Is the assumption that birth parents want privacy valid (first time, stories, infant)
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.
Well, point taken, I guess. I also do not think children raising children is usually a good scenario though I think there can be exceptions to this. In our own case, we adopted the infant son of a young lady just barely 17 when she delivered him. (The father was teen-age as well.)
I guess I just think that some mothers are unable emotionally to just deliver a child and move on with their lives never giving the child much thought. It's different than having a car wreck or a failed exam and "moving on." And I guess I have gotten the impression, yeah, that you value education more than children. If I was mistaken in my perception, I apologize, but honestly, some of your posts rather sound that way. ( I mentioned money because education is often the means to making a good salary.)
I simply fail to understand why you are so adamant that you would never want contact with your grandchild placed for adoption or that your children wouldn't ever want that. Definitely your right to feel that way, but I don't understand what's driving this attitude so intensely.
I don't have a grandchild placed for adoption, and I really hope that isn't the case. However, if it ever was, no I would not want to barge into the lives of the parents or the child. It would not be my place and it would be selfish of me. The hypothetical child would have his own grandparents. I would not be one of them.
The attitude is intense because the results of out of wed lock teen pregnancy are often tragic and life altering. It can ruin the lives of two children - the baby and the teenage mother. Some children, babies don't survive teen moms or their boyfriends. Teenagers are children and children need parents - not babies. It is far more serious than a failed exam or wrecking the family car.
A study is just that...."a study". In this situation, signal subject studies would be more relevant, because EVERY SINGLE situation can be completely different. There is no way to put quanitative date on a qualitative subject. This is not like presenting a hypothesis and proving a theory. Because there is no way to differentiate between those who want contact and those who do not. You cannot lump 100 subjects in the survey and say 90 want contact, therefore, they ALL DO....
Slipperly slope. There is no logic in the study.
Jasper,
Did you even read the study and think about the logic of sealing records in 1977 from previous decades that had, up until the law changed, been open to the adult adoptee? That the mothers knew the child they surrendered could access those records if they chose to and decide whether or not to make contact?
Or the fact that in no way shape, or form, did I ever note that because 90% want contact that ALL do?
Or did you consider the fact that if the laws were repealed and restored the right to those retroactively closed records that not all adult adoptees would be interested, that some adult adoptees would only wish to receive their original birth certificate and that was enough, or that some adult adoptees would already have passed away by that time.
I will post another study and results from a state who did repeal the law - another non-biased study just like the Law Commission Review had no bias in the subject.
The adoptees rights to not and should not supersede the rights of everyone else involved.
I also agree that the sealed way is best for all around.
No one speaks to the "entitlement of adoptees or of birthmothers." When you make a mistake, such as getting pregnant at the wrong time, not using contraceptives, being irresponsible, and those actions result in a baby, - sorry - but you DON"T GET TO CALL THE SHOTS !!! You just don't. I am not calling for a return to unwed mother's homes, but to personal responsibilty, and yes; some aknowlegement of wrong doing. And dare I say it? A little shame for doing the wrong thing.
What do you get? You get the consequences of your actions. So you don't get to say "adoption only ...It has to be open".
The adoptive parents have done nothing wrong. In most cases, they went to college and put ioff child baring until they were financially settled. Then they try to adopt domestically and they find out that an agency wants to put their pictures in an album so a ninteen year old can select them? AND she wants to visit on holidays? Or wants an open adoption?
THIS is why we went to Korea and why we will go to Ukraine this time. We wanted a baby and not an entourage.
Last edited by Marka; 01-28-2013 at 01:08 PM..
Reason: removed quote
Actually the only right guaranteed under the constitution is the right to privacy from the government - not citizens. If a citizen is harrassing you then you have the right to seek a restraining order (whatever they are called today).
Confused on your last statement that you don't view adoptee rights as inferior but just that they should not supersede the rights of the adoptive parents. First you can't say the adoptees right to their OBC is not inferior but then contracdict that with the adoptee right to their OBC cannot supersede the adoptive parents rights. Can't be both ways. And you do know that adoptive parents have no right in this respect to start with in any state - the only state the required the adoptive parents signature to even obtain non-id was Missouri and that changed.
Okay Artful, this is what I'm saying:
All American citizens have a right to a certain degree of privacy, including from the government - although I repeat, they seem to have a loophole here. Why is it a federal crime to snoop in your neighbor's mailbox? Why can someone be arrested for being a peeping tom? Can I place a bug in your home when I visit, and not live in that home, to spy on you? NO. I have to be the owner of that home. Birth Certificates can be intrusive because they reveal information some people don't want known to others.
I don't view that adoptee's rights are inferior. Nor do I feel they are superior (supersede). They equal the same rights we all have to privacy of personal information. This does not translate into being able to access information that was sealed for a reason because this is the "norm" for all biological children. With adoptee's, this can been seen as unfair, but adoption is not the "norm," thus, should be treated accordingly. After adoption, all adoptee's still have a birth certificate. What they don't have is access to the people who gave them up for adoption. This should not be left in the sole hands of the adoptee's to decide. Many people were involved in the process, and many times names, locations, and other identifiable information is concealed for very good reasons. This is why I believe ALL parties involved should sign off on the unsealing of personal records. If the adoptee is an adult, then at least the bparents should agree to unseal.
Is it fair, no. But being fair isn't always doing what's right. This is the right thing to do in my opinion, and apparently most states agree. Sealing records is right and limited release should only be done under certain circumstances - namely by adults - and with all pertenant parties consenting.
Also, apparently adoptive parents do have the right to the OBC according to the above site. If you meant they don't have to consent, well, they don't. But that is only when the child is no longer a minor.
Another thing to consider is that depending on the circumstances involved with the adoption, the OBC may not contain correct information anyway. People can lie on documents.
Would you want someone you loved who was a victim of rape/incest/abuse and became pregnant but couldn't obtain an abortion so opted for adoption but absolutely wanted all of her information concealed from the child she gave birth to and the adoptive parents to one day panic at the idea that this same child could one day simply request their OBC and track her down only to remind her of the pain and suffering that the birth involved? What if she hadn't told anyone of the events? What if her new family is unaware of her past?
Everyone deserves a certain degree of privacy. This is all I'm saying. And not all things in life are fair.
The adoptive parents have done nothing wrong...Then they try to adopt domestically and they find out that an agency wants to put their pictures in an album so a ninteen year old can select them? AND she wants to visit on holidays? Or wants an open adoption?
THIS is why we went to Korea and why we will go to Ukraine this time. We wanted a baby and not an entourage.
Our public agency told us that more couples are adopting, not fostering, and that most want infants. Couples are going this route because most state agencies are closed adoptions. They don't want an open adoption. Birthparents have no choice but to agree to sealed records and from what social workers said in our sessions, most, if not all, birthmothers who choose reliquishment via a state agency do so because they want privacy.
When you're trying to build a family you don't want your child to be constantly reminded that her bparents, for whatever reason, are not raising her. This actually reinforces a "loss" and creates "grief" that the infant may not have otherwise had. Why intentionally introduce an element that has the potential to do harm into an innocent child's life? I agree with you, I certainly wouldn't.
If a birth parent does not want to see you, by the way; it could be that she - does not want to see you! Not that she is "in denial". Take it at face value.
Id a birth mother says that she does not want to see you, it could mean just that. It does not mean that she is "in denial".
I agree Jaded, that being constantly reminded of having birth parents reinforces grief. It's like playing a song over and over again that reminds you of an ex-girlfriend. Move on.
There is no time to heal when the loss is an ever present part of the child's life.
Many people seem to be woefully misinformed on this topic & do not seem to understand WHY OBCs have been sealed in the first place & that it has absolutely nothing to do with the right to privacy. Every other citizen has a right to their OBCs as it is NOT considered a violation of privacy to have access to factual information about who you are.
Adoption is not the witness protection program. There is absolutely no "right to anonymity from your child" & I challenge any of you to find one legal document that says there is.
Stopping discrimination against adoptees to re-grant their rights to their birth records does not "trump" the rights of anyone.
I was adopted as an infant & my mother wanted a closed adoption, never wanted a relationship with me or thought I'd find her... if I had never been placed I would have stayed in foster care & my records would have never been sealed regardless of how much she wanted anonymity. This obviously proves that there is no such right & the purpose of sealing records has nothing to do with their right to privacy or else all relinquished children would have their records sealed.
It is alarming to know that prospective adoptive parents/adoptive parents have either never researched this issue, do not care about adoptee rights, or automatically view our rights as inferior.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 01-26-2013 at 05:45 AM..
The intent of the discussion is about this report by the law commission about the sealing of the records.
Every state I have researched retroactively sealed records created when the records were not sealed at the time of the adoption. Ct sealed between 1974 and 1977 when a series of adoption laws were amended. Retroactively sealing back decades. Do you see the problem with then trying to argue promised privacy?
Can we please discuss that intent of the thread - which has zero to do with adoptees who are minors.
Id a birth mother says that she does not want to see you, it could mean just that. It does not mean that she is "in denial".
I agree Jaded, that being constantly reminded of having birth parents reinforces grief. It's like playing a song over and over again that reminds you of an ex-girlfriend. Move on.
There is no time to heal when the loss is an ever present part of the child's life.
Again, no one can have a relationship with another person who does not wish to have a relationship. No one is arguing that anyone must have a relationship on demand. Relationships do not work that way.
You have stated in this thread that you don't wish to be part of a discussion regarding the adult adoptees right to their Original Birth Certificate (OBC) so why you commenting on this thread?
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.
I have gotten the impression, yeah, that you value education more than children. If I was mistaken in my perception, I apologize, but honestly, some of your posts rather sound that way. ( I mentioned money because education is often the means to making a good salary.)
