MINNESOTA: Commentary by James Hamilton: Adoptees Should Have the Right to Know Their Origins, May 21, 2008

ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS
May 21, 2008

Commentary: Adoptees should have the right to know their origins
By James M. Hamilton


ov. Pawlenty vetoed an obscure bit of legislation on May 16, one that few Minnesotans have heard of and in which even fewer have any interest. But for tens of thousands of Minnesotans whose lives have been touched by adoption over the last 90 years, it was a significant event, one in which Gov. Pawlenty reached the right result for all the wrong reasons.

Every birth in Minnesota is memorialized by a birth certificate. A second birth certificate is issued for any minor adopted in Minnesota. Since 1917, Minnesota has sealed the original birth certificates of those born and adopted in this state. Initially, the information was locked away only from the general public. Over the years, however, the law was changed to prohibit anyone from seeing the original birth certificate, parent or offspring, adult or child. Under current law, some adult adoptees have access to their original birth certificates, some don't. It all depends upon when they were born and whether one of their biological parents has told the state not to release that information to them.

The bill in question would have changed the situation slightly, allowing any adoptee at least 19 years of age to obtain an uncertified copy of his or her original certificate upon request, provided that one of the birth parents had not already vetoed the adoptee's right to that information.

Neither the existing law, nor the bill vetoed last week by Gov. Pawlenty, makes sense to this adoptive father. Why my son should be denied the right to obtain a copy of his original birth certificate from the state, while I have the absolute right to my own, is a mystery. Both of our births were public events, like that of virtually every other person in this state. Yet, the state decided at some point in the distant past that some adults in this state should be denied access to this most fundamental personal information: who they are and where they came from.

No one should have the right to tell the state whether my son may have access to this information. Yet our current law and the failed attempt to modify it place that right in the hands of the man and woman who conceived him. Why? Because he was adopted after being born. Had he been placed in foster care, he would have the same rights I do. Whether he was born inside or outside of marriage, he would have the same rights I do. Whether he had been raised by one parent or two, he would have the same rights I do. But because he was adopted, the State of Minnesota has granted either of his biological parents the power to deny him the right enjoyed by every other non-adopted person in Minnesota: the right to know from whence he came.

The exercise of this power would not affect only my son. It would affect all those to whom he is related by blood and who may be deprived of the possibility of ever knowing him: his father, mother, grandparents, uncles, aunts, siblings, nieces, nephews, and cousins. All because he was adopted.

Gov. Pawlenty was right to veto a bill that would have perpetuated this injustice. Sadly, he did so for all the wrong reasons. His veto was based not on a recognition of the rights of adult adoptees, but on the erroneous belief that those who relinquished children for adoption were in some way promised that the fact of the adoption would be kept forever secret by the state. He also cited a report that fewer than one-quarter of biological parents contacted by a single Minnesota adoption agency preferred not to have identifying information released by the agency.

Fortunately, my son was born in a country that does not seal original birth certificates. He already has a certified copy of his. He knows his origins. But thousands of others adopted in Minnesota since 1917 (and their descendants) will never know theirs, so long as Minnesota continues to meddle in their private lives.

Ninety-one years of such meddling is more than enough. Perhaps our next Legislature and our next governor will recognize that the state has no legitimate role to play in this area of our lives. Perhaps they will recognize that adult adoptees are indeed adults, not the children they once were. But they'll need to hear from us to do so.

James M. Hamilton is a St. Paul attorney in private practice and an adoptive father. His e-mail address is jamesmhamilton@aol.com.

Link to article

MINNETOTA: Rep. Tingelstad Authors Bills on Adoption Records, Surrogate Motherhood, May 12, 2008

HOMETOWN SOURCE.COM
May 12, 2008

Rep. Tingelstad authors bills on adoption records, surrogate motherhood
by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol reporter

Adoption records and surrogate mother bills passed the House on Monday (May 12) but not before emotional debate.

Rep. Kathy Tingelstad, R-Andover, authored both bills — Tingelstad has focused on adoption issues her entire legislative career.

Both bills had vocal opposition.

“I cannot tell you how much I oppose this bill,” said Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, of the adoption records legislation.

gestkathy.jpg Under Tingelstad’s bill the birth records of adopted children — children born between 1945 to 1982, the bill author explained — would be available to adopted persons over the age of 19 unless an affividat of nondisclosure exists on file.

