Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
craig the point is, that many anti adoption people use these two issues - health records and open birth records in order to attack adoption as a way to build our families.
I will be honest with all of you. It is untrue that all people who were not adopted have health records that extend back several generations that contain relevant and helpful information. It just isn't true.
I know how my parents died. Of old age and a heart attack. Not very descriptive. I am less clear about how my grand parents died. Less clear is a nice way of saying that i don't know. Terms such as "died in his sleep" or "passed of old age" were frequently used. How is that helpful? Hospitals were death houses, and preventive medicine and regular check ups were not practiced. I do not have lots of relevant information.
My ancestors emigrated to the united states in the late 19th century from eastern europe. Do you think i have access to those records? Better question, do you think there were records? I don't think that any of these people even arrived in the us medical records in hand? Do you really think that? These people were not yuppie health fanatics, they were peasants.
Many of their names were changed by people at ellis island or when they first migrated to london, england from the russian empire ( someplace near belarus and ukraine, but i'm not really sure)
they didn't ask for their names to be changed. But they were. They apparently got over it. The "nachmanovitches" in england became the "newmans" on my mother's side because it was hard for officials to pronounce and "too foreign sounding". I have no idea how they felt about this. I just think that they were glad to be free of pogroms and to be free of institutionalized antisemitism.
In america, a great aunt was admitted to bellevue hospital in nyc, which was not only a psychiatric hospital. She had stomach pain and didn't speak english. They removed her appendix and she lived. While she was there, the people in bellevue thought that she had a bad first name.it was foreign sounding so they removed that also. Without consulting the parents, they changed her first name from yanna to josephine, which they thought was more suitable for an american girl. As far as i know, she was happy with her new american name.
Some fifty years after other relatives whose names i will never know, and who i ever met, ones who might have been sickly or healthy, were killed in the concentration camps of eastern europe. I don't know which ones, what there names were or how they died. Gas, fire, disease, torture or starvation. I have no idea if they had health records when they entered the death camps. I just know they didn't leave.
I bring this up, because it's really time that people get a grip and realize that there are worse things than being adopted by people who really want you. I guess that the adoptees on this board are unhappy because it comes across as an obsession. An obsession with birth records and what they say, health records and an anger about adoption that is palpable to anyone who spends just a little time here. I have been berated as have others, for not wanting contact and for giving our daughter an american name. She requested that her birth name also be officially removed so it would not be announced at her 6th grade commencement. We did that for her. The names of her parents were not given to us. She is not curious. I've been taken to task for this too. I can't make a teenager be interested in something. And you can't make me feel guilty for adopting and thinking of our daughter as our qwn and no oneelses.
How is knowing that great great grandma anna had consumption or triple great grandfather john died from the grippe? These old medical terms are meaningless today,
there are far worse things in life than being adopted. I don't have any medical history. Neither does my wife. And we come from very different back grounds. You could be persecuted or killed for your religion. I most likely could, if i really wanted to, contact a distant cousin who is a professor of history and lives on the west coast, and do some research to find out how those relatives died in concentration camps. But it would not tell me about their health. The nazis kept very accurate records, after all. But it's maudlin and i really don't want to know. I still won't have medical records.
Just live as though you could have a family history of say, heart disease. Live the way i do and my wife does because we do not have any medical records either. My wife's mother died in the 1980s of some sort of "female cancer". She doesn't know what and neither does her dad.
This is why i think the whole health record thing is a ruse. I do think your pain over being adopted is real, though, and i feel really bad for all of you. There are some wrongful adoptions and that should stop. No one is in favor of that. But clear and concise medical records? That's a dream. Don't blame adoption for not having them. Hardly anyone does.
My daughter was adopted and she wants the right to have her birth certificate to have the names of her parents on it. Not the names of random people who live half a word away and who she has never met. That too, is a right.
I think it varies obviously with the individual. I recently read about a woman who decided to search for her birthparents. She located her mother first and the birthmother told her she did not wish to meet, that she felt the past should be left in the past. I think this attitude is probably rare.( She went on to contact heir birthfather and he was very receptive to a reunion saying that he always knew he would get that call someday.) i think the prevalence of open and degrees of "semi-open" adoption today has probably lessened the expectation of privacy on the part of the birthparents.
