Strollerderby

I agree that records should be open, but as an adoptive parent, I am turned off by the phrase "fake birth certificate."  As a transracial family, there is no question that our family was created through adoption.  Two of my 4 children were adopted and the other two are what we call "bio babies."  If the adopted children have an adjective to discribe them (adopted babies) the other two get an adjective also.  I love neither more or less, however, my bio-babies are often referred to by others as my "real children."  Comments like "Oh it is so great that you adopted especially since you can have real children." or "So you have two adopted children and two real children. (this one is another reason for the bio-baby name)"  Biologically I have no link to my own children, all I have is a piece of paper that says that I am their mother.  While it may not reflect the reality of their birth, it reflects the reality of our family which is in no way fake or a lie.

Just another point of view.

I don't see the point of reissuing a birth certificate when everyone is born only once. Adoptive families are created through a legal process that terminates the legal parentage of one parental set (those who created the child) and establishes the legal parentage of another parental set (the couple or individual who will be responsible for raising the child). Why isn't the Adoption Decree sufficient as the "paper proof" of parentage? Why mess around with hiding away original birth certificates and creating new ones, instead of honestly honoring the reality of how a person came to be born and then to belong in their adoptive family?

I say leave the birth certificates alone and elevate the status of the Adoption Decree. Seems more respectful to adopted people as well as to both sets of parents.

It is very tough to explain to anyone outside the triad exactly what is going on with sealed records, stigma, and secrecy within the triad. It seems that people unaffected by adoption just don't have any idea of the secrecy surrounding it (even in so-called "open" adoptions). This is not to mention how hard it is to explain the emotional things within adoption, as well.

As an adult adoptee, I spend some time "converting" the uninitiated into open records supporters, and educating friends and family about sensitivity to adoption issues.

I want my original birth certificate, and I feel that I have a right to have it. That doesn't change at all that my amended birth certificate lists exactly who my parents are...the wonderful people who adopted, loved, and nurtured me throughout my life.

I can't imagine being told you don't have the right to your own original, unaltered birth certificate. That's just... I can't even find the right word for how asinine that is. It's YOURS! It's your own personal information about YOUR BIRTH! WTF?!

Lula, I totally agree.  I wish I had the right to see my *actual* birth certificate.  My parents were totally upfront with me when I was growing up about being adopted as an infant.  They did a great job making it seem normal and no big deal, but I was always confused about why my parents names were on my birth certificate instead of my biological parents.  Now I can't even get my biological parents names.  It's ridiculous.

My children do know that they are adopted.  And they have their original birth certificates.  I think that everyone should have the right to know where they came from.  I'm just saying that there are already so many things that can make adopted kids seem different or not real or second best and that giving them a piece of paper that says who their parents are is not such a horrible thing.  I'm not saying that they shouldn't have access to the original, just that a new one is not always a bad thing.  

I hear what you're saying, L&C, but why should that piece of paper be their birth certificate? Why two different birth certificates instead of one birth certificate (their original one) and their Adoption Decree?

This from someone who has never seen an actual Adoption Decree. I'm envisioning a piece of paper that looks a lot like a birth certificate, except specific to adoption and with spaces marked "Adoptive Parent" for the adoptive parent/s' names. What does the actual thing look like?

Lula: Good question! I pulled mind out of my baby book so I could answer you. I am sure there are slight variations depending on the state and such, but mine is as follows:

My parents put in a petition to adopt me which is simple and straightforward. It lists their names, address, and the statement "Petition to adopt child born XX/XX/XX at Ann Arbor, Michigan." It also has a space for the agency to list that they received termination of the parental rights on a certain date, legally have the temporary care and custody of me, and have approved my parents as prospective adoptive parents for me. The petition is stamped by the Probate Court as "approved," and a note attached states that a hearing will be held in one year to finalize the adoption. It is nothing like a birth certificate. It is just a plain piece of paper, a legal document.

A year later, the Probate Court issued an Order of Adoption, which lists the date, the judge's name, the names of my (adoptive) parents, and the following statement: "...said child who was born XX/XX/XXXX at Ann Arbor, Michigan be legally adopted by the petitioners, and become the legal child thereof." That is followed by a short section ordering my name be legally changed to the one desired by my adoptive parents. Then the Order is stamped with the date and signed by the judge. This also is nothing like a birth certificate.