Adoptees, besides the desire to know their birth-parents, argue that a lack of family medical history can complicate their health care.

Rep. Kathy Tingelstad, R-Andover, stood on the House floor Monday (May 12) while presenting her surrogate mother legislation. The lawmaker had two bills, the other dealing with adoption records, pass the House on Monday. (Photo by T.W. Budig, ECM Capitol Reporter)

Current law provides for adoptees to seek birth record information through adoption agencies, but adoptees have argued the process is expensive, drawn out, and often inclusive.

Betrays privacy of women, says Holberg

But Holberg views the bill as betraying the privacy of women who confronted a different society than exists now when dealing with the pregnancy — having a child out of wedlock was considered shameful decades ago, she argued.

True, some of these birth-mothers have died, Holberg argued.

But what will surviving family members think to have someone show up at the door one day — when the birth-mother perhaps never told anyone about her pregnancy — and have a stranger tell them they’re related.

“What a shock,” said Holberg.

Birth-mothers across the country could receive similar shocks unless they “get with the program” and file an affividat of nondisclosure if one doesn’t already exist.

But Tingelstad countered by arguing the reason birth records of adoptees were sealed wasn’t out of concern for the birth-mother’s privacy but rather the child’s — they didn’t want children to be subject to possible humiliation because they were adopted.

“There was no confidentiality guarantee (extended to the mother),” said Tingelstad.

Perhaps it was verbal, she said. But it wasn’t in writing.

National trend

Tingelstad said her legislation — which has been criticized by some as being too restrictive, she noted — follows a national trend relating to adoption birth records.

The bill passed the House on a 78-52 vote.

Tingelstad’s other bill, dealing with gestational carriers or surrogate mothers, drew amendments dealing with abortion, surrogate mother compensation, and even prostitution — the latter was ruled out of order.

Tingelstad presented her bill by saying that for some couple, unable to have children on their own, Sunday was less Mother’s Day than Unmother’s Day.

Supporters of the legislation argue the bill merely puts into effect guidelines for gestational carrier arrangements — the practice has gone is, is going on, and will continue, they’ve argued in committee.

The bill passed on an 86-46 vote.

Link to article

MINNESOTA: Commentary--Proposal Does Not Pit Adoptees, Birth Parents, March 11, 2008

MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL STAR TRIBUNE
March 11, 2008

Kathy Tingelstad and Ann H. Rest: Proposal does not pit adoptees, birth parents

Instead, it carefully restores a right to basic information for those who have been adopted.

By KATHY TINGELSTAD and ANN H. REST


The March 7 Star Tribune editorial regarding the adoption legislation that we are sponsoring chose to focus on mythology about adoption rather than on the proven need for adopted persons to get their birth information.

The debate over whether adopted adults should have access to their original birth certificates is often mistakenly viewed as birth parent vs. adoptee rights. This is simply not true. The reality is that the debate is more about restoring the right that adopted persons once traditionally had to their birth information, pitted against the mythology that birth parents need protections from secrets and that the state and placing agencies should be the protectors of those secrets.

Minnesotans may not realize that when an adoption takes place, the original birth certificate that contains the birth parents' names is sealed and not available to the adopted adult. In 1917, Minnesota became the first state to seal adoption court records away from prying eyes of the public, in an era when secrets were designed to protect the child and the adoptive family. These records were always available to the adoptive family and in many cases to the birth parents.

In 1945, as secrecy became the foundation of adoption, our state joined others in sealing the birth certificate away from the parties that most needed it -- adult adoptees. As many birth mothers will attest, they were not promised confidentiality (because it could not have been guaranteed), but rather they were encouraged to forget about their adoption placement. Most of them, however, were not able to forget. And society has changed from secretive adoptions to open adoption placement celebrations. That birth parents are advocating for this legislation is evidence they want the best for the children they bore.

We, as legislators, have been working for several years with a group of grass-roots volunteers yearning to update Minnesota's antiquated laws regarding access to the original birth certificate for adult adoptees. These volunteers are adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents who return, year after year, to advocate for reform.

They are armed with data that shows no state has undone access once the legislation has passed. They have research showing that adopted adults who are denied their birth information are harmed emotionally and are at heightened medical risk.

