why adoption record is official?

Question

every body should know about their origin.. its part of human right.. do you think so?

Answer 1

Something needs to be clarified: "Open" adoption does NOT mean "OPEN" records.

Regardless of the natural mom's & adopter's wishes, it is currently law in 44 states to permanently seal adoptee's birth certificates forever! The adoptee is left with a government-issued forged document with all the vital information on his birth certificate altered and/or blank!

So when you hear talk about how different & advanced things are in adoption today, that is referring to natural moms having some say as far as the home where her baby will go. In some cases she will also receive letters, visits, or pictures (at the adopter's discretion.) Adoptee's rights have NOT advanced to keep up with the rest of society's views on out-of-wedlock births today. Adoptees do NOT have the same rights that every other American adult has. Adult adoptees and others who care are fighting to have those rights restored with respect to the record of their births. Anyone who wants to join can check out the links below and get involved. There is also a petition to sign. It would be greatly appreciated.

To the posters above who have asked about natural mother's anonymity, I have said this before (check my earlier answers on this topic) & I'll say it again: Any person's record of birth does NOT belong to their mother. Nor does it belong to the adopters. The adoptee's right to know who they are and where they came from is not in conflict with a natural mother's preference for a relationship. That's something that can be decided between the two of them, just like it is with any other two adults. Furthermore, 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, regardless of the circumstances at the time.

I think that's a great misconception that the general public has today. They assume that "open adoption" includes that once an adoptee turns 18, everything is handed over to him, & that's simply not true! Unbelievable as it is, the government has decided to protect the powerful adoption agency's and some (not all) adopter's interests instead. Other countries around the world recognize & respect the rights of all their citizens, including adoptees, but not here.

You are absolutely correct, everybody should know about their origins. Thank you for bringing that up.

julie
reunited adoptee
rights activist

Answer 2

Yeah - you're right.

Sadly too many think that the right of the adoptive parent and the biological mother trump the rights of the adoptee.

Me - I say BOO HOO to them.

They are the adults - they are the ones holding all the cards - and making all the decisions for a CHILD.

If a woman wishes to give away her child - if it isn't done with openness - then it isn't done with love.
(sorry - but too bad if it hurts too much - they hurt the child more by not being open and having contact)

Love equates to caring for someone - why would a mother be encouraged to not only give up her child - but then not let that child know them - or know their history????

(just to clarify - I know many first mums that have tried to keep adoptions open - only for adoptive families to move away and close them - they are not legally binding as they stand in the US today - the adoptive parent has all the power)

Similarily - if an adoptive parent decides to not tell the child things - and not have an open adoption with the mother - then the adoptive parent does not truly love the child.

How can anyone say they love someone with all their heart - but lie, keep secrets, not allow contact and cause pain at the same time???

Those that do this - do it solely to protect themselves.

Why is it OK to inflict this pain on a child????

Added in response to Clare above - mothers during that period were never promised anonymity - nor did they ask for it. They also were not able to get abortions as they were not an option back then. I know of no mother that did not want to be found. Not one. Yes some are out there - but the majority want to be found.
I suggest you read up on adoption history through sites such as Bastard Nation.
http://www.bastards.org/
It's myths such as this that the NCFA want alive - to keep adoptee record closed and sealed.

Answer 3

You know, I have recently received all of my information and not once anywhere was there a paper in which my natural mother said that I could not look for her. There are no legal document that will guarantee that this will happen. Natural parents should not be promised this ever because it is just not true.
When a mother signs away her rights to a child, she is not erasing the fact that she actually did give birth. Relinquishing a child does not cause amnesia.

All adoptees everywhere are entitled to their true identities. We should not be considered second class citizens simply because our biological parents relinquished us.

We have the right to our original birth certificates and our medical information.

Answer 4

Yes access to one's own identity and birth record is a fundamental human right that is denied to adoptees in the USA

Sigh, it's sad to see how ignorant people are about closed sealed records and their original purpose - it was never to protect anyone's privacy in the way it's being told today and certainly not privacy between mother and child!

Freedom of Association? anyone ever heard of that one?

Adoptees don't have that

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

US Adoptees don't have the benefit of that one either

I could go on but I can't be bothered 'cos most people out there don't want to listen anyways

Answer 5

It is ABSOLUTELY part of everyone's human right.

Some of these answers make me want to take a shower. Bleh. Can you put yourself in the position of the BABY for just one minute? We come with PAPERS? Thanks, I'm not a german shepherd.

Gee, sorry by my VERY EXISTENCE I make the mother that gave me away feel uncomfortable or tortured or socially awkward. Like *I* or any other adoptee had ANY say about being adopted.

I'm just a person who deserves the same human rights as anyone else. I don't care HOW I came into the world, I am here NOW and i deserve all of my truth. Period.

Answer 6

nicely, you're assuming that each thing the Romans recorded survived. for sure the different is real, many of the respected information have been lost to time. whether there became an respected start/dying/courtroom checklist of Jesus someplace, there's no reason to think of it would have survived. a extra ideal argument could be to point out the absence of Jesus from mid first century Jewish historians like Philo and Thallus.

Answer 7

Yes. Most adoptions now days are open adoptions that allow the birth parents to get pictures and updates on the child. This is a much better way to go for knowing where you came from and in case of a medical emergency.

Answer 8

I'm wondering if your question is actually about the adoption records being sealed?

My records about my first parents are officially "sealed" meaning I am not allowed to obtain information about my original parents. Their right to privacy is protected through the state where I was born. I do believe that it is my right to know where I came from and who my ancestors were.

But my rights to live without interference from people who did not want me have also been protected should they change their mind.

I hope that answers your question.

Answer 9

Having a baby out of wedlock used to be something that ruined a girls reputation. They would be "sent away" to a "home for unwed mothers" when she starting showing her pregnancy. The family would usually lie to their friends and say she was visiting a relative.

Yes, a "home" for them. They lived there until the baby was born, and they weren't even allowed to see the baby. It would be immediately wisked away and when it was fit, was taken to an orphanage.

Then the girl would come back home again. The family never wanted anyone to know what really happened because the last thing they wanted back then was for anyone to ever find out the girl had a baby out of wedlock. It totally ruined her reputation and sometimes, the whole families reputation.

Many girls would not have let the pregnancy come to term and had the baby and given it over for adoption if they weren't assured their identity would never be revaled. That's why adoptions were almost always sealed and kept secret years ago.

Nowadays, it's much more acceptible for a girl to have a baby out of wedlock, and more and more adoptions are open because there's nothing to hide.

Answer 10

Most people who adopt a baby will get its "papers" this will give some basic information without identifying the mother or father. They will know what and where that child's family originated in MOST cases,

Also people seem to use open adoption more than closed these days, this will give a bit more information, b/c you will have the chance to ask birth mom and/or dad the questions about the baby's history. In open adoption you may even know the birth mother's name, this is a benefit for later in life when adoptee is/if searching for birth mom.