Both the petition and the Order of Adoption are simple forms in simple language, structured in a fill-in-the-blank sort of way. Attached to the Order of Adoption is an actual letter of affidavit by the court stating that they have on record and will seal the following:

My original birth certificate verifying the above-named birthdate and place.

The original petition to adopt filed by my adoptive parents.

The legal document upon which my birthmother released her rights of the child.

A consent form by the agency consenting to the adoption.

The orders terminating the parental rights of the birthmother and birthfather.

The order to terminate the rights of the adoption agency, making the child a permanent ward of the adoptive parents.

Ahhhh! Okay, then I am very much in favor of the (original) Birth Certificate + (new & fancy) Adoption Certificate combo instead of the current sealed + amended double-BC situation. The former just seems so much more straightforward and sensible to me than the latter.

I'm not trying to be insensitive and if it seems that I am, I apologize, but I am curious about the biological parents who gave these now adult people up for adoption. What if they don't want to be known? What if they don't want their names given out? Aren't they guaranteed that privacy?

I believe that keeping the orignal birth certificate is for the privacy of the birth mother.  If we demand that these documents be released to the public, once given to the child they are public record, there will be a lot less women choosing adoption over abortion or abandonment.  Many birth mothers need to have that privacy to protect themselves.  By granting the document to the child you are punishing the birth mother.  Why not just have a consent form a birth mother can sign to give the original document to the child?  Keep her privacy rights and offer an alternative.  For our adopted children we have two sets of documents. The orginal birth ceritificate and a state issued adoption decree that says we are their parents.  We did not petition to change the birth certificate.  

Athena & Alice: No, birthmothers are not guaranteed privacy, and nor do most birthmothers report wanting it. As LC pointed out, releasing an original birth certificate may give an adult adoptee a name to go looking for, if they so choose, but already-existing privacy and harassment laws cover any unwanted contact between an adoptee and any member of their birthfamily.

Giving a birthmother or birthfather a permanent "veto" (in the form of only allowing the release of records with their written consent) is tantamount to keeping the adopted person a perpetual "child." It is essentially saying that those records belong solely to the birthparents, forever. The records belong as much to the adoptee as to anyone involved, and they should not be kept from them if it is their desire to have them. After all, it is "their" history and life we are talking about, too.

Apologies if this double-posts:

Birth certificates aren't really open to "the public" anyway. To my knowledge, I can't go request and obtain a copy of my sister's or my husband's birth certificate, let alone Shannon's or Alice's. In the case of adoption and open records, I'd think the only people who could access the birth certificate would be the birth parents, the adoptive parents, and the adopted person themself. Birth parents would still be protected from the prying eyes of their condemning neighbors and pastors and Great Aunt Fannies, while adopted people would be able to know their own identifying information the same way all of us non-adopted people do. Sounds like a win-win to me.

And Shannon's right about the closed records/anti-abortion propoganda. Don't know exactly what the agenda is there, but it doesn't add up in reality.

I am a mother who surrendered her first born to adoption.

I believe, if adoption must exist, create ONE document that lists birth parents and adoptive parents. I fear too many pieces of paper. List them both. They both matter equaly to the child for different reasons.

As for biological parents not wanting to be known, as one of those biological parents, speaking for myself, I say that should never be an option for a mother/father considering adoption. To me, it is a form of emotional child abuse. NO mother should be told her privacy is protected. You are swapping the mothers emotions for the childs. Adoption is supposed to be in the best interest of the child, no? How is keeping their medical history, origins, etc. in their best interest?

Right to Lifers tout that privacy guarantees mothers wont abort. I ask them to produce the statute that guarantees that privacy? Can you produce it? In your state? Can a mother SUE and win a case that proves her privacy was violated?

An expectant mother should be told of ALL the very negative consequences of adoption and that includes that privacy is NEVER guaranteed.

There are some cases where one might never know one or both of the birth parents.  One - where the mother does not know, or does not list the father.  Two - in my area, there are places where mothers may surrender unwanted children (like the local fire department).  I don't know if they are required to fill out paperwork, but my understanding is that the child may just be left there.  This may be because of the strong Catholic (and therefore anti-abortion) sentiment in my area.

That's one reason why I don't much like Safe Haven laws. Not only do they deprive adopted people (and their families) of their identifying information, but they virtually eliminate the ability of surrendering parents to re-establish contact with their children later on in life. A crisis is a crisis, but there has to be a better way.

Great article, Shannon, and good discussion, too.

To me, it's so simple:  My children have a right to know who they are.  That isn't the same as having a relationship, wanted or unwanted, with the people who gave them life - that's something that only the individuals involved can control.  If that relationship is desired, it will unfold in time.  If it isn't, we as human beings know how to set limits, up to an including the laws we've created to prevent unwanted contact.  Given that, there is absolutely no reason that my children should be prevented from knowing what I know:  the names of the individuals who put me on the planet.

I really object to closed adoption records.

My husband and I each have a parent who was adopted. The most we know is that there is probably Jewish heritage from each of the adopted people (my father & my husband's mother). We want to have a child together at some point (hopefully soon) and, between the two of us, we only have half of our genetic history. It's really frustrating to talk to a genetic counselor and have all of the answers be "I don't know..." for fully half of the family. We're going to end up doing genetic testing because we don't have any idea what's out there.

I don't want to know whoever gave up my father. He was always adamant that the people who gave him up were not his parents. I understand that. At the same time, though, I'd really like to know the medical history. I know my mom's side of the family, and it's nice to be able to say, "No, no one has had cancer" or whatever, but I look at my dad's side and it's...well, blank. I have no idea. That's really frustrating and makes me angry sometimes. Someone years before I was born decided that I didn't get to have that information, and it's somewhat important to me.

It's one decision, but it affects generations, and I think people forget that.

Interesting...I've only seen the triad from my godmother's POV.  My godmother is a birth-mother from the days of pre-RvW legislation, abortion was NOT an option.  She was raped (the perp was actually prosecuted and jailed, possibly b/c it involved kidnapping), became pregnant, "went away", actually provided as much medical information as she knew about herself to the agency to whom she gave up her child.  But that's it.  

She was extremely angry when the child found her, looking for a snuggly cozy relationship with mommy, 20 years later...because she was in the position to not only relive the rape/subsequent prosecution of, but to reconcile the "how do I get it through this young man's thick head that I want absolutely not a thing to do with him as I am not his mother without telling him what created him and him feeling shame as a result".  

How do we protect birthmothers in cases such as this?  It may be a right to know who you are, but in some cases, I have to say that the birthmother's privacy is needed.  

Suz & Wendryn brought up a good point- people with closed adoption records like myself have zero medical background.  I never thought about it much until I got pregnant.  Now it seems a lot more important because it may help/influence my unborn son.

As far as protecting the rights of my biological parents that is a tough issue.  I can only speak for myself that I have no desire to seek them out, harass them, and start up some kind of new relationship.  Other adoptees might not feel that way.  I am not interested in being a part of their lives, but I DO care about my medical background.  As far as I'm concerned if they had filled out a medical history sheet and left it someplace for me that would solve the issue.

Jamie: I am with you on this one, indeed. I am pregnant with my first child, and never gave a lot of thought to the scant medical history I have until now. The agency which handled my adoption did interview my birthmother about her medical history, which is commendable. The agency let my parents and me know that my birthmom had a history of respiratory ailments (bronchitis), was a heavy smoker, had Rh negative blood, and that the immediate family tended to be overweight.

However, it should be pointed out that medical "history" is the wrong wording for the medical records kept throughout a person's life. My birthmom was sixteen - and I am sure her medical record went on well after adoption. Medical information is dynamic, not static. It changes and updates constantly. Did my birthmom's respiratory problems lead to COPD or emphysema? Possibly. As the family grew older, did anyone have a heart attack, a stroke, Alzheimer's, or breast cancer (that is a big one for me, because birthmom was one of five girls).

