If sealing records is "protecting birthfamilies privacy" then why not give them the choice?

Gershom

Sealed records "Isn't" protecting birthfamilies privacy" there is no law of privacy.

They are given "choices" reunion registries are in many states and these were inacted AFTER the sealing of the records which proves there was no law to privacy.

And I don't believe THEY should have ANY "choice" in me having MY records, they're MY records. nobody elses, MINE.

Laurel J

My records were sealed by the state as a matter of course, and none of my four parents had any say in it. But I'm not sure how much that matters.

I am 42 years old. I deserve the same rights every other US citizen has. Saying I can have my birth certificate if it's OK with the parents who gave birth to me or the parents who raised me merely continues the infantilizing of adopted adults. It's not a step in the right direction at all--it's wimping out.

My identity is my right. Open records for all--no sops, no halfway measures, no compromises.

Heather B

It should be their choice to refuse contact or a relationship just like all other adults

Nobody should have the choice to seal the birth records of another human being, no.

There appears to be a fear that all adoptees are stalkers and harassers which is a disgraceful attitude to have toward a whole class of people simply because they were adopted! (I'm sure there are laws on the books already to deal with stalkers and harassers so we don't really need a special set of rules for adopted people do we)

Any arguments in favor of keeping records sealed are arguments in defense of discrimination. Unfortunately there are plenty of bigots in the USA who continue to demonize and stigmatize adoptees; sadly alot of those people are the parents of adoptees - go figure (not people like you; I mean the ones who are always banging on about the bmother's privacy, as if they really cared. It's so transparent that they just don't want the bmother in the picture)

ETA: Just to add - the Birth records of children in 'open adoption' are also SEALED BY THE STATE. Those adoptees will not be able to go to the vital records office and obtain a copy, even if they already have one copy. This is WRONG and treating adoptees differently under the law. It is discrimination closed or open adoption - they still seal them J!

LaurieDB

Phil is right on with this one. It can too easily be used as a weapon against adopted citizens in order to continue the discrimination. Open adoption does NOT allow the adult adopted person to access his/her birth record in the same manner as non-adopted persons.

The issue is about equal treatment under the law, not information. Information is already known in the majority of adoptions that take place today. Because reunions happen all the time, information is already known even by many adoptees who were born in the era where closed adoption were the only option.

Also, because by law the records do not seal until after an adoption is finalized (at least 6 months,) the birthparent wouldn't have a true choice anyway. The records wouldn't close upon relinquishment, so anyone -- even the general public -- can access those records prior to the finalization of the adoption. If an adoption fails, the records automatically reopen. The birthparent is not informed of this, and couldn't do anything about it if s/he knew about it anyway. Therefore, because of the adoption law itself regarding sealed records, it would be impossible to give the birthparents a true option anyway.

tish

personally, i hate secrets. i've witnessed too many "family secrets" which later come back to bite like vipers...

interesting... except, that would only work if the premise behind sealed records was truly about fmom privacy.

the historical purpose of sealed records is to hide the stigma of infertility and illegitamacy; and to ensure that the aparents would never have to "explain" that they are not the "natural parent." seriously, if sealed records were about fmom privacy, then why did so many women fake pregnancies and labor stories? i fail to see how these practices do anything to protect the first mom.

it had nothing to do with fmom protection; yet to save face and maintain the facade of giving birth to the child.

regarding "choice": i do agree with phil. i can just imagine the anti-reunion advocates salivating over the chance to tell prospective fmom's all the horror-stories about adult adoptees who return to totally f*ck up their perfect lives.

my belief: adoption is not just about fmoms. it is about all parties involved, including the adoptee. and sealed records unfairly penalizes a child by vurtue of his or her fmom's choice to place for adoption. besides, if there were so many fmoms who wanted privacy, then WHY do most adoptions involve an open agreement???

regarding aparents, i'm not sure how much say they should have in the sealed/open records decision. since, quite honestly it is about the child and the fmom/fdad. especially if the child in not in danger (and presumed danger due to paranoia doesn't count).

to me, it's like lying about a child's paternity, just because the mother doesn't like the bio-father. it's just not right.

PhilM

Here's my worry about giving first mothers the choice whether to seal. It seems rife for abuse. Lots of anti-open records advocates like to paint adult adoptees as stalkers who are out to screw up the lives of others. Indeed, people who searched were regularly (until recently, but probably even now by many) pathologized. Something was clearly wrong with us for not being happy with the artificial family that was created for us. I can imagine these anti-open records advocates attempting to frighten a mother who is already clearly desperate into signing paperwork to "protect" her from the infant she is relinquishing. After all, I can imagine someone asking herself, "Why are they giving me a choice unless there is some reason I might need to seal these records? Maybe I should just go ahead and seal them."

Giving first mothers a choice about who gets their records and who doesn't maintains the discrimination and the separate but unequal state we have today, it just changes the class from all adoptees to a subset. Discrimination is still discrimination.

Further, if we do give them a choice, I can only assume that's moving forward. The government is going to go back, locate all the first mothers from the last fifty years to find out what they want.

No, such a "choice" would really be to solidify the inherent inequality that exists today. Definitely a step in the wrong direction. But I do appreciate you thinking about this.

Torrejon

Everyone should have access to their own records...anything else is discrimination.

Anastasia Beaverhousen

Most states automatically seal adoption records. I think it's crap. The only way you can get them open is if you have a damn good reason for a judge to think you NEED to see your papers. It's very hard to get them open.

littleJaina

In Texas, adoptions are most often sealed by the adoptive parents and/or the state when they decide it's in the best interest of the child (ie abuse). Sealing the adoption protects the adopted child and family from harrassment from the biological family.

However, in Texas, the relinquishment and adoption are seperate court documents. If the biological parent wishes to be anonymous, he/she must request the relinquishment be sealed. If they don't, then they can be tracked.

Still Me

There is a choice. It is called open adoption.

mscrawdad

I believe birth parents already have that right. At least they do or did 20 years ago have that right in Calif. They could tell the adoption agency to release all of their info at the time of relinquishment or to keep it private.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: