NEW JERSEY: Opinion--State Shouldn't Open All Adoption Records

Also comments

EAST BRUNSWICK HOME NEWS TRIBUNE
March 1, 2008

Opinion: State Shouldn't Open All Adoption Records

The New Jersey Senate is set to vote Monday on a controversial measure that has bounced around the Statehouse in various forms for nearly 30 years: legislation to make all adoption records public information. The proposal is so wrenching for so many people because it straddles two equally compelling but competing sets of personal values and needs.

On the one hand are birth parents who have given up their children with the promise by the state that their names would forever be kept under lock and key; on the other are those who believe the children of adoption have a legal and moral entitlement to know exactly who those birth parents are. There are enough emotional entreaties on both sides to muddle the debate. But in the pure abstract, the bill as crafted should not be advanced.

One flaw of the measure is that its requirements fall unreasonably hard on the backs of birth parents, some of whom gave up their children decades ago, fully believing the matter closed. Now they would have to file a notarized letter of "no contact" with the state if they wish to remain anonymous. And there is no telling how many of them would even learn about the rules, or have the wherewithal to meet the guidelines if they did find out, leaving some open to unwanted contacts from long-lost offspring. The state made a pact with them but would breach that commitment.

Beyond the natural curiosity of knowing who one's real parents are — and no one denies that it is strong, even overwhelming for some adoptees — advocates for open records have maintained for years that it is both culturally and medically beneficial for adoptees to know their real family histories. This is true. But it would be fairly easy for the state to supply most of this information simply by requiring that these histories be provided at the time of adoption and supplied to adoptees upon later request, while blacking out the names of birth parents, should they not want their identities exposed.

Here again, regretably, the legislation goes too far, insisting that birth parents provide medical and cultural updates every 10 years, until age 40, or surrender their anonymity. Cumbersome and intrusive, the idea is highhanded and best forgotten.

Opponents of the legislation also fear the loss of anonymity could discourage prospective parents from considering adoption, opting instead for abortion. While there is no telling if and how often this might happen, the argument is certainly plausible.

Sponsors of the legislation, including state Sen. Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, have allowed themselves to be swayed by a long-established and very well-organized lobby for the bill backed by children of adoption. There is no similar organization for and of birth parents, perhaps because their secrecy is paramount. Still, those few who have ventured forth to speak out against the bill have been clear about their desire for the state to respect their privacy for all of these and other reasons.

Just as this is not a perfect world, there is no ideal solution to this problem, but the status quo in this case is the lesser of two evils. May lawmakers have the wisdom to do nothing at all.

Link to article