an opposition that cuts across these normally unbridgeable philosophical gulfs?

The enemies of adoptee rights fall into two basic categories, ideological and industrial. Ideological opposition comes from various state chapters of the ACLU and Right to Life, organizations that do not have a financial interest in adoption. Industrial opposition is represented primarily by the National Council for Adoption (NCFA) and other adoption agency fronts such as Concerned Adoption Professionals (a political action committee or PAC formed specifically to fight Oregon’s Ballot Measure 58 in 1998). There is much overlap in these two categories, and the industrial lobbyists hold an inordinate influence among the ideological opposition, which often parrots the rhetoric of the adoption industry without change or commentary.

Most ideological opposition organizes the debate around central issues which are actually peripheral to adoptee rights. Both Planned Parenthood and Right to Life oppose open records because they feel that access to or frequency of abortion will be affected by changes in the law. Planned Parenthood and other feminist organizations have asserted that permanently sealed records are a reproductive choice equivalent to the medical confidentiality of abortion. The state chapters of the ACLU that have come out against open records have used a tortured argument based on non-existent privacy rights that neither the general public nor legislators have taken very seriously. Concerted outreach and education is effective in neutralizing this opposition, both with the general public and within the oppositional organization itself.

The industrial opposition’s motivation is much more transparent — trade protection. In the years since Bastard Nation has shifted the discourse of adoptee rights from psychologically based pleas to straightforward assertions of civil rights, the rhetoric of the industrial opposition has shifted in reaction, revealing an honest apprehension of tort liability and systemic accountability.

The Christian Right possesses qualities of both categories. As ultraconservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council heavily promote adoption as a primary remedy to a gallery of perceived social ills, large constituency churches (including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Mormons]) and their auxiliary organizations, including church oriented social service agencies and crisis pregnancy centers, have entered the adoption industry to facilitate their theologically based social policies. Honing the existing rhetoric of the industrial lobbyists like the NCFA, these theological opponents of adoptee rights pose as our greatest potential opponents due to their extensive grassroots penetration and their enormous fundraising capabilities.

Other organizations that oppose open records are: The American Center for Law and Justice, The Christian Broadcasting Network, The American Life League, The National Right to Life Committee, The Christian Coalition, The Eagle Forum, The Family Research Council and Hear My Voice.

Our greatest ally in the continuing struggle for adoptee rights is the average citizen, whose common sense and basic understanding of fairness and equality are qualities we can count on for support.

Source:
http://www.bastards.org 

Thank You

DL