Should adult adoptees have access to their birth records?

[cynatnite]

NEW YORK - It's among the most divisive questions in the realm of adoption: Should adult adoptees have access to their birth records, and thus be able to learn the identity of their birth parents?

In a comprehensive report being released Monday, a leading adoption institute says the answer is "Yes" and urges the rest of America to follow the path of the eight states that allow such access to all adults who were adopted.

"States' experiences in providing this information make clear that there are minimal, if any, negative repercussions," said the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. "Outcomes appear to have been overwhelmingly positive for adult adopted persons and birthparents alike."

Opponents of open access argue that unsealing birth records violates the privacy that birthmothers expected when they opted to give up their babies. They raise the specter of birthparents forced into unwanted relationships with grown children who have tracked them down.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_on_re_us/adoption_birth_records

[Heidi]

1. I was adopted, and I would no more want my biological mother's privacy violated

than I would want my own privacy violated. (My privacy is a big deal to me and there's a long story involving my biological parents behind that.) If there's a compelling need for an adopted person to have access to his or her birth records, I would support making records available in those cases. However, I would not like to see the agreements that were entered into in good faith by biological parents and states/adoption agencies invalidated retroactively.

I could also see this issue as one that might discourage biological parents from making children available for adoption, even when that might be best for the child.

If the birth records are made available to adoptess, why not make adoption records available to biological parents in search of their adopted children? See what I mean? Slippery slope.

[Samurai_Writer]

24. "Birthmother Privacy" is a myth

The adoption industry used 'birthmother privacy' to enforce closed adoptions. It really was done for the adoptive parents' benefit, most of whom did not want to deal with birthparents after adoptions were finalized. Birthmothers were told they had no right to know their children after signing relinquishment papers. They are still told that. There are some 'open' adoptions now, but they are very, very few.

Also, adult adoptees having their birth certificates is not a privacy issue. It's a civil rights issue. They are the only citizens in the US not allowed to have a real, true certificate of their birth. When a person is adopted, their birth certificate is altered, naming their adoptive parents as their birth parents. Sometimes the date of birth, place of birth, and other information on the birth certificate is also changed.

Another thing: If an adoptee uses their original birth certificate and locates their birth parent, all the birth parent has to do is say "I don't want to talk to you." Once. If the adoptee persists, that is harrassment, and can be dealt with legally. Telephone solicitors have more rights regarding contacting strangers than adoptees/birth families have in contacting their own family members.

[Heidi]

25. Are you saying that you believe adoptees/birth families should have more rights

than other strangers to contact a stranger out of the blue? I would respectfully disagree. I don't see how one set of strangers (for example, my birth family) is any different than another set of strangers (telephone solicitors). :shrug:

[Samurai_Writer]

26. No, that's not what I'm saying

I'm saying adoptees should have the SAME rights as any other citizen in this country, and have an original, unaltered copy of their birth certificate. Search and reunion is a separate issue. The adoption industry wants to blur the two issues, to keep the closed adoption system in place.

I'm saying that adoptees and birth families should have the same rights as any other 'strangers' in regards to contact. If you contact a stranger, even a birth family member, and they tell you they don't want to talk to you or see you, and you persist in contacting them, they DO have legal recourse.

On the other hand, adoptees and birth families should not have MORE rights than any other 'strangers' in regards to contact. The opponents to original birth certificate access and open records seem to think that just because a person is adopted or a birth parent, that they have this super-right to NEVER have contact EVER from ANY birth family member. Not one letter, not one phone call. That's what I meant when I said telephone solicitors have more rights in regards to contact. Which is just silly. We're a free society, and you can tell anyone who contacts you to leave you alone.

[Heidi]

28. As a matter of fact,

I do believe I have a right "to NEVER have contact EVER from ANY birth family member. Not one letter, not one phone call." My birth parents' rights were terminated by a court of law when I was six years old. Given all that I recall of the first six years of my life, my boundaries are not unreasonable. Others' mileage my vary, of course. I can speak only of my own experience.

[Samurai_Writer]

34. Forced parental terminations are not the norm in adoption

I'm sorry for what you had to go through as a child. I would agree that any parent who had their parental rights forcibly terminated because of abuse to a child should not have the right to personally contact that child later.

However, I don't understand how an adoptee getting an unaltered, original birth certificate would put them at risk of contact from their birth parents? The adoptee has the control of contact, as the birth parents do not receive a birth certificate at all.

[shanti]

52. they're "not the norm"??

i beg to differ.

[Samurai_Writer]

56. No, they are not

Most adoptions are done when a birth mother voluntarily (in a legal sense) surrenders parental rights.

Forced terminations are only done in cases of abuse. That is not the majority of adoptions. Most kids whose parents have their rights forcibly terminated end up languishing in foster care, unfortunately.

[shanti]

58. sorry, but

that is incorrect, at least here in california. i work in the adoption field and most of them are thru court terminations of parental rights.

relinquishment adoptions may have been the norm back in the day, but not anymore with the drug epidemic, etc. drug addiction, not abuse (although you could definitely call the neglect that drug abusers inflict on their children abuse...)

[hlthe2b]

48. I'm reading between the lines here..

But it seems to me that where there are very strong feelings against seeing either the birth parent or conversely, the adopted child, there could be put in place a legal restraining order addendum to any birth records. The information would be available, but whichever party accesses the information would then know there was a legally enforceable restraint forbidding any contact. This would seem (at first glance, at least) as though it would address the kind of concerns to which you refer.

[Heidi]

51. In fact, there is a 1969 no-contact order in place in my case,

but it only enjoins my biological mother, her husband at the time (no deceased) and my biological father from contacting me.

That valid 1969 no-contact order did not, however, preclude my biological, paternal aunt, uncle and grandmother (who lifted not one finger to protect me during the first six years of my life) from placing statewide classified advertisements (seeking me, complete with my full birth name, date and place of birth and the names of my biological parents) in more than 200 newspapers in the state in which I lived during the year I turned 31. Stranger yet, I was the editor of one of the newspapers which ran that statewide classified ad, but proofing the ads wasn't in my area of responsibility, so I never saw it before we put the paper to bed on the night before my 31st birthday. The next morning, though, before I went to the office, I began receiving telephone calls from people in my town who had seen the ad and already begun developing fantasies of me and my biological family being on Sally Jessy Raphael, like running through a field of daisies toward one another for some sort of glorious reunion. :eyes:

[hlthe2b]

54. very unfortunate... Does seem like a blanket order could be placed

forbidding any contact from a member of the biological family or their representative...


