Showing posts with label adoptee rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adoptee rights. Show all posts

Friday, March 7, 2008

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

Thursday, March 6, 2008

MINNEAPOLIS STAR-TRIBUNE
March 6, 2008

Editorial: Adoption bill puts birth parents at risk

March 6, 2008

Should adoptees have access to their original birth records, allowing them to identify birth parents without their consent?

A bill before the state Legislature would give some adoptees access to their original birth certificates, essentially elevating the interests of adoptees above those of birth parents who requested anonymity.

Changing the rules decades after the fact seems unfair, but state rules should balance the rights of all parties by helping adoptees get access to valuable health data without compromising privacy.

Since 1982, birth parents in Minnesota who choose to give up a child for adoption have been required to fill out an affidavit either allowing or preventing the disclosure of their identities at the request of the child, once that child has reached adulthood. In that time, about one in 10 birth parents have opted to prevent disclosure, according to the Minnesota Coalition for Adoption Reform, which is promoting the "open records" change in adoption law.

The proposal would apply only to adoptions made before the enactment of the 1982 affidavit procedure. Birth parents in those pre-1982 adoptions who want their identities to remain concealed would need to file an affidavit.

Heart-warming stories of reunions of adoptees and birth parents receive significant public attention and give open records advocates a strong platform on which to make their case. Meanwhile, birth parents who want their records kept private, almost by definition, lack a voice in the public debate.

Currently, adoptees who want access to their records can appeal to a judge, who would then weigh the interests of the adoptee against those of the birth parent. That can be an expensive and time-consuming process, but one where a third party adjudicates and requires adoptees to make a case beyond genealogical curiosity.

Adoptees can also request that their adoption agencies contact their birth parents or provide information such as health histories. Any legislation should give adoptees access to health information even if birth parents choose to remain anonymous.

The proposed bill would change a sensitive and fundamental aspect of the adoption process retroactively. Doing so could have the unintended consequence of discouraging birth parents from considering adoption in the future, even when it's the best alternative for them and their child, because of concerns that the state might change the rules again in the future.

The individual circumstances of birth parents and adoptees are so varied that it seems unwise and unfair to completely discard such a key privacy provision in a covenant as sensitive as adoption. Before requiring birth parents to come forward, more should be done to encourage disclosure and require sharing of health information without violating the privacy of birth parents.

Link to article
(registration required)

Sunday, March 2, 2008

NEW JERSEY: Letter t the Editor by John Case--Bill Allows Spector of "Biological Parent" to Cloud Adoptions

Comments

BRIDGEWATER COURIER NEWS
March 2, 2008


Letter to the editor: Bill allows 'specter of biological parent' to cloud adoptions
by John Case

The New Jersey Senate Committee that voted 10-0 to support bill S611, which would allow adopted persons access to their original birth certificate and thus the identity of the biological parents' names, are obviously oblivious to the unintended consequences of this bill.

Recent trends in adoptions indicate a trend towards fewer domestic adoptions and more international adoptions, in large part due to laws such as this. This law does not consider a situation where the biological parent may understandably want to disassociate themselves from that chapter of their life nor the extremely problematic situation to the adoptive parents who desire and, I believe, have the right to raise the child completely as their own.

Speaking as prospective adoptive parents, my wife and I are not willing to take on any adoption where the specter of the biological parent hovers over the adoptive parent-child relationship. We know that we are not alone in this mindset.

Take this as a warning. If S611 is passed, prepare to see an increase in overseas adoptions at the expense of domestic adoptions.

JOHN CASE

Bridgewater

Link to article

Saturday, March 1, 2008

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

Monday, February 25, 2008

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

Saturday, February 23, 2008

UNITED STATES: Sally Brown--Letter to the Editor: Story on Adoption Records Provides Public Benefit, February 20, 2008

USA TODAY
February 20, 2008


Story on adoption records provides public benefit
Letter to the Editor: Sally Brown - Livermore, Calif.

Thank you so much for your objective feature on the "rights" of mothers who gave up children for adoption vs. the "rights" of adults who were adopted ("As adoptees seek roots, states unsealing records," Cover story, News, Feb. 13).

When I relinquished my son to adoption in 1950 in New Jersey, I was 22, single and unprepared either financially or emotionally to face the scorn of a community that thought I was still a "nice" girl. By 1981, my idea of myself had strengthened, and I was able to reveal my secret to my daughters and search for my son so I could answer his questions.

For any state to interject itself between a competent adult and his or her child is an unwarranted intrusion into a citizen's private history. The facts in USA TODAY's cover story prove wrong the notion that the availability of honest birth certificate information will produce more abortions.

Continued secrecy might protect those agencies and institutions that gave false information to either relinquishing or adoptive parents, but it does not protect any valid interest of the state.

I commend USA TODAY for bringing these facts to the attention of a wide readership and trust that it will not abandon the topic. The electorate needs to know the facts.

Link to article

Friday, February 22, 2008

UNITED STATES: Did You Ever Give Up a Child for Adoption?, February 22, 2008

Please go to the link and add your comments!

ABC NEWS
February 22, 2008



Did You Ever Give Up a Child for Adoption?
ABC Wants to Talk to Biological Parents Who Want to Keep Their Adoptions Anonymous


We are doing a story on the efforts of different states to unseal adoption records. We are looking to interview a woman who gave a child up for adoption and does not want to be found and is adamantly opposed to the unsealing of adoption records. We promise to fully disguise her identity in the piece, including her face and voice.

Please tell us your story below:

Followed by form.


Direct link not working. Try http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4332269&page=1

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

UNITED STATES: Maggie Gallagher--Children of Sperm Donors Have Rights, Too, February 20, 2008

Check out the comments!

TOWNHALL.COM
February 20, 2008



Children of Sperm Donors Have Rights, Too
By Maggie Gallagher


In New Jersey, the state Senate has twice voted to give adopted children access to their original birth certificates, that is, to the names of their biological mothers. Birth mothers would have one year to notify the state that they wish to remain anonymous. Even so, such birth mothers would be compelled by government to provide social, cultural and health information, or else their identities would be released regardless of their consent.

Recently, one southern New Jersey newspaper weighed in forcefully in the bill's favor: "This is not too much to ask from a birth mother ... The adoptee's right to this information is as important as protecting the privacy of the birth mother," the editors of the Courier-Post opine.


Embryologist Harsha Bhadarka works on the Intra Cytoplasnic Sperm Injection (ICSI) process at Dr. Nayna Patel's Kaival Hospital in Anand, India, Monday, Dec. 17, 2007. The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)
Related Media:
The Difference between Men and Bulls: Procreation by Donation

But why pick exclusively on birth mothers? If children have a right to know their own biological parents -- a claim recognized in international human rights law and one to which I am deeply sympathetic -- there is no good reason to limit this claim to the small number of women who accept the agonizing burden of giving life to children they cannot raise.

Far more children these days are deprived of knowledge of their origins by a totally difference process: artificial insemination. How can we possibly countenance placing burdens exclusively on women who give life and excuse totally the men whose sole contribution to their child was to "donate" into a little cup, usually for money?

And our laws are almost totally to blame for keeping children created by reproductive technologies in the dark about their origins. The common law remains the rule for children created by sexual acts: I cannot bargain away at the bar my child's right to the support and care of both his mother and father. The child retains the right to the support of both parents, no matter to what those parents have agreed. But if I go to a doctor or clinic for sperm, adult bargains are suddenly allowed by law to trump the child's natural right to know both his biological parents, wherever possible.

A whole lot of other rights and concerns get trumped as well. As the New York Post reported this week, "Conditions at New York City sperm banks are inconceivably bad -- with some offices not testing samples for some diseases, and others using sperm from donors who engaged in high-risk sexual behavior."

Idant Laboratories, reports the Post, fails to test sperm donors for some sexually transmitted and genetic diseases. One woman who used sperm from Idant Laboratories contacted the agency when she learned that her own son, and the child of another family that used the same donor, both suffered from autism.

Idant declined to contact the sperm donor on the grounds that autism is not a life-threatening illness. How many other children will this one man be paid to stud with his identity totally shielded by law -- hundreds potentially?

My own position on sperm donation is considered beyond the pale. Ideally, before a man becomes a father he ought to be able to persuade some woman to marry him. But consider this an absolute minimum: A man who wants to be a father ought to be able to find some actual live woman who wants to have sex with him. Call it nature's quality control.

If we are going to revise all our laws to facilitate adult desires at children's expenses, the least we can do is require facilities that make money by making babies to keep records on whom the biological father is, and make those records available to children who turn 18.

If New Jersey legislators are going to impose this burden on birth mothers, the least they can do in justice is to make sperm-donor dads equally responsible.


Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially
.

Link to article

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

UNITED STATES: As Adopees Seek Roots, States Unsealing Records

Go to link for sidebar on history of open records, current stats, and pictures

Tom Atwood steps in the cow pie.


USA TODAY
February 13, 2008


As Adoptees Seek Roots, States Unsealing Records

By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY

When Maine state Sen. Paula Benoit got a bill passed last year, she got more than a new law: She found pieces of her past.

For years, Benoit, 52, had wondered about the parents who had put her up for adoption. That helped lead her to support a plan to give adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates. After the bill passed, Benoit learned the names of her birth parents and their hometown. She e-mailed a colleague, Sen. Bruce Bryant, who represents that area and supported her bill, and asked whether he knew them.

His reply: The deceased couple were his grandparents.

"Oh, for the love of God, I need to call him and say, 'I'm your aunt,' " Benoit recalls thinking. "Can the world be any smaller?"

There was more: Bryant's brother, Mark, serves in Maine's House of Representatives — and had opposed Benoit's bill. "It's too open," he says, adding that birth mothers expected privacy when they placed children for adoption years ago. He says he's happy Benoit is in his family but worries the new law may force some birth parents into contact they do not want.

Three lawmakers, two points of view, one family.

