Current Record Retrieval

Although adoption policies vary state to state, most have a generic and very stringent policy. The most common record retrieval policy is that one must have a court order to receive information regarding their adoption, whether the adoptee is requesting a birth certificate, medical information, or just family information (Shalev 42). However, this information is not readily made available to them. They must go before a judge and demonstrate exactly why they need this information, or demonstrate “good cause” (Shalev 42). An example of an undeniably good cause is a needed transplant by a close relative for the adoptee themselves or their child/children (Cornick 319). Some adoptees file court orders numerous times before ever having one issued, if one at all. This is the method enforced by the majority of the States.

Once adoptees began to speak out about their fury in regards to their being denied the right to their original birth certificates and knowledge about themselves, support groups and leagues were formed and creating quite the outcry, for example the Adoptees Liberty Movement Association (ALMA) (Modell 29) or Bastard Nation, an intentionally confrontational title to grab the attention of society (Pertman 79). Bastard Nation leans very heavily on the radical end of an activist group for adoptees rights, but has made many strides. A member of their group singlehandedly started the petition to give adoptees of the age of 21 the right to their original birth certificates without a court order in Oregon (Pertman 79). Measure 58, as it was called, went through several appeals because seven birth mothers filed suit stating that it breached the contract they signed when they gave their children up for adoption in that their identities were never to be revealed (“Balancing Rights in Adoption”). However, after many appeals Measure 58 still stands today in Oregon, and there are similar measures in place in Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Maine, and New Hampshire (Modell 10).

Other new-wave adoption records policies that follow suit have not had as much media coverage, but nonetheless give adoptees more access to their original birth certificates than the majority of states. Alaska and Kansas interestingly enough, never had closed record policies (“American Adoption Congress”). They just require the adoptee to request their record after they turn eighteen years old (“American Adoption Congress”). Each state also allows adoptees to have their information released to their biological parents if they so wish after filing the appropriate paperwork (“American Adoption Congress”). And then there are states that deny adoptees access their original birth certificates at the biological parent’s discretion, indicating that if they file a veto then the adoptee cannot receive their original birth certificate (“American Adoption Congress”); this occurs in Delaware, for example. This kind of policy is detrimental to an adoptee. Not only does it single out adoptees and is the policy in only one state nationwide, but it offers no explanation to the adoptee as to why their biological parents have chosen to not have their records disclosed. The psychological toll an adoptee must face in a situation like this would be unbelievable. When an adoptee would assume they were simply going to request their original birth certificate and receive it, and yet discover there had been a veto filed against the release of it, and never know why would one was filed, would be such a difficult matter with which to cope.

Other States that allow some original birth certificates to be disclosed but not to all adoptees are those who have birth date limitations. Birth date limitations are when an adoptee can receive their original birth certificate if they were born before or after an exact date (Fessler 248), Illinois and Massachusetts each practice a version of this policy (“American Adoption Congress”). However, Illinois’ policy is a combination of the birth date limitation and the veto policy. In addition to the birth date limitation, there is a veto policy in place yet if a veto has been filed by the biological parent it is only valid up until their death, after which the adoptee could receive their original birth certificate (“American Adoption Congress”) . The problem with this policy is that it is too involved; the adoptee who would have a veto on file would then need to check back with the court year after year to see if their parent had passed on. Several concerns stem from this; the court’s documents for their file could not be up to date when the adoptee contacts them thus that could delay them retrieving their original birth certificate. And also, it would not be the case that the adoptee would know any information regarding their biological parent that they could gage when they would possibly die, in order for them to save some time and energy reaching out to the court trying to retrieve their original birth certificate.

With all the changes in policy in a few states and given the national attention, it is not a surprise that rebuttal groups like Concerned United Birthparents (CUB) were also created in an effort to have their voices heard (Modell 31). CUB and other opposition to the legal changes being made in the realm of adoptions were voiced in Tennessee when they passed their own modern version of an open records law (Fischer 447). The policies in Tennessee allow adoptees that are eighteen to access their birth certificates; however, it also gives the right to the birthparents to “veto” the adoptees attempt to reconnect with them in any way (Fischer 447). Tennessee goes even further to limit the record retrieval process to those adoptees who were conceived from rape or incest (“American Adoption Congress”).

Even now there is a debate in New Jersey over whether or not to pass a new law allowing adoptees to have their birth certificates with their birthparents’ name “blanked out,” thus only containing their own information (State of New Jersey). Yet, the majority of states are already doing this without the actual birth certificate, giving adoptees “non-identifying information.”

Such information may include age, physical description, race, ethnicity, religion, medical history, and the level of education of the surrendering parent or parents” (Fessler 249).