Sorry for what you've gone through... I hope you can put it permanently in the past.

[Dorian Gray]

50. I agree with you

I was also adopted. I'm happy to maintain my privacy and my birth family's privacy. I have no intention of finding them, nor do I want them to find me.

[qwlauren35]

41. The other thing that you now encourage...

is doorstep babies.

Some women really do NOT want to be found.

I understand the vital importance of knowing family medical history, especially around issues such as diabetes, Parkinsons, etc. And as such, it doesn't seem fair that I woman should have this much power over a child's life.

But if a woman can abort, then I think a woman can choose a closed adoption. That's probably why I'm pro-abortion. If all adoptions must be open, then all of a sudden, there's less "choice".

Abort... or let the world know that you had a kid.
There are a LOT of children in this world who are lucky to be alive because their mothers didn't abort them. Should we should push in a direction that could force such children to decrease.

Personally, I don't have a problem with abortion numbers rising as a result of open adoptions. But somehow, I don't think that's the intent of the movement.

[Occulus]

43. So... the kid has no knowledge of family medical history,

probability for development of certain cancers or other diseases, inherited traits that can remain hidden for years (diabetes, high/low blood pressure)...

You would deny a newborn infant that knowledge, when you yourself might know all those things about your family?

I'm "lucky to be alive because their mothers didn't abort (me)"? So I should just shut the fuck up and be grateful, eh?

How fucking big-hearted and compassionate of you. Really.

[NOLALady]

106. Birth parents are required to inform the agency

of the medical history of their families.

[Samurai_Writer]

111. For those adoptions that are done through an agency.

And only at the time of surrender. Medical histories change over time. And most adoptions in the US these days are done by 'facilitators', where the medical history is not required to be taken at all.

[progressivebydesign]

120. No they aren't. FYI.

I was never asked.. and most are not asked. Perhaps with a private agency. I was contacted thru my daughter's attorney later in her life to ask for that info, was sent a huge form to fill out at that point.

[Samurai_Writer]

45. You know those are all right-wing talking points

To discourage abortions and keep the adoption system closed, right?

Most birthmothers WANT some type of contact with their adopted children. It is the adoption industry who insists on closed adoptions. They were dragged kicking and screaming into offering 'open' adoptions (which, by the way, most are not open, but at best, semi-closed).

You are perpetuating the MYTH that women who surrender their children for adoption want to keep it a deep, dark secret their whole lives. That a scared teenager, 20 years later, is still a scared teenager that has to be protected from herself and her decisions (if she even did decide, most are coerced into adoption).

I am NOT saying that all adoptions MUST be open. Studies have found it is better for the adoptee to have an open relationship with their birth family. Not to mention it is better for the adoptive parents and the birth family as well.

And giving an adult adoptee their original birth certificate is not the same as having an open adoption.

As a birthmother, I find it highly offensive when someone tells me what a wonderful 'choice' I made in not choosing abortion, and in choosing adoption. It was not a choice for me, and it was not a choice for many, many birthmothers. Abortion personally was not an option for me at that time. Surrendering my son was forced upon me through lies and coercion.

This poll, however, was not about open adoptions or search and reunions. It was about an adoptee's civil right to their original birth certficate. Two separate issues.

[alarimer]

90. I think secrecy is probably the most damaging thing about this

I have done some reading on this (I do not have a dog in this fight as it were) but it appears that giving up a child is far more wrenching and life-altering than the "adoption industry" would have us all believe. And in the bad old days (and possibly even now) there was a TON or coercion on these poor women (mostly girls even). Their children were, in effect, stolen from them because their parents and various others deemed it best. I do not believe this system is anything like hearts and flowers all the time.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. It's economically unfair as all hell too

Adoptees with thousands of disposable dollars can pay private investigators and attorneys to track down documents. If you don't have the money, too bad.

Plus, everyone should have a right to know their immediate family's medical history. At the very least, all adoptees should be given that. I don't know anything about mine and, though I've enjoyed good health my entire life, I'm always woried about a nasty surprise

[Heidi]

30. I would agree with that and support a system in which birth parents and adoptees

could flag their own files with "please contact" or "no contact" messages. I also would support giving adoptees access to the medical histories without identifying information. :hi:

[NashVegas]

31. I Think I'm in Agreement With You

Letting an adoptee know who their bio parents are, and tracking them down, are two separate issues. In this thread, most seem to assume an adoptee, upon gaining the knowledge, will indeed track down the bios.

Keeping things anonymous by default, IMO, inflates and sustains the shame factor - that's important to me because at one time, shame was the prime motivation of forcing unwed mothers to put their children up for adoption.

[progressivebydesign]

118. Thank you for that post! As a birth mother... I can attest to every word of that! n/t

[debbierlus]

29. I put I don't know, I am not in that situation nor do I know anyone in that situation

I am sure it is complex.

[LeftyMom]

60. My son's father is adopted. We know his biomom but not his birth father.

(His birth mother knows who he is and is in contact with him, but prefers not to communicate his identity. Long story. Bit of a soap opera.)

Even if my son's father never meets him, which he's fine with, he does deserve to know his identity. Otherwise he's got no medical history.

It was nerve-racking during my pregnancy answering all the family history questions, because we had no idea what if anything our son was at increased risk of, and don't even know enough about his father's ancestry to make educated guesses.

[BoneDaddy]

2. Easy way around this

As an adoptee who has traced back data giving me "non-identifying" information (health info, ethnicity etc.), I believe that one way around this situation is to give the "parents" the opportunity to "flag" the adoption records so if the adoptee desires future contact they will know that the birth parents are open to it.

The state I was born in, Georgia, allows this opportunity. When I went searching, I found out the records were not flagged. I was not really looking to reconnect with my birth parents so it was not an issue for me.

I think the rights of the birth parents trump that of the adoptee's right to make contact, as giving up a child for adoption is often a very traumatic event and the right to move on with their lives should be honored.

That said, adoptees should have access to medical information that might help in them managing their health, but any info should be non-identifying.

[shadowknows69]

4. Good idea with the "flag" thing BD

[Heidi]

6. That's a good idea for future adoptions. But what about those that took place nearly 40 years ago,

like mine?

Should a change in our country's attitudes toward adoption and privacy invalidate agreements that were made nearly half a century ago?

