NEW JERSEY: NJ Bill Would Open Birth records to Adoptees, March 14, 2008

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
March 14, 2008


N.J. bill would open birth records to adoptees

By Adrienne Lu

Inquirer Trenton Bureau
Like many adoptees, Heather Mulford goes through life with questions she may never get answered.

She wonders why her blond hair started turning gray when she turned 18. She worries about passing hidden genetic problems on to her three young children. And she would like to know which country or countries she could trace her roots to.

But unlike some adoptees, Mulford - a 38-year-old high school social studies teacher from Chester Springs - says she spends very little time pondering such questions.

"I'm not a huge believer in genetics," says Mulford. "Being a mom is getting up in the middle of the night and dealing with the fevers and kissing the scraped knees and rushing to the hospital to get stitches."

"Giving birth," she adds emphatically, "is just biological."

Even so, a TV program broadcast recently about another state giving adult adoptees access to their birth records caught Mulford's attention enough to send her to the Internet to look up information about a similar bill pending in New Jersey.

If signed into law, that bill would allow adult adoptees from New Jersey, such as Mulford, access to their original birth certificates, including their birth mothers' names - assuming the birth mother does not notify the state otherwise within a set period. The bill has cleared the Senate and is headed to the Assembly.

The issue is a sensitive one, given the delicate balance between an adult adoptee's right to know more about his or her origins and a birth parent's right to privacy.

In some cases, birth parents were promised by adoption agencies that the records would be sealed forever. According to the nonprofit Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, the courts have typically found that such promises contradicted state law and are not legally binding. But no matter what the law says, some remain uncomfortable with the idea of the state breaking a promise made by someone else.

In New Jersey, some adoptees and advocate groups, including the New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education, have been fighting for years to give adult adoptees access to information about their births and adoptions.

Few with firsthand experience on the other side of the issue are willing to speak out, however, because in many cases to do so would mean revealing secrets they had hoped to keep hidden for life.

Search for information
David Brodzinsky, a clinical and developmental psychologist who taught at Rutgers University for 32 years and now lives in California, said all human beings search for themselves, at some level. An adoptee's search for information about birth families, he said, is simply an extension of that search.

In addition, adoptees can feel emotionally undermined by the lack of control created when a state bars them from information on their own backgrounds, he said.

Mulford, who was adopted from New Jersey, says her parents never made her adoption - or those of her brother and sister - an issue.

Their parents answered questions about their adoptions much like any other parent would answer questions about their children's births, she says. In Mulford's case, the adoption story included an account of a ride home on a corporate jet when she was just three days old, an account that made her, as a child, feel important and wanted.

No grudges
Mulford holds no grudges against her birth mother, she says. Instead, she's grateful that woman made the decision she did so that Mulford could grow up in a loving family.

"If anything, I've felt overloved, because if you think about it, adoptees are wanted," she says. "The parents go out of their way to have their child."

Still, Mulford says, becoming a mother herself prompted her to start thinking about how nice it would be to be able to answer some of the questions at doctors' offices - whether this or that disease or condition runs in her family, for example.

Even so, Mulford says she would never demand to learn her birth mother's name if she would rather not be known.

Such mixed feelings are not uncommon among adoptees, Brodzinsky said.

"It's natural to have some degree of ambivalence," he said. "It may be about many things. You may be curious but anxious about what you'll find out or how you'll be received. We're always anxious about the unknown."

In his experience counseling adoptees, Brodzinsky said, most who do undertake a search are glad they did, even when it doesn't go as well as they had hoped.

"Most people are glad that they searched because it has helped them to answer questions," he said.

Some adoptees develop a compulsion to find their birth families.

Mulford, though, is not one of those people. She is not sure she would want to meet her birth mother, if given the option, although she would like to reassure her that she made the right decision.

Mulford imagines her birth mother was an unwed teenage girl who might appreciate knowing that the baby she gave up is now a mother and a teacher, a productive member of society.

She also worries that she could hurt her parents' feelings by seeking out her birth mother. She takes offense when some people refer to them as her "adoptive" parents. To her, she says, they are simply her parents - no qualifier necessary.

Mulford says she doesn't understand the adoptees who talk endlessly about the emptiness they feel inside because they were adopted.

"Live for what you have," she says. "If you spend your life feeling a void, how about appreciating what you have?"

"I guess," she concludes, "that's the way my parents raised me."

Link to article

MICHIGAN: Adoptees Could Have More Access to health History Under Bill

ASSOCIATED PRESS
March 10, 2008

Adoptees could have more access to health history under bill
By TIM MARTIN

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Some adopted children would be able to get information about their biological family's medical history and possibly copies of their original birth certificates when they become adults under bills that soon could be voted on in the Michigan House.

