The conversation with Gershom continues, and a plan may be forming to attempt unification among those with adoption in their lives by working together even though we come to this from different directions. Although she generously offered to liaise through email, I’m thinking a public discussion could prompt wider participation and some great ideas.
In her comment on yesterday’s blog Gershom mentioned that her focus for the next few months is on the Adoptee Rights Protest scheduled to take place in New Orleans in July. Since the adoptive parent block seems a likely group to be fully in support of rights for adoptees … adoptees being our kids that we’re willing to fight tooth and nail and walk through fire for on every issue … it occurs to me that this could possibly provide an opportunity to find out if olive branches can be construction material in bridge building.
I’m guessing that a casual observer, someone stopping by this blog looking for tips on tropical holidays or such, would assume an easy relationship between adoptive parents and adult adoptees … some for all the reasons many find infuriating, certainly … but Gershom and I won’t make that mistake. We both understand how shaky the ground is, especially after the sort of seismic activity that has been taking place recently and that treading cautiously is important to any walking together toward a common goal that is to be done.
In the early stages of thought on this … and I’ve not yet heard Gershom’s response, so may be completely off base by even beginning to consider a strategy … I’m thinking my contribution will begin with encouraging all adoptive families to make it a priority to investigate the issues surrounding open records, original birth certificates, access by adoptees to information on their identities and such, and to form an opinion; if that opinion agrees with those who fight for adoptee rights, join in the efforts to help them gain them.
If I could be so bold as to suggest a beginning step for Gershom, it would be to ask her to inspire adoptees to think about how they feel about accepting offered efforts from adoptive parents … if they want us in this fight in the first place. It won’t help a bit if our exertions are to be taken as attempts to step on toes, and since this is an adoptee-driven project they get to say who can climb aboard.
(I do know there are many, many adoptive families very involved on all levels of the open records fight, but I’m speaking here about those who may have been intimidated by, turned away from or turned off to adoptee issues by some of the more strident and aggressive, and those who have not yet begun to consider how the prevailing climate will eventually impact their children. Bastard Nation may just be missing a family or two with the message, after all.)
If there seems to be a consensus that joining forces for this event, this specific issue, is acceptable, then we all have to drop the rancor and get out of the habit of bitchy backbiting and “…but what about me?” ing. By beginning with this narrow focus, might we not filter out a lot of the miasma of misery that so often muddies the waters between us with “my pain is bigger or harder or more painful than your pain” contests, and simply accept the fact that all of us come to this table with a hunger for something gnawing at our guts?
(For those so compelled, the rancor and backbiting can still continue unabated as long as it’s kept away from this one issue. Does that sound fair?)
I can’t help but have niggling at the back of my brain the thought that someone reading this is ready to jump down my throat out of an assumption that I’m trivializing something somewhere, an idea that illustrates just how tentative steps may need to be, but we’ll get nowhere if we don’t start somewhere.
We don’t need to agree now on whether adoption is all or partly good or bad, if it should be banned or honored, if it helps more than it hurts or hurts more than it helps. We’re nowhere near ready to sit down at one table to discuss legislative improvements to the process or definitions of reform. BUT we can decide if we will or will not work together toward a goal that focuses on adoptees gaining the rights to their identity and a date in New Orleans in July that will highlight that goal.
If it turns out that we can, the chances of making progress on the other issues improves dramatically.
I am open to all suggestions … as long as they don’t involve impossible contortions for self-gratification. Ach! What the heck? I’ll take those, too, at this stage …
A collection of my short stories:
I'm in this one, too ...
And I'm in here, as well ...
Paradise Preoccupied 
I like this Sandra. Open records IMO would alleviate many painful issues in the adopted person. I don’t have any suggestions (since I slept 2 hours last night) but think it is a good notion.
Has Gershom offered suggestions on this one? I’m all for the idea of allowing adoptees access to their records, but I do worry about the implications for those birthmothers who truly have a reason to not want to be found. I have my own ideas regarding this, but I’m interested in hearing others’ suggestions first.
I have to admit, groups like Bastard Nation and some of the people in them with their stridency and their rabid attacks on any question relating to adoptee rights has pretty much taken away my desire to look more deeply into this issue. I honestly would like to know more about how birthmothers who wish to or need to remain anonymous would be protected and why privacy is guaranteed for some American citizens, but then wouldn’t be for Americans who are birthmothers.
On the other hand, I feel strongly that knowing your history is a large part of accepting not only yourself, but the world around you. And I have no problem acknowledging that not having knowledge of your personal history could be a stumbling block for many on the road to developing the peace we all strive for.
I also wonder why medical, social and personal information can’t be recorded for each adoptee without any personal information revealed about the birthparent if that is their wish. It seems like it would be the best chance for both sets of personal rights to be honored.
Honestly, though, given the current atmosphere surrounding adoption-related dialogue, I’m just not interested in discussing it when it means people making gross assumptions about my character, hurling insults and, generally, acting as if I don’t agree then I must be evil. I can only take on so much nastiness before I shut down.
A new friend adopting a little girl from Guatemala is an adoptee. Her parents are divorced. She is an intelligent thoughtful woman. I talked to her about birth parent searches. she said that she will leave that up to her daughter – it should NOT be forced on a child.
She has no interest in meeting her birth parents, and her only complaint about her parents was the “secrecy” surrounding her adoption when she was a child. She has all the info she needs to find them but isn’t.
She is a voice of reason for me and I’m listening to her … A LOT!
Lisa
[…] interesting adoption tidbit is Sandra’s post today at Paradise Preoccupied. She is proposing that all members of the triad try to come together to […]
I agree that records should be open. A person has the right to know their history, regardless of how painful. It seems obvious to me that all records should be open, but Mixed Nuts does have a point when it comes to birthmothers who do not want to be found… But still.
Mixed Nuts said, “I do worry about the implications for those birthmothers who truly have a reason to not want to be found.”