[Breeze54]

7. Then don't consent to be 'flagged' for contact.

Wouldn't that be the reasonable thing to do?

I don't think it should be shoved down anyone's throat.

:hug:

:hi:

[Heidi]

9. My point is

that agreements were entered in 1969, re: my adoption. Those agreements sealed my adoption records. Why should I, or my biological parents, have to make any effort at all to ensure that the 1969 court orders are respected?

Hi, gf! Goodgoodgood to see you! :hug:

[Breeze54]

12. You shouldn't but I think what they're saying

is those that DO want to be known can request to be flagged.
If you don't want any contact, then do nothing or write a letter stating so.

How've you been doing?? Good to 'see' you too! :hi:

[Heidi]

16. It's cold here!

I was gonna go hang laundry in the sun, but I think it'd break if there were the slightest breeze. :rofl: :spray:

[Breeze54]

21. lmao!

It was below freezing here (27 F) the last few days in the morning

but today it's almost 50 and raining! You're a trip! :P

Use the clothes dryer!! I give you permission! :rofl:

[Heidi]

22. Ha!

We don't have a clothes dryer. We got rid of it a few years ago. When it's extra cold or raining, I hang laundry in our basement next to the toasty-warm furnace. The furnace doesn't offer the ambiance of line-drying, but it works. :P

[shanti]

53. all a birth mother has to do

is put a note in the file stating that she NEVER wants contact.

[BoneDaddy]

11. I think the right to privacy

on the birth parents trumps adoptee's rights to engage in a relationship. Sad situation.

[Heidi]

14. I think the right to privacy _period_ trumps any interest or curiosity

on either party's part.

:hi: BoneDaddy!

[BoneDaddy]

15. 100% in agreement

[Gormy Cuss]

37. Retroactive change on this is the sticking point for me.

Prospectively making info available to adult adoptees seems like a step in the right direction. I do think it's unfair to all parties to change the rules after the fact unless there are strict guidelines, such as anonymous medical histories, and access to adoptees only, not surrendering biological parents.
Maine had relatively open adoption until the mid-1950s -- that is, the original birth certificates were available if you knew where to look. I know two people born in the 1950s who discovered that their mothers lived within a couple miles of them their whole lives. That was hard for them to accept. One went to the same schools as his half-siblings.

Others in my circle who sought out the original birth certificate discovered that by itself it wasn't enough to seek out the biological parents. For one thing, the name on the father line was often blank. For the mother, unless her maiden name was unusual or the hometown small it was very hard to trace her over the years. On top of that, the mothers were low income and neither they nor their parents were listed in phone books or city directories. They just lived under the radar and moved frequently. Not much luck getting medical history in that case.

[LiberalFighter]

18. That was a story in Winkerbean comics a month or two ago

[shadowknows69]

3. Great topic for a poll

Also an adoptee here. I'm torn, I'd like to know for medical reasons and I feel I have a right to know any siblings I might have. I don't think I'd make an issue out of meeting them or invading their privacy at all unless they wanted to see me. Stupid as they may be there are life long identity issues for adopted kids as well. Perhaps not all of us but it does to me always seem like there's a piece of me missing.

[me b zola]

63. The missing piece

The puzzle never completes itself, does it? No amount of mirror gazing ever reveals the answers sought, only more mystery and wondering and that damned empty spot.

[Breeze54]

5. People change their minds over time.

What was traumatic for a young birth parent might not be as they age.

I think there should be a way for them both to mutually find a way
to reconnect, if both the birth parents and the child want it.
Especially concerning medical history. From the reports, it seems
that it has, in general, worked out for both parties. That flagging
the records idea seems like a good one to me.

[BoneDaddy]

13. True

for which the "birth parents" will always have an option to flag and unflag as time goes on.

[Marrah_G]

8. We need better databases

One large database containing not only names but also medical history would help. If both parties let the database know they are willing to be found then a reunion can be made.

I found my birth mother at 33 years old and discovered a very large family not far from where I live. The reunion would have happened a decade earlier if the process were streamlined.

I am only for disclosure when all parties involved want it. Otherwise it would lead to disaster for all involved.

[Lint Head]

10. There can be medical implications. Maybe not release the

identity but the fact that a parent had a particular type of curable cancer that was genetic would be valuable to save ones life. :dem:

[CountAllVotes]

39. my mother was adopted

and after she passed away I found out she had a very serious incurable disease that is GENETIC!

She tried to find out who her real parents were her entire life. She died not knowing. I swore on her deathbed that I would find out.

And ... I did!

:kick:

[WePurrsevere]

17. Another adoptee here. In NY you can have the file flagged...

if the other person also wants to met it's arranged through NY's Social Services. I flagged my file a few years ago.. I also requested and got as much "non-identifying" info as I could which was actually quite a bit. I'm an odd case in that I know my birth name but it's not unusual enough to help much except that I got my birth time for a friend who was doing an Astrology chart for me.

There's a part of me that wants to know... to learn.. to have the roots of my heritage that my DH has.. but.. OTOH.. I also respect the privacy of my birth parents/family... if they want to find me, they can.. I won't push any further then having what I have and flagging the file.

So.. in answer to your question.. "other".. ;)

One thing I ran across recently that I think is sort of interesting, especially perhaps for adoptee's perhaps, is this site:
http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/ Although I know my basic heritage from the "non-identifying" info it would be interesting to perhaps learn more. :shrug: :)

[midlife_mo_Jo]

19. I voted "no"

I do believe in having some type of system that allows the birthmother and adoptee to flag their records if they "do" wish to be found. I also believe adoptees should have a simple system where they can petition to have their birth parents answer medical questions without giving up the birth mother's right to privacy.

[Vickers]

20. I'm really surprised at the lopsidedness of the votes so far.

Wasn't expecting that.

[cynatnite]

23. Same here...

thought it'd be more even actually.

[NashVegas]

32. Why?

..

[cynatnite]

33. I just thought people would split fairly evenly over the issue...

I was wrong.

[Vickers]

57. Me, too. I voted "no" because I feel that the privacy concerns and

prior legal agreements carry more weight than the curiosity and medical background issues (although there have been some pretty compelling posts on those issues).

I like the flagging idea, but I'd hate to lay out the logistics of that.

[MH1]

69. Probably thought more "progressives" would respect the expectation of privacy

and the keeping of promises.

Guess that's not the case, huh. :shrug:

[NashVegas]

76. I Would Assume More Liberals Would Vote for Openness

So no, I'm not surprised at all.

