Names listed on birth certificates?

Question

How would you feel if the truth were printed on birth certificates of people who are adopted? That is, how would you feel if the full names of the biological mother and father, and the full names of the adoptive mother and father were on the birth certificate? What is your reference to adoption, and how would you want each person to be designated?

Answer 1

Hi Jessica,

Thanks for asking about birth certificates. I feel a birth certificate should record just that - the facts relating to a birth.

That is not to say adoptive parents do not have important roles in the adoptee's lives - they do! I would like to see their names on a legal adoption certificate instead. It seems more fitting of where their names should go since they were the ones doing the adopting, not the ones giving birth.

I also do not feel it is right to issue fake birth certificates to adoptees indicating that people who did not give birth to babies did. It can get rather silly when you think of a birth certificate claiming that people of different races gave birth to a child they clearly did not, sometimes in countries they have never even been to. I know of a case where a prospective adoptive family became pregnant with a biological child during their adoption process. The adoption was finalized, and both children ended up with birth certificates claiming their mother was pregnant with them during the same time.

It is time for the truth to return on birth certificates. The fake ones have outlived any original purpose of protection from the single parent stigma. Most adoptive parents today really do not have the need to pretend they gave birth to a child they did not anyways. And I do not see any point in putting 4 parents' names on any birth certificate.

You're right Jessica, something needs to be changed with respect to how birth certificates are handled, and I believe honesty is best. I also think every adult should have legal access to their real birth certificates whether they are adopted or not.

In my opinion, forged birth certificates are legal fiction.

julie j
reunited adoptee

Answer 2

Maybe it depends on the state. But I had my son in California 12 1/2 years ago and I put his father's name on the birth certificate. He did not need to sign it or any other document. I have heard some people say that the father has to be there to fill out the birth certificate, but all the mothers I know fill out the info for the birth certificate. It is the Acknowledgment of Paternity form that the father has to be there to sign. As someone suggested before, start with the Health Department or the Vital Records Department in the county where this child was born. If they will not give you a copy, then you are not listed as it is against the law for anyone but a listed parent to get a copy of a birth certificate.

Answer 3

To be honest, I think the only way to go is to have one (and only one) birth certificate for all that is a record of live birth, with the names of the parents at that time, and a second form, an adoption certificate, when needed. And both of those forms should be legally accessible by the person named, whether adopted or not. The adoption certificate would then be used in lieu of the BC for school registration, passports, etc. while the person is still a child.

There's no shame in being adopted. Besides, these days it seems a majority of adoptees are of a different race than their adoptive parents, so it's not much of a secret anyway.

I'd like to add one point, having read several posters talking about the privacy rights of first moms. First of all, barring the one experience referred to in an answer above, first moms have never been promised privacy as a matter of record. In fact, that hospital broke the law by not applying for the birth certificate properly. Second, and more important, when an adoptee is old enough to search, the first parents are that much older too. Don't assume that the fears and shame of a young girl at the time mean that she will never change her mind about wanting to know her child. And even if she doesn't want to know, it's not her right to deny access to the rest of the family, which can encompass grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and siblings.

Denying basic human and civil rights to adoptees is not an acceptable "solution" to the concerns or fears of a minority of parents.

Answer 4

here's a question that i've often pondered regarding adoptee bc:

isn't a birth certificate supposed to specify the events of the child's "birth?" that should include, at a minimum the name of the person who actually pushed the kid out, duncha think???

i do think that there should be 1) an unsealed birth certificate with all the birth information as with any other bc., and 2) an adoption certificate which gives the information regarding the child's adoptive parents, date of adoption, date of birth (if known) and place of birth.

simply stated, i think there should be two documents: a birth certificate and an adoption certificate.

EDIT: after reading the other responses, i see others have similar suggestions. now if we can just get the legislators to understand why it's important to open birth records and get past the myth of adoptee confusion and bparent confidentiality as a rationale for altering a person's birth record.

i also find it interesting that people are so concerned about bmoms when it comes to open adoption and unsealed records. any other time, when b.f.nmoms want reform of some sort, their arguments are minimized; and they are told to "get over it and move on..." just an observation...