In a few states, not only adoptees and birthparents, but siblings and other kin can register with an agency in order to be added to an adoption registry. Once registered they state that they are looking and willing to get in contact with the person on the other end of the adoption, and if that person makes contact with the registry, then the registry bridges the two together (Pertman 45). The uplifting dimension of registries is that they open the process up to more than just adoptees and birth parents; nonetheless, they are very difficult to use, are not advertised, and they are also not available in every state based on the legal obligations (Pertman 45). The registry option is also not available free of charge. There are fees for the search process as well as the liaison between the two parties if the opposite party is found (Fessler 249).

Arguing Against Adoptees Having their Biological Information

There are three primary arguments against adoptees receiving their original birth certificates: (1) Birth parents who have already given their children up for adoption now face the possibility of their identities being known; (2) the open records process deters people from placing children up for adoption; (3) and, finally, the right to privacy argument: such parents believe they have the right to be anonymous. They believe that when they placed a child for an adoption they were promised, based on the policy at the time, that their child would never be told their identity. However, it is not stated in any of the contracts that birth parents will remain anonymous; thus, the argument that giving adoptees access to their original birth certificates breaches this privacy is an invalid argument (Pertman 81). Even so, currently in most progressive adoption policies States allow birthparents to file “Contact Preference Forms” which the adoptee files as well when they requests their original birth certificate and receives it from the other party in their records for their personal awareness (“American Adoption Congress”) . However, one could argue that an adoptee can still attempt to contact their biological parents if they wish and can find that information. One interview quoted demonstrates how birth mothers can combat unwanted contact: … any adoptees should have the right to that first phone call. If the other person on the other end isn’t interested, [we] should hang up and that should be it… If [we] push harder than the other person wants, there are laws against harassment… But the government can’t tell [us we] can’t pick up the phone and call another person (qtd. in Pertman 93-94).

In addition to this privacy argument, any United States citizen should be conscious of the fact, and any person placing a child up for adoption should be especially aware, that policies change based on the voting habits of the voting public. Just because the policies at the time their child was placed up for adoption entailed a sealed birth certificate, does not mean that that record would remain sealed indefinitely.

The other argument is that if the disclosure of original birth certificates did begin to happen in more states and/or federally, this will deter women from choosing adoption and they will just choose abortion as the alternative (Modell 62). This argument is valid in the sense that being able to give life and not be responsible may be a more viable option for some women than terminating a pregnancy when they believe that their child will not ever come back to find them, but once the latter is a possibility, terminating a pregnancy may seem easiest to a mother. However, carrying a child for nine months, giving birth, and then handing that baby over to another person are not easy tasks. Those tasks are daunting and selfless, and for a woman to do that, their identity possibly being known twenty-one years later as proposed in this research is not something that should deter them from having the baby entirely, for that is not as difficult a task as the others.

The Need for Change

Adoption records, and more specifically original birth certificates need to be made available to adoptees for the main reason that it is their own records but also because of the psychological factors associated with being adopted and not knowing one’s own roots. It has been argued time and time again that it is “crucial to the adopted person’s self identity” and without such information an adoptee is adversely affected psychologically (Carp 147-148). It was reported that 70% of the adoptees in one study employed in an “inner search” about their true identity (Brodzinsky and Palacios 220). The study also showed that a portion of these individuals demonstrated low self-worth and esteem because they were highly disappointed with the way in which their lives had played out (Brodzinsky and Palacios 221). All of those who demonstrated this “inner search” described their desire for more biological information about themselves (Brodzinsky and Palacios 221), that which is not available to all of them, but to some under the long and detailed processes detailed throughout this study.

Three child psychiatrists are quoted as saying that adoptees that have searched for their biological parents do it with “’the need to establish a clearer self-identity… [and with information or a reunion, they feel] whole and integrated as individuals’” (qtd. in Carp 151). The more open the process can become for an adoptee, the less rejected they will feel and hopefully a clearer perspective will emerge regarding why they were placed up for adoption (Brodzinsky and Palacios 147).

Ideal Retrieval Process

Adoption policies have wavered a great deal over the last century more than any other time in American history. Now more than ever society is demanding a more open records policy, one that would eliminate secrecy from an adoptee’s past; this fact is evident given the more open policies that several States have now adopted and others are fighting to adopt. Effective changes in the manner in which an adoptee will be able to receive their birth certificates and records will not come from an agency or even a state for that matter: it needs to come from federally regulated adoption policy that demands the States have the same policies giving all adoptees the rights to their own personal birth certificates. It is fact alone that a birth certificate belongs to an adoptee, not their birth parents, so they should have the right to view them at their leisure.

The most effective and efficient manner in which adoptees should be allowed access to their original birth certificate is to first give access to all adoptees nationwide and have this regulated federally. Then an adoptee should be able to go to any court and request their original birth certificate from the court that has it given that they provide the appropriate documentation just as the States that disclose original birth certificates require they do so now. Then the court should send their original birth certificate to them and any other documentation that was sealed in their record. This process should be permitted once an adoptee reaches the age of twenty-one.

