Why is anyone AGAINST opening adoption records?

Question

Especially those who have no connection to the adoption triad (birthparent, adoptee, adopter)? Who are people trying to protect?

I believe that adoptees should have access to their original birth certificate and records so that they can search if they choose to. I believe that the birthparents should have access to the same info for the same reason.

Why would anyone be against this????

Answer 1

Hi,

There are no good reasons to permanently seal adoption records - only excuses.

Gershom & Lillie, great thoughts there!

Wanda - Why should adoptees be permanently “bound” to any agreement they never saw, never signed, and never agreed to? If arrangements were made on their behalf as infants, adoptees are adults now, no longer in need of any automatic protections from anyone. I believe it is the agencies and some (not all) adoptive parents who really want to continue hiding behind sealed record laws.

“R” – If the problem is “the child might not know they are adopted,” then the answer is they need to know! There should always be honesty! If all the lies and secrecy surrounding adoption were eliminated, the things you mentioned would not be issues at all. The solution is open records for the adoptee. It works just fine in every other country & some US states. Suggesting it’s better to deny them the truth of their origins is morally wrong & detrimental to the adoptee on many levels. Adoptees are not dirty little secrets, they are humans worthy of the same dignity & rights that you & all others have. To your assertion that “many birthparents don’t want to be found,” you should read the statistics from adoption.com and my other links below!

"Rights to records" & "searching" are 2 separate issues. Unsealing records does not necessarily mean a search will be conducted nor a relationship will develop, as relationships always need to be mutual regardless of adoption status. However, adoptees DO have a right to know who they are & where they came from. If not everyone chooses to search, that's ok. They still deserve their info when/if they want it, once they are adults.

Closed adoptions were forced not chosen because there was no other type of adoption then. Anonymity could not have been promised because adoptions aren’t even finalized until at least 6 months after relinquishments are signed. Not all children are adopted anyways. Records are not sealed until an adoption is final so if one is not, then how could anyone guarantee that? If in fact anyone did promise that, they would not have had the legal authority to do so, and it would have been unwanted in most cases. Interestingly enough, in more than two decades of fighting against adoptee civil rights, not one single document promising “anonymity” has ever been submitted anywhere by sealed-records lobbyists. What natural moms DID sign were relinquishment of PARENTING rights. They did not agree to not ever have any contact with their child. Most are overjoyed to later learn what became of their children lost to adoption.

For those who say it destroys the adopter’s bond w/the child they adopted, that child is a human being in his own right, not something to be owned & controlled forever. That child grows up & doesn’t need or want decisions made on his behalf anymore. As adults, they are free to associate w/any other adults they choose. Adoptive parents shouldn’t feel they need sealed records to assure them a place in the adoptee’s heart. Love is not something that diminishes if you divide it among more people. It’s the opposite, it grows. Parents are capable of love for more than one child, people are capable of loving their in-laws or stepparents. Adoptees are also capable of loving many people. Nobody should try to deny others the opportunity for additional love in their lives, nor should they deny them the truths about themselves. Searching is a personal quest & it's independent of the love that adoptees may feel from any other sources, it does not replace it.

Those who make a living off of the adoption industry are the ones fighting the hardest to keep adoptees away from their records. They also fight to keep unethical practices hidden. It's obviously a very lucrative business, and right or wrong, they are not about to give that up easily. They claim to speak for the natural moms, when in fact, it's their own interests they are trying to preserve. Natural moms overwhelmingly tell a different story.

julie
reunited adult adoptee
& rights activist

“ The law must be consonant with life. It cannot and should not ignore broad historical currents of history. Mankind is possessed of no greater urge than to try to understand the age-old questions: “Who am I” “Why am I?” Even now the sands and ashes of the continents are being sifted to find where we made our first step as man. Religions of mankind often include ancestor worship in one way or another. For many the future is blind without a sight of the past. Those emotions and anxieties that generate our thirst to know the past are not superficial and whimsical. They are real and they are “good cause” under the law of man and God.”
The petition is conditionally granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED
April 9, 1979
[Signed]
WADE S. WEATHERFORD, JR.
Resident Judge, Seventh Judicial
Circuit Court, South Carolina