Rep. Lisa Wojno, a Democrat from Warren and sponsor of the bill, says the legislation is aimed at helping adoptees learn more about their health prospects. She said the legislation could be a tool to help people learn whether they are at higher risk for cancer, hereditary diseases or other illnesses.

"Without that information, it puts their health and their children's health at risk," Wojno said.

The bill is undergoing some revisions but could be ready for a vote later this month. The changes under discussion could help ease concerns about privacy rights for biological parents.

Michigan law allows some adopted individuals to get birth certificates once they become adults. But for those adopted between May 1945 and September 1980, a copy of the original birth certificate showing the names of biological parents is available only with a court order. Otherwise the documents are sealed.

Denise Lindeman of Center Line told a House committee that the bill is needed to provide parity in Michigan adoption law. Lindeman was adopted, but as an adult has been reunited with her birth mother.

The House bill as originally written would allow adoptees 21 and older to apply for a copy of their original birth certificate regardless of when they were adopted. A birth parent of an adopted individual could file a form with the state indicating whether they want to be contacted by the child they gave up for adoption.

Birth parents also would have the option to file an updated medical history form with the state, which would be available to the adoptee regardless of whether the parent wants to be contacted.

Another option under consideration during a revision of the bill would allow adoptees to obtain a health history without getting a copy of the original birth certificate. That provision is aimed at alleviating concerns the bill would violate confidentiality promises made to birth parents years ago.

Ed Rivet, legislative affairs director for Right to Life of Michigan, said the bill could be drafted to ask biological parents to provide a health history at the time of the adoption placement. That could provide vital health information right away, rather than requiring adopted children to wait until they become adults.

That option also would protect confidentiality, allowing closed record adoptions in some cases.

"We need to leave that option available, even though it's a small segment," Rivet said.

There are more than 2,500 adoption placements in Michigan each year.

___

The adoption records bill is House Bill 4896.

___

On the Net:

Michigan Legislature: http://www.legislature.mi.gov

Link to article

NEW JERSEY: Editorial--Reject Adoptee Rights Bill, March 6, 2008

Comments

NEWARK STAR-LEDGER
March 6, 2008

Editorial: Reject Adoptee Rights Bill

The adoptee rights bill -- a measure that would open records sealed decades ago -- was a bad idea when it was considered in prior legislative sessions and it's a bad idea now. Nothing has changed.

The bill, which passed the Senate earlier this week and now goes to the Assembly for consideration, should get no further.

Proponents of the measure have spent nearly 30 years pushing legislation that is fundamentally unfair to women who, in good faith at a very vulnerable time in their lives, surrendered babies for adoption with the clear understanding that their decision would be kept confidential. The bill (S611) would open those records to adoptees who are 18 years or older, clearing the way for them to search for their birth parents.

Supporters of the bill argue that adoptees need this information to gain access to their biological parents' medical records. They insist that their right to birth records trumps the privacy rights of birth parents. Nonsense.

First, there is no guarantee that once a parent is found she will supply detailed information about her medical history. Even in an intact family, adult children do not have a right to a parent's medical records.

While it's understandable that adoptees want to be reunited with their biological parents, that can be accomplished through a registry that would bring birth parents and adoptees together through mutual agreement. For reasons that are absolutely confounding, adoption rights advocates have refused to compromise and accept a law that creates a registry or some other go-between. They want the records open. Period.

The bill voted out of the Senate reflects that unbending attitude. It says information would automatically be turned over to adoptees unless birth parents file notarized "no contact" letters saying they wish to remain anonymous, no matter how long ago the adoption took place. Imagine that a woman in her 80s now forfeits her right to privacy because she didn't realize she had to file a form in Trenton.

Even then, the bill would require both birth parents to fill out a medical and cultural history form every 10 years until a parent is 40 and every five years thereafter or forfeit their anonymity. Will it be up to the mother to announce who the father is so that he, too, can be hunted down? And if he doesn't comply, are all bets off and the request for no contact void?

Why not take the more reasonable approach of changing the law going forward? At least birth mothers would understand the ground rules when they relinquish a child. Changing the law retroactively is just plain wrong.


Link to article

NEW JERSEY: Adoptees Celebrate Senate's Passage of "Birthright Bill," March 4, 2008

NORTH JERSEY.com
by Leslie Brody

Adoptees celebrate Senate's passage of 'Birthright Bill'
Tuesday, March 4, 2008


Adoptees pushing for access to their birth records celebrated Monday as the state Senate passed their "Birthright Bill," 31-7.

Pamela Hasegawa, spokeswoman for the New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education, has fought for 28 years for a bill that would enable adoptees to try to find their birth parents, learn their medical histories and understand their heritage. Her group will now focus on lobbying for the bill's passage in the Assembly.

"I'm always optimistic," Hasegawa said.