As unusual as Benoit's story is, the debate within her family over whether adult adoptees should be able to learn more about their backgrounds is echoing across the nation.

Last year, Maine was one of three states to pass laws to give such adoptees full or partial access to their original birth certificates — more than in any year since 2000, according to a USA TODAY analysis of state records. Massachusetts approved access for those born before July 1974, when records were sealed, or after January 2008. North Carolina approved indirect access through a state-appointed intermediary. When its law takes effect next January, Maine will become the eighth state to give adult adoptees full access to their birth records, which list birth parents' names.

The controversial push to open adoption records is driven in part by the increased interest among many Americans in finding their ancestral roots. Many adult adoptees may be able to find their birth parents without an original birth certificate by searching databases and the Internet, but the official record makes it easier. Some adoptees want to establish a relationship with birth parents; others are more interested in family medical histories. Some don't want to contact their birth parents, they simply want to know their past.

"For 52 years, I know I've been loved," Benoit says of her adoptive parents, who are alive and support her desire to know birth relatives. Even so, she says, she wondered whom she looked like. She wondered why, despite diet after diet, she couldn't lose weight. "Does obesity run in my family?" she'd ask herself.

"This is really about identity and the truth of a human being's existence," Darryl McDaniels, known as the rapper DMC, told lawmakers last month in New Jersey, where bills to open birth records have languished for decades. McDaniels, 43, learned at 35 that he was adopted and has since backed a bill to unseal birth certificates.

"We never start a book from Chapter 2," he said. "As adoptees, we live our lives from Chapter 2."

As the situation in New Jersey suggests, unsealing birth certificates often has been difficult. Bills to do so were proposed in at least seven other states last year but did not pass. Some proposals, such as those in New Jersey, have been stymied by opposition from the National Council for Adoption and some Catholic bishops, abortion opponents and civil libertarians.

Thomas Atwood, president of the council, which represents adoption agencies, says birth mothers were promised privacy and if that promise is broken, fewer women will choose adoption over abortion.

Despite the opposition, "the general trend is clear: Adoptees are being given access, state by state," says Fred Greenman, legal adviser to the American Adoption Congress, which supports open birth records.

Greenman reconnected with his daughter in 1991, more than 30 years after agreeing to her adoption. The daughter's husband made the first call and set up a meeting. "We spent the whole day at the dining room table talking," he recalls. He says most birth parents welcome contact, as he did, and adoptees deserve to know their past.

Last year's increase in access laws also reflects a larger trend toward openness in adoption, as more birth parents seek to stay in contact with kids they relinquish. "There's far more acceptance of it being open," says Herbert Brail, head of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys.

That was not the case decades ago when many women, under the stigma of unmarried pregnancy, felt forced to relinquish their babies, says Ann Fessler, author of The Girls Who Went Away, a 2006 book about women who gave up children in the 1950s and 1960s.

Fessler, an adoptee, says many of the women she interviewed have "tremendous guilt." She says they want contact with their children, and about half have it. The rest, she says, feel they have no right to it but wonder about their children.

Fessler, 58, says women in their mid-70s and 80s, are — like her own birth mother — often more reticent about a reunion. She wrote her 77-year-old mother a letter, then a postcard, and waited more than a year but got no response. So she called. "I was very, very nervous — kind of shaking," she says. Her mother was friendly on the phone, so they met in person a few months later. "We chatted like crazy," Fessler says.

Now, however, they have "minimal" contact. Her mother has not told her other three children about Fessler. "She's still torn about whether she can come out about this," Fessler says.

Eileen McQuade, president of the American Adoption Congress, says unsealing birth records has not created problems in the states that have done so — Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee. Two other states, Alaska and Kansas, have never sealed birth records. Delaware allows full access except when birth parents object.

Abortion rates have declined in the states that allow full access to records, as they have nationwide. Most birth parents in Alabama, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee have consented to contact with their children or the release of records, according to records reviewed by USA TODAY.

After Oregon began releasing records in 2000, few birth mothers complained, says E. Wayne Carp, author of Adoption Politics: Bastard Nation & Ballot Initiative 58, a book on the state's experience.

As each state opens records, others will follow, says Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, which favors unsealing records. "Success breeds success."

A battle of legal rights

The legislative battles often pit an adoptee's right to his or her birth certificate against a birth mother's right to privacy.

"People have a right to their birth records," says Marley Greiner, founder of Bastard Nation, a group pushing to unseal records.

There is no such legal right, Atwood counters, adding that birth mothers believe they were promised privacy when states sealed records. He says many won't speak out because they have other kids or spouses who don't know about the adoption.

Birth records were sealed not to give birth mothers anonymity but to protect adoptive parents from interference from birth parents, says Elizabeth Samuels, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She says some were sealed to protect adoptees from the stigma of illegitimacy.

If birth mothers or adopted children really want to find each other, Atwood says, they can list their names in registries set up by states.

Not all states have registries. Many that do make few matches, says Marri Rillera of the International Soundex Reunion Registry, which gives adoptees and birth parents free help in finding each other. In Texas, about 8,500 adoptees, siblings and birth parents have registered. One or two matches are made each month, says Patricia Molina, who oversees the registry.

