U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2012, 08:35 AM
 
42 posts, read 38,947 times
Reputation: 66

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artful Dodger View Post
If the fathers rights were terminated in court there is a good chance he is also on the original birth certificate. That original birth certificate is NEVER destroyed and is REQUIRED by law to be created and filed - it is simply in most states not able to be given out without a court order. The birth certificate you have is an amended birth certificate that was created by an act termed "legal fiction" in law that currently is part of the adoption process. The amendments are your names replace the original names.

If the fathers rights were terminated in court by name - you may be able to use that to gain access to the death certificate.
I'm not sure if my father's name would be on my OBC or not. My mother was shocked to learn that his name was not in my file (according to the confidential intermediary). She had told them who he was, but his name was never recorded in my file. If I had not found her, I don't know how I would have ever found him. So I really don't know if his name would be on the OBC, but I'm guess not given the mores of the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2012, 06:11 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,601 posts, read 23,161,280 times
Reputation: 48600
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
Way too many OT little poison bombs dropped in this thread. So - instead of taking the bait and going off topic....

Open sharing of medical info should be a part of adoption taken for granted. If the possibility exists to do it, I find denying an adult access to their medical information unconscionable. Updates are potentially difficult, but I agree they are the right thing to do.
I agree that whatever information is known, should be given. Since frequently the father's info can be sketchy and even unknown, since several men could be the one who produced the pregnancy, it most likely not going to be perfect in it's still going to be sketchy.

No parent would NOT want to know about their child's medical history and before relinquishment or before the child is removed, as much information as is possible should be gleaned by the agency or by social services.

I don't think any sane and loving parent would disagree with this.

What frequently happens though, is that it is used as a reason for an ongoing, i.e. OPEN relationship with the family and in some cases, extended family.

This is my only issue.

Closed adoption is still the norm and it gave rise to the popularity of international adoption in the 1990s.

Korean adoption is the Grandmother of all international adoptions. It's etiology was different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 12:47 AM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,857,654 times
Reputation: 1462
[quote=sheena12;27469755]I agree that whatever information is known, should be given. Since frequently the father's info can be sketchy and even unknown, since several men could be the one who produced the pregnancy, it most likely not going to be perfect in it's still going to be sketchy.

That may be true though not every "person" is a promiscuous **** - in fact, in the 50s-70s, it was often the more naive ones who were caught out.

No parent would NOT want to know about their child's medical history and before relinquishment or before the child is removed, as much information as is possible should be gleaned by the agency or by social services.

I don't think any sane and loving parent would disagree with this.

We can both agree that it is always good to have medical history at the time of our birth. Unfortunately, both our biological parents and their parents are usually youngish at the time and in the meantime, other health issues can develop.

What frequently happens though, is that it is used as a reason for an ongoing, i.e. OPEN relationship with the family and in some cases, extended family.

This is my only issue.

That is why I felt in your case, if any information re health needed to be exchanged, then the agency could act as an intermediary - you need never speak to "birth person" and "birth person" need never speak to you.

Closed adoption is still the norm and it gave rise to the popularity of international adoption in the 1990s.

You seem to have a misconception that if one doesn't have a closed adoption, then one is having a wide open adoption. There are also what are called semi-open adoptions and, in many cases, that may only involve change of information when required and often neither party knows the name or where the other lives. That is actually today's norm.

Korean adoption is the Grandmother of all international adoptions. It's etiology was different.

Its aetiology is different to many other thypes of international adoption but is very similar to the Western world's adoption practices of the 1950s to 70s where closed adoption was the only option for either adult party. As long as Korean women have very little option re parenting, then closed adoptions will remain the norm as it is a bit of a case of "put up or shut up", i.e. with parenting made very difficult and adoption the only option once the mother had decided to continue her pregnancy (after all, though abortion is legal, it is quite common in Korea). They are starting to lean towards open adoption, possibly because in the last few years, women are getting support from organisations if they wish to parent your child.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 03:08 AM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,601 posts, read 23,161,280 times
Reputation: 48600
I have no misconceptions. My daughter's papers read that the mother was healthy with no known diseases. Do I believe this?

Not sure. The young woman who birthed my daughter wanted to not be a mother at that point in her life.She wanted to to get the baby adopted by the agency that would send the child to America. Her choice. So she went to that agency. Telling them that there was a history of disease - mental or physical could have made her feel that she would be rejected. And she may have been right.

Although I doubt it.

I am not in favor of young women under 2, without university degrees, from any country parenting children.

You and I disagree about this.

Where ever did the word "promiscuous" come up in anything that I posted?