As I have posted in another thread, my son's birthmother DID desire him to contact her and wondered over the years why he didnt. (He had been killed in a car accident.) I would have never contacted her because I didnt think she needed the pain of knowing. She searched for us and we reunited this past year. Even though to know the truth has been painful, I think that very overworked word of "closure" has been important to her and worth the pain of knowing. I have shared with her all the stories I can think of to share in order that she can kind of know who he was. (He was amazing!) I was also able to reassure her that he wasnt angry at her for placing him for adoption but would have, I'm sure, loved to meet her.
We become close even though they live in another city. She feels connected to us because we were his parents. We feel connected to her because she was our son's mother. It is a strange story, but we love each other and consider each other as I said elsewhere "second family." We also love her current family. Two of the children are our son's half siblings. They are an awesome family.
Thankfully, she and I share the same faith that those who have accepted Jesus as savior and Lord will be re-united in heaven and she longs for the day she can hug her son again...and I do too.
Yes, I think it's very individual. Just like some fathers, especially those who were paid sperm donors usually want nothing at all to do with the child and do not wish to be found, some women may have their own reasons for keeping records sealed.
I think it should be up to the birth mother when she gives the child up for adoption if she wishes to have contact at some later point or if she doesn't. There should be absolutely no pressure on her to have an open adoption if she prefers otherwise.
This is why I think the whole health record thing is a ruse. I do think your pain over being adopted is real, though, and I feel really bad for all of you. There are some wrongful adoptions and that should stop. No one is in favor of that. But clear and concise medical records? That's a dream. Don't blame adoption for not having them. Hardly anyone does.
I agree. If health records are the reason, it isn't enough to change state laws. It cannot be proven that not having health records endanger's adopted children's lives anymore than it does for biological ones.
Some people have records, some don't. With the use of DNA today, you don't need an OBC to find out if you are genetically predisposed to certain cancer's, etc. A DNA test will show you this, if that's what you're looking for.
I honestly feel it is the issue of being adopted that the adoptee's who want these laws changed are grappling with. There is nothing wrong with being adopted.
A woman giving birth to a child does not give said child the right to know who she is if the woman makes a decision (adoption) to not raise that child. If the woman wants contact, she has options to ensure this happens. When that doesn't occur, then one should assume she does not want contact.
Meeting a birthparent later in life, sometimes well into adulthood, and stating that the relationship is great, mutual, and reciprical; is not an invalid statement, but it also isn't a reason to unseal records. Some of which were sealed due to abuse and neglect and the child being removed from the home and later adopted. Every situation is different.
The fact of the matter is, once parental rights have been terminated - whether voluntary or involuntary - this decision affects the child of said parents. Obtaining an OBC does not change this fact. For whatever reason, being adopted in most cases means a birth parent's rights were terminated. Legally they are no longer your parents. Birth certificate's are legal documents. As such, they are protected by law.
With regard to a birth mother wanting privacy within her decision to place her child for adoption, I believe most do. If not, they would choose to arrange for their identity to be known to their biological child. I've listed these options in my previous post.
From the Connecticut Law:
Quote:
Birth certificates. Under Connecticut law, all persons 18 years of age and older, except adoptees, are permitted to see and receive a copy of their own original birth certificate. CGS section 7-51. Original birth certificates disclose the person's date and place of birth, the name of the person and the person's parents, and other information pursuant to CGS section 7-48 and Department of Public Health requirements. Adult adoptees, however, except in limited circumstances, may not examine their original birth certificates that contain the identity of their birth parents. CGS section 7-53. When a person is adopted, the Department of Public Health issues a new or amended birth certificate for the adoptee that contains all the information from the original birth certificate except that it names the adopting parents, instead of the birth parents, as parents of the adoptee.
The birth name of the child can also be changed on the amended birth certificate. A change in birth name occurs on the birth certificate only when the Probate Court, pursuant to CGS section 19a-42(d), orders the change in its decree of adoption. Birth names would not change when, for example, a stepfather adopts children of his wife who retain their birth names.
An adult adoptee may examine only the amended or substituted birth certificate. Improperly disclosing the original birth information contained in the records is a criminal offense, punishable by a $500 fine and six months in jail.
Even an adult adoptee who actually knows the identity of his birth parents cannot access the birth certificate without a court hearing.
