My house is a mess, I’ve barely noticed that the Indian Ocean off my veranda has been like a swimming pool for two days, the novel I’d been enjoying hasn’t been touched, my kids have been having a great time at Grandma’s house and my husband has gone fishing, all because I’ve been grinding my eyeballs down to pellets in efforts to fill my knowledge bank with information on adoptee rights this weekend.
Because I don’t live in the US and because my focus has been primarily on international adoption, I have, I’m embarrassed to say, glanced over much of the OBC issue, considering it a “no-brainer” base of agreement. With this issue presenting as it has as a rallying point, a potential place of coming together that I am hoping will eventually be the foundation for a working consensus between triad members who have been spending far too much time pulling apart in opposition rather than joining for positive change, studying as many aspects as possible has been a necessary, and damned interesting, assignment.
Once again, we’re not taking on issues of the inherent right or wrongness of adoption at the moment, rather simply attempting to, first, find a level of trust we can all find comfortable in discussing open records and, second, lending support to the fight for adoptee rights if we individually consider the cause one to get behind.
As I said, a person’s right to their identifying information, OBC specifically, is to me a basic, and the more I learn, the more that seems so and seems a natural for adoptive parent support.
The history supplied by BN … and I urge everyone who hasn’t yet to read up on that to click here … gives valuable context and perspective, even though I’m still mystified over the morphing that has happened to end up leaving us the laws standing now.
BN’s section on “conditions” covers a lot of territory I’d not given much thought to, and addresses many of the questions and reservations that are being voiced here in the course of our discussion.
A big stumbling block for me has been wrapping my head around opposition to the basic right of real information on official documents. After all, it’s not like I could get driver’s license changed to make me appear younger or taller, so how is it that a birth cert could be tampered with? Anyway …
This section specifically looking at that opposition was very helpful, although because there has been so much shoveled into the sack, it’s not a simple matter of white or black hats.
A click over to the NCFA site shows how that hat thing can get confusing. Reading the “Adoption First Principles” touted, I found myself nodding in agreement, then furrowing my brow and tsk-tsking, then nodding again, and so on.
No one will find me disagreeing with statements like:
Adoption should serve the best interests of children: The fundamental purpose of adoption is to serve the best interests of children. It does so by providing loving, responsible, and legally permanent parents when their biological parents cannot or will not parent them. Serving the best interests of children should be paramount in deciding all issues of adoption policy and practice.
I’d tattoo that to my butt cheek if I thought it would help.
This, however … ?
Consistent with the child’s best interests, preference in adoption placements should be given to families that offer married mother-and-father parenting: Recent research has confirmed the teaching of centuries of historical experience that married mother-and-father parenting is most likely to produce the best outcomes for children. Because the goal of marriage is to be lifelong, married-couple parenting provides children greater security and permanence, and data show that adoptive parents divorce at lower rates than biological parents …
Well, the sentiment does come close to butt material, but in no way does that mean tattoo. It does, however, give a clue to the agenda of the organization, a clue that raises my suspicion radar and jives closely with what I’ve been reading elsewhere. (I have no tolerance for bigotry of any ilk.)
The NCFA page on privacy is written to be unchallenging, but one line tipped me off to a dodge:
In the context of the media’s fascination with openness in adoption, it is important to remember that the many who prefer privacy cannot discuss their views publicly without sacrificing the very privacy they desire to protect.
The suggestion of “media fascination” is a clear attempt to divert attention from the fact that it is adoptees urging change, and that’s a sleazy trick that puts me off and has me looking for more.
Their position paper pissed me off in the first sentence of the first paragraph:
The issue of “open records” has been hotly debated for decades and the National Council For Adoption (NCFA) has been active in opposing the unilateral and coercive nature of those proposals. NCFA does not oppose reunions or the exchange of identifying information between mutually consenting parties to adoption. What we oppose is the law empowering one party to adoption to force himself or herself on another.
The “unilateral” and “coercive nature” bits are classic disarming tactics designed to cut the legs off discussion without ever addressing the meat of an issue, and any honorable statement of position doesn’t come out swinging, but rather attempting to convince with real information.