I have no misconceptions about anything. Any degree of contact is not acceptable to me and to others who have adopted. I am fully aware that open is a matter of degree. We adopted out of the continent and chosed a closed adoption. And we are doing so again as are many parents who want a discrete family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 04:17 AM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,857,654 times
Reputation: 1462
[quote=sheena12;27473556]I have no misconceptions. My daughter's papers read that the mother was healthy with no known diseases. Do I believe this?

It is probably true but she was 16 at the time. My bmother was 22, also healthy. However, unbeknownst to her, her life was actually already half over by the time I was born.

Your daughter is 16 and hopefully her 32 year bmother is healthy - given that you have stated she has contacted the agency reasonably recently and given an update on her life, telling them how well things are going for her, hopefully that also means everything is going well with her health.

Things can suddenly change. On my 16th birthday, I am sure my bmother would have said that she was healthy. When I was 16 years, 2 months, she was dead.

Not sure. The young woman who birthed my daughter wanted to not be a mother at that point in her life.She wanted to to get the baby adopted by the agency that would send the child to America. Her choice. So she went to that agency. Telling them that there was a history of disease - mental or physical could have made her feel that she would be rejected. And she may have been right.

Although I doubt it.

To be honest, many young women don't always know what their full family history at the time of relinquishment. The only illness listed on my info sheet was an uncle having polio which obviously is irrelevant from a genetic point of view.

I am not in favor of young women under 2, without university degrees, from any country parenting children.

I'm not in favour of young women under 2 parenting either - they've only usually just learnt to speak by that age and most are still in nappies.

I am assuming you mean 21?

You and I disagree about this.

Actually, I am sure we both agree that ideally it would be better to have one's children when older and I understand that in the US it is difficult to get a job without a degree (in other countries, it is less of a necessity)

What we actually disagree about is that you feel it should be law that people under a certain age shouldn't parent, I don't.

Where ever did the word "promiscuous" come up in anything that I posted?

To be fair, you haven't, I'll grant you that, but was just pointing out in general that traditionally, many birthmothers became pregnant not because of promisculity but because of naivety. I mentioned it in passing because of the bit about several possible fathers. Nowadays, apparently it is often because of failed contraception.

I have no misconceptions about anything. Any degree of contact is not acceptable to me and to others who have adopted. I am fully aware that open is a matter of degree. We adopted out of the continent and chosed a closed adoption. And we are doing so again as are many parents who want a discrete family.

I am glad you are aware that open is a matter of degree. However, it is possible to have a discreet family where no-one knows who the other parties are and also to have no contact before adulthood and still allow exchange of important information via the agency. Surely, you wouldn't have a problem with Birth Person contacting the agency re a health problem and then the agency contacting you, that is not affecting your privacy in any way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 04:52 AM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,601 posts, read 23,161,280 times
Reputation: 48600
[quote=susankate;27473755]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
I have no misconceptions. My daughter's papers read that the mother was healthy with no known diseases. Do I believe this?

It is probably true but she was 16 at the time. My bmother was 22, also healthy. However, unbeknownst to her, her life was actually already half over by the time I was born.

Your daughter is 16 and hopefully her 32 year bmother is healthy - given that you have stated she has contacted the agency reasonably recently and given an update on her life, telling them how well things are going for her, hopefully that also means everything is going well with her health.

Things can suddenly change. On my 16th birthday, I am sure my bmother would have said that she was healthy. When I was 16 years, 2 months, she was dead.

Not sure. The young woman who birthed my daughter wanted to not be a mother at that point in her life.She wanted to to get the baby adopted by the agency that would send the child to America. Her choice. So she went to that agency. Telling them that there was a history of disease - mental or physical could have made her feel that she would be rejected. And she may have been right.

Although I doubt it.

To be honest, many young women don't always know what their full family history at the time of relinquishment. The only illness listed on my info sheet was an uncle having polio which obviously is irrelevant from a genetic point of view.

I am not in favor of young women under 2, without university degrees, from any country parenting children.

I'm not in favour of young women under 2 parenting either - they've only usually just learnt to speak by that age and most are still in nappies.

I am assuming you mean 21?

You and I disagree about this.

Actually, I am sure we both agree that ideally it would be better to have one's children when older and I understand that in the US it is difficult to get a job without a degree (in other countries, it is less of a necessity)

What we actually disagree about is that you feel it should be law that people under a certain age shouldn't parent, I don't.

Where ever did the word "promiscuous" come up in anything that I posted?

To be fair, you haven't, I'll grant you that, but was just pointing out in general that traditionally, many birthmothers became pregnant not because of promisculity but because of naivety. I mentioned it in passing because of the bit about several possible fathers. Nowadays, apparently it is often because of failed contraception.