The vast majority of birthparents are more than happy to be found. Count me among them, found almost 40 years after my son was born 🙂
Opponents of open records often raise the spectre of harm simply in order to create panic. For instance, in Ontario last year, the privacy commissioner, Anne Cavoukian, inveighed against the bill to open adoption records, claiming that “thousands” of anonymous people had contacted her office claiming their lives “would be ruined” if the bill to open records were passed, and that some had even threatened suicide. She also claimed that there would be a rash of honour killings as a result.
BUT in no country where records are open (such as the U.K, where records were opened in 1975) have any such calamities come to pass.
Unfortunately this sort of scare tactic can be quite effective in obscuring the existing evidence.
Adopted adults aren’t the enemies of birth parents, in spite of the fact that there are those with a vested interest in convincing Joe Public that they are. In the event that an adoptee chooses to contact a birth parent and vice versa, both should be considerate of the other.
It’s totally wrong to deprive one group of their rights in order to protect others from the consequences of their past. Anyway, sealed records don’t provide the kind of ‘protection’ that many would like to believe. A new breed of search consultant as well as widespread access to all sorts of data bases through the internet make it possible to circumvent sealed records. Consequently it would be wise for anyone who relinquished a child under the sealed records system to prepare themselves to be found.
Kippa,
There’s no doubt I’m missing something in this debate because I don’t understand who these with “a vested interest in convincing Joe Public” on the evils of open records are.
I understand there may be the ocassional birth mother who continues to attempt to guard an old secret, but where does the organized opposition come from? Is it simply a matter of government resistance to change? Or do some actually see something sinister in original birth certs?
Kippa,
I do understand that the vast majority would love to be found. And I am for open records. I just think there should be some sort of safe-guard in the rare instances where birthmothers wish to remain anonymous. My personal feeling is that there should be some way to “opt out.” I think that when an adoption is finalized, an immediate assumption should be made that the records will be opened when the child reaches adulthood. BUT, I think that the birthmother should be given a way to request that her identifying information be withheld if she desires. And I don’t think that it should be a one-time decision. If she changes her mind later in life, she should be able to request that the information be made available.
Honestly, I don’t understand why this is even such a big debate. It just seems logical to me that the records should be available to those who want them. I will admit that I’m not entirely sure at what age I think they should be available (18 just seems a little young if the information is something that could rock a person’s foundation), but I definitely think that the records should be made available.
Mixed,
The wondering what all the fuss is about is the reason I asked Kippa … I’m happy to get an answer from anyone, though … who it is that’s behind the fight against. It seems such a no-brainer that people have a right to their OBCs.
Not to open a can of worms, but this does lead to discussion about people whose creating involved donated sperm or eggs and how much information they get, and I’m wondering if the fear of this debate has anything to do with fighting against open records for adoptees.
“The vast majority of birthparents are more than happy to be found. Count me among them, found almost 40 years after my son was born ”
It’s super that you and your son found each other. It must have been a very special time for both of you.
Your statement, though, seems to dismiss those women who simply don’t WANT to be found. Even if there numbers are lesser than those who would love to have reunion with their children, they still exist as a group and their wishes should be honored. I have two women who are birth mothers just in my family alone who simply do not wish to be found, each for very different reasons. I “know of” (friend or relative of a friend kind of thing) several more. They do exist. Often, they don’t speak up because they are shamed by others or their concerns are summarily dismissed as “selfish” by those who are in favor of reunion. Whether you agree or not, think they are in denial or that they should just step up to the plate and accept their children, the fact remains that it is not OUR decision if they should share their personal information….it is THEIR decision. Each one of them. Just as every adoptee has the right to their history, every birthmother has the right to privacy….should she so choose.
Wow, i have alot to say.
First, i am in the middle of a big storm, power is limited.
I frequent AAAFC I’m unsure if you’re aware of that group of adoptees, but its the adoptee group I go to online for support, shits and giggles. Alot of adoptees there are active in reform, its, aside from Bastard Nations email list (that I’m also a member of,) the most active group of adoptees, involved in activism that I know of. The members there have almost supported the protest entirely!
pretty much all of the adoptees there, that are active in reform, embrace the idea of adoptive parents, first parents and anyone that wants to help us out. People get the mistaken impression that because we are strong advocates for massive reform of the industry, that we don’t like adoptive parents, and thats not true. There are a couple adoptive parents online who have changed my thinking profoundly, and they are huge in adoption reform as well.
Bastard Nations email list for members has adoptive parents on it, as well as parents who have surrendered, and of course alot of adoptees. Bastard Nation is not anti-adoption.
AAAFC is also not anti-adoption, it has strong advocates that work with whoever want to jump on the wagon and help us out. Its not a fight against adoptive parents, i’ve never heard any adoptees be against adoptive parents helping for reform towards open records. I really only know like 4 – 5 self proclaimed anti adoption adoptees ( me being one of them )compared to the hundreds of members of BN and AAAFC adoptees. Even with my own personal anti-adoption feelings towards adoption, I still love the fact that my adoptive mother wants to go to the protest, and supports the reform that I am working towards in the industry. She thinks its really cool and has made an effort to get involved herself.
Thank you for supporting the protest Sandra, and for asking others to support it as well. It IS something I hope to see alot of adoptive parents, and parents who have surrendered voluntarily and not at, plus friends and families of adoptees, those who love us, everyone at because this really is a civil rights issue for adoptees. On our annoucement we state for a purpose that this protest is for everyone who supports us( adoptees ) in the fight for open records, and I thank you for supporting it.
I wanted to address some of the questions people had about open records.
For Tish On first mothers and privacy.
Currently there is no group in the United States that needs their parents permission to access their original birth certificate. My state, California, requires me to get my adoptive parents ( both of them ) signatures to even request my NON identifying information, no matter what my age is. I have been in reunion for 6 years, I’m in a great relationship with my first parents, and I am still denied my OBC. But, lets say I got my birth certificate, that the judge finally said, okay she knows them, she has them here as witnesses, she can have her OBC. That would STILL be discriminating against my ancestry, that would STILL be violating my human and civil rights. Because a right to a birth certificate in MY EYES, is a right to my ancestry. It is NOT a right to reunion. The United Nations Child Rights Treaty clearly says not to discriminate against a childs ancestry, sealing records does just that and is exactly why records are opened in almost every other country in the world.
