What do you think is the NCFA's purpose in making this statement?

Carol c

Below are a couple of links I found interesting - one which speaks to the original founders and donors of the NCFA - everyone seems to choose to remain anonymous.

Below that is a list of agencies that belong to the NCFA - of course the largest is the Gladney Home in Tx. There are a large number of Bethany Christian Services and LDS agencies as well - - all invested heavily in keeping the records closed so that they can guarantee privacy to the aparents.

I mention this because I heard Bill Pierce at two conferences in the late 1980's making these same ridiculous comments about feeling compelled to protect the privacy of mothers. Several first mothers including myself and others addressed him publicly and privately about the fact that we never requested anonymity for privacy from our children - it was imposed upon us and in fact, many of us including myself were told that our children would be given our contact information once they were 18, if they requested it. I lived 18 years waiting for that day and it wasn't until it passed that I learned that the records in PA had been closed in 1984 - up to that point they had been open.

This tired old arguement of theirs is so outdated. How dare they speak for mothers even after they've been told time and time again that their logic is erroneous!The NCFA for the most part, represents adoption agencies that do not wish to participate in openness and therefore they fight hard in every state with an open record bill to keep the records sealed. I believe the NCFA continues to lose any respect they may have once had because they are considered such a dinasour when it comes to progressive and open adoption practices.

The only purpose I can think of for issuing this newest diatribe against openess is desperation. The Donaldson Institute also represents adoptive parents and agencies but they are now perceived to be on the cutting edge of ethical adoption practices. I am not agreeing with everything they stand for either, but they are at least perceived to have the best interest of the child in mind.

http://library.adoption.com/articles/the-richard-c.-stillman-foundation-for-adoption.html

http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/agency/documents/DirectoryofMemberAgencies-May302008.pdf

kitta

NCFA keeps coming out with the "same old, same old."

Privacy is not the issue. Surrendering a child doesn't seal records nor change a child's name. Only adoption changes the name, and it is the adoptive parents and the gov't who do that.

NCFA has used that tired old 1994 study of underage adopted children to back up its "findings" of what adopted people "want" and "how they are "doing.".The Minnesota Search Institute Study issued questionnaires to underaged teenaged adoptees who were living at home. The kids filled out the answers, presumably at home...with their adoptive parents nearby.

Zappala's article points out the very low rate of "reunion" with natural parents..well, yeah...when the kids are in closed adoptions and they are underage..what can one expect...

NCFA trickery..again.

ETA: Actually, the theft of identities and the falsification of birth certificates by the gov't could be called a 'violation of privacy" of both the natural mother and the child. Privacy rights are not imaginary, they are real, and are a right contained in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Seizure of personal papers and identities are serious violations.Medical histories and records belong to people. Mothers and children have a relationship starting before birth.A birth certificate records this relationship at and after birth, and contains personal data..Falsifying a birth certificate is ordinarily against the law.

amyburt40

I know. Hand waiving in the air.... Pick me teacher!!!!!!!!! They lost 1.2 million dollars in funding in the last tax year. That is why they are scrambling to make ends meet.

It sure would be nice to know who their donors are.

Heather B

I think the reason for it is that they know they are fighting a losing battle.

They know that when they've opposed Bills to restore Adoptee Access to their own records, they have lost and they know that their theories and half-truths have been disproven (most notably in a Tennessee Court, which ruled that there was NO right to annonymity)

They know that with each State that restores Adoptees' rights to their own birth records, (most recently in Maine) their case for perpetual secrecy gets weaker and weaker.

If it hadn't been for them, Adoptees would have been restored to equal citizens Nationwide back in 1978.

They're full of it.

SJM

I certainly do wish they would pull out their Constitution and explain this mythical right to privacy. Since they offer no explanation, I can only assume it is derived through Roe v Wade or public records laws. Roe v Wade addresses reproductive rights, and in no way influences adoption laws. Public records laws certainly do not protect parents. Anyone can obtain a copy of their birth certificate which records the names of their parents--except, of course, persons who have been adopted. Either way, I fail to see a parent's right to privacy.

And as for their identity argument, I am simply dumbfounded. Apparently, their definition of identity and mine are mutually exclusive. When someone speaks of having their identity stolen, they aren't complaining that they no longer have a sense of self. They are speaking of their date of birth, social security number, etc. The identity that has been withheld from adoptees has nothing to do with self-esteem or any other nonsensical notion. It is factual information recorded by the state.

cantstopLinnyG

NCFA needs to change their name to "Babies-R-Us". Their corruption is coming to light, and their ideals are antiquated. Hopefully their days are numbered.

PhilM

They want to keep records sealed, and keep adoptees as second-class citizens.

I notice they offer no argument for their position, they simply object to the claims of others. Without any positive argument for their position, I cannot imagine why anyone would believe a thing they say. They throw the word "privacy" around as though it is magical. Really, they aren't talking about privacy, they're talking about anonymity. And they are talking about discrimination. But those words don't get them what they want.

monkeykitty83

This seems like just a summary or reminder of their previously stated positions?

I was under the impression that the NCFA had always overtly questioned open adoption and opposed making it legally enforceable.

I'm not seeing anything in this statement in particular that the NCFA hasn't already expressed as their position. Apologies if you see something obvious and I'm missing it, but this seems like more of the usual?

HappyMomAnna

It's an old argument and hinges on:
[quote]
Systems based on the principle of mutual
consent respect both the birth parentsâ€™ right to
privacy and the adopted personâ€™s desire to know
his or her birth parentsâ€™ identities by protecting a
birth parentâ€™s identity when the birth parent desires
confidentiality, and facilitating the exchange of
identifying information when both sides consent
to such an exchange.1[quote]

Because:
[quote]
1. Such systems include mutual consent registries and confidential intermediary systems. Mutual consent registries are databases in which birth parents and adult adopted persons can register their names if they desire contact. If a â€œmatchâ€ occurs, identifying information is exchanged. Confidential intermediary systems allow for one party to request the state to search for another party with the intention of making contact. Once the s Second party has been contacted by the state, he or she may consent to or deny the release of his or her identifying information to the first party.[quote]

The reason this argument is made is because Many people assume that if the mother (parents) cannot place without the fear of discovery the parents will choose abortion instead....

This is just the debate--not my opinion

Serenity71

From what I have read over the years this has always been something that no one seems to have any real balance in.

Mutual party consent is a good idea for an older generation that is unprepared for the way modern society works in relation to openness in adoption. One of our close friend's daughter (she was given up for adoption 25 yrs ago) wanted to meet him. But his wife wasn't ready to deal with it at the point since their son was having some issues relating to his own adoption and background. (It was done through mutual parties) What would have happened if she just turned up on his doorstep one day out of the blue? It could have disrupted his marriage and his children's understanding about reunion and what can come from it, because of the shock seeing her there. They would have all been emotionally unprepared for it. (they also have a son who's an adoptee.) Some people would do that. Turn up without notice and expect it all to turn out okay.

I'd rather see more successful reunions than ones that end in more pain. Open records is what I'd like to see more of all over the world, but information is a form of power, and whats people do with it is what I think makes people worry about openness. (I still feel adoptee's have a right to know about their past and family, just has to be handled the right way.)

Still times are changing.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: