Should mothers who give their children up for adoption be allowed to keep their identity secret?

JoJo

yes, they could have just had an abortion

Vance Waggons

They should be forced to abort so they don't make a stupid **** up like this again

ABBYsMom

If they choose to that is their right.

Yes. Why wouldn't they be allowed to?

They made a decision to do something. If you take away their right to privacy...what is next?

eye-queue (IQ)

....

emotionally they will suffer if their identity is kept secret....and if they are the legal mother of the given child..

....

DropsOfJupiter

Yes, of course! They could have done MUCH worse to the child. Why should they be punished for doing what's best in the situation?

Ferbs

They should be allowed I suppose. And in Ontario...they can veto to make sure it remains that way if the child wishes to find them.

Whether or not that's best for the child...I don't think so. In my province, they have to be 18 to gain access and a lot can happen in those years so why not leave the door open?

But...if we are to support bio parents in their CHOICES...and this is one they make willingly...I guess this should be supported too as an option. It's their right.

Randy B

Everyone has the right to privacy, be they they mother or the adopted child. Some parents want privacy, some do not. Some adoptees want privacy, some do not. That knife cuts both ways so be careful how you use it.

musicpanther67

If that's what she wants. The child can look for her and find her even without her identity. It's just harder. Be grateful she didn't abort the baby! I think adpotee's should at the very LEAST have access to important medical issues.

I'm adopted and sometimes I want to find my family but usually only when I'm watching those shows where they found their family and everyone is happy and loving. It doesn't always work like that though. It's embrassing to me to write on medical papers "adopted" when they ask all the questions about health. I would like to know if I have some sort of time bomb ticking away. I had a horrific childhood due to my adoptive parents. I don't blame that on my b-mom, I blame that on my so called parents.

No, she shouldn't have to give her name. People should be grateful she didn't have an abortion. Even back when they were illegal people were still doing it! People died from them or being horribly damaged. I know my b mom had her reasons and she doesn't owe me anything. She gave me my life. What better gift can I have?

Theresa

No.

Original identity is a human right.

snowwillow20

I used to feel that way, but once I decided to look, I realized how wrong it was.

I gave my daughter up in 1972 and at the time, I was told it was for the best.

Damitra

Yes, mother's should be able to keep there identity a secret. Some adoptees choose to keep there identity a secret also. For some mother's there experience that lead to adoption was so traumatic that it could effect there health and well being. Opening the door for either party has to be a mutual venture.

Take into consideration that the majority of first mother's did not give there children up for adoption but there children were taken for adoption.

I believe in having a trustworthy third party to help communication. Maybe for some people non-identifying information is all that is wanted or needed.

gypsywinter

In the supposed Open Adoption, the natural mother's identity is not supposed to be a secret...it is only in Closed Adoption that no names/identities are exchanged. In Closed Adoption the adoptive parents *identity* is a *secret* to the surrendering mother as well. Are you suggesting that in a Closed Adoption that the natural mother's identity should not be withheld? If so, the street runs both ways....neither would the adoptive parents *identity* be a *secret* to the surrendering mother. There is a reason why some PAPs want a Closed Adoption (speaking to infant adoption)...what do you think that reason is??

ETA: ""While taking responsibility doesn't necessarily mean having an active, happy relationship with this adoptee, it DOES mean that you may, at some point, have to ball up and deal with it.""
"Ball Up"???!!!! This is why some adult adoptees can make some nmothers like myself really angry. How many adult adoptees have said (mine included)"Just because you gave birth does not make you a mother". Or "She is nothing to me..she is my 'egg donor'. "I am so happy I was adopted". "My 'birthmother' did the right thing when she gave me up, I couldn't be happier". Then I have read in other places the insulting, disrespectful, disparaging, joke-filled remarks about an adult adoptee's 'birthmother' they are now in reunion with. Us former surrendering mothers should 'ball up'?? Maybe a few of you adult adoptees need to practice what you preach..."Ball Up"! Like maybe confront your apars, tell your apars you are searching, tell your apars you are in reunion, tell your apars what you tell us about them??!!
"Ball Up" you say! Sorry babe, I have consistenly 'balled up' over the many years in my adulthood. What about you?! And if we here are really going to 'ball up'...every mother whoever surrendered a child to adoption, LEGALLY has no more responsibilility to said child. The only 'responsibility' a former surrendering mother has to her now adult adoptee child, is whatever she determines she wants to be responsible for.......not what another adult demands of her, who is no longer Legally related to her. Afterall many an adoptee here and aparents as well, have said genetics means nothing, is of little value. If former surrendering mothers have to 'ball up'...then d@mn-well....adult adoptees and their aparents need to 'ball up' as well!!!

ETA: "it should be an outrage that the adoptee's birth certificate is seized".
It should be even moreso an 'outrage' that millions of newborns were harvested for the Adoption Mills during the BSE. And I don't see that outrage much anywhere!

ETA: Abortion?? How old are some of you adoptees answering this question? Are you in your 40s', 50's? Born before 1973? If so...than you should already know that your natural mothers did not have access to legal abortion. Should she have visited a back-alley abortionist, if she even knew how to locate one? If abortion had been legal, I definitely would have had one.

7rin

NO!

Tonia

No.