[MH1]

80. Breach of contract is a liberal value, you say?

I disagree.

[gollygee]

86. The child never entered into that contract

I think it's not a liberal value to force a contract on someone else.

[gollygee]

35. I think it should be up to the adoptee

Human beings aren't commodities, and one set of human beings shouldn't be able to enter into a permanent contract for another human being. Once that adoptee becomes an adult, he/she should have a right to information about the adoption, if he/she wants. That adoptee doesn't have a right to force a relationship on anyone who doesn't want it, including the birth parents, but information should be available, particularly medical information.

My opinion is based on how I think I would feel if I were involved and is not educated. I am open to education if my opinion is bad based on my ignorance about this issue.

[aikoaiko]

36. If anonymity was a part of the deal -- then it needs to be honored

It seems pretty obvious to me.

The medical issues is a total red herring. Lots of people don't know the health issues with their biological parents. Yes its unfortunate, but life is not fair.

[Oeditpus Rex]

82. Funny — I don't remember authorizing such a 'deal' when I was three days old

And since I'm the one who'll suffer (or who is suffering) from any genetic medical conditions, I think I should have a say in it.

Don't hand me that crap about "Lots of people don't know the health issues with their biological parents." That's only because they didn't ask. Some of us aren't legally entitled to even the opportunity to ask, or to find out through any other channels.

[aikoaiko]

89. Sorry, but I don;t think you should have a say in it.

If a pregnant woman (and sometimes the father too) gives up a child for adoption under the agreement of anonymity than the offspring is just out of luck.

I think there are way too many situations where the lack of anonymity could lead to an abortion.

You may think that people who know their biological parents have all this access to their medical situations, but many parents don't know or won't talk about it.

[NorthernSpy]

94. ah yes, property has no recognized interest in the conditions of its disposal...

Thanks for reminding us.

:eyes:

[aikoaiko]

95. Thats not what I said.

[NorthernSpy]

103. yeah, it is...

The kid gets treated like an object. All of these enforceable "deals" and "agreements" and "contracts" concern the interests of the adults who are the parties to the transaction.


Oh, I know. They wuuuv him. That makes it all okay.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. I'd say no.

Parents who raise their kids are under no obligation to tell their kids about anything, and I see no reason why parents who give their kids to adoption should be any different.

[qwlauren35]

40. I think it should be up to a mother.

I've known mothers who were happy to know. But I think it needs to be a mediated process.

I have a feeling that a woman in her 50's - 70's would NOT want this violated, nor would anyone whose pregnancy predates the open adoption movement.

In fact, I sense that more women would abort if they knew that a CLOSED adoption could still come back and bite them in the butt.

[Samurai_Writer]

47. I belong to a birthmother's group of over 500

Most of the women in that group ARE in their 50s - 70s, when the closed adoption system was in full swing, and before/right after Roe v. Wade (I surrendered my son in 1978, and am one of the youngest birthmoms in the group).

The vast majority of birthmoms, young and old, do want contact. It's the adoption industry who perpetuates the lie of 'birth parent privacy'. It's to their economical advantage to do so. Privacy was and is used to reassure the adoptive parents that the birthparents will be completely out of the picture. It had nothing to do with protecting the birthmother's reputation or privacy.

[NOLALady]

107. Maybe if adoptive parents weren't assured of privacy,

there would be less adoptions and more children would be left in the Foster Care program.

[Samurai_Writer]

110. Or maybe...

Adoptive parents would have to deal with the fact the child they adopt does have a birth family, if they want to adopt someone else's child, instead of pretending birth families don't exist.

Or maybe less birth parents would be coerced into placing children for adoption, and be able to raise their own children.

[Ilsa]

132. I am in agreement with you. There are alot of women living

with socal mores of a very conservative time. I have witnessed a similar situation having to do with an extra-marital affair and the jealousy of having another child "out there", and it isn't pretty.

I think an mediator can work with the birth mother to get additional family medical history. Forcig a birth mother into the open doesn't necessarily mean you'll get her family medical history from her.

[Occulus]

42. Given we know- KNOW, beyond any doubt- that there are such things

as genetic diseases, I take it as a great big, huge, very personal "fuck you" from everyone on this thread who voted 'no'.

I have no clue what my biological parents' family histories are regarding genetic conditions, inherited diseases, etc. None.

This shouldn't even be a question. And yes, I do take offense to people who claim "you don't have the right to know who your parents are." Believe it or not, I've heard people say that. Personally, I feel if you give a child up for adoption, you should have no "right to privacy" with regard to that child, should they ever want to find out who you are. They should at least know what you look like, your family medical history, and other pertinent information.

That doesn't mean you have to let them visit. That doesn't mean you have to let them write or call. What it does mean is that you should have no right, as a parent who is giving your child up for adoption, to hide yourself from that child.

Call me insensitive to the rights of parents who give their kids up. Guess what? I AM insensitive to those "rights" to privacy from the child they give up, because I don't think they should have those privacy rights- not when the first question I would ask mine is, "what diseases are present in our family history?"

[Heidi]

44. Which of your original birth records would give you any hint

about your biological parents' medical histories? Do you feel entitled the right to inspect your biological parents' personal medical histories? How about the personal medical histories of your biological grandparents? Biological siblings? Aunts? Uncles? Cousins?

As an adoptee, I do not feel automatically entitled to one sliver of information about my biological parents, nor do I feel they're entitled to a single sliver of information about me. In the state where my adoption took place, the law is on both my side and my biological parents' side. If I have an urgent need for the medical information, there's a process in place for me to make my case.

I'm sorry you're taking other DUers' opinions as a "big, huge, very personal 'f*ck you," but you alone are responsible for your reaction. No participant in this thread but you has been disrespectful of others' opinions.

[Eurobabe]

65. Which is why I voted yes

My father and his family have been estranged from me since I was a child, I only know a little bit about family health issues - I sure would like to know more. I have alot of compassion for others who really want to know birth parents for the purpose of obtaining health information.

[TheUniverse]

46. No.

If birthmothers want their privacy, they should be allowed it...

[NorthernSpy]

74. tough!

Yeah, I'm sure at least a few "birthmothers" do want their privacy secrecy. Just like some deadbeat dads want the mean old government to stop garnishing their wages for child support.

Thing is, when you have a child, you willingly create for yourself a variety of obligations to that child. I'm strongly inclined to recognize and enforce those obligations, even in the case of a parent who has given their child to someone else.