The bill (S-611) would give parents who relinquished children for adoption a time-limited option to have their names and addresses redacted from the original birth certificates given to adoptees. It also would allow birth parents to express their preferences regarding future modes of contact. Any birth parents who wanted to remain confidential would have to provide detailed family medical histories.

Opponents have long charged that open access to birth records violates the privacy of women who placed their babies for adoption under a promise of confidentiality; some of these women might not hear about open access provisions in time to have their names withheld.

To pass, the bill would need to be heard by the Assembly Human Services Committee and approved by the full Assembly.

Link to article

UNITED STATES: Letter from Mirah Riben--States' Sealed Records Discriminate Against Adoptees, Families, February 25, 2008

USA TODAY
February 25, 2008

States' sealed records discriminate against adoptees, families

Mirah Riben, member, board of directors, Origins — USA.org - Richmond, Va.

In his letter "In cases of adoption, respect privacy of birth parents," USA TODAY reader Craig Roberts wrote about his "concerns" for mothers who surrender their children for adoption. Roberts took enormous liberty in speaking for others (Tuesday).

He wrote that mothers who lost children to adoption "could have made a choice to terminate their pregnancies." Yes, they could have, but so could the mother of any child ever born.

Roberts wagers that "the majority of these decisions were made at a young age." The majority of mothers placing children for adoption today are in their 20s. I don't consider those ages to be young. Also, the history of sealed adoption records indicates the records were never sealed to "protect" mothers who surrendered their rights. They were originally sealed in the 1930s to protect adoptive parents and the secrecy of adoption. This kind of protection is a smoke screen for denying adoptees and their families of origin the same rights as others.

Mothers who lost children to adoption have been speaking out, writing and appearing on national television since the '70s. We do not need others speaking for us, making assumptions about us or trying to protect us.

Link to article

NEW JERSEY: Editorial--Let NJ Adoptees Get First Birth Certificates, January 29, 2008

Cherry Hill Courier Post
January 29, 2008

Editorial: Let N.J. adoptees get first birth certificates

Legislators should approve a bill that effectively balances the rights of adoptees and birth mothers.

As the state's new legislative session gathers momentum, we urge Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts, D-Camden, not to overlook the adoptees' request to gain access to their original birth certificates.

A bill that would allow New Jersey adoptees to learn about their biological roots has passed the state Senate twice, only to be passed over by Assembly members. This proposal has been carefully put together from decades of feedback by all concerned. It deserves approval.

We recognize opening adoption records requires careful consideration of the needs of adoptees and their biological parents. While adoptees deserve to know their history, parents who gave up their children might have expected lifelong anonymity. No bill could be expected to perfectly balance the interests of adoptees and their birth parents. Yet, the newly proposed bill -- co-sponsored by state sens. Diane Allen, R-Burlington, and Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex -- comes very close.

Birth mothers, who often made the difficult decision to give up a child, can choose to remain anonymous or be contacted. They have a year from the passage of the bill to submit a request to keep their information private. The state Department of Health and Senior Services would be required to widely advertise the change in law to ensure birth parents learn about it.

Even if the birth mother declines contact, she still would be compelled to provide her adopted child with important health, cultural and social history. If the parent fails to provide this information, the original birth certificate can be released to the adoptee. This is not too much to ask from a birth mother. She can still remain anonymous, but doing so won't deprive her birth children of the information they need for their health and welfare. The adoptee's right to this information is as important as protecting the privacy of the birth mother. Under this bill, both objectives can be achieved.

Critics claim releasing birth certificate information could prompt more New Jersey women to choose abortion over adoption. Yet, if the issue is a lack of anonymity, that shouldn't change under this proposal. But, finally, adoptees would not be forced to be in the dark about their identities and biological history. That change is decades overdue.

Link to article

OHIO: 40 Years of Separation--Woman Seeks Last of 6 Siblings Split by Adoption

CANTON REPOSITORY
January 27, 2008

40 years of separation: Woman seeks last of 6 siblings split by adoption
Sunday, January 27, 2008

By FELLICIA SMITH
REPOSITORY STAFF WRITER
tterson and Peffer had been separated from their other four siblings — John (the youngest), Jackie and Jim (the twins) and George. All had been adopted after being taken from their parents for neglect and abuse in 1964.

“They did separate siblings then; it wasn’t uncommon,” said Jayne Schooler, an author of books on adoption and searching for lost siblings. “It was easier for placement purposes. They do a better job of keeping them together now.”

Patterson and Peffer, the oldest of the six children, bounced between foster care homes and the Fairmount Children’s Home throughout the 1960s.

When Patterson, who was 12, and Peffer, 11, were separated, it was the final time Patterson would see her siblings for nearly 20 years.

“I cried because I missed my brothers and sisters so much,” Patterson said. “Eventually I stopped crying, and that worried me.”