Our compromise legislation honors provisions for birth parents who wish to prevent the release of a birth certificate to the children they relinquished; they may sign an affidavit of nondisclosure with the Health Department. Since 1982, when this document was first implemented, there have been 1,228 filed. That preference would be honored; these birth certificates would not be released.

The Star Tribune editorial falsely stated that the legislation "would change a sensitive and fundamental aspect of the adoption process retroactively." This is not true, since the affidavit was not in existence prior to 1982, and yet it will be available both retrospectively and prospectively to birth parents wishing to use it.

Our legislation is also based on new data released last month by the Health Department showing that 11,683 birth parents signed documents stating they do wish disclosure. Yes, more than 90 percent of the birth parents signed this affidavit of disclosure! Adult adoptees would be able to get a copy of their original birth certificate; this is something nonadoptees take for granted.

Here is the crux of this legislation: It is mindful of both birth parents' and adopted adults' needs. To be characterized by the editorial as putting birth parents at risk is misleading and perpetuates harmful myths. Our legislation brings this important adoption issue up-to-date with 21st-century standards in society.

Kathy Tingelstad, R-Andover/Coon Rapids, is a member of the Minnesota House. Ann Rest, D-New Hope, is a member of the state Senate.


Link to article (registration requried)

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)

MINNESOTA NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO
March 5, 2008
Lots of links

Legislation would open up adoption records
by Nanci Olesen


People who were adopted would have access to their original birth certificates under a bill that's been introduced to the Minnesota Legislature. The access would allow people who were adopted to find out the names of their birth parents. The bill is opposed by some adoption agencies, because some birth parents may not want contact from their offspring.

St. Paul, Minn. — Gretchen Traylor was adopted when she was a baby. She had a lung disease when she was a child, and when she was an adult she needed a lung transplant.

No information was available to her about her birth parents. It took years for her to find out whether her birth parents had similar lung problems. She also learned what medications she had to avoid because of a history of life threatening allergies.

Now Traylor wants other adopted people to be able to find out who their birth parents are, just like she did.

"Each person who is adopted has different reasons. For me, it was the need for medical information," said Traylor. "I discovered that I also had emotional needs, too, that I was not even aware of. And it has been a wonderful reunion for me, although that is not the goal of this bill. The goal of this bill is access to information."

Adoption used to be secretive, but that's changing.

In 1982, The Minnesota Department of Health began asking birth mothers to sign an affidavit making their wishes known. On the affidavit, the woman would indicate whether or not she wants her child to contact her once the child is an adult.

Ninety percent of women who've signed this document have opted for "yes," according to the department.

The new bill would still honor this affidavit. But if the bill becomes law, it would create an exception -- the women who gave up their children before there was an affidavit won't have a choice about maintaining their privacy.

That worries Madonna King, president of Children's Home Society and Family Services, an adoption agency. She points out that 30 or 40 years ago, most adoption agencies told birth mothers that the birth and adoption were secret. Many birth mothers want to keep it that way, King says.

"The reason that people want it to be kept secret is they believed the promise of confidentiality, and they went forward. Probably we are talking about women that are in their 60s, 70s, 80s -- that's the group of women that we're really concerned about," she says.

Under the bill, older birth mothers who don't want contact from their adult children can sign an affidavit saying so. The affidavit could be filled out online or by mail.

The problem is, if the bill passes, those older birth mothers may not know the law has changed and that they need to take action to protect their identities. Adoption agencies want the bill to include a provision for an ad campaign so that older birth moms will be informed.

But there are also many birth mothers who would like to be contacted.

An advocacy group called the Minnesota Coalition for Adoption Reform wants this bill to pass, because they know a lot of birth mothers and adopted people who need to find each other, according to Mary Mason, one of the group's leaders.

"This is one of the greatest sources of pain in life, if you can imagine giving up a child and not knowing the outcome of that," said Mason. "In essence, what the secrecy has done is prevented this population from healing."

One woman who gave up her baby for adoption developed a rare form of breast cancer when she got older. Sandy Sperazza decided she wanted to contact her daughter because her daughter might have inherited this form of cancer.

Sperazza and her daughter were reunited a few years ago. Her daughter had a preventive masectomy. Because of her experience, Sperazza wants to see Minnesota's adoption access laws opened up.

Back in her day, women were shamed when they became pregnant. No information about the adopted family was given to the birth mother. That was wrong, Sperazza says.