It's like requiring material child support from noncustodial fathers. Once upon a time, we didn't really enforce that obligation, either. Now we do. Which is progress.

[ecstatic]

100. Right to know birth mother vs. NOT BEING BORN AT ALL

I've always had the utmost respect for women who carry babies to term--putting up with the physical discomfort, the judgment of others, the gossip--and then the pain of giving the child away. I personally would choose abortion. The women who sacrifice to bring the baby to term do not deserve the contempt that is being spewed on this thread.

[NorthernSpy]

101. baloney

First off, it's just not true that "birthmothers" and their supposedly insatiable desire for anonymity are the real sticking point here. They're NOT the ones who are fighting tooth and nail for secrecy. It's the adoption industry itself that does that, and it does so on behalf of adopters, who are its actual clients.

Secondly, there's really no evidence that women choose abortion only because they can't choose a closed adoption. The reality is that women prefer just about any alternative to giving up their children to a closed adoption. That whole "but there'll be more abortions!" bit is just spin and conjecture.

[supernova]

49. Yes, for now and in the future

For adoptions in the past,I think think adoptees have the right to:

- their rightful ethnic heritage. Everyone needs a sense of belonging to something greater than themselves.

- their family medical history including diseases and conditions that run in the family. It's not really fair to make them and their docs work blind in preparing for their healthcare. Could also be potentially dangerous.

These are things an adult absolutely needs to know.

Beyond that I think if birth mothers and their adopted children are interested in exploring a way to make contact or more, there should be a way to do that. Isn't there some registry you can sign up with to say that you are open to communicating with your child? Conversely if either party wants to let sleeping dogs lie, that should be OK too. There was a lot of shame attached to events like this years ago and opening up those kinds of wounds for someone who isn't ready (and might never be) could be very hurtful. I don't think it's very wise or kind to force them into coming forward.

For today and into the future, I very much admire and support the open adoption model. I don't see a down side to it if everyone is honest about what they want and capable of handling relationships.

[Fire Walk With Me]

55. I was abandoned and adopted.

Anyone even remotely interested in the subject of adoption should read the book "The Primal Wound" to know that it's not always as easy as it sounds.

http://www.nancyverrier.com/prim_book.php

[me b zola]

68. A shame that book wasn't around when I was a child

It very likely could have helped my (adoptive)mother understand me. The natural questions & feelings that I had, particularly in puberty, hurt my mother deeply. That hurt had a snowballing effect on both of our lives.

[noonwitch]

59. Yes, if both parties agree

If the birth parent wants the grown child to find her, good for both of them. If it's one of those "Lost" scenarios, where the parent just wants a kidney, well, no.

[NorthernSpy]

61. absolutely, unequivocally YES!

When you bring a child into the world, you create an obligation that doesn't end just because you give the kid to someone else.

One of the things that any person is entitled to -- at the very least -- is his or her own unfalsified personal documents. Also, I'd say that this right is a fundamental right that outweighs any privilege of secrecy that relinquishing mothers may have been assured of in the past.

Thing is, giving up a baby for adoption isn't an "alternative" to parenthood. You become a parent by creating a new life, even if you're not going to raise the child yourself. And someday, your kid will probably want to meet you.

I think we really need to spell all that out for anyone considering giving up their child.

[Toucano]

62. No, not automatically. It should be a choice.

But birth mothers should be required to leave a family health history in the file for the adoptive parents and the adoptee's future needs and a generalized (non-personally identifiable) family history.

[Samurai_Writer]

67. Medical histories change over time

You don't have the same medical history at 17 as you do at 47. Neither do your parents, grandparents, or siblings -- whose medical histories are relevant to any child you might have.

Also, genetic testing has become quite advanced recently. I just discovered that I have a genetic mutation that is passable down to my children. If I could only leave a medical history at the time of their birth, and never update it, then they would never know of this potentially disabling genetic disease.

[Shallah Kali]

127. Exactly! My birth familes all developed or diagnosed with illness *after* my adoption

Illnesses that suspected of being genetic including one side having two generations with bipolar disorder.

The need to know one's genetic medical history is not a luxury or a perverted desire. Every doctor I have ever gone to has wanted family history. Every one of 'em.

[Horse with no Name]

64. Not unless BOTH parties are willing

Law should supercede emotion.

[MH1]

71. Exactly.

I am stunned that so many people think that an implied (if not explicit) contract can be chucked just like that.

Doesn't it seem that the message to any kid today is "you'd better get an abortion, don't even think of adoption"?

[NorthernSpy]

72. I always knew that an adoption was, at heart, a business dealing...

... and posts like yours illustrate this perfectly.



Those of you voting no are talking about "contracts" and "deals" and "agreements".

Those of us voting yes are talking about parental obligations and the fundamental rights of the person.


Two completely different sets of terms. One applies to how we administer the transfer of property, and the other applies to human rights.

[MH1]

81. Privacy is not a fundamental right?

As mentioned above, there are many, many people in this world who don't know their family medical history, and access to birth records doesn't necessarily solve this.

Life is unfair. I would think being alive without knowledge of one's medical history would be better than never having lived at all, huh?

It just strikes me as odd that people think a promise of privacy should not be kept. That the "rights" of the fetus trump the rights of the parents. Gee, where have I heard that argument before?

[NorthernSpy]

84. it's a right whose full exercise you may forfeit by becoming a parent...

You can lose full exercise of even a fundamental right by taking on an obligation that involves a fundamental right of someone else. Bringing a child into the world creates a person who has his or her own fundamental rights -- some of which involve obligations on the part of the parents.

[MH1]

85. Okay, so the answer, you say, is to get an abortion.

Thank you for clearing that up.

[NorthernSpy]

92. nope

The answer is, once you've produced a kid, it's not all about you any more. Fact of life.

[Ilsa]

134. I have children, and I don't think they have the right to my

medical history. They'll have the information that I give them, not information that is taken from me. Lots of people with estranged relatives have spotty family medical histories.

[Duer 157099]

66. For once, a question that's so easy to answer!

I can't even fathom the "no" option! Yes, I understand the intellectual arguments, but to me, this speaks to the very basic most fundamental right that a human being has -- to know their origin.

Period.

NEXT?

[noamnety]

73. I answered no

The right to medical and sexual privacy is a fundamental right. In extreme circumstances, some children are conceived through rape, some through incest, and some of those women were not given the right to an abortion. They have a right not to have their private - and often traumatic experiences as a young adult come back to haunt them at a random time later in life. They have the right to live without that fear hanging over them, without the knowledge that at any moment some stranger could walk through the door and destroy their current life, or trigger a PTSD episode.