Back onto the “right to a reunion”, which opening records is NOT. For mothers who want privacy because an estimated 1% do, a contact preference form can be entered into the adoptees file. In Oregon when Measure 58 was passed ( bb_church was on this measure, he is leading the Adoptee Rights Demonstration ) the law that went into effect has one of these in place. For the mothers who don’t want contact, or the adoptee who doesn’t want contact a contact preference form can be entered into file, and when the adoptee gets the original birth cerficiate, they know if their parent who surrendered wants contact or not. There is not one breech of preference form by an adoptee or first parent in history that I have been able to find.
Adoption is NOT the witness protection program, and if you take a real close look at the way the laws are written, its clear that mothers weren’t promised secrecy at least in my state. I’ve seen the forms of my mother, who surrendered me, no promise of it. And if there was a promise of secrecy that was upholdable by the courts, then the adoption law wouldn’t state that an adoptee could petition the courts for their record. Because the law would be upholding the first parents right to privacy.
Also, an even closer look into californias laws and a few other states that I know of actually gives the adoptive parent ( or pap at this time ) the power to seal the records ( usually done without them even knowing ) by a tiny check box that says something along the lines of “issue a new birth certificate” and says nothing about sealing the old one. But that is what happens.
When infact if it was sealed for the first parents privacy it would be sealed upon surrender, not upon finalization of the adoption from the checking of the box discussed above.
But this is where an adoptive parent may feel like I’m blaming them, when infact I’m not. This is where the “industry” doesn’t inform the adoptive parent of everything that box does. The social workers and adoption agencies certainly don’t sit the prospective adoptive parents down and tell them how there is an entire movement going on in the country working towards keeping records from unsealing, working towards keeping that “box” unchecked.
There is an organization, maybe you have heard of them the NCFA National Council for Adoption. They are the largest opponents of open records. They are our number one enemy. They DO have invested interests in keeping records sealed. There is a bad history in our nation of baby selling and trafficking, they are profiting off of reunion registries, and searches, adoptees are a market to some people, and the NCFA and their affiliates like Gladney and the Bush Administration have a lot invested in keeping records sealed.
To mixednutz
In my opinion having the information itself, isn’t what “rocks our foundation” being adopted is enough to rock anyones foundation. Adoptees in my experience, have their foundation rocked from the very beginning, having that information, helps us put our foundation back together.
Sandra, Very interesting that you should bring up donor and egg donations. I also have a segment on The Adoption Show called Angrates Action Alerts and the show I’m working on RIGHT NOW is donor conceived and the rights they’re being denied. Donor conceived people and their rights or lack of righs almost parallel adoptees. A new identity movement is definitely emerging and beginning to show itself.
Re-reading the replies, and one has been added, In response to Tish comment #11, a first parent may wish to not have a reunion, and that is a right they DO have. Nobody can force a reunion, but opening records for adult adoptees isn’t forcing reunion, its not even performing a search, its giving us access to our ancestry, to where we come from, our birthright. Its not invading anyones privacy, nor does it guarantee contact, some adoptees who want their birth certificates don’t even want reunion. If a first parent wants privacy something as simple as a contact preference form can be entered into file and the adoptee can know if contact is going to be embraced or not, but a first parent should never have the right to seal the adoptee and the adoptees offspring from ever finding out their ancestry, that is discrimination. That does not happen to any other group of people in our nation. That is a violation of the United Nations child rights treaty.
The child needs to be put first, before first parents, before adoptive parents. That includes access to records. When Oregon opened up its records in 98, future adoptions were predicted to decrease from the openness, but they did just the opposite, the years following 98 adoptions actually increased. Abortion rates also decreased for anyone who compares or relates the two.
I am trying really hard to be nice. Trying not to offend anyone. This is very hard for me because I don’t trust, I never learned that developmental stage. This is hard for me, I care for some people who we all know there have been conflicts with, and this is a huge step for me, and in the end, I just really hope it works out and reform can progress, because it seems like we all share that common ground.
Gershom,
I’ve been hearing about the weather in your part of the world and hope it settles down soon. I lived in Northern California for most of my life and remember many a miserable January. I’m guessing a power outage is the reason I’ve not had email from my mom today.
Anyway …
Thank you for providing so much information here. I’ll be following your leads around this weekend, educating myself as thoroughly as possible, and I encourage others to do the same.
I had not thought before of the profit potential in reunions, and that certainly does give an idea as to why some are in opposition to something that seems so basic. I still don’t get what the NCFA gets out of this, but since I don’t live in the US and with my focus over the years on international adoption, that is not an organization I know anything about. I will attempt to correct that gap in my info base right away.
The fact that OBCs aren’t the same as an invitation to reunion has been clear to me, and I appreciate you going far to explain that well, as well as the protections for birth mothers who would choose not to be ‘found’ … or found out.
I totally understand your efforts to be nice and not offend. Trust is not a casually exchanged commodity in these parts. I, too, notice that it takes a lot of energy to keep a knee from jerking or a snappy retort to stand in for reasoned and calm responses. I’m hoping that tamping down the habits many of us have adjusted to as either buffers or bluffers or badgerers can be held at bay, at least as we deal with this one issue. It could be good practice.
please excuse the few typos, as you can tell, i’m not too gifted with my words lmao.
This is a blog, not the Wall Street Journal or the Oxford English Dictionary.Typos are de rigueur.
And, for what it’s worth, I find you very gifted with words. Your writing conveys your message and your meaning, and being able to do that is most certainly a gift.
A few points if I may:
1) The states are in the business of documenting births and issuing birth certificates. As US citizens we are all entitled to the same treatment by our gov’t.