Answer 5

I agree with BPD on the possibility of problems coming up in the future.
A Birth Certificate should be just that. Not a Biography.
There are other forms and paper work that list any details of a persons life after they are born. And those forms and details do not necessarily need to be general knowledge for every one. It is private and personal. Keep it that way.

Answer 6

There are two birth certificates when a child is adopted. One is the original with the birth parents names on it, and the second is revised. The revised birth certificate has the adoptive parents names on it. The revised birth certificate is not sent to the Vital Records until after the adoption is finalized. The original birth certificate is sealed in the records.

Answer 7

Since it's a BIRTH certificate, I think it should record the factual events of a birth. An adoption certificate can be appended when an adoption is finalized. The adoption certificate can have the facts of the adoption on it. All adopted persons have a factual birth certificate. Whether it's being used or not is a different story, since most adopted persons are using an amended birth certificate, which is not factual.

EDIT:
Stormonthelake points out the the adoptive parents should be able to decide. Actually, in some states, they do get to decide whether or not an amended birth certificate will even be issued. Upon the finalization of the adoption, the adoptive parents or the adopted person (if old enough to say) can request that the original birth certificate remain unsealed and remain the legal birth certificate of the adoptee.

I'll reiterate also that natural parents aren't drug addicted abusers who just don't want their kids. People who say such things really need to get over that crap. Do they have any idea how insulting that can be to the adopted person? Apparently they don't, or perhaps their stereotypes are more important to them than how their negative statements may affect others. At any rate, my natural family members are great and I enjoy a terrific relationsihp with them.

Answer 8

OBC is usually sealed by the courts at finalization. A new certificate showing names of adoptive parents is issued for the adoptive family and child.
It is done automatically in all 50 states for adoption cases. The place of birth/date of birth information is not changed however, if adopting across state lines or from foreign countries the certificate will be issued in the state of residence for the adoptive family.

Answer 9

My Mother was adopted, she has never been able to find anything out about her birth parents because all records were destroyed or lost. She doesn't know her nationality, what state she was born in, how old she actually is other than what she has been told and placed on records. She is in her 60's her adoptive parents were never open about her before adoption past and it was off limits to talk about, I suppose she is lucky to know she was adopted...I don't know
Anyway, her birth cert. is one made up after adoption and since she can remember she is as far as she is concerned missing pieces, she lives with this every day and now her adoptive parents are deceased and the new spouse admitted to destroying any paperwork of value in her search for where she came from, so NO I don't believe there is real reason to change BC

Answer 10

I'm not sure that having all parents on one certificate is practical or necessary or beneficial. I believe that adoptees should be able to get a copy of their OBC as soon as they're 18, or before 18 with their (a) parent's permission, or if they're an emancipated minor, or married (I got married when I was 16).

I don't agree that the adoptive parents should be able to decide! It should be the adult adoptee's right to decide. It's ridiculous that as an adult, I would need my PARENTS permission to associate with other adults (my birth parents).

I love the idea of an adoption certificate.

There were reasons for much of the secrecy surrounding adoption many decades ago. Couples facing infertility felt shame & wanted to hide this from their families. Unwed mothers were shamed into giving their babies up simply because they were not married. Children born out of wedlock carried the stigma of being a "bastard" throughout their lives. Amending birth certificates and sealing records was society's way of "fixing" all these 'shameful' realities.

Times have changed, and so has our culture. It is no longer "shameful" to be infertile. It's simply a (painful) fact of life. Unwed moms often choose to keep their children & are able to provide for them financially much better than in decades past. And the stigma of being a "bastard" is almost laughable today. Does any one even say that?

I'm NOT saying that I agree with the secrecy. I'm merely pointing out the reasons for things in the past. With many things in life, we often forget the reasons we do things the way they're done, but keep doing them the "same old way" because it's what we've "always done".

The stereotype of drug addicted, abusive birth mothers who don't want their children is really tiresome! Please get educated on the realities of adoption before spouting tired old cliches! Most mothers (in past decades) were forced by their families to relinquish their babies PRIMARILY because they were unmarried!

Or sometimes, just because they were poor & uneducated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Children's_Home_Society