They lost me right there and didn’t get me back. I could go point-by-point, but others have done that before, and better, so I’ll leave it to all to read for themselves and formulate their own thoughts on the matter.
I am far from finished with this homework. I’ve applied to join AAAFC, since Gershom recommends the group … I need an okay before I can read there … and I’m looking forward to learning more. (I’ve read Claud’s post once, but need a good sit-down with it before I’m taking it in. I’ve had to cut and paste it off the blog, though, because my aging eyes cross themselves like a St. Peter’s Square-full of Catholics at Easter when asked to read white copy on a black background.)
In the meantime, I continue to encourage readers to study up on this issue and think about actively supporting the adoptee rights push as it moves toward New Orleans in July.
We appear to have a platform here now which looks to be safe enough for questions, requests for information, exchanges and such, and if we can keep this up we might be getting somewhere toward positive cooperation in other areas of adoption, as well. It’s worth a try, heh?
My most sincere thanks to Marley Greiner for her part in compiling the information on adoptee rights issues presented so well by Bastard Nation. That pepper vodka looks better all the time, although joining me in a Chardonnay on my veranda might be nice, too.
A collection of my short stories:
I'm in this one, too ...
And I'm in here, as well ...
Paradise Preoccupied 
Let me announce that this whole a single mother should make an adoption plan to a married couple thing URKS ME. Not just as a person who is considering single parent adoption in the future, but because it’s totally illogical.
It’s one thing if a potential birthmother decides without cohersion or guilt that adoption is the best choice for her, despite the pain of it, it’s another thing entirely if it’s forced on by her by this false idea that two parent households are always, always better, which I don’t think is the case at all.
I don’t think it should be done away with, but the concept of putting pressure on a woman like organizations supportered by Focus on the Family just drives me insane.
Might I add that they probably are against single and gay adoption? It’s deeply bothersome.
I really cannot see why a child cannot have both sets of parents on their birth certificate. They came from two people, one or two people were the ones who raised them. It makes logical sense to me and I cannot understand why the records cannot be open. They could state that the first parents do not wish to be contacted and just have their names and medical history. It’s too depressing to think of a child being denied that simple information, but that happens a lot when one is adopting from China for example, where families don’t have the option of making an adoption plan. Where they leave children to be found because there is no other alternative. That’s sad because they have no way of knowing where their child has gone and their child has no way of knowing about their first family.
It’s not nessasary for things like that to happen HERE. The antiquated attitude towards adoption really has lead to a lot of pain.
Iorek,
There is a section on the NCFA site that suggests that single parent adoption can be okay under some circumstances, so that’s not what the opposition is about here. This is blatantly discriminating against gay families.
Thank you so much you guys!
I wish they’d stop doing that…
Sandra, I love it!
I must say though you would need quite a spread to get that lengthy tatoo!
I have always suggested that a b-cert with both birth and adoptive parents listed would be the best way to go, but mostly I get the raised eyebrow from the adoptive parents I personally know. They think I am a loon, and so I wonder at the level of support you can get that direction. I do believe it will come from seasoned adoptive parents perhaps, because we have lived adoption long enough to feel non threatened by it all, but newbies? Well one can hope.
I share in your hope that members of the triad (since I’m doubtful we can, at this point, expect the open participation of members of the wider adoption spectrum) can find ways of working together toward positive change rather than constantly spending time attacking and insulting each other (usually on the basis of assumptions made exclusively as a result of where someone is positioned in the triad rather than any actual interaction with them).
I actually had an opportunity to talk with Marley from BN and E. Wayne Carp as well as other adoptees, birth parents (I think all mothers, but I can’t recall for certain) and adoptive parents at a conference earlier this year. It was exciting to be able to engage in meaningful conversations around complex issues. While the tone of some of those conversations changed once I identified myself as an adoptive mother, with most we were able to recognize our individual positions and perspectives while sharing ideas and coming to agreements in a respectful way.
I’ll be the first to admit that many (perhaps even most) adoptive parents do not do enough reading and research on the adoption experience (and we can likely all agree that agencies should be far more forthcoming on all these issues as it is in the best interests of everyone involved — except perhaps the agencies…) Similarly, I suspect many birth mothers and adoptees could likewise benefit from a greater understanding of the different perspectives.