As such, the states should either seal ALL birth certificates to all citizens, or the states should open all birth certificates to all citizens. Currently adult adoptees are being discriminated against in the vast majority of US states.
2) The open records movement has little to nothing to do with reunions. I currently have been in “reunion” with my family for over 22 years. Yet the state of NY is holding my birth certificate hostage. As an aside, my mother does not recall exactly what time I was born. I would like to see my birth certificate to know that simple fact. It is my right as a citizen to see my birth certificate.
3) There are organizations profiting on the backs of adult adoptees. These organizations are using payoffs to find our birth information. This is how my mother found me. With a payoff in the amount of $2000.
4) No adoption agency has the authority (in the US) to promise privacy. To my knowledge there has not been one parent that has been able to produce any document promising anonymity.
5) Shady, and illegal practices have occurred throughout the history of adoption. Closed records helps keep these illegal activities under wraps.
Just one example- I personally know of a woman who (without the help of open records) found her mother a number of years ago. Her mother was stunned because she spent 30 some years thinking she had given birth to a boy. Yes, the agency and social workers lied to this poor woman and told her she had a son; obviously she was not allowed to see her child to verify this at the time.
6) Closed records helps some adopters keep the adoption a secret. This is inhumane.
7)NCFA is the umbrella of a $3 billion dollar adoption industry in the US. I’m not sure how long NCFA has existed, maybe Gershom knows. They oppose open records simply because they know of the shady and illegal practices of the agencies they represent. They will tell you that they oppose open records because they are afraid it will lead to more abortions. This is complete nonsense, and is only a smoke-screen used to cloud the real issues.
(Nicole over at paragraphein wrote a most excellent post about this topic, how abortion is not the opposite of adoption, there is nothing further I can add to that at this time.)
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head at this very late hour.
Thank you, Elizabeth.
I have comments on only your points 6 and 7, as the rest are perfectly clear and make complete sense to me.
On 6 — I’m thinking and hoping that the time of secrets is behind us, and that as education for adoptive families continues it will be beyond comprehension.
On 7 — So, is the NCFA some sort of professional association for adoption agencies? (I haven’t made it to their site yet to read mission statements, or whatever they have available, so I’m being a bit lazy by asking. Forgive, please.)
I remember Nicole’s post on this topic, a good one. I’ve written on this here a bit, too, and agree there are great dangers … and some terrific opportunities for manipulation … in attempting to shove adoption and abortion into the same portfolio.
Tisha, no mother was guranteed a life time of anonymity from her daughter or son. If a social worker said this then the mother needs to take that issue up with the agency that facilitated the adoption.
Privacy, confidentiality and anonymity are not written in any legislaton in the world. There is nothing about it written in an adoption contract either. A mother was pregnant, she surrendered, then the adopting parents and the government sealed the birth certificate, not the mother.
Denying a certain sect of the population the right to possess their own birth certificate is discrimination. Are you allowed to have your birth certificate? Are you a tax paying voting citizen of your state who is entitled to all servives provided by that state? I pay taxes, I vote, yet I am not allowed to obtain my birth certificate – this is discrimination.
With every change in government policy, there will be an negative reaction by some citizens. If there are mothers who wish not to be found, then it’s up to that mother to make provisions for herself not to be found. She has no ro right to government protection.
Saying a mother has the right to anonymity because her privacy needs to be protected is extreme discrimination and character defamation. An adopted person is denied their birth certificate based on the presumption of harm. Please tell me who else in society has had their civil rights taken from them based on the presumption of harm? Especially when no crime has been committed – the adoptee was born, then adopted. Yet, we are deemed capable of destroying lives and, causing mothers to suicide. it’s all propaganda and myth spewed to the public and adoptees to keep us quiet and records sealed.
Decades ago birth certificates were sealed to make a child legitimate. *Bastards born out of wed lock. That is written in legislation. In Ontario it was a coalition of adoptive parents (around 1927) that lobbied the government to seal records so their adopted child would be considered “as if born to.” They also did not want to worry that the child’s mother would someday want her child back.
Sealed birth certificates were/are the need of adoptive parents. It’s not as popular now, but there are definitely still a-parents who want secrecy through sealed birth certificates.
A mother’s right to presumed privacy should never trump her daughter or son’s right to information about her or himself. A mother does not own her daughter or son’s identity, neither does the government.
Have a listen to some of the shows on http://www.theadoptionshow.com to get a better understanding of adoption laws and practices.
Michelle,
Thank you for your well-thought and well-spoken comment.
This statement, “Sealed birth certificates were/are the need of adoptive parents”, although historically correct according to the information you are providing does feel a bit inflammatory, however, especially in a climate of adoptive parents trying very hard to wrap their heads around understanding the meat of the issues and the best ways to help in the efforts to have open records and access to OBCs.
It makes more sense to me that those with a profit motive would be a stumbling block to adoptee rights than adoptive parents in any meaningful numbers at all, and pointing accusing fingers at this point feels unhelpful.
For what it’s worth, among the adoptive parents I know not one would even remotely consider anything but total and complete honesty with children, and all give full efforts to provide their kids every bit of their life, history and story to be theirs and only theirs forever.
If we want this to be a cooperative push for adoptee rights … and I think that is what were going for here and now … sweeping and assumptive statements that so many have a personal and contrary experience with can only temp divisiveness.
The background and information you provide is a great addition, and your passion is clear and justified … not that you need anyone to tell you that!
I so wish I could listen to the programs, but my Internet connection is way too slow for anything but the basics. I depend on people like you to update and inform, and appreciate all efforts in that direction.
Tisha, it was indeed an amazing time for myself, my son, his father and the whole (by now very much extended) family, but as has been pointed out by Elizabeth, the open records movement has little or nothing to do with reunions. It’s about restoring a RIGHT to a group of citizens that they’ve been denyed for over 60 years – a RIGHT that was abrogated in the 1940’s, prior to which time it had unreservedly been theirs.