Filling out a basic sheet of medical information is a great step, but that information is bound to be updated over a lifetime, and adoptees have no access to the new info. It is also a fact that many birthfathers are not involved in adoption, nor interviewed for their medical information...which leaves half of an adoptees genetics up in the air.

I have heard of more recent adoptions in which birthparents commit to providing the agency updated medical information every 5-10 years, but this is a new trend, and still relatively rare, from what I understand.

Our state has a registry.  I must be the only adoptee on the face of the earth who doesn't lose sleep over "where I came from" or some piece of paper that doesn't matter because my adoption decree trumps it.  Would I like to know a lot more of my medical information??  Sure.  But I'm not opening a huge can of worms to find that stuff out.  

I agree that birth records should not be sealed (unless there is a truly exceptional and compelling reason to do so, and I can't imagine such a reason off of the top of my head--participation in the witness protection program maybe?). However, having said that, I do think that nobody has any "right" to anybody else's medical records. I agree that it would be preferable for birth mothers to voluntarily provide medical info to the agency that handled the adoption on an ongoing basis, but I don't think that this is a good reason for the formulation of legal rules. Let's face it, many (most?) people who were not adopted also don't have complete medical info from their entire families. My grandmother died when my father was a young child, so I have no info about her health prior to her death, or about what she diseases she WOULD have had if she hadn't been killed by another disease first. We don't even know what she died of! And my parents (who I speak with at least weekly, and with whom I have a great relationship) are notoriously negligent at informing me about changes in their health status. Things tend to come up in passing when we're talking about other topics (e.g., "I have a headache,"; "want an ibuprofin?" "I can't take ibuprofin." "Why?" "Because of my glaucoma." "You have glaucoma?"). I have two dear childhood friends that passed on debilitating genetic diseases that they didn't know that they carried to their offspring. Neither was adopted, or had parents or grandparents that were adopted, and both had several siblings. A "family history" can be helpful in identifying a tendency to specific health problems, but it can also lead to a false sense of security.

Please don't misunderstand. I think that there are many compelling reasons that people should have access to their birth records. I just don't think that medical histories is one of them.

I am in full support of allowing people access to their original birth certificates.  However, I think that always using adoption decree's or alternative birth certificates that indicate adoption do not allow the adopted person privacy in their adoption (right to disclose or not as they are older)... perhaps my children won't want every person they had to present their birth certificate to, to know that they were adopted by reading a single paper.

Shannon, once your kids are older, I think your perspective on this may change. I'd be very surprised if you stuck to the position that adoptive status and what background your kids may know about their birth families is public information over the coming 10 years.

My kid's 'birth certificate' is filed in three offices for sports and two others for school.

While anyone who looks at that document can see that it is a legal instrument, not a description of a biological fact, it does not reveal her adopted status or identifying info about her birth parents.

It reveals information about her parents, her race and her age, which can accurately be characterized as 'the breaks' because all are things that can be discerned at a glance--and therefore being secretive about those thigns would be harmful to her.

Whether her first parents chose to remain anonymous to HER? Not 'the breaks'. A source of significant trauma, not something to be filed under 'the shame of illegitimacy' that we're all transcending.

Open records are a human right. No protection for the privacy rights of adopted people, including their exclusive right to reveal that status and any details they may or may not know about it, is a completely separate question.

I feel strongly that discussing difficult issues about their past is a personal choice for adoptees, and one that you and I as parents of adopted people don't get a vote on. Because it's not your story, it's Selina's.

Our kids have been acted on enough and they deserve the right to be the actors.

First, I wasn't aware about sperm donation, etc being listed on birth certificates.

We too, have a transracial family.  I do not feel shame, nor do I encourage my children to feel shame about adoption.  Maybe I didn't word my previous comment correctly, if that's the idea that it gave you.  

We have an open and ongoing dialogue about adoption, and it is my hope that they will feel comfortable in sharing that information about themselves throughout their lives.  However, one day when they do not live with us, people will not be able to look at them and know they were adopted... and perhaps they wouldn't like that info on their birth cert... maybe it's no big deal.