SJM

No. There is no fundamental right to secrecy in childbirth. If for instance, a woman gave birth to a child with a serious health problem and the child lived only a few hours, although she intended to relinquish, she would be unable to do so because of the time period. No adoption could take place. The birth and death records would be treated the same as any other vital record. She could not ask for secrecy. The same would be true if she did relinquish, yet the child died before the adoption could be finalized. Her name would remain on the birth certificate, and it would be a matter of public record. No fundamental right to secrecy in childbirth exists.

Since the right to privacy is derived in part from the forth amendment right, "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," it should be an outrage that the adoptee's birth certificate is seized, altered, and replaced during the adoption process.

love my life

As far as identity not sure because anyone can find out who anyone is if they have the resources. But they should have right to privacy as far as being contacted as that is part of everyone's constitutional rights. Just as an adoptee has the right to privacy to not be contacted by their bio's if they don't want it.

JohnnyO

HELL NO AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS NEED TO TELL THE CHILDREN THEY ARE ADOPTED

cailin

no they should not. every human being SHOULD have the right to know their biological identity this includes adoptees if they so chose. the bio mother chose not to have an abortion so therefore to bring a child into the world (which I am glad for) this child will always be their child. it is by their actions that this child exists. bio parents have a moral obligation to give the child their identity whether or not they want to have a relationship with that child is their choice.

Andraya - Snark's Sister

No, a thousand times NO!

Privacy is NOT guaranteed when you surrender a child. The child's original identity remains intact until they are adopted, meaning that if a child is surrendered but never adopted they keep their original birth certificate and name. If the child is never adopted they will always know who their natural mother is. Only when an adoption takes place are these things kept hidden from the child. There is no privacy in surrender, only in adoption and the natural mother has no part of the adoption, only the surrender.

A mother, parenting or not, also has a responsibility to her child. If she didn't think she would be able or willing to answer to her child at some point she should never have carried the child to term. Once you decide to deliver a child into this world you assume responsibility for that child even if it is only accepting that you will owe that child answers in adulthood.

As much as the adoption industry would like us all to believe it adoption does not abort the mother, it merely removes her parental responsibility for many years.

PerfectionInMind

This is a tough question. Personally, they should be given that option, but then they are denying their child (placed for adoption) the right to their identify.

Adoption just screws everything up.

Carol c

No. I believe every human being deserves to know who their natural family is.

rachael

no. they had the child, they made the choice to relinquish the child. they need to understand that-that child will grow up and need to know where they came from.
just because they didnt raise the child doesnt mean that child drops off the face of the earth. life goes on, and without our info, we are stuck spinning our wheels. we suffer for decisions we didnt make.

Laurel J

Nope. While "they could have had an abortion," they chose not to, and every choice has consequences. As an adoptee I feel as entitled to my true and original birth records as any other citizen is.

Most first mothers say they don't want their identities hidden in the first place. Open adoptions are increasing, and domestic infant adoptions are decreasing. Women know we have choices now, and the country's full of single mothers who have chosen to raise their own children with their heads held high.

If the shame, secrets, and lies in are not taken out of adoption, adoption will end.

H******

No. Every child has the right to the truth of their origins

Adoption is not the witness protection program

Pip

That question never occurred to me until after I found my son. I never wanted to keep my identity a secret and I still feel the same. Morally I don't think they should but if they choose to do so then that is that choice.

Peruvian Vanessa

No. And here's why.

First of all, first mothers have never and will never be 'promised' or 'guaranteed' secrecy from the child they relinquished. I find it really funny that the people who are lobbying to keep records and identifying information sealed are rarely, if ever, first parents themselves. Obviously if first parents WANTED secrecy, they would say so.

Second of all, all human beings have a right to know where they came from...except adoptees. And if adoptees want to find out, they end up having to pay the state government hundreds of dollars, sometimes only getting a 'no. couldn't find her' in return for that money. It's downright unjust that adoptees are forced to PAY for their biological history, even non-identifying information, when everyone else is privy to it at birth.

Third of all, it's called a restraining order. If some super scary adoptee comes out of the woodwork and goes all Esther on their biological parents, that's what the police and courts are there for. Then you treat said person like you would any other threat to your family and have it taken care of. While I've NEVER heard of anything like this happening, people who disagree with my side of the secret identity issue always seem to cite crazy serial killer adoptees.

Fourth of all, it's called TAKING RESPONSIBILITY. You had this child. You relinquished this child. I don't care HOW many people tell you that you are 'giving a gift.' Just because you haven't seen this child in 20, 30, or 40 years doesn't change the fact that YOU gave birth to it and YOU chose to relinquish it. It doesn't change their biology. It doesn't change their family history. While taking responsibility doesn't necessarily mean having an active, happy relationship with this adoptee, it DOES mean that you may, at some point, have to ball up and deal with it.

Here's the thing. Why are first parents allowed to just sweep everything under the rug and pretend like nothing ever happened when adoptees, who did NOTHING wrong, are then forced to deal with it everyday and not get any answers?

This isn't something that happens on the fault of an adoptee. The adopted child didn't do ANYTHING wrong except be conceived... but that wasn't their mistake. They also are the ONLY member of the triad that never had a choice. They never CHOSE to be relinquished and they never CHOSE to be adopted by a certain couple. They were just kind of along for the ride.

So why continue punishing a person who did not choose this and who did nothing to deserve it because the one who started the whole thing doesn't want to 'deal' with it again later in life?

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: