Is the assumption that birth parents want privacy valid (birth mother, certificate, cost)

[Artful Dodger]

This thread is meant to stimulate discussion and hopefully change perceptions that birth parents don't wish to be found, and/or allow the child they surrendered access to their original birth certificate. It is a continuation of a discussion between myself and Nu Kudzu - in which I asked if I dug up the studies showing the assumption untrue if they would be read.

This is the first of those reports that dates back to February of 1999 by the Ct Law Commission Review. Others will follow in separate posts as I figure out where I read them and retrieve them. Please note that other states have changed their laws since this study was done.

February 1999 - Ct Law Revision - Sealed Adoption Records CTLRC - Adoption Committee - "Sealed Adoption Records"

Highlights from the above report in my words - not quotes per se - and are not a totality of what is contained within the report, so read the full report. Note my interjections below are those in ( ).

What was the reality of CT Laws regarding sealing

*Between 1974 and 1977 changes to the laws were enacted that retroactively sealed the original birth certificate (OBC) from the adult adoptee.

*No access was granted by Vital Records even if the adult adoptee knew their birth parents identities without a court order that cost $150.

*If identity was unknown the adult adoptee had to pay the adoption agency up to $500 to search and ask permission by the birth parents to allow the adult adoptee the right to their OBC.

Reasons noted in the report for Sealing Records across Other states starting in the 1950's.

*Primary concern of SW's and Agencies was the stigma on the child regarding illegitimacy.

*Anonymity of both the BP and AP - to secure integration into family, and BP wouldn't be able to attempt contact.

*BP's were told anonymity was important for themselves by the adoption agencies.

*In the 1970's, 80's and 90's adult adoptees started to recognise their records were sealed from them and they couldn't learn about themselves - this recognition and desire often happened when they were going to get married or bear children.

*Kansas, Alaska, Oregon, and TN allowed access with Kansas never sealing the record from the adult adoptee (they did not note Alaska didn't either). TN has a veto provision (which I think has since been repealed but would have to search for info). Montana allows adult adoptees before 1967 or after 1997 access to their OBC, Ohio before 1964 and after 1997. (Note both those states allow access during the main period of the BSE). (Note other states since Feb 1999 date of report have changed laws).

Now about the statistics found before Feb 1999 regarding BP's wanting privacy.

*DCF receives 360 requests per year. The department conducts about 250-300 search per year. Staff report about 95% of BP's consent to release of OBC and want contact. (Note historically mothers chose either surrender to the state (went to stay with relative) or to an agency (maternity home) both were common in voluntary surrenders no CPS involvement)

*Private agencies report an overwhelming majority of BP's want info released. Example CC receives 250 requests per year for either non-identifying info or indentifying info. They do 100 searches per year with 90% approval consent to release info. Adult adoptees are currently on a 9 month waiting list due to the number of requests.

*DCF and Private Agencies experience is consistent with National Studies which find BP's do not object to being found.

Registries seen as compromise in actual practice only have limited usefulness

*Only effective if both parties know of exisitence.

*If only one party is searching it is not effective.

*If registry only has limited geographical application.

*If the person sought is incapacitated or deceased.

*BP's who place their child before the laws changed between 1974 and 1977 knew the laws in place at the time allowed the adult adoptees access to their OBC but did not know the law changed and applied retroactively.

***

The entire report was very well researched, thoughtful, delved into far more than the few highlights I have noted above. I hope you will read it with an open mind, and consider that many other states did the same change at different years and each time retroactively changed the laws in place when the BP's or BP surrendered. My case is a perfect example - at the time of my adoption the records were sealed but the AP's (mom and dad) could have chosen to not have them sealed. The law also allowed if sealed - the adoptive family access to the sealed records upon request and then they would be resealed to keep the general public from accessing them - later laws made that impossible. I would suggest that if anything - adoption laws should mirror the way inheritance laws are - law at the time the will was done apply to probate.

Final note: Yes, anonymity was the goal when the mother was pregnant. It was the goal of the family to protect the family from stigma and shame within their community. The families good name was paramount as to how they existed then. Please ask yourself if that goal was the same as the assumption today that a mother would not want her child to have access to their documents in the future.

[kaykay]

I think it varies obviously with the individual. I recently read about a woman who decided to search for her birthparents. She located her mother first and the birthmother told her she did not wish to meet, that she felt the past should be left in the past. I think this attitude is probably rare.( She went on to contact heir birthfather and he was very receptive to a reunion saying that he always knew he would get that call someday.) i think the prevalence of open and degrees of "semi-open" adoption today has probably lessened the expectation of privacy on the part of the birthparents.

As I have posted in another thread, my son's birthmother DID desire him to contact her and wondered over the years why he didnt. (He had been killed in a car accident.) I would have never contacted her because I didnt think she needed the pain of knowing. She searched for us and we reunited this past year. Even though to know the truth has been painful, I think that very overworked word of "closure" has been important to her and worth the pain of knowing. I have shared with her all the stories I can think of to share in order that she can kind of know who he was. (He was amazing!) I was also able to reassure her that he wasnt angry at her for placing him for adoption but would have, I'm sure, loved to meet her.

We become close even though they live in another city. She feels connected to us because we were his parents. We feel connected to her because she was our son's mother. It is a strange story, but we love each other and consider each other as I said elsewhere "second family." We also love her current family. Two of the children are our son's half siblings. They are an awesome family.

Thankfully, she and I share the same faith that those who have accepted Jesus as savior and Lord will be re-united in heaven and she longs for the day she can hug her son again...and I do too.

[Artful Dodger]

KayKay,

There will always be mothers or father who don't wish a relationship - absolutely. I don't see the harm in making the contact. Relationships require two people to want one and some on either side should be free to state that. I just don't think it hurts to ask.

[kaykay]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

KayKay,

There will always be mothers or father who don't wish a relationship - absolutely. I don't see the harm in making the contact. Relationships require two people to want one and some on either side should be free to state that. I just don't think it hurts to ask.

Again, I think it's probably pretty rare that the birthparent would not desire some contact if child wanted it. However, I think adopted children should be at least aware of that possibility ( and I'm sure they are)and tread lightly until they know what response they will receive. Yes, I think if contact is desired on either side, they should risk it.

[warren zee]

Yes it is in some cases. I think that it should be respected when it is desired.

We have two long time friends who are birthmothers. One was in our wedding party. Both became pregnant in high school. Both carried to term and relinquished their babies. Neighter wanted contact and so far, they have been fortunate and received none. My wife remains in contact with both of them.

Both women are pretty different from each other. One might have terminated the pregnancy if she found out in time. By the time she found out, it was too late for her to be comfortable with termination. The other one comes from a Methodist background, but became a born again Christian in the late 1970s when she found she was pregnant. Termination was contrary to her new, very conservative religious beliefs.

She relinquished the baby using a very old and well regarded adoption agency in NYC. She did not want any contact at all and felt that by giving the baby up, she was doing something good for a couple who could not otherwise have children.

She went on to marry a man in the late 89s who went on to a Seminary that is very conservative. He is the pastor of a church that is very fundamentalist and they have a very large family.

I don't know if her husband or children know about the pregnancy.

The other birth mother who we know also went on to have a lot of children. They are both very fertile women it seems. The second women is much more liberal but wanted to put things in the past also.

They both appear to be very happy now and they do not want any contact.

It can't be a "myth" that birth mothers want privacy - or that some do because I am only one man and I know of two birth mothers who did and do want privacy and want to put their mistakes and everything associated with it in the past.

They both did their best to give their babies placed with good loving homes.

Not every birth mother wants any contact or a relationship. Some will be open to contact and others to a relationship. But not all want it.

[nj185]

The world has changed & moved on a bit:

"An overwhelming proportion of birthmothers contemporary have met the adoptive parents of their children - probably 90 percent or more - and almost all of the remaining birthmothers helped to choose the new parents through profiles. Contrary to the stereotypes that have been created about them, almost no women choosing adoption today seek anonymity or express a desire for no ongoing information or contact."

Evan B Donaldson Adoption Institute [underlining mine]

Not to say some don't - but giving up a child for adoption doesn't carry the same social consequences it did even 20 years ago.

[warren zee]

Not our world. As a parent I do not know any girl who has gotten pregnant who has kept the baby or wants anything more than to end the pregnancy and go on to college or in one case to give the baby up and maintain privacy.

The parents supported both moves and the girls who found themselves in trouble were given two choices. None of our friends want to raise grandchildren. They have their own lives. The mothers involved were upset and their were no baby showers thrown and no awards given out. Our own niece terminated her pregnancy and never tells anyone about it.

It's still not a badge if honor in many upper middle class families. We would not welcome it.

You can't cinvince me that teen unwed uneducated or surprise pregnancies are welcome in most homes today. There are consequences for misbehavior, You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Times have changed, There is abortion, and birth control. But those measures were available to our friends. We are mot old or out of touch.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by warren zee

It can't be a "myth" that birth mothers want privacy - or that some do because I am only one man and I know of two birth mothers who did and do want privacy and want to put their mistakes and everything associated with it in the past.

I don't think the OP said that all birth mothers want contact, but that it is a myth that records were sealed because the majority of birth mothers do not want contact.

[Artful Dodger]

Final note: Yes, anonymity was the goal when the mother was pregnant. It was the goal of the family to protect the family from stigma and shame within their community. The families good name was paramount as to how they existed then. Please ask yourself if that goal was the same as the assumption today that a mother would not want her child to have access to their documents in the future.

Thanks Threefoldme,

Yes, the intent was to discuss the myth all that mothers wanted anonymity, were guaranteed anonymity from their adult child, and that they would not want their child to be able to access their own birth records.

I am not here to discuss individual stories of those who want reunion, vs. those who don't want anything to do with their child, vs. those who are willing to answer questions and/or provide family health history - all exist and quite likely many versions inbetween.

The way each state handled the laws, the multiple revisions over years to the state adoption laws that slowly closed the records (Ct not till 1977 and then applied retroactively) even to the interested parties in the matter, what the law actually provided - vs. - what some agency told the mother - all of that matters in the discussion. How can what some social worker said to a mother in '64 that was not what the law on the books at the time - be used as a reason to deny the adopted adults in that state the right to their original birth certificate. What the results are from states that had sealed records which have now been reversed have found since the opening - valid points in the discussion.

No one is advocating for people to try to force a relationship, but denying an entire group of individuals because one mother or 100 mothers out of tens of thousands of mothers, would rather the laws not be changed because it would be inconvienent isn't realistic. Every adult in the US has the right to make their own decisions on relationships they wish to have, or not. Regardless - laws aren't shaped to remain static forever and ever - if they were we would still have forced sterilization on the books and other ugly laws.

[nj185]

The question isn't about making choices when faced with an unexpected pregnancy, the statistically smaller amount of teen pregnancies, a birth mother's extended family, or even telling people about their 'misbehavior' at the time.

Do mothers, after all those choices are made, who decide to carry & relinquish their child, want 'privacy' from that child- no contact in any form at any time post-adoption? Although there are always exceptions, most relinquishing birthmothers here & now have no desire to hide from their relinquished children.