In whose best interest is it to issue fake birth certificates to adoptees?

Isabel A

That is what they do in Europe. Children are only issued one birth certificate. everybody seems ok with that procedure.

I believe that once a child is adopted there, they are issued a certificate of adoption as a formal record.

I personally have no problem with my adoptive parents being acknowledged as my parents a certificate of adoption would serve this purpose for me but I do think it's weird that I have an official document that says my amom gave birth to me when she didn't.

ComeOn!

They try to protect the birth mother from being discovered and the adopted child from being found. And the adopted parents from having their child taken back by the birthmother. It would be better if we all could have had open adoptions, but you have to admit it would have been more complicated too. But adoption IS complicated so don't pretend it isn't, right? I think it stinks that I have a "fake" birth certificate.

Kayla

It's not in anybodys best interest as far as I'm concerned. I was thinking about trying to get custody of my youngest sister and the only way my mom couldn't change her mind later is if I adopted her. But I don't want to make her change her name or anything as drastic as that. That's like saying she's a completely different person, it basically states that her parents were never her parents and that her sister and brother-in-law were. It's not fair to anyone as far as I'm concerned.

ACCOUNT CLOSED

I never thought about it but its definitely not fair to the child that its done to.

Heather B

Well, um, not the adoptee or the birthmother, that's for sure

It's the industry. Just look at the rubbish that comes out of the mouths of the NCFA - perpetuating baseless myths to protect their business that people actually believe - yikes

David C

It is in no-ones interest to be dishonest about anything.

Andraya

A birth certificate implies that it is a document relating to an event. IE a certificate certifying a birth.

How they can change it to reflect adopters as the birth parents astounds me. What adopter had anything to do with the birth of a child?

I will no longer refer to my BC, or my son's, as a birth certificate. It will now be called a "certificate of ownership" in my eyes.

grapesgum

The adoption industry. "Birth" parents are merely a necessary inconvenience to them to produce the child that they then sell to the person with the most money to offer. The sooner that they can get rid of the original identity of the child, the happier their customers are. Happier customers means they make more money.

It is also a convenience to the adoptive parents. I don't mean that in a negative way to the adoptive parents. If they are decent people, they should demand to keep the the original birth certificate for their child. Many do that now, I think.

Kim

Well, it definitely makes things easier on me (the adoptive parent) and, to a certain extent, my children to have a birth certificate that lists us as the parents and looks like everyone else's. Our adoption is not a secret at all, but it's nice that we don't have to explain it to the nosey parent volunteer checking birth certificates at Kindergarten registration or Little League.

BCs are used for identification purposes quite often for younger children -- and I'm glad that we don't have to show the OBC, the Adoption Decree, etc. for those purposes. Maybe what we need is a new method of identification for *all* children (adopted or not) that does not rely on the birth certificate at all. The birth certificate should be *only* a record of the actual birth. But, currently, it's not only that.

However, that being said, I do think that adoptees should have access to their original birth certificates. We have our children's OBCs. The info in it is their info, so I don't see the amended birth certificate so much as a "fake" or a "lie," as a convenience. However, I think all adoptees should have access to their original birth info even if they also have an amended BC.

Gershom

The adoption industrys best interests of course.

The longer they can keep us apart, the longer they can tell lies. The longer they can tell lies, the longer adoption will continue the way it is.

PhilM

This question has puzzled me for a long time.

The recent arguments all mention protecting the birthparents. But from what? From their children? If they need protecting from their children, why not hide all birth certificates from children?

If birth parents need protecting from their children, they why not make searching illegal? Faking birth certificates doesn't stop a child from searching. It only forces them to search to find answers. Why do people think birth parents have a right to anonymity? The act of birth is not a private event.

And besides, I almost never hear birth parents demand this right. I do, however, hear adoption "professionals" make this argument. Which makes me wonder what their interest is. Why do they want to keep these records hidden from adoptees?

I wish I knew. I hope someone here offers a more definitive answer than I have because I would really like to know as well.

mlassi65

I am a US born adoptee with a fake bcert. Both my siblings were adopted from Germany. They have their OBC, adoption papers, naturalization (name changed at that time) information. They were not bothered by providing the additional papers when needed (to get their drivers license for example). So why cant we American adoptees have our OBC!

jessicas127

Making fake birth certificates is definitely not right.

IJToomer

"They" think it is in the best interest of the birth parents. What "they" aren't realizing is the pain "they" are causing the adoptees. It isn't necessarily that the adoptee wants to find the birth parents - many birth parents WANT to be found - but I believe, way back when, it was taboo to have a child, even though she/he was given up for adoption. By sealing our OBC's, more damage is done to our self esteem and psyche. Most of us are aware that we are adopted, so on one hand, it is a slap in the face to view this piece of paper (the one in which I refer to as my "Page of Lies" a.k.a my "birth certificate") but on the other, the woman who raised me IS indeed my mother. (My a-dad left when I was 4).

What it boils down to is that most people in this country (the US) can grasp and hold their OBC, and know the truth. Because of some messed up bureaucratic system, we get to walk around wondering where it is we come from, what our original names were, and if our birth parents died at a young age due to some horrific disease. Many birth parents are walking around wondering if their birth children had a good life - or if they died at a young age from some horrific disease.