I am pleased to see you encouraging conversation around these issues and look forward to engaging in this dialog!
Deb,
On the tattoo, two words: Tiny writing.
On adoptive parents and birth certs: I’m thinking if the laws state that birth certificates are actually factual documents of the circumstances of birth, adoptive parents will be okay with that and be satisfied to have their names on the adoption documents. This isn’t a game of “let’s pretend”, or damned well shouldn’t be as the dark ages are behind us and must be kept there.
sluggomarie,
I think more and more adoptive parents are studying adoptee issues, although some come away from discussions quite stung and perhaps get the impression they may not be welcome to participate. Hopefully, we can forge a climate that feels safer for learning, at least, and for mutual contribution toward combined efforts at best.
From my own experience, it seems possible that many who adopted internationally would be less likely to have examined or studied the adoptee rights movement with the focus now on OBCs as it is, since that doesn’t, at first blush, appear to impact our children. Encouraging those parents to educate and involve themselves may bring support from new directions … from within the triad, but outside the historic sphere of the domestic adoption experience, so to speak.
Thanks for joining the conversation.
First – thinks for the kinds words over in my direction.
Second – I appreciate my first reading on your blog to be so thoughtful, can’t wait to continue read back in time.
The whole OBC discussion is perplexing even to those of us involved with international adoption. We’ll eventually be receiving a birth certificate from a tiny village in Guatemala with our last name on it. That’s just incredibly weird. It’s like system imposed selfishness. We have a scanned copy of the original, so that will have to do as far as original records go, unfortunately.
You will find that I’m a bit of an old fashioned fellow among GenXers, so I kindof get the general sentiment of valuing a stable family – makes perfect sense. But it makes me cringe when politicians and lobby groups talk about family values. They all keep saying that the family is the foundation of America. OK fine, but what do you mean by that? Is family how you define it or simply how people come to live together in a household. What about the millions of people who choose to stay single? I’m just not comfortable with some of the implications, but maybe I’m too cynical?
Well, I’m against the idea of birth parent names being on the permanent birth certificate. Really it probably should be called a “certificate of parentage” or something… it’s not technically about who the bio parents are. I believe that even if a married woman gives birth to a child fathered by someone who isn’t her husband, the husband’s name legally must go on the BC. Any proposed changes to birth certificate creation are going to have to cover that kind of sticky situation too. I don’t think amended adoption birth certificates were created out of shame or to hide the truth – I think it’s just a legal document to show that a human was born, and to indicate who is responsible for the child – that’s all the official agencies care about!
Plus, if I was adopted, I wouldn’t want to have to share the fact of my adoption and my birth parents’ names with every random official person who needed to see my birth certificate – someone at the DMV, say.
I’ve heard similar arguments from others too, so I’m not saying anything new here… just wanted to add it to the discussion!
I’m pretty much in agreement with your views on the birth certificate issue. However, having been a paralegal for more than 20 years I will say there’s not a snoball’s chance in h*** of getting birth certificates changed any time soon. Are they antiquated and idiotic, in a lot of ways? Yes. So is a lot of our government, though…
I am single and I have two older adopted children. The idea that my family is less worthy or desirable because I’m not married is just HOGWASH. I know a lot of single adoptive moms, and we work hard to give our kids stability and family, whether through actual family members, or close friends. I hope there is a study done one day contrasting how healthy our kids are to how healthy kids are who are adopted into traditional families.
I don’t have to divide my time between my kids and a spouse – they get first dibs on all my free time. My kids also don’t see me fighting with a spouse – something I saw a lot as a child, and it scarred me. Finally, my kids have wonderful, loving male role models, both straight and gay, and I feel no guilt over not being married.
My kids also are living in a home with an active grandmother, who helps raise them, so they feel like they have 2 parents. I just don’t think anyone has a right to critisize me, or say my family is not a good one.
I do wish more parents would educate themselves about adoption issues…
Dee
Atlanta
I realise that the concept of identity is not a simple one, and that we have separate identities as creatures of the state and as individuals.