Lifelong anonymity was NEVER promised to birthmothers. It was imposed on them as a condition of the adoption. What held birthmothers in thrall was not the fear that their children would one day want to know their origins, but the more immediate fear of the wrath of parents and ostracization by their community.
You said, “Your statement, though, seems to dismiss those women who simply don’t WANT to be found.”
Not at all. I feel deeply for the web in which they’ve allowed themselves to be ensnared. And I’m sure in many cases it was not a web of just their own weaving.
However, their “wishes” are just that – wishes, not rights. As I and others have stressed, anonymity into perpetuity was never promised. You suggest I’m being dismissive, but surely, to refuse to allow one’s identity to be made known to one’s child is to be even more egregiously dismissive. To be dismissive in particular of their right to ownership of something of primary significance that oneself enjoys – the right to one’s own personal history.
I appreciate that for women who relinquished, especially those who did so in a less transparent time, anything associated with the birth and subsequent relinquishment of their child is overshadowed by shame and fear. Because of my own experiences I can identify with them (been there, done that) very sympathetically. Consequently I’d NEVER seek to belittle their fears.
However, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the relinquishment, whether rape, incest or whatever other terrible event one can think of, and whether they have told their husbands and children of their their past history or not, the obligation is clear – that they have a moral obligation to return to their child that missing piece of their identity that was disallowed them by the system. I make no bones about that. I consider it an imperative.
” I have two women who are birth mothers just in my family alone who simply do not wish to be found, each for very different reasons. I “know of” (friend or relative of a friend kind of thing) several more. They do exist. Often, they don’t speak up because they are shamed by others or their concerns are summarily dismissed as “selfish” by those who are in favor of reunion.”
It has been said many times, the open records movement is NOT about reunion. As far as being identified is concerned, I think that if they felt they had real support within their families, women who don’t want their identities to be made known would be able to find a way to deal with it. That doesn’t necessitate reunion, and I know of many adoptees who have treated their fearful birthparents concerns with tact and discretion. As I said, the sky didn’t fall in the U.K in 1975 when records were opened, and the Chicken Littles of this world were predicting disaster there too.
” Just as every adoptee has the right to their history, every birthmother has the right to privacy… ”
But not to anonymity, which is different.
One person’s desire for anomyity cannot/should not/must not be allowed to overide another person’s right to their personal information.
And as Michellehas said, denying one sector of the population the right to their original birth certificate is discrimination – nothing less, nothing more.
Claud has a really good post on the NCFA and its funding and monetary reports for the IRS etc. It kind of helps one to wrap themselves around the idea of how much “profit” a “non profit” organization can really bring in… and sort of shows where their “invested” interests are.
Its not a pro-adoption post, but nevertheless, it has good information in it.
http://musingsofthelame.blogspot.com/2007/11/national-council-for-adoption.html#links
Canada couldn’t even find one mother to testify against the opening of their records so they had to find a first father who was scared to tell his family roflol.
I think it boils down to propoganda, the industry plays us all against eachother to keep us apart. Invested interests to keep records sealed.
I have two adopted sons and a husband who was adopted in 1967. My husband has been in reunion since 2000. His birthmom did not want to be found. Her husband (not the birthfather) did know about the adoption, however her adult daughters did not. My husband had to write a letter to her through the adoption agency to let her know his intentions. She finally agreed to talk/meet as long as he agreed to not contact his birthfather.
It’s refreshing to see a respectful conversation going on here. I agree with Sandra, that while there are still some things written here that give me a bit of a gut reaction, I like much of what I am reading here. And I think the adoptive families I know would be for this. The era of secrecy is mostly over – I really don’t see how adoptive families benefit from closed records in the year 2008. We fortunately have lots of information to pass along to our sons.
I am for open records with the contact preference form for both birthparents and adoptees. Some of the things that really made sense to me in the comments are that open records do not equal reunions and privacy does not equal anonymity. A birth certificate is a right, but for many adoptees their story or understanding of their ancestory is going to come with a reunion or records from adoption agency (if they are accurate). In the end, I really hope that adult adoptees looking for their birth certificates, get what they are looking for.
Another thing all members of the triad could probably agree on, how about legislating one national adoption law versus all this state by state junk…….for another day, huh?
Hi Sandra,
After the order my last comment fell in the “comments” list, I must preface that I skimmed the comments but did not read them word for word due to time constraints. So this is mainly in response to your blog entry.
How uplifting! There will always be people who don’t see eye to eye on things, but what a beautiful way this is to start the New Year. Congratulations to you and the other participants with thoughtful, peaceful, and proactive intentions! This attitude much more accurately mirrors what we have experienced IRL when it comes to adoption issues.
Wow, Gershom, you have given me a lot to consider in regard to birth certificates alone. We have not changed any of this documentation over yet, in regard to our older child adoption, but it was presented to us that this would happen eventually. It was never even addressed that there was another option. In addition there were a few compelling sounding arguements for changing the birth certificate based on the needs or feelings of the child being adopted.
Now understand that our older children know exactly who they are, who their parents are, and where they came from. They actually have copies of their first birth certificate in their life books, so they know details about where and when they were born. In fact, we even have copies of the hospital records from their births, so they can even look at more details if they are so inclined. We fully expect that they will go looking for their birth family at some point, and it will most likely entail going back to the old neighborhood and asking around, since not much is likely to have changed.
We have no desire to rip any of this identifying information away from them. On the other side of this, my mother was an “unofficial adoptee” in a previous generation. The fact that her adoption was never legalized or documented still bothers her even into old age. Our children frequently express a desire to be full members of our family, “like I was here since I was a baby”. Will the changing of a birth certificate cement something important to them, or will it become damaging in the future? I am feeling a bit overwhelmed by this, since I am actually trying to see and understand it from several different vantage points at once.
Like I said in a comment to a previous post, I am quite sure I am damned if I do, and damned if I don’t…somewhere down this road.
Michelle,
Sandra said most of what I wanted to in response to your comment in her own commnent (#19), but I want also to add this:
I am an adoptive parent. I am not your enemy, nor am I the enemy of my adopted child.