Erin L

I really don't understand why it is still done and hope it changes. It is NOT in my best interest as an adoptive parent because my interest is what is best for my daughter. I do know that to get my daughter (adopted internationally) a social security card and passport we had to get a fake birth certificate for her. It makes no sense to me. We have other documents that say we are legally her parents. We don't need one saying we gave birth to her since we didn't! But, the state makes people get them. Luckily, we have a copy of her original birth certificate with her date, time, hospital, birth mother name, etc. so she will have all that information. We have a rare situation in international adoption in that we are able to have a semi-open adoption with our daughter's birth family.

sunny

Adoptive parents, adoption agencies, attorneys.

I can't think of anyone else who would BENEFIT from this practice.

punxy_girl

Originally in the early 1900s, birth records (and thus the "fake" birth certificate) were closed for 2 reasons. The first was to protect the indentity of the birthmother. Don't thumbs me down yet! :-) Then, you must realize, pregnancy outside of marriage was much more frowned upon. A girl might not even be "marriageable" if it was known she'd had relations prior to marriage. And certainly a baby was evidence of that! Many girls went to their aunts and uncles for many months to have their babies quietly. They certainly didn't want these children coming back to let it be known what they had done. I'm not saying this was right or moral. It's just the way it was.
The second reason was to make the adopted child appear as if they were a member of the adopted family. Indeed, many were never told they were adopted or didn't know until they were adults. It was felt that this would improve the adjustment of the entire family to the adoption. Again, I think this is wrong.

Okay, I know there are a lot of perspectives and from the adoptee's standpoint, open records are the best. As an adoptive mother, I also think that open records are in the best interests of my child. However, this can be scary for some adoptive parents. As many arguments as you may have about bonding, many adoptive parents are VERY attached to their children and would be devastated to lose them. They wonder if the birthparents become involved if the child would emotionally and/or physically leave them. Education is the key to this and this includes education of the adoption professionals some of whom are sticking to what they learned in college in 1962.

Elizabeth

It is in the adopters interest, because SOME adopters actually like to pretend they gave birth. The fake birth certificate has allowed SOME adopters to go to their graves without ever telling the adoptee he/she was adopted.

door.uk

You only get the one here in the UK because many a child has found out that they were adopted by finding there real birth certificate

also if you a parent who's child was adopted you can apply and when the child reaches an age they will ask them if they wish to see there birth parents

Stephen K

It is assumed the adopted child, but I think it is unfair to them

snowwillow20

Initially it was thought to protect the birth parents from ever being found to protect the adoptive parents from the birthparents ever finding them and to protect the child from everything. I think adoptees should have all medical facts, but I know I didn't want my birth daughter to find me until I was ready to be found. I guess that is very selfish of me and I didn't always feel that way. My bdaughter was a huge secret to most of my family so when I did find her, I had a lot of explaining to do and it was very hard. My son was 23 when he found out he had a bio sister. He had been raised as an only child. He was shocked. We are all trying to cope with a bad decision we made a long time ago.

BPD Wife

I am full agreement that birth records should not be sealed once a child turns 18. However, I am not in agreement about "fake birth certificates" and many of the responses here.

For us, having a new birth certificate and social security number for our son was a matter of safety. Because of reasons I do not want to mention with our son's first parents, we could not risk them having his birth certificate or Social Security Number. In fact, there were some concerns in the beginning that they were proceeding with identity theft and selling his information to others for money. For us, having what everyone here is calling a "fake" certificate allowed us to feel "safe" in that we were protecting our son in all possible ways that we could. Without that birth certificate, we could not apply to have his Social Security Number changed. And without a new social security number, his credit would have been ruined by the time he was 18.

I understand that there should only be one birth certificate - from the day you were born - and then an adoption certificate. But in some cases, I can also understand the need to have new paperwork also - as a means to protect the child.

The birth parent may not want to be found and their name is on it. At least that is the thinking if the child does not know then it is harder to find them

MikeyG

Doesn't the adoptee need the certificate to show the DMV when getting a driver's license, or to show when requesting a marriage license, or to apply to college? I had to show my birth certificate in all three situations, so I assume that the fake birth certificate is issued so the adoptee can drive, and get married, and go to college, etc. . . . right?
Now, obviously, if they just didnâ€™t seal the original birth certificate, then the adoptee wouldnâ€™t have to have the fake one. But since they still consider the information on the original certificate an invasion of the natural motherâ€™s privacy, they do what they have to so that the adoptee will have the documentation that they will need later in life.

marianne

I love Tabbykat's answer! And I agree with her.

Adoption is a complex issue and if you have serious concerns about the legality or falseness of any birth certificate you should consult legal advice, not Yahoo Answers. It's legal identity -- and it's too important to fool around with.

Tabbykat

The people who want to live behind bars.

Brittae

It's for legal purposes since the adoptive parents are the child's parents for all legal purposes. The birth parents give up all legal rights to the child when they sign the adoption papers. By changing the birth certificate, it makes it easier for the (adoptive) parents to prove to government agencies, schools, etc. that they are the legal guardian of the child. That is the purpose of it.

Also, in the case of closed adoption, the birth parents do not want the child communicating with them. This helps to conceal their identity.

I think it is up to the adoptive parents to explain to the child how they came into the world and into their lives. It's not the purpose of the government to explain those things.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: