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.
My experience has been that most adoptees want the names of their birth parents, where & when they where born [some states changed the 'where' also]. Because of how I meet many adult adoptees or their parents,birth or adoptive, I would say they are interested in learning about themselves, background of their birth families. I know to many who grow up knowing it doesn't seem all that important; but it becomes more important when you don't know, or aren't allowed to know.
Not all go the next step to searching for that birth family - but unanswered questions, secrets, are a strong drive. Open adoption in part strives to make it so adoptees are not growing up under that secrecy thing - wondering what the deal is that's so verboten they can't know about their origins.
Skipping from there to assuming that adoptees want a paper that doesn't have adopted parents on it is a little over the top. Most adoptees I know don't look at it that way. They don't rush out to undo amended birth certificates. They don't reject who they have been raised as. But many do perceive that that is the adoptive parent's thinking - that seeing that other piece of paper will somehow threaten years of 'family building'. A piece of paper can't do that; only the people in the family can.
BUT -- none of that really matters. Adults shouldn't have to justify learning about their pasts. Studies show that secrecy about origins can do more harm than good for the adoptee.
What would you like me to clear up? You presumed that birthmothers want privacy and closed adoptions.
You're wrong.
Actually no one but the individual birth mother can assume either way. It doesn't matter if 80% want this or that, or 90% want this or that. It only matters what the birth mother for herself wants and her reasons are her reasons and not the same as the others.
If the birth mother wants it open, she has that option, if she wants anonymity, then so be it.
Actually no one but the individual birth mother can assume either way.
No one has said that ALL first mothers do not want privacy. So I don't assume anything and I am a first mother. However, the present trend and studies indicate that the majority of first mothers do not want privacy. Links posted above in the thread. Records were never sealed to protect the relinquishing mother's rights. That's a myth which is my point.
Quote:
It doesn't matter if 80% want this or that, or 90% want this or that. It only matters what the birth mother for herself wants and her reasons are her reasons and not the same as the others.
If the birth mother wants it open, she has that option, if she wants anonymity, then so be it.
Why? The natural mother should have the right to privacy, to say no to contact, but she does not have a right to legal anonymity. Her rights do not trump the adoptee's right to know their original name.
Legally, the first mother of a relinquished child has no right to remain anonymous. That's simply a myth.
Legally at the time the mother is deciding, the baby has absolutely no rights -- legally the mother can go to an abortionist and have the baby's life ended. The baby doesn't even legally have a right to it's own life. If she chooses to give the baby up for adoption but wishes never to have contact, she has that right, no one can take that right from her.
No pressure should be put on the mother, if she's willing to carry the child for 9 months and then wants to move on --- that should be her perogative. Certainly since most birth mothers opt for contact of some kind at a later point, those birth mothers that do not most likely have compelling reasons of their own not to want that. Imagine a woman impregnated through rape or an abusive boyfriend, if she wants never to be reminded -- it should be entirely her choice to have no contact.
And what's an original name? Today many babies are given the mother's name when they're born and if the father agrees to have his name on the birth certificate or the mother decides he can be on it, the baby's name is changed by the next day. And sperm donor babies will never know their father's name -- after all, traditionally a baby gets the father's last name.
No one has said that ALL first mothers do not want privacy. So I don't assume anything and I am a first mother. However, the present trend and studies indicate that the majority of first mothers do not want privacy. Links posted above in the thread. Records were never sealed to protect the relinquishing mother's rights. That's a myth which is my point.
Can't argue with the last part of your post.
I'm very sure most birth mothers do want contact at some point and in some way -- so I guess we're not in disagreement -- I believe it should be the option. I know one birth mother who gets Christmas cards and pictures and when the kids are 18, she fully plans to become a part of their lives in some way. She adopted two kids out to the same couple -- both "accidents", she later married and had 3 more kids.
Ho
Legally at the time the mother is deciding, the baby has absolutely no rights -- legally the mother can go to an abortionist and have the baby's life ended. The baby doesn't even legally have a right to it's own life. If she chooses to give the baby up for adoption but wishes never to have contact, she has that right, no one can take that right from her.
No pressure should be put on the mother, if she's willing to carry the child for 9 months and then wants to move on --- that should be her perogative. Certainly since most birth mothers opt for contact of some kind at a later point, those birth mothers that do not most likely have compelling reasons of their own not to want that. Imagine a woman impregnated through rape or an abusive boyfriend, if she wants never to be reminded -- it should be entirely her choice to have no contact.
That is true. She has that choice. In an open records state, she can put a veto on contact.
As many have said beforehand, getting a copy of original birth certificate does not automatically lead to the adoptee wanting to make contact. Hey, I sat on my OBC for 20 years after receiving it. I decided to leave it up to my bmom to make contact if she so wished. However, when I googled her name almost 10 years ago, I discovered she had passed away when I was 16.
Quote:
And what's an original name? Today many babies are given the mother's name when they're born and if the father agrees to have his name on the birth certificate or the mother decides he can be on it, the baby's name is changed by the next day. And sperm donor babies will never know their father's name -- after all, traditionally a baby gets the father's last name.
[/quote]
I have a name on my OBC and I would like to know for sure whether it was my bmom or a nurse (non-ID info said it could have been either). It may not mean anything in the grand scheme of things but I would sort of like to know. The name I was given was a classical type of name and if my bmom named me, it would mean more than if a nurse named me. I don't lose sleep over it but it would be nice to know.
Legally at the time the mother is deciding, the baby has absolutely no rights -- legally the mother can go to an abortionist and have the baby's life ended. The baby doesn't even legally have a right to it's own life. If she chooses to give the baby up for adoption but wishes never to have contact, she has that right, no one can take that right from her.
No pressure should be put on the mother, if she's willing to carry the child for 9 months and then wants to move on --- that should be her perogative. Certainly since most birth mothers opt for contact of some kind at a later point, those birth mothers that do not most likely have compelling reasons of their own not to want that. Imagine a woman impregnated through rape or an abusive boyfriend, if she wants never to be reminded -- it should be entirely her choice to have no contact.
And what's an original name? Today many babies are given the mother's name when they're born and if the father agrees to have his name on the birth certificate or the mother decides he can be on it, the baby's name is changed by the next day. And sperm donor babies will never know their father's name -- after all, traditionally a baby gets the father's last name.
We're talking about ADULT adoptees and their right to see and hold their open records and OBC(s) with unconditional access.
I'm very sure most birth mothers do want contact at some point and in some way -- so I guess we're not in disagreement -- I believe it should be the option. I know one birth mother who gets Christmas cards and pictures and when the kids are 18, she fully plans to become a part of their lives in some way. She adopted two kids out to the same couple -- both "accidents", she later married and had 3 more kids.
Hopefully, her relinquished children will go along with her "plans." I think the adoptee holds all the cards as far as allowing contact, and continued reunion despite the first mother's wishes. I feel safe in saying though that the majority of mothers who have relinquished want contact. Some just are not able to get beyond the secrets and lies inherent with closed adoption during the baby scoop era. It's so complicated for many to come out of the closet.
I have asked several times and I really do want to know - what do you think is contained in original birth records? All I have is a birth certificate. What is it that you want? The medical records of your birth?
Other than a birth certificate, I am not sure what "Birth Records" are.
I thinkk what many adopted kids want is that curiosity answered. What were the birth parents like, how did they come to be, were they in love, do they have biological half siblings out there somewhere. Do they look like their biological relatives.
It's kind of like anyone doing their family tree -- what's the real point in knowing names of some great-great-great grandfather, knowing the name of the ship that brought them here, or the country they left. It's just a kind of curiosity -- normal enough.
One of my adopted cousins told me that of course she's curious about her birth mother and to some extent the father. She wonders if she's ever stood behind her at the grocery store, she wonders what became of her, if she married and had kids, if she would like those kids if she knew them. She also knows her bio-mother was just 14 years old when she gave birth to her, and she's very happy with the family she was adopted into. She said that she's naturally curious but hasn't made the effort to find records even though her mom offered to help her do a search if she wanted to do one.
That is true. She has that choice. In an open records state, she can put a veto on contact.
As many have said beforehand, getting a copy of original birth certificate does not automatically lead to the adoptee wanting to make contact. Hey, I sat on my OBC for 20 years after receiving it. I decided to leave it up to my bmom to make contact if she so wished. However, when I googled her name almost 10 years ago, I discovered she had passed away when I was 16.
----
I have a name on my OBC and I would like to know for sure whether it was my bmom or a nurse (non-ID info said it could have been either). It may not mean anything in the grand scheme of things but I would sort of like to know. The name I was given was a classical type of name and if my bmom named me, it would mean more than if a nurse named me. I don't lose sleep over it but it would be nice to know.
I definitely understand curiousity -- I saw a talk show of children of sperm donors who have no chance at all of ever finding dear old dad --- and you could see their anguish over never ever being able to know anything about him, never can know if someone they just met or want to date are actually half-siblings. For them there are no records - not even sealed ones. They are completely cut-off.
It's why people get on Ancestry.com and start researching back to people they'll never meet, never know -- and actually share little DNA with since it gets so dilute. I'm sure almost every adoptee has fantasized about the bio-parents, it would be very natural to do. Especially in those years where all kids fantasize anyway -- and those years where a lot of kids wonder what it would be like to have different parents -- we all go through that even if we have our bio-parents -- we think they're too strict, too uncool.
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.
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.