"A registry is not the answer," Rillera says. "Open records are."

She says some companies charge thousands of dollars to search records and some adoption agencies charge $400 to $500 for non-identifying information about birth parents, such as age, medical history, ethnicity and religion. An adoptee's search will be quicker and cheaper if birth records are open, she says. "Frankly, I'd like to be out of business."

'We've had mixed emotions'

At least 19,000 adoptees have asked for their birth certificates in Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee.

"I've seen a lot of people whose hands shake" when they get the record, says Melanie Orman, adoption coordinator for New Hampshire. She says many had met their birth mother or knew her name but wanted the piece of paper as a record of their past.

Birth mothers can be distressed. Orman got a call from an angry woman who said she was awakened at 11 p.m. by a call from someone who said, "You're my mother." She says the woman felt her privacy had been invaded.

"We've had mixed emotions: happy, sad, upset," says Carolyn Jones, coordinator of post-adoption services at the Tennessee Department of Children's Services.

Adoptees seeking birth certificates is "routine now," says Carol Sanders at Oregon's Center for Health Statistics. From June 2000 through November 2007, 9,571 adoptees sought records in Oregon. Of 564 birth parents who filed forms on whether they wanted contact, 85 said no.

"I've seen very few who say no," says Dorothy Harshbarger, Alabama's registrar of vital records. She estimates 95% of birth parents allow contact. She says a few complained after records were unsealed in 2000, but not many since then.

A dozen states provide partial access to original birth certificates, depending on the date of the adoption and the permission of birth parents. Another dozen allow indirect access through a state-appointed intermediary if birth parents agree. In other states, adoptees need court approval.

In Illinois, which allows access via an intermediary, 25% of the parents decline contact, says Nancy Golden, co-director of the Midwest Adoption Center, a group that does adoption counseling. She says the women may have kept the birth a secret or may fear anger from the adoptee. She says reunions usually are positive if people don't expect too much. Still, she says the experience can be "overwhelming."

Illinois state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, who plans to sponsor a bill this year to fully open records, says she was in her 20s when she found her birth mother. The woman's first response: "What took you so long?"

McQuade was 19, a college freshman, when she relinquished a baby girl in 1966. "I felt so powerless and shameful," she recalls. She later married the father and had two more daughters, but they didn't discuss their first child. "We hoped the pain would go away," she says, "but it never did."

Then came the phone call on Nov. 28, 1997, about 9:30 p.m. "I'm calling from New York," a woman said. "I knew what it was immediately," McQuade recalls. The caller, a friend of her first child, asked if the parents wanted contact. They did. The friend handed the phone to the daughter.

Mother and daughter spoke for the first time, neither sure what to say. McQuade started by telling her family medical information.

"It was kind of indescribable — terrified, excited, surreal," says her daughter Kathleen Laing. "We e-mailed every day for a year. It was incredibly intense."

They met in person the following July 4th weekend. "It was a complete roller coaster," McQuade says, from joy and hope to sadness at missing so many years. She says their reunion is "a fairy tale come true" that prompted her activism.

Benoit says that after she began pushing to unseal Maine's birth records, she asked a judge for her own. He said no. Later, to her surprise, she received a letter from the court that included her birth mother's name. She still does not have her original birth certificate.

She says the Bryants invited her to a Christmas party and other get-togethers. "Our family is happy to know her," Mark Bryant says.

Benoit says her birth mother was poor and about 50 when she was born, and did the right thing in relinquishing her baby. If her birth mother were alive, Benoit says, "Boy, would I love to put my arms around her and thank her."

Link to article

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

NEW JERSEY: Calling All Birth Mothers..., February 1, 2008

RESPECT LIFE TODAY
February 1, 2008


Calling all birth mothers…
2/1/2008 by Lois Rogers


LAWRENCEVILLE - Now that the ongoing effort to open up adoptee birth records has heated up again in the legislature, it's only natural to turn to the New Jersey Catholic Conference for insight and information.

Marlene Lao-Collins is the director of social concerns for the New Jersey Catholic Conference and Patrick R. Brannigan is executive director. They have a real gift for putting complex societal issues into a context everyone can understand.

Talk to them on this particular subject, and it's immediately clear why they are the go-to-guys. It's a highly charged, emotional issue but Lao-Collins and Brannigan see both sides, spell them out and ask people to get involved.

"There are two sides of this story," Lao-Collins said Jan. 28, four days after a Senate panel voted overwhelmingly to release a measure that would allow people access to their original birth certificates.

As it stands now, the measure in question - S611 - would miss the mark, said Brannigan and Lao-Collins. They are pressing for amendments that include an enhanced mutual consent registry system which would link birth parents and adult adopted persons when (both) parties have requested and consented to reunions.

The New Jersey Catholic Conference doesn't oppose adoptees having full access to their birth parents' medical histories or revealing the identities of natural parents who consent to the release of the information; but doing so without consent is "simply wrong and unfair." That's what Brannigan told the Senate panel when he testified on the subject Jan. 24.

"The assurance of secrecy regarding the identity of the natural parents enables them to place the child for adoption with a reputable agency, with the knowledge that their actions and motivations will not become public knowledge," Brannigan testified. "Assured of this privacy by the State, the natural parents are free to move on and attempt to rebuild their lives after what must be a traumatic and emotionally tormenting episode in their lives."

The adoptive parents, he noted, also have an interest in having the birth records under seal. "They have taken into their home a child whom they will regard as their own and whom they will love and raise as an integral part of their family unit."

As a close friend of couples who have adopted children in good faith and embraced them as their own, I understand those concerns. As the friend of several adult adoptees, I understand their desire to know their origins.

It's a situation that begs for a Solomon.

Now Solomon, as we all know, relied on the testimony of the mother to render a verdict. And that's precisely who Lao-Collins would like to hear from.

"I would love it if birth moms, birth parents would call me about this. We would keep their information confidential but we know that the stories they tell are compelling and would have an impact.

"We fully understand that adopted persons have compelling, passionate reasons for wanting the records open but we can work this out and we can do it in a way that respects the dignity of both.

"We need to give birth parents the choice of whether they wish to be contacted. We need to do all we can to truly lift up the dignity of both sides."

Reach her at 609-989-1120, ext. 15.

Lois Rogers is features editor at The Monitor. She is available at lroger@dioceseoftrenton.org

Link to article

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

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

Sunday, January 27, 2008

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

Saturday, January 26, 2008

NEW JERSEY: Editorial--A Case of Equality--Adopted Adults Deserve to Know of Their Past, January 26, 2008

MORRIS COUNTY DAILY REGISTER
January 26, 2008


A Case of Equality: Adopted Adults Deserve to Know of Their Past


Many adopted adults have tracked down their birth mother. All human interactions don't always turn out well, but many times such reunions are joyous occasions. A child is delighted to discover his or her history, and an aging mother is able to have a relationship she never imagined she would have.

Legislation has kicked around Trenton for years to make it easier for adopted adults to find out more about themselves. A Senate panel this week endorsed a measure that would allow adopted adults access to their original birth certificates, which list the names of their birth parents. We hope the full Senate and Assembly follows suit.

It's a normal human desire for any person to wonder about his or her family and health history. Even if adoptees do not seek to find their birth parents, this law would allow them the satisfaction of at least knowing who they were.

Opponents say opening up birth records that have been sealed for years violates the privacy of birth parents. We understand that view. In any legislation, there has to be a balancing of rights. We come down on the side of adopted adults seeking to discover their history. As proponents say, this really is an important civil rights issue. This week's progress in this matter is encouraging.


Link to article

Friday, January 25, 2008

NEW YORK: Letter--Regarding Jennifer Gish's Jan. 13 Article, "Opening Closed Books on Adoption"


ALBANY TIMES-UNION
January 25, 2008



Bill Benefits Adoptees and Their Parents
Letter by Joyce Bahr


Regarding Jennifer Gish's Jan. 13 article, "Opening closed books on adoption":

This issue is about adult adoptees who are being denied civil rights. Although some adoptees will not seek out birth/natural families until their adoptive parents are deceased or until they are older, some will want to know when they are 18 and they should have the right. Surrender papers are what women like myself, Sylvia Ackerson and many other mothers who surrendered to adoption signed. We are well aware we signed surrender papers terminating our parental rights, which contain nothing about confidentiality.

I, like other mothers who surrendered to adoption, and adoptive parents who are not adopted, have our original birth certificates and know our identity -- unlike adoptees. This is about adult adoptees and their rights.

There are some myths being perpetuated by some in state government that natural parents are shocked when contacted by adoptees and that the registry protects those who do not wish to be found. Neither of these hold true in today's world. I believe most New Yorkers would agree the law is slow to catch up with the changing times of society.

The New York Bill of Adoptee Rights is a good bill giving all adult adoptees access to a copy of their original birth certificate and updated medical histories at age 18. It gives birth/natural parents the option of filing a contact preference meaning they want contact, they want contact but only through an intermediary, or they do not want contact.

JOYCE BAHR

President New York Statewide Adoption Reform

http://www.unsealedinitiative.org




Link to article

HIP HOP NEWS
January 25, 2008


DMC Pushes For Adoptee Rights In New Jersey
January 25th, 2008

Author: Jake Paine

Rap icon DMC of Run-DMC was speaking in a New Jersey statehouse yesterday (January 24) on behalf of adoptee's rights. Within the state, adoptees' birth records are kept restrictive to adoptive parents, which prevents many adoptees from knowing or seeking their blood relatives and parents.

DMC told New's Day, "This isn't about DMC the celebrity, this is really about identity and truth of a human being's existence." It was eight years ago that the emcee himself discovered he was adopted, and noticed the limiting resources he had in researching his lineage.

The efforts moved the process further. The audience of the senate committee unanimously passed the proposed bill, which will now go before New Jersey Senate. Although this bill has been reportedly passed in 2004 and 2006, it has never been put into law.