However, I do not believe either one should, or need, be sacrificed to the other. I’m of the firm opinion that everyone is entitled to their personal history – which would, of course, include full knowledge of their ancestry.
OBCs, for all their inadequacies, provide evidence of that, confidently at least in the maternal line. They are a point of reference for the circumstances surrounding a person’s entry into the world . . . the “Where, when and who” of it.
Personally, I’ve no doubt at all that amended birth certificates were created to conceal truth (or at least to create a fiction of it, as in Orwell’s ‘1984’). Otherwise they’d have been designed to identify both legal parents *and* progenitors, and really, there’s no good reason why they don’t.
Amended BCs and sealed records suck. The act of rendering an individual’s past inaccessible to them is nothing short of state sanctioned identity theft. Turning the past into a forbidden truth paradoxically demonstrates the power of history and how much it is feared by those who desire to maintain control.
In the UK a parliamentary committee recently recommended changes in the law so that future birth certificates will record the truth about a child’s origin, even if they were conceived by IVF. Here’s a link to an article by a donor-conceived man in his 50’s who eloquently argues from his human and personal perspective for the right to know one’s origins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/aug/02/childrensservices.humanrights
AJ, you claim you don’t think amended birth certificates were created “out of shame”, but then go on to say that if you were adopted, you wouldn’t want to have to share the fact of your adoption and your birth parents’ names with whoever.
Why not? If you’d be willing to share your adoptive family’s names, which you presumably would be, one has to assume it’s more than a simple matter of privacy that concerns you.
Dee,
Government certainly isn’t made to shift on the fly when it comes to procedures, and I don’t think anyone is planning on a revamp of birth certificates any time soon.
Opening records for those born a couple of decades ago or more, however, can be done pretty much at the drop of a hat once the decision has been made to do so. That is the issue here at the moment — setting things up to pressure the states that haven’t already done so to allow adult adoptees access to the true records of their birth.
As for single parenting, as they say in some circles these days: You go, girl!
And it’s not only parents I wish would educate themselves on adoption issues, but everyone, including government reps, the clergy, educational institutions, the media and more. Adoption is often like a Black Hole of ignorance that can suck in and swallow real and important information and leave a big nothing where it should be.
Atlanta, heh? Nice town. I once had the privilege of meeting one of the city’s more venerable citizens, a gorilla named Willy B. He was fabulous!
Kippa,
Very interesting article on a topic that pushes the edge of a lot of peoples’ envelopes. Thanks.
As to the reasons records are amended or filled in fallaciously or feloniously to begin with, this seems an old story with as many versions as there are people in judgmental societies. Why it is done officially, however, is a different issue that begs the question: What are these documents really for? Getting government agencies to define that might just be a step in the right direction, as that could lead to illumination of intent that is less than pure.
After all, is this about stats? Or history? Or messaging both in some direction? Or only about having something to hand to DMV to prove one is old enough to drive?
Although identity is sometimes all about what is projected onto the eye of the beholder, that projection can never alter even one smidgen of DNA, and since that’s the part of us that moves through the ages, that is what is the closest we can come to physical immortality, it seems a futile waste of time to try to deny what is so basic.
“What are these documents really for? Getting government agencies to define that might just be a step in the right direction”
Indeed. We should be so lucky!
Here’s an interesting (lots of stuff to ponder) link about a recent (Jan 2007) development in Canadian law: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=D%3A%5CUsers%5COntario%20Courts%5Cwww%5Cdecisions%5C2007%5Cjanuary%5C2007ONCA0002%2Ehtm
It includes a summary of the importance of a ‘parentage’ declaration (as opposed to a BC):
“– The declaration of parentage is a lifelong immutable declaration of status.
— It allows the parent to fully participate in the child’s life.
— The declared parent has to consent to any future adoption.
— The declaration determines lineage.
— The declaration ensures that the child will inherit on intestacy.
— The declared parent may obtain an OHIP card, a social insurance number, airline tickets and passports for the child.
— The child of a Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen, even if born outside of Canada.
— The declared parent may register the child in school.
— The declared parent may assert her rights under various laws such as the Health Care Consent Act.”