Today, Patterson has reunited with four of her brothers and sisters except for Peffer. Her whereabouts remain a mystery, one Patterson has labored for years to solve.

“I think we need to add Cindy to the picture because it’s not complete,” Patterson said. “I know my brothers and sisters would love that. I’m determined to find her, one way or another.”

SEARCHING

Patterson’s search took her to Ashland in December. A 50-year-old Cindy L. Peffer lives there. She couldn’t track down the woman.

Disappointing, yes. But Patterson is back on the hunt.

“I need to find Cindy,” said Patterson, 51. “I will find her.”

Patterson, who works at Leno’s Family Restaurant in Plain Township, has spent hours looking through public records. She and her other sister, Jackie Grafe Senften, have scoured area yearbooks in search of a familiar face.

She has signed up for the Ohio Adoption Registry, which has the names of 13,000 adoptees, so if Peffer is searching, she could access Patterson’s vital information.

Patterson has paid companies to trace Peffer, though it didn’t help. And Patterson has talked to other former foster children from their stint at Fairmount in the 1960s.

“The technology that came out in the 1990s really helped,” Patterson said. “I’ve spent tons of money, writing and looking for Cindy. We couldn’t figure out anybody who knew her.”

Patterson now has MySpace and Facebook pages. She’s signed up on dozens of adoption registries. She gets daily alerts from other organizations that help siblings search for siblings.

She’s considering hiring a company to do an age progression photo, one that might give her an idea what Cindy looks like today.

John Kuhn, Patterson’s youngest brother who was adopted at 2, isn’t actively searching for Cindy but supports Patterson.

“She pretty much takes the lead in it,” Kuhn said from his home in Huntington, Ind. “I wouldn’t even know where to start. My curiosity would be to see the records of our adoptions, the hows and the whys.”

Patterson’s determination isn’t surprising to Schooler.

“The sibling bond can be the longest bond between people,” Schooler said. “Even when they’re taken away, you know something is missing, a part of you is missing. So you do search.”

Most records are sealed; available information on an adopted sibling is scarce.

Adoption agencies estimate that millions of siblings are searching for each other. The Cleveland Adoption Network even hosts workshops and seminars on the topic.

All Patterson has to go on is a birth certificate for Cindy from Aultman Hospital and photos of them as children.

It’s not much, but those and her memories are enough to keep Patterson from quitting.

“We’re getting older,” Patterson said. “How long before one of us goes? I’d like to take one more picture of us.”

THE REUNION

Patterson knows there is a chance she’ll find her sister. Her other four biological siblings found each other and eventually her.

Kuhn and his older brother, George Frame, were the first to reconnect.

“It wasn’t talked about much,” Kuhn said of his adoption and separation from his biological siblings. “When I met George, I was close to 16. He came to the house.

“My dad didn’t know how to say it — he just said, ‘This is your brother.’ I was like, ‘OK.’ I wasn’t real receptive. I think it’s hard.”

It was the elder brother who found the twins, Jackie Grafe Senften and Jim Endinger.

“George met Jim and Jackie before I did,” recalled Kuhn, 45. “I was about 22 when I met Jim and Jackie. They lived in a burg by Dalton.”

Less than a year later, they found Patterson. It was 1985. They all met for the first time in Massillon. The only one missing was Peffer.

“That’s an open part of my life,” Kuhn said. “It would make it complete to meet her. You never know how other people feel. I don’t know about her life experiences, but I don’t want anything from her but to meet her.”

That 1985 meeting was joyous. The siblings learned they each grew up in Stark County, only miles apart. They tried to keep in touch and managed to succeed most of the time.

“The initial excitement is great, but it wears off,” Patterson said of the 1985 reunion. “We’ve been working on it the last 20 years.”

Today, Patterson said she can call any of her siblings, but there are times they go months without talking. Patterson and Frame are the only siblings still in Stark County. The twins live in Georgia and Kuhn in Indiana.

“You have to start back as friends,” Patterson said. “You pray to God you like each other. We’ve had our problems with each other. We’re grown up, and we weren’t raised together. We have different values. We butt heads, but we try to keep it together. We’ve already spent too much time apart.”

The search for Cindy is a big part of Patterson’s life, but she knows she might never find her.

“That would be the highlight of my life,” Patterson said, “to see my sister.”

Reach Repository writer Fellicia Smith at or e-mail:

fellicia.smith@cantonrep.com

To contact Kim Patterson, e-mail her at:

patterson.kimberly@gmail.com

HOUSE BILL NO. 7

State Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr., R-Cincinnati, introduced House Bill 7 to change Ohio’s stance on sealed adoption records, the placement of children in homes and the promotion of adoption. As written, it would:

1. Eliminate the three-tiered system that determines how adoptees obtain identifying information about their birth families, and create one system where any adult adoptee, adoptive parent or lineal descendant could access the adoptee’s file even if it was sealed.