HipHopDX will keep you updated.


Link to article
GIGWISE
January 25, 2008


Run DMC Rapper Starts New Career Lobbying For Adoption Rights
NEWS

by Jason Gregory


Darryl McDaniels, who was one of the original members of the US rap group Run-DMC, has called on legislators in the US to give adoptees the right to access their birth records.

McDaniels, who is more widely known as DMC, became an adamant supporter of the adoption rights legislation after learning he was an adoptee at the age of 35.

He told senators in the New Jersey Statehouse yesterday: "This is really about identity and truth of a human being's existence."
Story continues below...

"We never start a book from Chapter 2, as adoptees we live our lives from Chapter 2."

If approved, the legislation would allow adoptees the access to the names, ages, birthplaces, birth dates and occupations of their biological parents, reports AP.

"This isn't about us going back to make the birth mother's life hectic," McDaniels, who won an Emmy in 2006 for a documentary about his adoption experience, said.

"I believe there should be a right. That is somebody's identity, you all, somebody's identity."


Link to article

NEW JERSEY: Adult Adoptees to Get Original Birth Records Now Sealed Under State Law


NEWARK STAR LEDGER
January 23, 2008


Adoption Records Bill Advances

Open-records advocates who have spent nearly 30 years lobbying for the legislation recruited Darryl McDaniels -- DMC of the pioneering rap group Run DMC -- to urge the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee to support the bill.
Advertisemen

The 43-year-old performer said he only learned about his adoption seven years ago while writing an autobiography. When he quizzed his mother about where he was born, she admitted he was adopted. The revelation devastated him because "I always thought I knew who I was."

"I understand protecting the rights of the birth mother, and there should be a protocol for that. This is not about making the birth mother's life hectic," McDaniels said, his voice cracking. "This is about the right of a human being to know the truth of the story of my existence."

The bill (S611) would allow adult adoptees or the adoptive parent of a child to petition the state registrar for an original birth certificate with the names of the biological parents.

The measure gives parents a year from the bill's enactment to file a notarized "No contact" letter with the state if they wish to remain anonymous. They would have to complete a medical and cultural history form every 10 years until the parent is 40, and every five years thereafter, or forfeit their anonymity.

The bill, in one form or another, has been before the Legislature since the session. Religious leaders, anti-abortion activists and, more recently, the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union have successfully lobbied against it, asking lawmakers to protect birth mothers, who believed they had anonymity when they gave up their children.

One speaker, Philip Foley, struck a particularly sorrowful note, telling how his wife had surrendered a child conceived through a rape when she was a teenager, only to have a member of their family confronted years later by his wife's adult daughter.

But Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), the committee chairman and one of the bill's sponsors, said the bill is important.

"By implementing this bill into law, we will be offering answers to some of the most basic questions of identity for thousands of New Jerseyans," Vitale said after the vote.

Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Mercer), who was adopted himself, reluctantly voted for the bill.

"I am torn by these two very important interests -- the interests of moms who, in good faith, put children up for adoption, and kids like me, like Darryl, who don't start our lives from Chapter One."

"My sister, who passed away, always wanted to know," Baroni said. "One of the greatest days in her life was when she met her birth mother."

"In the end, I don't want to be a legislator who looks at Darryl and other kids and says, 'I know better than you do,'" Baroni said.

Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, said she and a coalition of other opponents would continue to fight the legislation. "This is not a compassionate choice at all."

The bill now awaits a full vote in the 40-member Senate.


Link to article

Thursday, January 24, 2008

NEW JERSEY: Rapper lobbies NJ Lawmakers for Adoption Rights, January 24, 2008


NEWSDAY
January 24, 2008


Rapper Lobbies NJ Lawmakers for Adoption Rights
by Tom Hester, Jr.


TRENTON, N.J. - He became famous in the 1980s as the rapper DMC but came to the New Jersey Statehouse Thursday simply as Darryl McDaniels to ask lawmakers to give adoptees access to their birth records.

McDaniels, of the three-man rap group Run-DMC, lobbied lawmakers to pass a law to help adoptees learn their family history.

"This is really about identity and truth of a human being's existence," McDaniels told a Senate committee.

McDaniels discovered at age 35 that he was adopted and has since become a staunch supporter of adoption rights legislation.

McDaniels, now 43, won an Emmy Award for his 2006 documentary, "My Adoption Journey," which chronicled his search for and reunion with his birth parents.

Run-DMC was responsible for 1980s rap classics as "King of Rock," "It's Tricky" and a top-40 remake of Aerosmith's "Walk This Way."

But McDaniels emphasized Thursday, "This isn't about DMC the celebrity."

"We never start a book from Chapter 2," he said. "As adoptees we live our lives from Chapter 2."

Under New Jersey law, adoptees can only see a birth certificate with their adoptive parents' names.

The proposed law would allow future adoptees to get birth certificates with the names, ages, birthplaces, birth dates and occupations of biological parents.

It would allow those already adopted in New Jersey to obtain their birth certificate, although birth parents could contact the state to ask their names be deleted. If they do that, the state would require they provide a medical history.