Adoption records. Except in limited circumstances under CGS sections 45a-743 -- 45a-757, child-placing agencies such as the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) and private adoption agencies may not release to an adult adoptee information in adoption records that would identify the birth parents of the adoptee without the consent of birth parents. If birth parental rights were terminated before October 1, 1995, both birth parents must give their consent before the information identifying the birth parents can be released to an adult adoptee. For terminations after October 1, 1995, either birth parent may consent to release of his or her identity. At the request of an adult adoptee, the DCF or private child-placing agency must attempt to locate the birth parents to obtain their consent to be contacted and to release their identity to the adoptee.
DCF and private child-placing agencies must, on request of an adult adoptee, release information in the adoption file concerning the adoptee's birth parents that does not identify the birth parents. The information includes matters such as their ages, heritage, education, general physical appearance, special interests and talents, existence of other children, health history of the birth parents, relationship between the birth parents, the adoption plan made for the adoptee by the birth parents, and other non-identifying, relevant information.
In addition, DCF and private child-placing agencies must maintain registries in which birth parents and adult adoptees may register their consent to have information that would identify themselves to be released to the other party.
So it appears that they are indeed protecting the identity of the birth parents, but those parents may identify themselves if they choose to. Once the adoptee is an adult, they can access all information except the identity of the birth parents. The only thing on the OBC that changes when adoption occurs is the names of the parents.
I really don't see the problem and the "medical reason" excuse doesn't fly.
Yes, I think it's very individual. Just like some fathers, especially those who were paid sperm donors usually want nothing at all to do with the child and do not wish to be found, some women may have their own reasons for keeping records sealed.
I think it should be up to the birth mother when she gives the child up for adoption if she wishes to have contact at some later point or if she doesn't. There should be absolutely no pressure on her to have an open adoption if she prefers otherwise.
I concur. I'm willing to say adult adoptee's may access their OBC, minus the names of the birth parents, and truly feel the birth mother should have the final say.
Even with surragacy, the birth mother does not want to have anything to do with the child she bears for another woman and family. She has to legally relinquish her parental rights, and in doing so has the right to remain anonymous.
I concur. I'm willing to say adult adoptee's may access their OBC, minus the names of the birth parents, and truly feel the birth mother should have the final say.
Why? The natural mother should have the right to privacy, to say no to contact, but she does not have a right to legal anonymity. Her rights do not trump the adoptee's right to know their original name.
Quote:
Even with surragacy, the birth mother does not want to have anything to do with the child she bears for another woman and family. She has to legally relinquish her parental rights, and in doing so has the right to remain anonymous.
Legally, the first mother of a relinquished child has no right to remain anonymous. That's simply a myth.
With regard to a birth mother wanting privacy within her decision to place her child for adoption, I believe most do.
In those states which have decided to once again permit adult adoptees access to their OBC's, and surveyed birth parents [generally mothers] only 1% had objections, as evidenced by "no contact" requests.
AL - less than 1%
DE - 2%
ME - 1%
NH - 0.9%
OR - 0.8 %
In those states which never closed access to OBC's, people still relinquished their children for adoption.
Since Warren's initial post was directed at me in response to what I thought was a pretty moderate view of what info should be made available to adoptive families, including individuals who were adopted, I'd like to respond.
First, Warren, as you and probably everyone else here knows, I am not adopted nor am I an adoptive parent or part of an original family of anyone who was adopted. I am part of an extended family which includes five relatives of mine who were adopted, some domestically, some internationally (apologies to any for whom this is boringly old information. Just want to set things straight, just in case...). I support ethical adoption.
As for whether or not having family health information is helpful or not, DNA is not sufficient to determine risk factors. I am sure one of my relatives (who was domestically adopted in infancy) would have liked to have known if any risk factors or family history of heart disease existed in their original family before they unexpectedly underwent corrective heart surgery as a young adult. I am sure my relative's parents
would have been most grateful to have had that same information, along with my relatives' general care physician and cardiologists. However, it took everyone by surprise.
It's understandable that a minor who is adopted may not see or want to give thought to the possibilities which may exist in their biological heritage - it's common for many young people view life as long and health problems associated with aging as being far, far away. But in cases like that of my relative, the underlying problem had existed like since birth, undetected because no one realized special testing was needed. Even if my relative had been unconcerned as a teen or young adult, my relatives' parents and doctors surely would have appreciated that information, and my relative might have undergone the needed corrective surgery much, much sooner.