Read at least # 60-65 Oregon ruling on privacy http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/privacy/Or_opening_adoption_records.htm
"A birth is simultaneously an intimate occasion and a public event--the government has long kept records of when, where and by whom babies are born. Such records have myriad purposes, such as furthering the interest of children in knowing the circumstances of their birth. The Tennessee legislature has resolved a conflict between that interest and the competing interest of some parents in concealing the circumstances of a birth."
"Neither a birth nor an adoption may be carried out in the absolute cloak of secrecy that may surround a contraception or the early termination of a pregnancy. A birth is an event that requires the generation of an accurate vital record that preserves certain data, including the name of the birth mother. That the state has a legitimate interest in preserving such data is not disputed here. We recognize that a birth mother may well have a legitimate interest in keeping secret the circumstances of a birth that is followed by an adoption and also that an adoptee may have a legitimate interest in discovering the identity of his or her birth mother. Legitimate interests, however, do not necessarily equate with fundamental rights. The state may make policy choices to accommodate such competing interests, just as the state has done with the passage of Measure 58. We conclude that the state legitimately may choose to disseminate such data to the child whose birth is recorded on such a birth certificate without infringing on any fundamental right to privacy of the birth mother who does not desire contact with the child."

Answer 2

One misconception is that opening records will lead to contact. Of course, open records is different than contacting birth parents. Records have to do with accessing documents that are ours. Indeed, keeping them closed, rather than preventing birth mothers from unwanted contact, forces adoptees to search for birth mothers to find out the information contained in those records. Though the argument to "protect" the privacy of birth mothers is fairly common, it really seems to be a distraction, since it is legal to search for birth mothers. Indeed, there seem to be no good reason for keeping these records sealed. Birth mothers were never guaranteed confidentiality that some claim. Abortions do not seem to rise when records are open. And there is not a rash of stalking or other unwanted behaviors when records are open. And, most importantly, none of the reasons offered for keeping the records closed explain why adoptees should be denied their rights to access these records. All of which leads me to wonder what the real reasons are? Some people must believe some of the bad reasons offered. But if that's the only thing preventing the records from being opened, the clear arguments against these reasons should have led to the records being opened by now. I don't know that I believe any of the conspiracy theories. But there is definitely something strange here.

Answer 3

I also agree that adoptee's should have access.

But birth moms are allowed options that can deny this to their child placed for adoption. Some just don't want to be found.I also think some adoptive parents prefer this as well so not to ever feel threatend.

Sadly, the person most effected by this is the adoptee. I personally don't think either party has the right to deny information from any adoptee. For better or worse everyone deserves the right to know where they came from.

Answer 4

Thank you, Lillie. You deserve a standing ovation for that answer.

The official reasons are all crap. We moms were never guaranteed privacy or anonymity. And most of us don't want it, either. Most of us WANT to be found. (Sorry LC, I'm too lazy to pull up the link to the stats, but the stats ARE out there... google it.)

And as for the abortion argument... the idea that if women don't have the option for confidential adoptions, that more will get abortions... this has been proved to be false in the states that are opening records. In fact abortion has DECREASED or stayed roughly static in open-records states.

So... I agree with what some previous posters have said: it all comes down to money for the agencies and the insecurity of some (not all) adoptive parents.

It's disgusting, and I am sooooo incredibly sick of people who are NOT natural moms talking all about us, our reasons for relinquishing, and our stance on open records.

Yes, there are a FEW moms out there who don't want to be found. However, I don't see why that should negate adoptee rights. There are some people I don't want to talk to, and you know what? If they contact me, I tell them "Sorry, don't want to have anything to do with you." Why can't the same happen in situations where the moms don't want a relationship? Or in situations where the moms contact the adoptees and the adoptees don't want a relationship?

This myth that we need the government to protect us from each other is so damaging and SO insulting.