Whatever happened sexually to me or by me is not the business of some random stranger.

Furthermore, it's a safety issue for many women. Adopted people - like any other group of people - are sometimes decent caring people, and sometimes misogynistic assholes with mental problems, and in this case with a potential grudge against the woman they may be stalking. I'm not characterizing the majority of adopted people this way at all; I'm saying that the percentage is likely similar to any other group of people, which is to say the potential exists. And the potential for an abusive spouse to make the woman's life hell when they found out is also often real.

Nobody has a right to stick their nose up my uterus, even if they feel they have something personally to gain from it.

That means some people won't find out their family's medical history, yep. And such is the case with a lot of people. If your parents died young, you may not know if they had the genes for some disease that would have hit them later in life. That's the reality for a great many people. You don't get to expose a stranger's sexual history because you personally want access to that information. It's not yours to take; it's hers to give.

[NorthernSpy]

77. your child is not "some random stranger"

The right to medical and sexual privacy is a fundamental right. In extreme circumstances, some children are conceived through rape, some through incest, and some of those women were not given the right to an abortion. They have a right not to have their private - and often traumatic experiences as a young adult come back to haunt them at a random time later in life. They have the right to live without that fear hanging over them, without the knowledge that at any moment some stranger could walk through the door and destroy their current life, or trigger a PTSD episode.

The kid didn't ask to be born. Whatever hardships you may have encountered, you're still responsible for any lives you bring into the world, and you owe them (at the very least) the truth about their origins.

Nobody has a right to stick their nose up my uterus, even if they feel they have something personally to gain from it.

That means some people won't find out their family's medical history, yep. And such is the case with a lot of people. If your parents died young, you may not know if they had the genes for some disease that would have hit them later in life. That's the reality for a great many people. You don't get to expose a stranger's sexual history because you personally want access to that information. It's not yours to take; it's hers to give.

Gee, unless the woman in question has actually forfeited an absolute right to privacy by creating a parental obligation to the child she brought into the world.

[supernova]

79. It's possible to give a medical history

without revealing identity.

And it's not just physical diseases but mental disorders too... depression and suicide sadly run in families too.

[noamnety]

83. In many cases the woman didn't ask to give birth.

And in many cases she was not a willing participant in the sex itself. Hell, in some cases, they are not even adults.

Rape victims are still held accountable though, by some, for their "actions" - in this way, we are not so different from countries that punish women for being victims of rape, eh? Their own fault, they forfeited their rights after being raped, yep.

And so women continue to be judged and condemned for the biological fact of being women.

If I am raped, I don't owe anyone anything. Not you, not anyone. Including the resulting child of that rape, particularly as abortion has not been available, and is not available, to all women.

The last thing I would want if I were in that situation is some STRANGER who I didn't want and didn't ask for, and whose conception may have given me PTSD and made me suicidal for the last couple decades, to show up at my door 20 years later looking like the spitting image of my rapist. And fuck if I would give them ANY details about how they were conceived, I would not be spilling my guts talking about my most painful memories to random stranger on my door claiming I owe him that. Fuck no.

[NorthernSpy]

91. nice try, but we can take special circumstances into account...

VERY few adoptions follow rape or incest conceptions. The vast majority of adopted-out pregnancies are simply the result of good ole premarital sex.


Tell you what, Lwfern. We can devise a process that takes special circumstances into account by flagging adoptee records with links to any relevant legal proceedings concerning sexual assault and the like. And then we can have a judge examine all the evidence, weigh the conflicting interests and rights, and determine what sort of information should be released to the adoptee.

But as for a blanket grant of secrecy that arbitrarily favors the wishes of women over those of the children they gave birth to? Forget it.

And so women continue to be judged and condemned for the biological fact of being women.

No, women are not being judged and condemned for the biological fact of being women. Women are being told that they have obligations as well as rights, and that if they give birth to a child, their rights will not be the only -- or even necessarily always the most compelling -- rights involved.

[noamnety]

96. The best person to judge the woman's circumstances

is the woman. I suspect you know full well the rough percentage of women who don't go to court when they are raped, and the reasons why. Please feel free to stand in judgment over those women as well.

The point is, you don't know the circumstances. You don't know if the woman has PTSD. You don't know what her reaction to the contact will be, ranging up to and including suicide. She knows. Therefore, it is up to her to make that determination for herself. If the majority of women welcome contact, as other posters have said, then the majority would flag their file as being open to being contacted.

Anything else is imposing your will on others, forcing them INTO an interaction they are unwilling to be in. Controlling other people in that way, demanding that people who don't know you and don't want contact with you, is unethical. You can request information. You can be upset if you don't get it. But you can't force other people to interact with you on your terms. Anyone who is demanding interactions, knowing full well it is being forced on the other person against their will, is somebody I wouldn't want in my life for a large variety of reasons, not the least of which being it's a warning sign (not proof of, but a warning sign) of an abusive personality.

You do not have a legal right to force another adult to interact with you on your terms. It's a desire, not a right.

You DO have the legal right to refuse to interact with another adult.

You do NOT have a legal right to force other adults, even your parents, even ones that raised you in their homes, to disclose their medical information to you. I do not have legal access to my parents' medical files.

So there is no clash of legal rights here. Each person has the right to keep their own medical files private. Each person has the right to refuse to interact with other adults, and has the right not to discuss their sexual history with other adults, and has the right not to discuss why they gave up a child for adoption, if they chose to keep that information private. That may leave some people without a sense of closure. That sucks, no doubt about it. But people don't have a legal right to closure, or a legal right to demand that some other person helps them to find it.

[NorthernSpy]

102. oh, you can deny your obligations all you want...

But if the rest of society recognizes those obligations and decides to enforce them, then continuing with the denial won't get you very far.


Which is exactly what we tell deadbeat dads nowadays.


Don't want the kid to have his real birth certificate with his mother's real name on it? Too bad. That's HIS personal info, and it belongs to HIM -- not her.

[noamnety]

104. I notice you only mention the mother's name.

Because the child has no legal right to know their dad's name, right? A woman isn't required to put that on the Birth Certificate - because it's a PRIVACY issue. She is not compelled to reveal the child's other parent. It's not an obligation, no matter how much you wish it was.