My argument is not against open records-- I'm 100% in favor, although I'd like to know how the child would be protected from biological parents in cases of involunary terminations that could be dangerous (I previously worked in child welfare)... I was simply stating that I don't believe that there's an easy "alternative" way to change the birth certificate without the adopted person possibly paying the cost.   Maybe birth certificates in general need to be revamped for some alternative?

I just think there's more to it than just adding a box for "check here if adopted" or having places for multiple parent's names (which may work in open or private adoption situations, but what about involunatary terminations).

** maybe some states use birth certificates more often than others?  But I've needed them for employment, travel, education, sports teams etc.

I don't think that birth certificates typically (ever?) indicate sperm donation. When the mother is married, her husband's name is generally listed. When the mother is unmarried, either the sperm donor's name (if it is a known donor and he chooses to be listed) is listed, without any indication of his status as a donor, or paternity is not indicated (as in cases where paternity is not known).

Shannon, that's something I have never seen in the 4 states I've had the chance to look at it.

The non-married women I know who have used AI have also used adoption to put their non-spouse's name on the kids' BCs.

A document that is used in many types of official settings being set to reflect biology and adoptive status, thus revealing which mom is the bio mom and which one adopted the child, is asking for problems in the real world.

Problems that, again, our kids get to choose when and whether to confront.

I'm shocked. New York needs to get their act together! AI isn't a person, it's a technique. Geez. That's reminiscent of "Bastard out of Carolina."

An Open Letter to the Leadership of the California Adoption Reform Effort (CARE) Regarding AB 372

**Please circulate freely**

Dear CARE Leadership,

Why have you not posted a link to the actual AB 372 bill version that passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee on 4/27?  Your Website's front page lists a link to the bill as introduced on 2/23 as well as a link to the bill as amended on 3/26.  These versions of the bill are a far cry from the 4/21 amended version of the bill that passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.  The 3/26 amended version contained a contact preference form by which first parents could state a preference regarding contact with the adult adoptee.  However, it would have still given all adopted persons over the age of 25 access to their original birth certificates upon request, whether the first parent(s) desired contact or not.  However, the 4/21 amended version, which is the version that passed out of the Assembly Judiciary and is now on its way to Appropriations, contains a disclosure veto and vague language regarding the requirement of the state to contact first parents in order to obtain their permission before adoptees could be granted access to their original birth certificates.  

In reading the front page of your Website and following the links, one could easily be led to believe that the bill as amended on 3/26 (with no disclosure veto) was the version that passed.  This, however, is not the case.   The 4/21 amended version that did pass, disclosure veto and all, can be found on the directly on the State Assembly's Website at www.assembly.ca.gov/.../acsframeset2text.htm or via link from the front page of California Open's Website at http://www.calopen.org.

Please update your front page to include a clear link to the actual bill version that passed and is being considered by the California legislature for passage into law.  

Thank you,

Concerned California Adoptee

one thing to think about when pondering an adoption certificate is that adopted kids just want to be normal...when we have to start showing adoption certificates at baseball sign ups when all their friends show up with birth certificates, adopted kids are forced to tell their story before they are ready. at the same time, i am not against open records....we are THANKFUL to have a copy of all their original bc's. i just wish there was a solution that was both accurate to the situation and sensitive to the needs of the children.

I recently had cause to contact my biological parents when it was found that I carry a gene mutation which led to an early diagnosis of cancer.  The contact was made thru a social worker.  While I gave tentative permission to reveal my identity, both biological parents declined, and the Mother was distraught at the intrusion into her life.  Interestingly, there was NO family history of this type of cancer on either side of the family, although a different type of cancer was present. (Probably passed thru the paternal line).  I never would have qualified for the gene test if I hadn't been adopted! Family history is, at best, limited when it comes to most diseases. Frankly this was the best of all worlds for me.  I didn't really want a relationship as I have plenty of family already and no adoption "trauma", I got the information I needed and passed on my medical history so that any of their other genetic children could be watched. My sister (not adopted) has 2 children thru open adoption. Comparing the two,  I prefer the "old" closed adoption model to the new fangaled "open" adoption method which has included several difficult, confusing, and traumatic experiences for her children.  I know who my parents are - the people who love me.