Opponents said the law would cause problems for those who gave up children thinking they would remain anonymous, but supporters contend the measure would help adoptees know their family history.

After hearing from McDaniels, the committee voted unanimously to release the bill that can now be considered by the full Senate. It passed New Jersey Senate in 2004 and 2006 but has never made it into law.

"This isn't about us going back to make the birth mother's life hectic," McDaniels said. "I believe there should be a right. That is somebody's identity, you all, somebody's identity."

Senators praised McDaniels' testimony.

"Your being able to come before this committee I think will make a significant difference," said Sen. Diane Allen, R-Burlington.

McDaniels, for his part, prefers to give a concert over giving testimony.

"It's easy to rap," he said. Giving testimony? "That's rough."


Link to article

POLITICKER NJ.com
January 24,2008


Vitale Bill to Give Adoptees Access to Birth Records Advances
by Jason Butkowski


TRENTON – A bill sponsored by Senator Joseph F. Vitale which would give adult adoptees and certain others access to the adoptee’s birth certificate was unanimously approved by the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee.

“I think that most of us take for granted the fact that we can trace our family’s journey through preceding generations, and have a sense of self which includes what our parents and grandparents went through to deliver us to this moment in time,” said Senator Vitale, D-Middlesex, the Chair of the Senate health panel. “However, for many adopted New Jerseyans, there’s a missing piece to the puzzle, and so many unanswered questions about who they are and how they came to be. Through this legislation, we have a chance to give a brief glimpse of history to those adopted State residents who for so long were left in the dark regarding their birth parents.”

The bill, S-611, would permit access to the original birth certificates for adult adoptees, direct descendants of deceased adoptees, or the parents or guardians of minor adopted children without prior consent of the birth parent. The bill would provide that birth parents could submit a request for non-disclosure, prohibiting the State Registrar from providing the birth parent’s name and home address when receiving a request for an adopted person’s birth certificate, and would give parents of children born before the enactment of this bill a 12-month period from the date that regulations are adopted in order to opt-out. In place of their name and address, birth parents who choose the non-disclosure option would fill out a family history form containing medical, cultural and social history, and return it to the State Registrar within 60 days.

The birth parent would also be given the option to submit a document of contact preference, indicating the birth parent’s preference regarding contact with the adopted person.

“I understand there are some birth parents who might not want to be contacted, just as some adopted people might not want to find out about their birth parents,” said Senator Vitale. “While we want to give these parents the option to remain anonymous, we want to give adopted New Jerseyans something in terms of a family history. At the very least, these folks will have some idea where they came from.”

Senator Vitale added that a family history would be useful for a number of practical purposes, including helping to shape decisions about medical care.

“If doctors know someone’s genetically predisposed to certain kinds of reactions or disorders, that goes a long way in helping to provide effective health care,” said Senator Vitale. “Something as basic as a family medical history is often taken for granted by people who know their birth parents, but it can be so very important in ensuring proper medical care for adopted people.”

Senator Vitale has been working to advance similar legislation for the last two legislative sessions. He said he will continue to fight for this measure, because “it is the right thing to do for adopted people in New Jersey wondering where they came from.”

“This a matter of basic fairness for people who spend much of their life always searching for that missing piece of the puzzle,” said Senator Vitale. “The fact of the matter is, without this law, there are people in this State who will track down their birth parents, by hiring expensive private investigators and pouring for months, if not years, over currently available vital statistics. That process is long and costly, and out of the reach of many adopted individuals seeking answers.

“By implementing this bill into law, we will be offering answers to some of the most basic questions of identity for thousands of New Jerseyans,” added Senator Vitale. “We can give these people a glimpse into their past, access to important medical information, and possibly reunite families. This bill is too important to let lapse without action for another legislative session.”

The bill now heads to the full Senate for consideration.
Contact:

Jason Butkowski
New Jersey Senate Democratic Office
Tel:
E-Mail: jbutkowski@njleg.org
Web: www.njsendems.com


Link to article

Friday, January 4, 2008

KANSAS/MISSOURI: A Heartfelt Reunion: Open Records Help Woman Find Biological Mother, January 3, 2008


BLUE SPRINGS EXAMINER.
January 3, 2008

A Heartfelt Reunion: Open Records Help Woman Find Biological Mother

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

The year was 1969, but Sharon Cummins' family didn't embrace the flower child mentality blossoming across the country.

"My family was pretty conservative," said Cummins, a middle child in a family of 11 living in Kansas City.

Not long before, she had discovered what the change was that had overcome her.

The morning sickness, the cravings and the general need to use the bathroom more often now made perfect sense.

"I was pregnant," Cummins said. "No doubt about it."

She had broken the news to the father; it was the last time she would see him.

As the baby girl grew inside her, Cummins had a decision to make.

Was she prepared to scratch everything for motherhood at 21?

Did she meet the qualifications of motherhood?

Finally, Cummins made a decision. She opted to hand her child over to adoption.