If someone asked me if I was in favor of open records/OBC access I would say “of course”. It’s almost a stupid question, kwim….of course everyone has a right to their OBC.
But there IS a group of people who, at least to their own thinking, may be negatively affected by the inclusion of their identifying information on an OBC. To turn it around a little bit, no other group in America is asked to give their name to a stranger (and how tragic that the word “stranger” needs to be used as regards your own child) and trust that that stranger is not going to use that information against their will.
America is a land of rights…we all have them. When the rights of one group of people seem to be opposed to the rights of another, the situation needs to be handled in a way that gives each what they feel they need to the largest extent possible. Otherwise, it’s just a fight of who is louder and stronger. That’s taking rights by force, not ensuring rights for everyone. To say that one group should have their demands met fully and one group needs to just deal doesn’t, IMO (and I realize it’s mine only) meet this condition.
“they have a moral obligation to return to their child that missing piece of their identity ”
Kippa,
I agree with you on about 99% of this issue (btw, I think we are all very close to agreement…..I see the points of disagreement as being representative more of individual opinion than of opposing views), but I can’t even tell you how uncomfortable the above statement makes me.
I do understand that there are situations, perhaps many, in which there is a clear moral choice…..and I flatter myself to think that I strive for the most part to make the “right” choice in all that I do. Of course I fail…I am human, I have a temper, I can be self-centered, etc…..but I try. Having been on the receiving end, however, of self-righteous statements from others on the “morality” of my decision to adopt, I am VERY leery of accusing others of immorality in their actions. I am not God, I do not know the specific circumstances of everyone’s situations and it is usually, IME, very unstable ground to ask for something you feel you deserve based on what you perceive as someone else’s immorality.
As for the “guarantee” of privacy…..to me, it’s not about whether it can be found in a contract or a lawyer’s office. Women were most often given at that time, if not a contract triple-sealed and witnessed by a team of lawyers (which can STILL fail in court, btw), then at least the implied right to privacy. Talk about moral issues…..it seems like making a promise and then saying “you don’t have the right paperwork to make me comply” is in shady moral territory.
Kippa posted (paraphrased) “Anonymity is different than privacy”. That’s definitely a point to consider and, in principal, I think that’s an excellent point to the discussion. (Sorry, I missed it in your earlier post…probably because I’m so interested in this discussion I keep sneaking on while I’m at work 🙂 ). It’s very pertinent and would probably sway my opinion except for how I view American society. My opinion is that, because of the “entitlement” and “I want mine”, “Me first” attitude that is prevelant in general society in America today, anonymity and privacy are, if not married, then at least bed partners. Many people in this country make their living by hacking into personal information and then selling that information to interested parties. Some people do it just for shits and giggles. Many, many people believe that the personal gain made by providing private information to others far outweighs any moral ambiguity to the action. Heck, the vast majority of public companies in America misuse personal information, why not Joe Public? If I wanted to do as much as I could to protect my privacy, which is my right, protecting my name and my personal information connected to that name would be key.
As far as a mother having a right to anonymity from her child….as I see it, she does. A mother can choose to surrender her child(ren) to foster care or to the care of their father/a relative, disappear, change her name and she will have have the same right to anonymity of that name as anyone else. It is very rare, but there are women who do that. Just as there are men who disappear and never resurface. Now, I would think these children would still have access to their BC, but the information on it, assuming the mother changed her identity, would be as false as some say the information is on a BC ammended in the case of adoption.
Maybe the difference here is that some are more influenced by the letter of the law as regards the promise of anonymity to those who relinquished their children and I am more influenced by the spirit in which the promise was written…
I refuse to use an agency that is a part of the NCFA. According to another person on another forum their practices are horrible and coersive.
They also are in cohoots with Focus on the Family. and at least one of them used that wrong womb theory thing that IRRATATES me. They seem to lean more towards closed adoption which is disturbing in this day and age.
I’ll have to learn more about them, but their views annoy and frustrate me.
Claud makes interesting points that I agree with and disagree with on some levels.
So lets see…
It sounds like the only hovering of the fence motion of support, or lack of support adoptees in open records is the question of privacy for first parents. So of course, I want to address that with Bastard Nations page on privacy to first parents: http://www.bastards.org/bb/9.Privacy.html because I’d just be saying what is in that page anyways.
About name changing and record changing. I have heard of older children once settling into foster homes or pre-adoptive homes and realizing it’s a permanent home for them, wanting and expressing a desire to change their name to that of their new caretakers / parents. I wholeheartedly believe that if a child expresses that desire, it should be honored, but I do believe it should be influenced by the desire of the child, not the desire of the adoptive parent. And I also see the significance of having your legal parents name/s on a certificate like a birth certificate. I don’t agree with the falsifications, my aparents, as much as I love them, didn’t give birth to me, and I feel that their names should have either been added onto my original leaving my first parents names intact and adding a second place for my adoptive parents, or something along those lines.
In some parts of Australia and I believe the UK?, both sets of parents names are on the certificate. Maybe I should be moving down under again?
This of course would have to be amended through active legislation, a goal in my future definitely, first though I’m starting with the protest. I’ll let them know I’m here first before we move their mountains.
Sandra,
I have posted a reflection of our discussion on AAAFC where many adoptees who are attending the protest frequent and left a link to your blog. I can see that some are already finding their way here. While, I cannot speak for other adoptees, only myself. I can say that the protest is open to all who will help. Because of the position and feelings I personally have towards adoption, doesn’t mean that anyone who supports the protest needs to feel the same as I do. Everyone and anyone who supports it, is embraced and welcome to attend and I am grateful for all who help spread the word. I thank you and anyone who supports it. I Luv luv luv the supporters of open records!
I can’t change how adoptees feel, nor can I speak for them, but I do think our attempt at finding a common ground, and working together for that common ground says something. Lucky me, that “common ground” happens to be the greatest passion of my life next to raising my children, but this has really been a growing point for me. Its given me this view of reflection on myself that is like “wow, I’ve grown in the last year” just when you think that growing isn’t happening, that you’re not making progress, suddenly progress bitch slapped me right across my face.