I have no misconceptions about anything. Any degree of contact is not acceptable to me and to others who have adopted. I am fully aware that open is a matter of degree. We adopted out of the continent and chosed a closed adoption. And we are doing so again as are many parents who want a discrete family.

I am glad you are aware that open is a matter of degree. However, it is possible to have a discreet family where no-one knows who the other parties are and also to have no contact before adulthood and still allow exchange of important information via the agency. Surely, you wouldn't have a problem with Birth Person contacting the agency re a health problem and then the agency contacting you, that is not affecting your privacy in any way.

21 susankate. It was a typo, OK? Sheesh...

No. you have hung on to that way too long and read meaning into it that was not intended and does not exist. The woman who is in charge of the agency we used frequently visits Korea. She found this info out. You seem to remember it better than I did. She is happy she gave my daughter up and moved on with her life and has her own children. That was that.

She did not ask after our daughter. She thanked the adoption agency director for helping her to continue her education. That was it.

Health records should be taken but I have no reason to think that they would be accurate.

Other than my mom who died of cancer, I have very little knowledge of my families health. People tended to see doctors when they were ill.

Actually, I would not relish any contact from her and there is no emergency that I can think of that would necessitate that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 06:08 AM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,857,654 times
Reputation: 1462
[quote=sheena12;27473842][quote=susankate;27473755]


21 susankate. It was a typo, OK? Sheesh...

Of course it was a typo, even fairly obviously I was teasing you That particular typo just conjured up a particularly amusing picture, that is all.

No. you have hung on to that way too long and read meaning into it that was not intended and does not exist. The woman who is in charge of the agency we used frequently visits Korea. She found this info out. You seem to remember it better than I did. She is happy she gave my daughter up and moved on with her life and has her own children. That was that.

She did not ask after our daughter. She thanked the adoption agency director for helping her to continue her education. That was it.

I never said she did ask after your daughter. I suppose though I just wonder how you manage to interpret "She thanked the adoption agency director for helping her to continue her education. That was it" as "She is happy she gave my daughter up and moved on with her life and has her own children. That was that." I would say that you have taken what little you have heard from the agency director and read meaning into it that was not intended and does not exist.

Look, I couldn't care less how your child's birth person felt but stop acting as if you have even the faintest idea. Why not just admit you don't know, don't care and it isn't your concern?

Health records should be taken but I have no reason to think that they would be accurate.

Other than my mom who died of cancer, I have very little knowledge of my families health. People tended to see doctors when they were ill.

Actually, I would not relish any contact from her and there is no emergency that I can think of that would necessitate that.

No offence but did you actually read what I said? I have repeatedly said that she would NOT need to contact you directly but to contact the agency which would then contact you thus protecting your privacy. I am NOT saying she needs to contact YOU. You keep trying to connect health history with contact and I am trying to point out that it IS possible to get health history WITHOUT having direct contact.

A situation might be if her bmother died of a brain aneurysm and her family contacted the agency which then contacted you - SEE - no direct contact. Surely, you would like to know if she died from something like that.

Again, I am NOT saying that need to have any sort of contact with her AT ALL! I am patiently trying to point out that it is possible to get a health history WITHOUT having any sort of contact with her birthmother at all! Please STOP going on about direct contact - I am not talking about reunion or contact at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 07:19 AM
 
16,571 posts, read 14,026,756 times
Reputation: 20525
Even better medical history example. What if the birthmom or dad developed Huntington's disease? How a parent could say that they would rather their child NOT have that knowledge just so they can avoid contact is beyond comprehension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 07:29 AM
 
11,151 posts, read 14,126,988 times
Reputation: 18795
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Even better medical history example. What if the birthmom or dad developed Huntington's disease? How a parent could say that they would rather their child NOT have that knowledge just so they can avoid contact is beyond comprehension.

If you're referring to Sheena, here's what she actually said upthread:


Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
No parent would NOT want to know about their child's medical history and before relinquishment or before the child is removed, as much information as is possible should be gleaned by the agency or by social services.

I don't think any sane and loving parent would disagree with this.

Seriously -- the members-poking-at-other-members bit -- needs to stop. It doesn't accomplish anything except to make the forum unfriendly and unhelpful.

We're adults here. We can disagree without getting personal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2012, 07:33 AM
 
16,571 posts, read 14,026,756 times
Reputation: 20525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark of the Moon View Post
If you're referring to Sheena, here's what she actually said upthread:





Seriously -- the members-poking-at-other-members bit -- needs to stop. It doesn't accomplish anything except to make the forum unfriendly and unhelpful.

We're adults here. We can disagree without getting personal.
Except that huntington's typically does not show up until the affected individual is in their 30s. Most bmoms are not going to know that they have and thus gave that gene (at the very least as a carrier) to the adoptee until well past the age of relinquishment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:31 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top