2. Repeals or amends appropriate adoption records law provisions to reflect the single system access to adoption records.

3. Requires an adoptive parent or lineal descendant to provide notarized evidence that proves his or her relationship with the adoptee in order to access the adoptee’s adoption records.

SOURCE: 127th Ohio General Assembly.

www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=127_HB_7&ACT=As%20Introduced&hf=analyses127/h0007-i-127.htm

FOR MORE INFORMATION

www.adoptionnetwork.org

www.jayneschooler.com

www.odh.ohio.gov/vitalstatistics/legalinfo/adoption.aspx

OHIO ADOPTION INFO

The Ohio Department of Health houses birth and adoption records for those born in Ohio and adopted anywhere in the U.S.

Ohio Adoption Registry

-- Adoptions Prior to Jan. 1, 1964 — Adoption Records Open to Adopted Person with Proper ID

-- Adoptions Between Jan. 1, 1964 and Sept. 18, 1996 — Adoption Records are Sealed and Only Opened by a Court Order (H.B. 84)

-- Adoptions After Sept. 18, 1996 — Adoption Records are Open if Adopted Person is between 18-21 Years of Age (H.B. 419)

SOURCE: Ohio Department of Health


Link to article

MISSOURI: Fighting an Uphill Battle for Adoptee Rights

BLUE SPRINGS EXAMINER,
January 5, 2008

Fighting an Uphill Battle for Adoptee Rights

By Hugh S. Welsh | Hugh.welsh@examiner.net

If you're an adoptee living in Missouri, four words teeter on the tip of your tongue:

"House Bill No. 509," said Jeff Quibell, a Blue Springs City Councilman and adoptee.

Five years ago, Quibell was reunited with his birth parents.

Fortunately, he was able to locate them quickly through the use of a searcher provided by the court.

The searcher met with each of his birth parents, both of whom agreed to release all identifying information (name, date of birth, place of birth and last known address).

Before Quibell knew it, his arms were curled around his birth mother, and his hand was enclasped within the hand of his birth father.

His journey was unusually easy in a state where original birth certificates and adoption records are off-limits for adoptees.

Most aren't so lucky.

According to Quibell, mutual consent between adoptee and birth parent is a sensible request, but what about adoptees born before birth parents had an opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to future contact in the form of an affidavit at the time of the adoption?

According to the Missouri statute under Adoption and Foster Care, Section 453.121, in order for identifying information to be released to an adoptee either born or adopted in Missouri, the biological parent must submit an affidavit.

If an affidavit is not on file, one is delivered to the parent via a court-driven agency that charges the adoptee a fee (usually $250) for the service.

The statute was revised on Aug. 13, 1986.

Today, birth parents who offer their child up for adoption are asked whether they would like to allow their adopted child access to their identifying information upon reaching 18 years of age.

Prior to that, parents did not have such an opportunity at the time of the adoption.

Of course, parents who have children they've given to adoption can submit an affidavit releasing such information at anytime.

But how many are familiar with this option?

How many really want to remember?

Quibell said for many birth parents - particularly those who had pre-marital children prior to 1973, the year of the landmark Supreme Court abortion case Roe v. Wade - their adopted children are a taboo subject, rarely mentioned but always pondered.

Take Quibell's birth mother, Louise Ann Padmos, for example. In the back of her mind she wondered for years about whatever came of her baby boy. Although Padmos' lips were sealed tighter than a vice, she remembered her adopted son with a new ornament she affixed to the family Christmas tree every year. To her family, it was merely a hobby. To her, it was everything. Now reunited with her adopted son, Padmos gives Quibell a new ornament every year to hang on his own family Christmas tree.

"She never forgot me," Quibell said.

When Padmos was contacted by a searcher wanting to know whether she would fill out the affidavit releasing identifying information to her adopted son, she answered yes to everything that very evening.

Quibell's birth father took the entire summer to make up his mind, then he, too, submitted the affidavit.

But what if the searcher is unable to locate the birth parents? What if the birth parents are deceased and, therefore, unable to submit an affidavit?

"As the statute is written and interpreted right now, there must be an affidavit on file for the identifying information to be released," said state Rep. Connie LaJoyce Johnson, D-St. Louis. "If there isn't one or if it was misplaced for whatever reason, the court will deny the release of the information to the adoptee."

For adoptees in such a situation, the only other possibility of unlocking adoption records and original birth certificates is medical need.

"Supposedly, medical need has to be acknowledged by the court system as a reason to release records to adoptees," Johnson said. "This simply is not true."

The case that drew Johnson into the debate involved an adoptee who was in need of a bone marrow transplant and seeking a possible match within her biological family tree.

A searcher with the court located a few members of the adoptees' birth family and found unfavorable results.