A meeting ground, of common interests where similarity has been found among, what I once believed, were the un-similar, and although that still may be true on some levels, even opposite sides meet somewhere in order to even be on sides. There IS a middle line, something almost all of us believe in and can support, and its appearing to me, that the middle ground in our case is open records for adoptees.
“Adoption” is an industry originally made for the benefit of children in need. If that system was truly designed to benefit us, when the children (grown, now adults and not )gathered in mass, to speak out about reforms that needed to happen within that system, that “system” would listen. And errors that were found, would be changed and amended in order to fulfill its original intentions and reasons for being in existence to begin with. We shouldn’t have to be fighting the system, change should have already happened. Change is inevitable and I absolutely know within my heart and soul that records, will be opened in my lifetime. Its only a matter of time for me. I guess those that don’t believe we have a right to records over privacy rights to mothers will have to just think about it and ultimately make the decision for themselves. The positions are out there, bastard nation (http://www.bastards.org/documents/bb.html ) has an amazing collection of position papers on the arguments for our cause.
I wanted to acknowledge the effort adoptees are giving to the discussion too. We’re discussing the most personal issue on my heart, something I absolutely support for my life, and will advocate for for all of eternity. To hear someone say I’m not entitled to that hurts. Absolutly hurts. Records weren’t sealed because mothers were promised secrecy, records were sealed because society had a stigma on illegitimate children. They felt “bastards” were different. Less than. Not worthy. The shame from it was enough to make the govt. legally take action by sealing the records from the public, but even at that time, adoptees had access to their records. ( to read a full history on sealed records visit here: http://www.bastards.org/bb/2.SealedHistUS.html )
Overcoming this, is HUGE, and to come this far, and hear someone say or read someone type that I’m not entitled to equality, by supporting my sealed records makes me so upset. Not angry anymore, just let down, like how do they not get it? Why don’t they get it? How can adoptees, all across the country and world be screaming out for open records, and yet we still have unsupporters. And when those unsupporters are adoptive parents, its an extra sting, or first parents, it’s an extra sting as well. It’s one of the only things that adoptees can always agree on, but it seems like we have to constantly justify our truths to outsiders and people who don’t “get it” because they’re not in our shoes and at times, it just gets tiring, and frustrating.
So here I am, and I’m just going to set it free, I’ve said my truth on open records. Those who are with me, are embraced and invited to come along for the ride. Those who cannot support open records for whatever reason, no hard feelings, but please step to the side because we’re coming through. Our army has an “open records” plan of action, and we’re sticking to it lmao.
Gershom,
I just finished posting today’s blog and now see I have a whole bunch more reading to do! I so don’t mind, and thank you again for your contributions. It looks like we’re duplicating links to info, but that’s fine. The more chances for people to be directed, the better.
I look forward to a point in the near future when more people will be included as part of that “action plan” and am already wondering if there are support and encouragement badges we can put on our blogs and such.
Your feelings on common interests are very much like mine, and I’m happy we have managed to do what we have done so far to acknowledge what is common ground. I, too, agree that open records will be the case in your lifetime, and will add that history will wonder why the heck it took so long and such a fight.
Your talk of bastards yanks my memory back 39 years and has me recalling the fear of that stigma when I was pregnant at the age of 17. Thinking on it now, I’m almost surprised that something so stupid had any power at all over a kid as rebellious and opinionated as I was, but it did … it most certainly did. I can reach out and touch my fear that my daughter would suffer under that label for her entire life and that the stigma would crush her.
Even after I convinced her father to marry me … only to convey his name on her, not because it was a good idea on any other level … I went through entire mental processes of attempting to calculate just when I would have to start lying about the dates of marriage and birth and how soon it would be before she figured it all out and decided I was horrible.
Of course, I grew up and the world changed, and the fact that I got knocked up at 17 ended up being a good teaching tool for me when she hit her teen years, but I shudder to think where we would be today if the the climate was as unforgiving now.
Tisha, please do not put words in my mouth. Did I say or imply that you are the enemy or that any adoptive parent is the enemy?
I stated facts as they appear on documents in the Ontario legislative archives and what I have researched and witnessed for the last 43 years. I did not write adoptive parents are the enemy and that’s why birth certificates are sealed. You’ve never heard of adoptive parents changing an adoptees’ name and sealing their birth certificate? If adoptive parents didn’t want secrecy, there would never be a sealed birth certificate to speak of.
This isn’t a judgment call, it’s fact. Mothers don’t seal their children’s birth certificates – they terminate their parental rights, then the adopting parents and the government seal the birth certificate. Wouldn’t it be great if every adoptive parent in America fought for adoptees rights! I know many that do and I certainly wish there were more!
In Ontario when I was part of the lobbying group to unseal birth certificates, there was a one adoptive father who was admantly against his adopted children knowing who their parents are (he was actually very scary). Dare I mention the politicians/a-parents against open reocrds – you ought to read their speeches presented to the legislature to get a better understanding of how opposed some adoptive parents are to this change in this social policy. There was a coalition of adoptive mothers against open reocrds. I have met a lot of adoptive parents that are against open records. I have read articles by a-parents that are journalists who are against open reocrds. It’s too bad, but it’s reality, and has nothing to do with the pro/anti adoption dialog in the adoption community.
Tisha wrote: “When the rights of one group of people seem to be opposed to the rights of another”
There is no proviso in any legislation that gives a mother the “right” to a lifetime of anonymity from her daughter or son. This is not a right vs. another right. No right is being violated against mothers. When I was growing up the myth around secrecy was that my mother was not able to parent me – it was her fault that she had unwed sex and got pregnant. This changed over the years to “birth mothers” needing protection. It’s all a red herring to keep records sealed. Opposition has even tried to bring abortion into the fight for open repocrds – like it’s my responbility to keep abortion rates down, so sure, keep my birth certificate sealed….anything to help the cause. What I’d like to know id which civil right are the anti-choice folk willing to forfeit to decrease abortions?