My relative was extremely fortunate that the disorder was finally discovered and corrected. Having a family history which indicated heart disease and disorders might or might not have made a difference- we have no way of knowing. But not having an original family's health history certainly put my relative at unnecessary risk
No one expects multi-generational, highly detailed medical histories to accompany people who were adopted. But noting obvious concerns should be done, and shouldn't be difficult in most domestic adoptions. International adoptions differ, clearly, but a few details about the health issues of their original family did travel with my young relatives who joined our family via adoption from eastern Europe a few years ago, and their parents are very grateful to have those few details, in order to help their children be as healthy as possible.
I have several rather esoteric health conditions which I know run in my own mostly healthy biological
family, on both sides. It is helpful to my doctors and my biological family's doctors to be aware that these disorders run in our family, without question. If such information exists and can be made available to adoptive families and individuals who were adopted, why on earth should it be denied them?
I was sticking to the topic. Is the assumption that BParents want privacy valid? My vote is yes, it is valid. I gave you an example. A true case, it's here if you care to read it: Adoption Privacy Lawsuit
Whoa...wait a minute. We have researched the issue. Which is why we want closed adoptions. See bolded area above. You were adopted, hence your records sealed. When you are in foster care, your parents have not had their rights terminated most of the time, when the rights are terminated, and there is no adoption, you are a Ward of the Court. So, there is no need for a new BC. The adoption requires a new BC to be created and the OBC sealed. This is because of privacy. When these laws speak of "anonymity" they are speaking of "privacy." Foster care doesn't = relinquishment. But, all relinquished children who are adopted have their OBC sealed.
So, I guess I was "on topic." I gave an example of why the perception of birth parents not wishing to be found will not change. Are you saying rapes no longer occur? Unwanted pregnancies no longer occur? The right to a woman or man to decide the welfare of their child, should that not be taken into consideration when they choose adoption and want "anonymity?" Times haven't changed that much.
Again, the mother isn't the only person involved. And, yes, that goal and the assumption is still valid today that a mother does not want her child to have such access unless the child is an adult - which most state's honor, with the exceptions of some that also require the birthparents to sign-off on the release. There is more than one side to this issue.
Today, if a woman wants her child to have access to her and/or these records she has options:
1. She can choose an open adoption
2. She can obtain the OBC and give it to the SW to give to the adoptive parents
3. She can arrange with the state agency to "release" the records upon request of the child
4. She can not choose adoption
5. She can take a DNA test with multiple companies and hope her child does the same and that they are
reunited via a DNA database.
Some people don't want to be found. In the case of adoption, birthparents have the right to anonymity, privacy, and to not be found by their biological child, or anyone else for that matter.
First of all, you are talking about today. I do agree that a woman relinquishing today may want anonymity right now (though she may change her mind down the track - I know of a couple of situations like this). Only 5% of today's domestic adoptions are closed/confidential. The majority are semi-open (no direct contact but updates) and about 10-20% are truly open.
However, in the past, the woman didn't have a choice whether she wanted a closed or open adoption - thus women relinquishing her child in a closed adoption during a time that ALL adoptions were closed didn't exactly choose to have a closed adoption, they had no choice. In regards to Korea, a closed adoption doesn't necessarily mean the bmother never wants contact because it is not like she had any other choice but a closed adoption. Actually, the more recent Korean adoptions seem to be opening up a bit.
In those states which have decided to once again permit adult adoptees access to their OBC's, and surveyed birth parents [generally mothers] only 1% had objections, as evidenced by "no contact" requests.
AL - less than 1%
DE - 2%
ME - 1%
NH - 0.9%
OR - 0.8 %
In those states which never closed access to OBC's, people still relinquished their children for adoption.
You have no idea how many birth mother's responded to this survey or how many were surveyed! This means nothing.
Hunting down a birth mother or father will not change the fact that they did not want to parent that child, hence, they placed him/her for adoption for someone else to raise.
I was sticking to the topic. Is the assumption that BParents want privacy valid? My vote is yes, it is valid. I gave you an example. A true case, it's here if you care to read it: Adoption Privacy Lawsuit
One true case does not make it valid. I really wish paps and adoptive parents would not speak for us.
"An overwhelming proportion of birthmothers contemporary have met the adoptive parents of their children - probably 90 percent or more - and almost all of the remaining birthmothers helped to choose the new parents through profiles. Contrary to the stereotypes that have been created about them, almost no women choosing adoption today seek anonymity or express a desire for no ongoing information or contact. "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very Long...sorry.
