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.

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 http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/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

Just weighing in on the whole birth certificate real vs. fake – what is very strange is the certificate of a family member which says she was the “seventh pregnancy” by her (adoptive) mother. Now, not only was she NOT the product of a pregnanc by her mom, and neither was another adopted sister, but the mom had a set of twins . . . which means physically she had only four pregnancies! Talk about really making a “fake” birth certificate!

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 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).

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.

Nicole,

Birth certificates also indicate things such as a single mother, a donor insemination, etc. that some people might feel they’d rather not share. But that’s the breaks.

In our case, my kids have no choice but for everyone to know they are adopted, as our adoptions are obviously transracial. I can’t really imagine how encouraging them to feel shame about adoption and/or promulgate a lie about their parentage could ever be a good thing for them anyway. If more openness were brought to adoption, kids (and parents) would have little concern about who knows they are adopted, as it wouldn’t matter (hence, “lose the guilt and shame…”).

But even if they didn’t want everyone to know, who really sees birth certificates? School officials? Government employees? It’s not something every kid carries around on the playground.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Also keep in mind that for most people denied their origins, there are descendants of those people denied theirs as well. The children of adopted people without access to biological family history are minus a big chunk of their medical information too.

While there will always be cases in which adoptees simply can’t know all the biological connections that affect them, there is no earthly reason to deny this information when it is there to be had.

As for birth parent privacy, they don’t have a right to deny their biological grandchildrena nd great grandchildren this information if it is there to be given.

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.

You know, not to mention that one of our open adoptions was/is completely hidden by the birth mother from everyone she knows.  She needed complete secrecy for safety reasons and got it from us and from the agency that handled the adoption.  Having a birth certificate available to my daughter in 14 years would hardly cause her a problem.

Again, birth mothers may indeed need protection from lots of people but they don’t need it from their relinquished children or even from the adoptive parents.  We keep in touch through channels facilitated by the agency.  We all very much want to be in touch with each other, even while we all keep the arrangement private from anyone who might endanger my daughter’s mother.

Alice, the idea that abandonment and abortion will increase if we open records is propaganda from those who oppose them. It’s not only ridiculous since adoption and abortion are completely different things, which people choose for completely different reasons, but your concerns are not statistically supported.

In fact, the highest rates of adoption in the country are found in Alaska and Kansas, where the records were never sealed and adult adoptees have always had the right to their original birth certificates.

As for abortion, in the states that have opened adoption records, the rates have fallen at higher averages than the national rates. Nationally, abortion dropped by 9% between 2000-2005. For example, in Oregon (recently opened records), rates fell by 25%. Rates have also fallen higher than the national average in Alabama and Tennessee, since adoption records were opened.

Here’s a good article explaining how the claim that opening adoption records will increase abortions has been proven false:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07316/833100-84.stm

You can google more yourself, but the Guttmacher Institute has lots and lots of research and stats on abortion and its decline, here:

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html

That what the other side argues, Athena. But in fact, if you read up on the issue, you’ll find that birth mothers were not so much promised anything as given no option but to relinquish their babies. Nothing was done in their interest whatever in most cases. (A great read full of first-person accounts of women who lost babies in this way is “The Girls Who Went Away” by Ann Fessler.)

Now birthmother organizations the world over are advocating in only the strongest terms for open records. They say “we were promised protection from stigma and shame at the time of the adoption NOT protection ‘from’ our grown children.”

And a right to a record of one’s birth is not the same thing as a right to a relationship. If an adoptee tracks down a birth parents who desires no contact, that is the birth parent’s right and that sometimes happens. As in any stalking case, there are already protections against harassment.

But like I said above, my kids KNOW their birth families. But they still can’t have that piece of paper that records their birth. Why the heck not? It institutionalizes the idea that adoption or a birth that led to adoption is a shameful secret.

You know who advocates the most to keep the records closed? Adoptive parents. I have no fear of the truth and open adoption is proving more and more that truth about origins in fact, leads to stronger bonds in adoptive families. Folks just need education about the facts, and it becomes clear that open records just make sense on every level.

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?

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.

I don’t have a problem with a new something, Laundry and Children. In fact, it’s vitally necessary, of course to have documentation proving parentage of one’s children, obviously.

But a new BIRTH certificate is quite another matter. We could come up with a hundred ways to give adopted kids legal and psychological security about who their parents are without using a new birth certificate to do that. When you think about it, it’s much more confusing to hand a kid a piece of paper saying she was BORN to people she knows adopted her than it would be to give her the certificate of her birth AND another piece of legal paper saying who her adoptive parents are now.

In the few states where they do have open records, the original birth certificate is stamped “void” to keep any identity theft or fraud out of the picture. Seems my kids could have a voided original birth certificate plus an adoption decree and that schools etc. who need birth certificates for various reasons could accept either birth certificates OR an adoption decree. Same with passport offices, etc. No big deal.

Quite logical really, and much easier for the kids themselves to grasp, I’d think, as the documents would actually tell their story as their adoptive parents are hopefully sharing it: “you were born to so-and-so, and then we adopted you.”

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.

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.

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?!

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.

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.