"I thought it would be selfish of me to keep and care for the baby myself," Cummins said. "I wanted it to have a better life."

- - -

The birth was anything but routine.

When Cummins went into labor, complications arose and a Caesarian section was necessary.

She spent six days in the hospital recovering.

In those days, mothers giving up their children to adoption were prohibited from so much as cradling them.

Nine months of sacrifice, and she couldn't even kiss her baby's forehead.

"It was heartbreaking," Cummins said. "Absolutely heartbreaking."

But Cummins had unknowingly laid the path her daughter would follow to find her 25 years later.

She gave birth to her daughter in a Kansas City hospital on the Kansas side of the state line, where original birth certificates and adoption records are readily available to adoptees.

- - -

Blue Springs resident Lori Smith doesn't recall the name of the movie or what channel it was on.

"I think it was a 'Hallmark Hall of Fame' presentation, but I can't quite remember," Smith said.

Smith was home briefly, visiting her mother in Raytown, when the movie aired.

It dealt with the reunification of a birth mother and her adopted child.

Smith had always known she was adopted.

When the movie was over, after swiping tears from her eyes, Smith asked her mother a question:

"Is there anything you haven't shared with me about my birth parents?" Smith asked.

The answer: a resounding yes.

She pulled from the closet a shoebox containing some very basic information. Her biological parents' names, occupations, physical features, education, etc.

It did not, however, tell her their whereabouts.

Smith looked the information over and silently returned it to its proper place.

She wasn't ready. Not yet.

- - -

A couple months would pass before Smith requested her adoption record.

Once she obtained it, she tried to ignore it. But it lingered. Finally, she did something about it.

The document said her birth mother lived in Springfield, Mo.

It so happened she had a friend living there.

So Smith picked up the phone, made a call and had her friend peruse the white pages.

The name was there: Sharon Fieker (Cummins' maiden name).

Weeks later, Smith visited her friend in Springfield. While there, she drove by her birth mother's home and parked the car. It was a friendly little home with a friendly walkway leading to the front door.

Smith didn't get out, though.

"I wanted to respect her privacy," Smith said. "I thought it would be selfish of me to invade her home."

Smith drove on, but she never forgot.

- - -

Months later, Smith accepted a position at the Kansas State School for the Blind.

At one of her first days on the job, her secret slipped in front of her supervisor.

Her supervisor asked her about it, encouraging her to attempt contact by way of telephone.

Smith consented.

Only she would not do it herself.

"I asked if she would call her on my behalf," Smith said. "I thought that would be for the best."

The supervisor placed the call and was laughing then crying then laughing.

"It was a see-saw of laughter and tears," Smith said.

Then the phone call was over.

"She told me Sharon would love to talk to me," Smith said.

Later that evening, Smith dialed her birth mother's phone number.

It rang. And rang. And rang.

Then a click and a voice.

"Hello?" the voice said as sweetly as a rose in bloom.

- - -

That night, Cummins provided Smith will all of her medical background and answered all the questions that had been fermenting in the back of Smith's mind since she could remember.

The call endured well into the night. When they said their farewells, Cummins figured it would be the last.

"I thought it would be our only communication," Cummins said.

Several days later, Cummins received another call from Smith, this time to arrange a get-together.

She obliged.

Two weeks later, they were officially reunited.

That was 15 years ago.

Today, Cummins and Smith share a unique friendship, one that has been chronicled in a book titled "I Choose This Day - Mournings and Miracles of Adoption.

Every six to eight weeks, Cummins and her husband visit Smith at her home in Blue Springs.

When they're together, Cummins is not introduced to Smith's peers as "mom" but "birth mom."

To her children, Smith's adoptive mother is "Grandma," Cummins is "Grandma Sharon" and her mother-in-law is "Me-ma."

"I've never had any intention of replacing Lori's adoptive mom," Cummins said. "She is her mom and a really wonderful mom at that."


| VIEWPOINT |

Smith and Cummins share their feelings on an open-records policy for adoptees in Missouri

Smith:

It was an open-records policy that allowed Smith to locate her birth mother swiftly and assuredly.

Yet Smith is not sure whether such a policy ought to be implemented in Missouri.

"For me, mutual consent is key," Smith said. "If Sharon didn't want to talk or meet with me, I believe that's her choice.

Smith's birth father has declined contact, which she acknowledges.

She said the policy currently established in Missouri should, if nothing else, provide adoptees access to their birth parents medical history.

"In today's world, medical science allows for many preventive measures against predisposed conditions," Smith said. "If the birth parents wish for identifying information (name, date of birth, place of birth and last known address) to be removed, I believe that's their choice, but they shouldn't be able to deny their adopted children their medical background."

Cummins:

For Cummins, one of the greatest moments in her life was when she accepted a call from a 913 area code.

"I never got calls from Kansas," Cummins said. "I figured it was either a telemarketer or someone special who I hadn't spoken with in a long time."

The person was calling for Cummins' adopted daughter.

"I am in favor of open records for adoptees in Missouri and every state," Cummins said. "The most wonderful chapter in my life would not have been possible without it."



Link to article