Adoptees are denied their own birth certifcates – this is discrimination and a violation of civil and human rights. All citizens of a jurisdiction share equal rights. Adopted persons are excluded from this right. There is no right to anonymity among family members in any legislation in the world.
If a mother does not wish to be contacted by her daughter or son, then she, lilke everyone else in a society that adheres to the same civil laws and social policies, may make the request to her daughter or son that she or he not contact her.
As far a a mother going into crisis over her returning daughter or son she surrendered for adoption, please tell me how families, since the beginning of humankind, that have been confronted with secrets, lies, deception and all kinds of other presumed catastrophic events, have managed to cope without government protection and intervention? Adoption secrecy laws have only been around for the last 80 years. My 93-year-old adoptive mother has been around longer than birth certificates have been legally sealed! And my adoptive mother, by the way, is an advoacte for open reocrds for all adoptees – she didn’t know until a few years ago that I couldn’t get my birth certificate!
I wrote “ . . . they have a moral obligation to return to their child that missing piece of their identity ”
Tisha responded, ” I can’t even tell you how uncomfortable the above statement makes me.”
It needn’t. It’s my opinion, but I don’t necessarily expect others to share it, though I must say it continues to suprise me when they don’t. I believe EVERYONE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, deserves equal access to their personal history, and that for any party, whether the state, adoptive or biological parents, to deprive them of it, is wrong. All I can do is try to convince through arguments that I believe are reasonable.
“Having been on the receiving end, however, of self-righteous statements from others on the “morality” of my decision to adopt, I am VERY leery of accusing others of immorality in their actions. I am not God, I do not know the specific circumstances of everyone’s situations and it is usually, IME, very unstable ground to ask for something you feel you deserve based on what you perceive as someone else’s immorality.”
As an adoptive parent as well as a biological parent, I’ve been on the receiving end of judgmental statements too, as well as some quite lacerating messages of hate. However, I don’t agree that expressing my opinion that bparents have a moral obligation to make their identity known to their adult children (when requested) is the same as calling them immoral.
A moral omission doesn’t add up to an immoral person, especialy in situations where the person is not yet fully aware of their obligations. Personally, I think the issue is more one of ‘consciousness raising’ (I know that’s a bit of a clichĂ©, but it serves) that anything else.
“As far as a mother having a right to anonymity from her child….as I see it, she does. A mother can choose to surrender her child(ren) to foster care or to the care of their father/a relative, disappear, change her name and she will have have the same right to anonymity of that name as anyone else. It is very rare, but there are women who do that. Just as there are men who disappear and never resurface. Now, I would think these children would still have access to their BC, but the information on it, assuming the mother changed her identity, would be as false as some say the information is on a BC ammended in the case of adoption.”
The above argument makes me beyond uncomfortable.
That some people choose to disappear in order to escape situations that are unpalatable to them doesn’t exonerate them from their responsibilities. No one has a “right” to change their established identity. The closest analogy to the scenario you propose is the witness protection program which was designed to protect crucial witness to a crime, and in which the change of identity is of secondary importance to the successful prosecution of a criminal.
Adult adoptees who want their original OBCs and to know their histories are NOT criminals.
They are citizens who want their rights restored.
Michelle:
I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I’m sorry if it seems that way to you. The tone of your post seemed fairly accusatory to me, as if daring me to enter into the fray, and I responded to it on that premise. If I was wrong, accept my aplogies.
Kippa:
Just as your words were not meant to make me uncomfortable, neither were mine intended to make you squirm. I was simply trying to point out, albeit clumsily, that I DO think that privacy and anonymity are inextricably entwined in today’s society.
The sticking point for me is this……it seems as if one group of injured persons is telling another group of injured persons to buck up, give over what’s demanded and move on. Perhaps that is only my take on the situation.
Yes, the contact preference form goes a long way toward resolving some of my unease, maybe all of it, I don’t know.
The one thing I’m absoloutely sure of is this…I need to give this subject due consideration. I don’t mean to be contentious….I just think this issue is way to weighty for everyone involved to me made lightly.
Everyone has made great points in this discussion and I think it’s been a fantastic example of how close we really are when it comes to honoring every member and every aspect of adoption. Kudos, Sandra 🙂
working on buttons for people to have today actually! i just put some testers up on my blog and am making some more for “supporters” to post up if they so wish!!
Tisha wrote: “A mother can choose to surrender her child(ren) to foster care or to the care of their father/a relative, disappear, change her name and she will have have the same right to anonymity of that name as anyone else. It is very rare, but there are women who do that. Just as there are men who disappear and never resurface.”
Anybody can choose change their name then disappear, but there is no law protecting that person from being found under their new name.
I’m not clear on your “right to anonymity” claim. Where is this coming from?
Gershom,
Well, count me in for a button when they’re ready!
“. . . it seems as if one group of injured persons is telling another group of injured persons to buck up, give over what’s demanded and move on. ”
It may *seem* that way, but it’s not.
It’s about justice.
Denial of fundamental rights is unjust.
It is, as Michelle has said, discriminatory. Adopted people have the same civil right of unrestricted access to their original birth certificates as the non-adopted. That those rights have been abrogated is a crime, and they deserve to have them restored in full.
Consider that prior to around 1935 adoption records were open throughout the country, and that in Alaska and Kansas, the records have remained available on demand – and in South Dakota have remained available on demand to a court.
You might like to check out the Adoption History Project
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/confidentiality.htm
which gives a brief overview of the history of sealed records.
On the subject of the relationship between anonymity and privacy, I personally feel the connection between anonymity and secrecy is much stronger.
Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of info about themselves.
Anonymity, OTOH, is a condition in which the individual’s true identity is unknown, and secrecy the quality of keeping something concealed or hidden. Anonymity can be achieved by means of secrecy.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in its article 12 that: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Excercising the right to know one’s origins hardly comes under the category of “arbitrary interference”.