She has the same right to not reveal her name, as well. That's the law, in most places. You may be upset by it, but that doesn't change who the info belongs to. The offspring don't legally own access to their parents' names unless it's given to them.

[NorthernSpy]

105. I'm following you on that...

You were talking about mothers; I was talking about mothers.

Because the child has no legal right to know their dad's name, right? A woman isn't required to put that on the Birth Certificate - because it's a PRIVACY issue. She is not compelled to reveal the child's other parent. It's not an obligation, no matter how much you wish it was.

Not quite. Ever since we began recognizing that children are actually entitled to material support from their fathers, society's thinking on these questions has been evolving. Men can be ordered by a court of law to undergo paternity testing. Also, women can be forced to name the fathers of their children, or lose needed medical and financial benefits.

So no, we're increasingly inclined to take parental obligations seriously -- more seriously than we did in the past, certainly.

She has the same right to not reveal her name, as well. That's the law, in most places. You may be upset by it, but that doesn't change who the info belongs to. The offspring don't legally own access to their parents' names unless it's given to them.

This is precisely what's changing.

Like I said, social attitudes on this question are evolving. We're no longer quite so quick to hand parents all the cards any more.

[kwyjibo]

116. exactly my thoughts. n/t

[SoCalDem]

70. Depends.. IF the birth mother wants to be "found" she should be able

to register as "willing to be found", and WHEN the child reaches 18, they should be able to access this information easily and inexpensively.

[NekoChris]

75. My wife is adopted

And she has absolutely no knowledge of any medical history, any family history or anything because of this closed adoption nonsense. And then they have the gall to CHARGE you for information if you try to request it. This stuff should be kept and made available if you choose to look it up once you are 18 years of age. There are too many issues such as allergies, genetic understanding, and simply entitlements that need to be addressed for this to be kept under lock and key.

[ecstatic]

78. Wouldn't forced disclosure lead to more abortions?

I can see both sides. My dad was adopted. He knows his biological mom, and she strives to be an active part of our lives. However, if a woman doesn't want to be found, she should have that right. Pro Choice.

[Lyric]

88. It's only a Pro-Choice issue when the baby is still inside of her.

Please don't try to link a woman's right to autonomy over her body to this adoption issue. Once the baby is born, the rights of the child trump the rights of the parent every time.

[noamnety]

98. We're talking about adults, not "a child" at this point, right?

I thought we were talking about once the offspring are legally adults.

There's no reason that one adult has the right to access another adult's medical or emotional or sexual history without their consent.

[noamnety]

99. I think that's an obvious yes.

Some percentage of women who opt for abortions are only willing to do that because it's their understanding it will not follow them into their future lives. Without that promise, they'd pick a different option. And where abortions aren't legal, history shows they'll find a way to have one anyway.

In other words, if you don't give a woman a way to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, if you turn it into a lifelong commitment that is forced on her, you put her in a situation where she's likely to do something life threatening. Lots of women have fallen victim to that.

The people who don't get that, the people who think the woman loses the right to her own medical privacy once she makes certain decisions regarding her body, really don't understand pro-choice with all its implications.

[Lyric]

87. My opinion:

Children who were removed from their parents because of abuse/neglect issues: NO. Not unless the child requests it when they're 18 years old, and even then, only if the Adoptee agrees to counseling before and after the "contact" point.

Anyone who was a child of a voluntary relinquishment adoption: YES, on their 18th birthday at the very latest, or earlier if the adoptive parent gives permission ahead of time.

In both cases--no information should be given to the birthparents themselves--ONLY to the Adoptee, and only at their request, with free counseling provided. I also believe that there should be exceptions and special rules for releasing information to Adoptees who were conceived as a result of rape and/or incest.

I do not believe that a birthparent's right to "privacy" should take precedence over an adopted child's right to know who his parents were. Sometimes our rights conflict with one another, and we must decide whose rights are "more important". In this case, it is my opinion that the best interests of the adopted person trump the rights of the birthparent. I do NOT believe that knowing your kid could contact you someday when they're all grown up would make people less likely to adopt out a child. I haven't seen any actual evidence of such a consequence, just a whole lot of meaningless conjecture.

My stepfather was adopted, and has gone through horrific periods of depression and personal anguish over this issue. He desperately wants to know who his birthparents were and where they came from, but he has no recourse at all for finding out. It was a "closed" adoption (like all adoptions were way back then) and he can't afford a private investigator to help dig the information out.

It must be groovy and peachy to come from a loving, supportive adoptive home where your adoptive parents were wonderful to you. Not everyone gets that. My stepfather's parents adopted him because they were infertile Catholics who considered it their "God-given duty" to raise children. His life was hell growing up. Now he has mental health and self-esteem issues that could be helped to heal if only he could find his birthparents and at least get some closure in that respect.

Some adoptees might not want any contact with their birthparents, and that's fine. The choice is theirs to make. Others want that information more than *anything*, and they should have the option of having it.

[Exultant Democracy]

93. Of course, people have a right to their genetic legacy.

[noamnety]

97. That's not a "right".

It's an understandable desire, but not a right.

[Exultant Democracy]

108. When it comes to something like a medical history it isn't a desire it is a right

and anyone who denies someone their medical history is committing a pretty egregious violation.

[noamnety]

109. This goes back to what I was saying above

about fathers.

Women aren't required to tell their children who their fathers are. When we do force it, it's not because the state is concerned about the child getting their medical history; it's more to do with extortion of poor women so the state can get money out of the dad for child support.

My parents' medical history is theirs, not mine. I doubt that too many people here, except in the case of those who are actual care takers of their parents, have access to their parents medical records. That's not a right we recognize; we recognize it instead as a violation of rights (unless the parents have signed a release form or been declared incompetent).

[Shallah Kali]

126. Every doctor my Mother took me to as a kid wanted family history aka parental medical history

Every one of 'em. Of course since I was adopted and only had a few tidbits about my birth family none of which included important things like bleeders running in my family and extremely low blood pressure as well as disease like bipolar disorder and rheumatoid arthritis run on one side or the other. I found those out later when my birth Mother and I met.

It is common for parents who raise their genetic children to reveal medical information to their children's doctors. You seem to be implying this basic question is an uncommon one instead of standard behavior. As an adoptee I don't feel it is an obscene wish to want to know medical history of my genetic parents. It is a necessity, not a luxary, to ensure I get the preventive medical care I need.

[ulysses]

112. agnostic here.