No match.

"The adoptee was simply told 'no match' and denied any identifying information," Johnson said. "I thought that was cold."

Johnson sponsored House Bill No. 509, which, at the moment, sits dormant. The bill would modify sections 193.125 and 193.255 of Missouri's adoption record policy, affording adoptees 18-and-older the right to obtain a certified copy of their original birth certificate, which, of course, would contain some identifying information of the birth parents including their names and birthplaces.

What stands in Johnson's way?

"Catholic charities and evangelists are a well-oiled machine that pulverized this bill the last time it was brought up," Johnson said.

Johnson said Catholic charities and evangelists argue that an open records policy in Missouri would encourage more abortions.

The results of a recent report by the Evan B. Donaldson Institute show a different picture: One of such states as Kansas, which has an open-record policy for adoptees, having lower abortion rates than states with closed records.

But Johnson doesn't care about the findings. She needs testimony. Human voices that can convince the House that the policy isn't constitutional.

"As someone who grew up Catholic, I know where these lobbyists are coming from, and I don't necessarily disagree with them," Johnson said. "Mutual consent and the respect of the birth parents' privacy are dear to my heart, but those adoptees whose birth parents do not have an affidavit on file and are deceased or cannot be located are being unfairly treated; the situation must be rectified, and in order for that to happen we must make this a legal matter, not an emotional one."

One of the voices to give testimony will be Padmos, who plans to visit Jefferson City in the near future.

She will be only one of many birth mothers and adoptees to make the trip as part of an army organized by Blue Springs resident Ina Lewis, an adoptee who has devoted every waking moment to this cause.

Johnson will need them. All of them.

"I won't go before the General Assembly again unless I have guns with real ammunition, ones with stuff that can hit them right upside the head," Johnson said.

Link to article

NEVADA: Commentary--Adoptees Should See Birth Records

RENO GAZETTE JOURNAL,
December 28, 2007

Commentary: Adoptees should see birth records

By Cully Ray

On November 12, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute published a report regarding the issue of adult adoptees having access to their birth records. For years, opponents of allowing adopted adults access to their original birth certificates have falsely stated that doing so would violate the confidentiality that was promised their birth-mothers and put birth parents in compromising situations. Confidentiality, whether it actually was promised or simply implied, could not be guaranteed, and in fact, no paperwork has been found in any state with a written guarantee of confidentiality to birth parents.

There are eight states that allow adult adoptees access: Tennessee, Oregon, New Hampshire, Delaware, Alabama, Kansas, Alaska,

and, beginning in 2009,

Maine. Kansas and Alaska always have allowed adult adoptees access and have lower abortion rates than the national state average. Massachusetts enacted a bill that grants access to the years before birth certificates were sealed and to adoptees born on or after January 1, 2008.

I was born, adopted, and live in Nevada. In 2004, I petitioned the court to have my original birth certificate and adoptions records released to me. My petition was granted, but the fact is that I should never have had to petition the court. I am not a felon, I do not have a record of questionable behavior, nor have I ever been convicted of a crime.

Adult Adoptee Access to birth records is not about reunion, though that can and does happen. Adult Adoptee Access to birth records is about equal human rights for all citizens. To deny a particular segment of the citizenry any such right is wrong. Here in America it is believed to be so wrong that we have laws against it.

I urge all Nevada citizens to read the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute Report (www.adoptioninstitute.org) and to take into consideration what other organizations have said:

Child Welfare League of America: "The agency providing adoption services should support efforts to ensure that adults who were adopted have direct access to identifying information about themselves and their birth parents."

R. David Cousineau, President and CEO of Holt International Children's Services: "We have placed more than 40,000 children with adoptive families...It is the fundamental right of all individuals to have access to information about themselves. For adoptees, that includes access to their own birth records with the same equity

as other individuals are entitled."

Spence-Chapin of NY: "The agency believes that access to identifying information is the adult adoptee's right and that this access furthers the interests of ... adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents."

The NAC: "The National Adoption Center believes that it is an inalienable right of all citizens, including adopted adults, to have unencumbered access to their original birth certificates."

Let's leave the era of secrets, shame, and lies that damaged so many innocent lives. Children are a blessing, and no child should grow up to be held suspect and denied their basic human rights because of the circumstance of their birth.

Cully Ray is the American Adoption Congress representative in Nevada.


Link to article

MINNESOTA: Opinion--Most Adoptees Welcome Reunion

ST, CLOUD TIMES,
December 18, 2007

Most adoptees welcome reunion
By Natalie Miller Rotunda


One of the most controversial aspects of adoption — access to birth records — was the subject of a recent news story. “Should adoptees see records?” It focused on a report released last month by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. They say yes, and have ample support for their stand.