Answer 5

The people most against opening adoption records are adopting parents and agencies. It is not the birthparents, although it is true that some do not want to be found. As far as the rest, I can't fathom how they can have an opinion when most have never spent any time learning anything about the subject one way or the other.

Answer 6

Adoption records in Australia have been opened since the early 90's.
There has NOT been an increase in abortions.
There has NOT been anyone harassed or hurt - by an adoptee or a first mother.

In the US - records are closed and remain closed simply because the NCFA lobby heavily - on behalf of adoptive parents and adoption agencies - to keep them closed.

It only benefits THEM.

Answer 7

I do not think there are many places that have no way of opening adoption records. This is how some states allow open files and this to me seems to be a good compromise.
the adoptee, the adoptive parents and the biological parent all have the option of filing a form that says they grant permission for the files to be opened. As soon as these three (the only three that should be allowed to have a problem with it) have all sent in the proper permission to be contacted forms Social Services will send out the file and any updated information to all three parties. And truth be told 18 is probably a very good age limit to use because kids younger then that really do need to grow up first before they can properly handle this information. (of course some kids are ready sooner and some never are but 18 seems like a good age to argue in favor of from my stand point)

Answer 8

I think the reasons for people being against open records varies.

The politicians and lawmakers who are most vehemently against open records probably are trying to protect themselves...they probably have a "dirty little secret" that they don't want popping out of the woodwork to destroy their political career.

Same with the church's stance, I really believe that they have something to hide.

The AP's who don't want them opened are probably looking out for their own best interests; making sure little adoptling only has ONE SET of parents...the adopters. It's fear and insecurity that keeps AP's on the closed-record agenda.

Adoptees who are against it, are probably the adoptees who deep down are very very hurt by being given up, and angry at their natural parents, or they feel the "thou shalt be grateful" to the extreme and will do anything to "protect" their adopters. I know quite a few fellow adoptees who have this attitude, and it is really sad.

Of course adoption agencies don't want them opened, because then the truth will come out about the lies and abuses that were perpetrated onto the natural mothers...and the coercion to get that baby.

Then there are the people who are in no way connected with adoption...I think it's really simple ignorance. People really do believe in all the hype about "promised anonymity" and the ongoing belief in the big magical dumpster that all of us adoptees were saved from. They think natural mothers are these cold, unfeeling, selfish people who either A) were all to happy to get rid of their little inconvenience or B) were actually able to forget all about being pregnant for 9 months and pushing a 7 - 8 pound infant out of her vagina after 20 hours of labor and 2 hours of pushing.

But I think us women who have had children know, that is something you just don't "Forget".

There are lots of reasons, but I think the underlying current is fear, ignorance, and protection of their own self-interests.


What most people DON'T know is, however, that n-mothers have never been guaranteed any privacy. Have you ever seen a relinquishment agreement? I have, and nowhere on it does it say anything about anonymity or privacy. This whole "privacy promise" thing is a myth.

Answer 9

I agree i am an adoptee an am 21 i was told once i turned 21 my records would be released to me WELL GUESS WHAT WRONG i came to find out they lied to me the whole time cause when i tried to get tehm i was told i could only have medical records an that it would cost money. Why on earth would they want me to pay for MY history ugh i think its wrong to hide the information,

Answer 10

I am completely for unsealing the birth/adoption records after the child turns 18.

I only say this because when you unseal adoption records, that also gives the birth parent access to the records, and sometimes birth parents aren't good people, and can be bad for the developing emotions of a child/teen.

In my experience, I was adopted by my grandmother. Until I was about 4, I thought my birth mom was my sister. THen she got mad at my mom and blurted out "She's not your real mom" to me, which hugely confused me. There is a right time, and a right place to tell a child that they are adopted, but not when they're 4 and just learning how to deal with emotions. I had contact with her until I turned 18. Then I got fed up with her lies and cut off all contact with her. She was very emotionally abusive my entire life.

I realize that not all adoptions have such circumstances, I just think that the ones that are, would be much safer if adoption records were sealed until the 18th birthday.