This is because upon receiving their original birth certificate, contact with their birth parents is a possibility, and that is a decision that requires maturity and a clear understanding of the possible implications one that needs to be made as an adult. John Waickwicz stated in his interview that “…teenagers… make a great deal of rash decisions, [an adoptee should not have] that kind of information and not use it properly” (Waickwicz). Once an adoptee is twenty-one years old they can approach court at any time to receive their original birth certificate or they may never request it, but the option is there for those who want it with no strings attached. For those who do request it, they should receive it either by mail or in person, but in its original condition, without anything omitted unlike the current proposed New Jersey legislation.

Although some of the States have limitations on who can receive their records based on whether or not they were conceived under normal circumstances, this should not determine whether or not an adoptee receives their original birth certificates under the new policies. If this limitation remained in place, it would only discriminate against a few of those who were adopted and would be an unfair disadvantage against those adoptees. Also, some States currently only allow adoptees born before or after certain dates to obtain their original birth certificates. Again, this should not be something that prohibits an adoptee from acquiring their original birth certificate since they have no control over when they were born. There should also not be a veto policy of any kind. A “Contact Preference Form” can be an option for adoptees and birth parents to file; however, it should continue to be nonbinding so that each party can still make their own decision whether or not to make contact. This form should be released to the adoptee along with the original birth certificate, or any time after, and only to the birth parent at their request and approval of the adoptee.

An area of interest for adoption would be educating those who are adopted. Throughout this research, it was found that those who were adopted and interviewed did not know nearly as much as they should have known about the adoption process. When the three younger individuals were interviewed, one individual being nineteen and two twenty-one year olds, none of them were aware of the fact that there even was an original birth certificate. One of them even believed that she “was adopted so closely to birth that [her] birth certificate says [her] [adoptive] parents’ names. So there [wasn’t] an original birth certificate…” (Negri) Unfortunately, even adoptive parents may not be in a position to educate their children regarding adoption. This would be especially difficult when the subject would be about their children going to receive information about their biological parents. A method in which all children who are adopted can be educated will be difficult to develop as one can imagine, since most adoptions are closed and it is difficult to determine when if at all adoptive parents have told their children that they are adopted. A packet could be distributed when an adoptee approaches the court; however, the issue with this is that adoptees should be aware and understand the policies prior to approaching the court. Thus, the only way as of now to have an appropriate educational avenue is to have the information available online. Possibly in the future another method can be found as well to ensure all adoptees receive important information regarding adoption and adoption policy.

Conclusion

Even before an educational process for adoptees is implemented, adoptees would be wellsuited with a federally regulated open records policy. The proposed policy would allow any adoptee who is twenty-one years of age to approach the nearest court and request their original birth certificate. Giving adoptees access to their original birth certificates is the first step to allowing them admission to first-hand knowledge about themselves but also the information needed to pursue a search for their biological parents and/or family if so desired. Without such documents, adoptees are denied their own history and a future of possibilities. The proposed policy changes are not too radical or too conventional to not address the sealed original birth certificate matter. The proposed policy changes permits adoptees to access their original birth certificates fairly and allows them to do what they will with the information it provides them.

Works Cited:

Adamec, Christine, and William Pierce. Encyclopedia of Adoption New York, NY: Facts on File, 1991. Print.

"Balancing Rights in Adoption." New York Times Feb. 1999: 22. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11 Oct. 2010.

Breckenridge, Sophonisba. The Family and the State Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1934. 356-414. Print.

Brodzinsky, David and Jesús Palacios. “Psychological issues in adoption: research and practice.” Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2005. Print.

Carp, E. Wayne. Family Matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Print.

Cornick, Matthew S. A Practical Guide to Family Law. New York, NY: West Publishing Company, 1995. 307-331. Print.

Fessler, Ann. The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe V. Wade. New York City, NY: Penguin Group USA, 2007. Print.

Fischer, Robert L. "The Emerging Role of Adoption Reunion Registries: Adoptee and Birthparent Views." Child Welfare 81.3 (2002): 445-470. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11 Oct. 2010.

"Legislation." American Adoption Congress. American Adoption Congress, Apr 2010. Web. 01 Nov 2010. <http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/reform_adoption.

McGriff, Shari. Interview by Heather McGriff. 11 Nov 2010. Print

Modell, Judith. A Sealed and Secret Kinship. New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 2002. Print.

Negri, Tessa. Interview by Heather McGriff. 09 Nov 2010

Pertman, Adam. Adoption Nation. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. Print.

Shalev, Carmel. Birth Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989. Print.

State of New Jersey. “Senate Committee Substitute for Senate, Nos. 799 and 1399 ” 2010. Print.

Waickwicz, John. Interview by Heather McGriff. 08 Nov 2010.

Walker, Emily. Interview by Heather McGriff. 08 Nov 2010.

United States. “How Many Children Were Adopted in 2000 and 2001?” Washington DC: Child's Welfare Information Gateway, 2004. Web. 10 Oct 2010. <http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_adopted/s_adopted.