At present, only eight states allow that type of access, and the institute would like to see every state make birth records available to adult adoptees who want to know who their birth parents are.

For those adults in the eight states who found birth parents, the Institute reports, “Outcomes appear to have been overwhelmingly positive for adult adopted persons and birth parents alike.”

Most birth parents actually welcome rather than fear contact with the children they gave up. My daughter Robin not only will welcome the day she sees her daughter in the flesh again; she yearns for it. By then, maybe Illinois will be another in a long list of states to accommodate records access.

More than 50 years ago, adoptions were closed. Birth parents and adoptive parents had little or no contact or information exchange, and adult adoptees consequently had no connection to their past. By the 1970s, a few alternatives became available. Total secrecy is rare now, and, thankfully, a growing number of professionals regard it as a poor practice for everyone involved.

Heart of the issue

Peel away the layers of closed versus open adoptions and the birth records controversies and what’s left? The heart of the issue — what’s best for those directly involved?

The institute uncovered information that helps us understand the benefits of openness in adoptions. It concluded that the best of all possible adoptive situations is an open one, where the birth mother meets, or at least helps choose, her baby’s new parents.

Mothers who place their children and have a hand in knowing where the child is have fewer grief issues. “Research on birth mothers who relinquished children for adoption in the era of total secrecy chronicles a negative, long-term impact of this experience on many areas of their lives, including triggering chronic, severe grief reactions and contributing to ongoing complications in future parenting and marriage relationships.”

Not knowing what happened to their children was the hardest reality with which they coped.

Living with adoption

When Robin made the gut-wrenching decision to give her baby up, she didn’t know much about the process. She did know she wanted some control over who would rear the baby. The caseworker at the Catholic adoption agency in Quincy emphasized repeatedly that, once she signed the papers, she would forever relinquish parental rights. Forewarned, she continued meeting with her caseworker in the months before the baby’s birth.

They called it a closed adoption. Yet, Robin looked through stacks of profiles of couples who desperately wanted to adopt a child, couples with no names, just stories describing their lives and why they wanted a baby.

The couple she chose must have seen their hopes crumble when they learned that Robin brought the baby home. But she hadn’t changed her mind. She wanted a week, just one week, before she gave her baby to the loving couple who would give her child the home she wasn’t able to give her at the time. For one week, she was the baby’s mom, and she crammed a lifetime of memories into each day.

Then came the cold January day when the caseworkers picked up the baby. We’d all written loving messages telling her we loved her, and tucked meaningful mementos into envelopes we hoped the new parents would someday give the baby.

Robin signed the papers that ended her parental rights. Would we meet again someday? We all hoped so.

Our family has lived with the realities of adoption. By the time Robin’s baby is an adult, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute may have achieved its goal — that all states will have legislated an open-door policy for adult adoptees who want to know their family roots.

This is the opinion of Natalie Miller Rotunda, president and co-founder of the Quincy, Ill., Writers Guild. She moved to Minnesota in 1995. Her column is published the third Tuesday of the month.


Link to article

ILLINOIS: Editorial--Birthrights--Adults who were Adopted Should have Access to Birth Records

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, November 20, 2007

BIRTH RIGHTS

Adults who were adopted should have access to birth records

Two people, both over 21, walk into the county clerk's office and plunk down $13 to order a certified copy of their original birth certificate. Only one is able to obtain that piece of paper, which is so important not just for identification purposes, but to trace their ancestry. The other, who was adopted at birth, will get a revised document showing the names of his adoptive parents.

There is no compelling reason to deny adults their original birth certificates, other than to continue a long tradition of secrecy -- borne of the shame that once was attached to unwed mothers. Those were the days when a pregnant woman often left town and returned after having given the child to 'a good family,' meaning a married couple.

A comprehensive new study released last week for National Adoption Month, provides strong evidence that those myths no longer are valid. At the very least, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute's findings support changing state laws to allow adopted adults to obtain their original birth information.

Illinois, like most states, keeps original birth certificates and most other adoption records sealed, including any genetic problems in the birth parents' family. That information is released only by court order. Only Alaska and Kansas have always allowed adults to see their original birth certificate. Six other states -- Alabama, Deleware, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee -- have re-established adopted adults' rights to direct access to their original birth record.

Resistance to change has been strong, however. Critics say birth parents were assured confidentiality when they gave up their child, and that it's unfair to 'expose' them later on. That promise should expire when that child becomes an adult and entitled to the same rights as other adults. And why not? The Donaldson Institute found that in states that provide direct access to original birth certificates, the biological parents' lives were not ruined by revealing their names, and in fact many welcomed a meeting. Moreover, abortion rates did not rise and adoption rates did not fall

Julie Tye, president of The Cradle adoption agency, said many biological mothers welcome the chance to see their adult child and know they made the right decision in giving him or her a chance for a better life. Each year, the agency acts as a go-between for about 30 birthmother reunions, including one for a mother in her 80's.

State Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago), an adoptee, four years ago sponsored the Illinois law that allows adoption agencies to search adoption birth records for medical information. "There was a time when you could go in and get a birth certificate over the counter, and you should be able to do so again," said Feigenholtz, referring to an earlier era before there were such restrictions. She was reunited with her birth mother in the late 1980's. She plans to introduce a bill early next year that gives all adults access to their birth record. "That's a pretty basic civil right."

Times have changed. Adoption no longer is a hush-hush arrangement a woman makes to avoid the stigma of being an unwed mother. It's time Illinois law changed as well and stopped treating adopted adults like children.

(Paid archives)

ALABAMA: Commentary by Phillip Tutor--Adopt this Plan--Give Them Access

ANNISTON STAR
November 16, 2007

Phillip Tutor: Adopt this plan — Give them access

Let’s start an argument.

There are millions of adoptees in the United States, and only those living in eight states — yes, Alabama’s one of them — can legally get their birth records.

The name of their birthmother? Nope. The name of their birthfather? They can’t get it. Where they were born? Can’t get that, either.

Thus, most U.S. adoptees are the only Americans denied their family histories and medical histories. By the conditions of their birth, they are treated differently than anyone else born here. Even American-born children of illegal immigrants can access their birth records, a right given them by U.S. law.

But U.S. adoptees are cut off from their life stories, through no choice of their own, as though their citizenship and rights are not as valuable as those of others.

So, our argument:

Should U.S. adoptees have access to their birth records?

Yes.

It’s past time for this paradigm shift in our nation’s thinking about adoption and the rights of adoptees. Anything less perpetuates the stigma that’s unmercifully dogged adoptees for generations — a stigma that, slowly, diminishes with each passing decade.

Before we progress, two points should be clear. I’m an adoptive parent — an old story, written about it before. I’m also the parent of internationally adopted children, so my expertise is filtered through eyes with a particularly global hue. Just so you know.

This has bubbled up because November is National Adoption Month and Saturday is National Adoption Day, designed, according to its Web site, as a “collective national effort to raise awareness” for thousands of children in foster care awaiting adoption.

In 2006, more than 3,000 adoptions were finalized in National Adoption Day ceremonies in 50 states.

More important, the movement to allow adoptees access to their birth records is riding a wave of publicity — some positive, some vitriolic — thanks to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, whose report released this week called for states to treat their adopted citizens as they do all others and grant them legal access to their records. And as you can expect, the report is wildly controversial in child-welfare and civil-liberty circles.

Advocates state the obvious, that adopted Americans should have the same right to know who their ancestors are. What they do with that information — contact their birth parents or simply obtain a birth certificate — is their choice.

Opponents such as the National Council on Adoptions, which represents many religiously affiliated adoption agencies, and a few state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union are fighting for the privacy of the birthmothers, a critically important issue. In New Jersey — to show you how far this argument goes — representatives of that state’s Right to Life organization and the New Jersey Catholic Conference oppose giving adoptees access to their information. Why? They claim the loss of privacy might push women to choose abortion instead of adoption.

Understandably, abortion is an important argument.

But it’s not this argument.

We cannot lose sight of the enormity of the decisions made by women who place their children up for adoption. They are gut-wrenching, life-changing moments in the lives of women who either cannot take care of their child or for some reason choose not to. Whether they select open adoption or the traditional method that includes anonymity, the rights of birthmothers cannot be simply tossed aside.

Nor can we ignore the fact that there are adoptive parents who themselves struggle over the control of their children’s birth records. As an adoptive parent, it’s easy for me to understand that some parents of adoptees are adamantly opposed to having their son or daughter — their adult child, as it may be — contact a birthmother who relinquished her parental rights decades ago. Those are emotions that are acutely raw, and remain so. I know that first-hand.

Clearly, this isn’t a monochromatic, one-sided issue.

Nevertheless, we have to realize that the anonymity and sealed birth records were established in an era when adoption was neither a source of pride nor a process to cherish. Often adoption was a deep, dark family secret, rarely discussed for fear of the stigma that came with an adoption label. As Adam Pertman, executive director of the Donaldson Institute, told the Chicago Tribune: “Sealed records are a symbol of a time when adoption was an embarrassment.” And barring adoptees access to their birth records was the one sure way to protect the anonymity of those who had chosen to place their child up for adoption.

That time has passed.

There is no easy, clean answer. This argument is messy and complex. But some things should be done because they are right and just and humane.

This is one of them.

About Phillip Tutor:
Phillip Tutor is the commentary editor. He was formerly The Star's managing editor, news editor, sports editor and sports columnist. He lives in Golden Springs with his wife and two children.

Contact Phillip Tutor:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:


Link to article