As an adoptive father in an open adoption, I don't really have a dog in this fight. Chris' birthparents have visited us here, and I assume will again, in addition to our visiting them.

Past closed adoptions, though, are a different beast. Not all birthparents are the same, obviously, and neither are all adoptees, so I'm wary of lawmaking in this area. I don't really know.

[me b zola]

113. Yes!

With all respect to others with a different perspective/experience with adoption, my experience is not yours, yours is not mine.

As quickly as you would like to tell me that I don't have the right to infringe upon your rights, I would just as quickly like to remind you not to infringe upon me/deny me my rights.

In 1963 my birth mother gave birth to me in a Catholic home for unwed mothers. She gave me a name, which many birth mothers did not do. She was allowed to stay with me (even though at birth my adoptive parents were waiting) as long as she breast fed me for up to 3 months--she breast fed me for 3 months. I was not abused, neglected, nor unwanted. My birth mother's and my future were dictated by the culture of the time.

I deserve a birth certificate.

[me b zola]

114. From the article:

"States' experiences in providing this information make clear that there are minimal, if any, negative repercussions," said the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. "Outcomes appear to have been overwhelmingly positive for adult adopted persons and birthparents alike."

Opponents of open access argue that unsealing birth records violates the privacy that birthmothers expected when they opted to give up their babies. They raise the specter of birthparents forced into unwanted relationships with grown children who have tracked them down.

But the Donaldson Institute says most birthparents, rather than being fearful and ashamed, welcome contact with the children they bore. Its report says the states with open records have found that most birthparents and adoptees handle any contact with maturity and respect.

[RB TexLa]

115. Shouldn't HIPAA prevent this? If the birthmother won't release medical records no one can get them.

[shanti]

119. perhaps you misunderstand

the medical records are in the file from the time the birthmother is (usually) interviewed by the social worker prior to the adoption - it's voluntary. when adoptees ask for their info, what they get is nonidentifying information, so no privacy rules are breached. identifying information usually takes a court order to get.

[progressivebydesign]

117. As a birth mother, I said "yes" .. BUT there should be framework in place for privacy if needed..

I think that the records should be available in some fashion, as I'd love to be contacted. However, not every birth parent feels the same or is in a good position to open that part of their life up. What if the birth mother was a rape victim? What if she was in a precarious situation now? The way I understand California, or at least LA County, is that you can register as a birth parent, that when your child turns 18 then YES you can be contacted, and here is your info.

I think I'd support some sort of reciprocal info for birth mother's as well, a giant registry where you could connect, based upon date of birth, birth name, location, etc. As I know most adoptive parents immediately CHANGE the name of the child they've adopted...

[shanti]

122. sure, because many are

just named --- --- or "baby girl/boy" (last name). there IS reciprocal info for birth parents, but it's just information about the adoptive parents when the child was placed. however, if the birthmother knows who the adopting parents are, she already has this information...

[question everything]

121. No, unless the birth mother has agreed

If we want to prevent abortions by encouraging adoptions, than strict secrecy has to be assured to the birth mother. It is up to her whether she will want a visit from that child that she gave up for adoption.

[Samurai_Writer]

128. Keep spewing the anti-choice talking points

Abortion and adoption are two very separate things.

When I was pregnant, I NEVER wanted to place my child for adoption. That didn't make me rush out and get an abortion. I wanted to keep my child! But society at the time and the coercion over many months from parents, priests, adoption counselors, nurses, etc at the unwed mother's home made me believe I was not worthy of parenting my own child. Even though a scant 3 years later I was able and encouraged to parent a child. The only thing that was different? I was married at the time of my 2nd child's conception and birth.

The vast majority of birthmothers do not want privacy. It is forced upon them by the adoption agency.

[NorthernSpy]

130. it's not privacy that's being urged on birthmothers, RadFemFL -- it's secrecy...

"Privacy" suggests a concern for the inviolable dignity of the person. If they really cared about that, they probably wouldn't have gone to such lengths to interject themselves between mother and child in the first place.

[Shallah Kali]

123. Adopted Offspring Deserve Medical Info Often Not Available at Adoption

I am adopted and when I met my maternal birth family though mutual agreement it turns out there was a lot more medical information for me to know that was given at the time of adoption on both my maternal and paternal families. Silly little tidbits like bipolar (aka manic depression) hemophilia & rheumatoid arthritis running in the families either mentioned or members weren't diagnosed.

I have an adopted sister who when she met her birth mother found out most of the stuff in her record was out and out lies. Her meeting did not go well but at least she got a more accurate medical history out of it.

There are many diseases they know now are genetically influenced and this knowledge continues to grow. And again if family members are troubled but undiagnosed at the time of birth how can even accurate records at birth be good enough so that the offspring know which diseases need to be watched for and what actions possible to prevent it taken?

[alittlelark]

124. My FIL's daughter contacted him 15 or so years ago

He told her he is not interested. Hubby and my SIL ARE interested... but FIL will only say that it happened, not give them any contact info. (WTF was he thinking bringing up that she had contacted him).

He's currently on his 6th marriage.

[ourbluenation]

125. YES! Sign me, Adopted adult very happy to have found my birth family

and visa versa...all with the love and blessing of my adopted family. In my case it's been a very positive experience. I should say also that stastically most reunions are happy ones.

What there should be is a clear way for birthparents to let the case manager know that if the day comes that their adult child ever wants to contact them, that they would be open to it.

[Samurai_Writer]

129. There are already those types of things in place

There are state registries, and adoption agencies tell birthmothers they can put a note in their file to let them know they are open to contact if the adoptee comes searching. They don't work. The state registries have like a 2% success rate and most adoption agencies charge the adoptee several hundred dollars to 'search', and then only give them non-identifying information. If they even help in search and reunion at all.

That is why there should be open records and adoptees deserve their original birth certificates. It is a civil rights and medical issue.

By the way, I'm a birthmom who also was reunited after 27 years. My son is 29 now, and we have a great relationship. His adoptive parents are very supportive of him as well. Many adoptive parents don't support reunion, though, because of their fears regarding birthparents. Which is another topic altogether.

[Angela Shelley]

131. Yes, adult adoptees should have access

to their records.

[Ilsa]

133. The problem is that you aren't just asking for the medical history of the birth

mother. You are also asking for private medical histories on her relatives. Even if the state reneges on its agreement to hold her name private, she may not provide the information. It is her choice, isn't it?

And then, you may only have half the information if the father's id isn't available.