"We need to do what we can to correct that. And part of that correction is to offer healing and closure to birth parents," said Sperazza. "A birth parent would love to know that their child is alive and well. We've never known anything because the laws have stopped us. Give us the opportunity to heal, to have some closure to what has always been a very sad part of our life that we've hidden away."

The bill to open access to original birth certificates goes into hearings next week at the Capitol.

Link to article

MINNESOTA: Letter--Adopted Adults Deserve Information by Eunice Anderson

MINNEAPOLIS STAR-TRIBUNE,
January 6, 2008

Netlets for Sunday, Jan. 6


Adopted adults deserve information

As a mother of three adopted/reunited adult children, I read with compassion the Dec. 30 front-page story, "Emily Saunders finds the missing piece of her puzzle."

Because I know that there are a lot more like Emily out there looking for that possible twin void, I work with MCAR (Minnesota Coalition for Adoption Reform) to pass legislation so 19-year-old adults can all get their original birth certificates.

Why we have to fight so hard another legislative year to pass such a fundamental right of every human being is a mystery.

EUNICE ANDERSON, BURNSVILLE

Link to article

MINNESOTA; Letter: Your Turn--Opening Records is Ill-Advised, December 17, 2007

ST. CLOUD TIMES, December 17, 2007
OPINION--
Your turn: Opening records is ill-advised
By Patricia A. Krueger, St. Cloud



I am writing in response to Rep. Kathy Tingelstad's Your Turn about proposed changes in adoption records access. ("Minnesota needs to restore rights of adopted people," Dec. 1)

Her suggestion seems to be that formerly closed records should now be completely open, without regard for the original circumstances. While she may be well meaning, I disagree. This should be unnecessary, and may possibly be harmful to individuals and families.

We do agree on some basic concepts. It is not difficult to understand the need for an adopted person to want or need genetic and medical information about families of origin. Curiosity about one's birth parents is also understandable and should be accommodated.

However, I believe that some societal forces have encouraged adoptees to focus on the loss of that original connection as a serious deficiency. Stories that emphasize such feelings turn up as entertainment more than news items. A sense of alienation, inadequacy, lack of confidence and self-esteem can be fostered by well-intended people who suggest adoptees are incomplete people and remiss if they don't want to "find out who they are."

Non-adoptees are seldom encouraged to feel that who they are is more a product of their parents than their own personality and abilities. Still, the eventual location of birth parents can bring closure. It is common for adopted children to fantasize about birth parents.

I recall times when "birth mom" was held up as an enchanting alternative to "enforcing mom" at home. This is different than what might happen at a later age, when contact with the birth family might help answer questions.

The process of locating birth family should be as easy as possible. As an adoptive parent, I encourage my two adopted children to make that search when and if they are comfortable. I will help them.

An important fact that Tingelstad did not mention is that many reunions already happen on a regular basis here in Minnesota.

It is already possible to launch a search for family of origin members, but a facilitator is required. This person will gather the information — if it exists — and provide it to the petitioner. An actual meeting is not arranged until both parties agree. In most cases, that happens when desired — and ends well. A facilitator can prepare the way and properly orient those involved so that the reunions are more likely to be successful. (A surprise visit is much more likely to result in rejection and disappointment than one that is arranged.)

However, in the past, many birth mothers relinquished babies for reasons we should never judge. They were promised privacy. Many may have families whom they have never told about this chapter in their life, and they are afraid of the reactions. They also may hope to be reunited with the child, but under current policy can be assured that someone will contact them with news about that child's interest in reuniting. Thus, they may prepare, even seek assistance, for what can become a healthy and beneficial meeting.

In other cases, adopted children fear the arrival of a birth parent. This legislation usually works both ways. Some adoptees are concerned about a disruption in their lives caused by a person who seeks a relationship they may not desire. Again, current law makes a reunion possible, but only with facilitation and the ability for both parties to make choices.

Tingelstad characterizes adoption practices as only parent focused. Because of my extensive involvement with Children's Home Society & Family Services, I can assure her — and everyone — that for many decades they have been overwhelmingly child centered.

The ability of a woman to make an adoption plan 40 years ago often prevented tragic circumstances for children and the parent. Times have changed, but a promise that may have lead to the adoption decision must be kept.

This is the opinion of St. Cloud resident Patricia Krueger, a director emeriti of Children's Home Society & Family Services.

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