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.
It's often normally the adoptive parents identity that's not known.
Quote:
No contacts and vetoes do not work. Oprah's mother said no contact more than
once. The adoptee went on to other family members until she got what she wanted.
It's a forced relationship.
Patricia wasn't adopted until she was 7. She might never have been adopted and if that had been the case, she would always have had access to her OBC. Btw I don't believe she got the info from her OBC, she found out by other methods. In fact, if Oprah's mother lived in an open records state, she could have signed a non-contact veto. Oprah herself seems pleased to have Patricia in her life.
This women said no contact. A no wasn't enough for the adoptee. She researched found the birthparent's lawyer who happened to be the birth parents son law to try and get him to intervene. She then went on to other family members. One no should be enough.
That's not what happened. The adoptee has never contacted the woman directly - her original contact was with the solicitor thinking that is all he was - as you point out, he was the brother-in-law which she wasn't aware of. Apart from that, that is the only contact she has had with her "maternal source" (Foley's preferred term). She did end up having contact with her bfather's family and with other members of Foley's family (who approached Elaine, not the other way around).
The non-ID info had no information about any rape and apparently the bmother took a while to sign the relinquishment papers, so the adoptee had no reason to believe that she mightn't want contact.
Now, one wonders what might have happened if NJ had been an open records state. Elaine could have applied for her OBC and, if Foley had put a non-contact veto on, she wouldn't have made contact at all - so in fact, Foley might have been better off in an open records state.
This birth parent got a surprise contact she didn't want. A no wasn't enough for the adoptee. The message being sent is she is entitled and she is going to do what she has to in order to get what she wants.
This is where open records states can be beneficial. Because the adoptee has to apply for the OBC, the government can send out information with the OBC giving the adoptee information about possible outcomes and ways of making approach.
Quote:
This family of birth siblings are dealing with the consequences of an unhappy
adoptee an active member in the adoption reform movement.
Actually, these birthsiblings were the ones who made original contact with the adoptee in the first place - them not her. This whole story is one great tragedy - the poor mom died from cancer not long after birth - I am sure she would be horrified with the feud that is going on.
Quote:
Many more birthparents will be getting a surprise unwanted contact with this law.
As yet, you haven't given any examples of birthparents who have received unwanted contact AFTER these laws have been passed. All examples given have been from closed records states.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the media doesn't tell both sides of the story. They always tell
the fairy tale. The story where the birth mother was forced to give up the
child. She would have kept her child if only she could. It was society, her
parents, the church if times were different. That many birth mothers have been
waiting decades for the adoptee to find them or that most birthparents welcome
contact.
Many adoptees get their information from their non-ID info and tend to weigh up the info from what info they have. Certainly, I know of a few adoptees who have no wish to make contact based on that info.
To sum it up, it actually sounds like open records would have helped all the bmothers in the examples you gave as they would have had a choice to place a no-contact veto on their files.
Last edited by susankate; 09-01-2013 at 08:49 AM..
There are always consequences to our actions. For a women in an unplanned unwanted pregnancy the consequences are keeping the child even though she/he wasn't planned for, adoption or abortion. Its why adoption laws, abortion laws and help for unplanned pregnancy is available.
"consequences of our actions". Yes, some women bear the consequences of being raped, with an unwanted pregnancy...
There is no greater emotional anguish than having an unplanned, and unwanted pregnancy. Regardless of having an abortion or giving the child up for adoption, or even keeping the child.
Women who receive help from an adoption agency then place the child in the loving arms of adopted parents will have their privacy taken away, sometimes decades later or will no longer be able to choose privacy.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that although the original intent for sealing records was to protect the adoptee and adoptive parents from the illegitimate birth of the child, the birth mother was indirectly protected as well. One has to take into consideration that "illegitimacy" was a valid fear and social stigma in the U.S.A. Even today, some social circles still frown upon this type of childbearing. Perhaps the birthparents weren't specifically mentioned as being protected or their privacy secured, but in effect, that is exactly what sealing records did. It protected ALL parties involved. I still don't see the harm in this practice.
I think more women might be inclined to get an abortion if they cannot be guaranteed privacy their entire lives and even beyond. The stigma of illegitimate birth is still very real in our society- for some. If these women fear their "mistake" will eventually catch up with them and ruin their futures, they would rather have an abortion. And by "mistake" I'm referring to getting pregnant and not necessarily the child itself.
I think more women might be inclined to get an abortion if they cannot be guaranteed privacy their entire lives and even beyond. The stigma of illegitimate birth is still very real in our society- for some. If these women fear their "mistake" will eventually catch up with them and ruin their futures, they would rather have an abortion. And by "mistake" I'm referring to getting pregnant and not necessarily the child itself.
no kudzu - the research proves otherwise. States like Kansas and Alaska who never sealed the OBC from the adoptee have lower than national average, Oregon abortion rates dropped after the law changed in allowing adult adoptees access.
Below is a link to Ohio's Right to Life testimony in favor of allowing adult adoptees the right to their OBC's. Another state right to life group previous to this also changed their stance - I want to say MN but please don't quote me on it. The other link is to all the groups who gave testimony in favor of adoptee access to OBC's in Ohio.
It's often normally the adoptive parents identity that's not known.
Patricia wasn't adopted until she was 7. She might never have been adopted and if that had been the case, she would always have had access to her OBC. Btw I don't believe she got the info from her OBC, she found out by other methods. In fact, if Oprah's mother lived in an open records state, she could have signed a non-contact veto. Oprah herself seems pleased to have Patricia in her life.
True the birth certificate my not have been sealed but we are talking about opening birth certificates that have been sealed. She said no contact twice. Why wasn't that enough or Pat? Really you think her getting a birth certificate with a no contact is different then the birth mother saying in words no contact.
That's not what happened. The adoptee has never contacted the woman directly - her original contact was with the solicitor thinking that is all he was - as you point out, he was the brother-in-law which she wasn't aware of. Apart from that, that is the only contact she has had with her "maternal source" (Foley's preferred term). She did end up having contact with her bfather's family and with other members of Foley's family (who approached Elaine, not the other way around).
The non-ID info had no information about any rape and apparently the bmother took a while to sign the relinquishment papers, so the adoptee had no reason to believe that she mightn't want contact.
Now, one wonders what might have happened if NJ had been an open records state. Elaine could have applied for her OBC and, if Foley had put a non-contact veto on, she wouldn't have made contact at all - so in fact, Foley might have been better off in an open records state.
Elaine herself put out there on her blog and on adoption forums that she contacted other family members of the biological mother. The elderly grandmother in a nursing home as well as her half sister after the mother said no contact as well as another adopted member of the birth mothers family. All after the birth mother said no contact.
It was the 1960's a different time. Rape is also when a boyfriend puts pressure on the girl by threats. Statutory rape. Date rape was unheard of back then. He was 18 she was 16. Girls were told they asked for it. They wore there dresses to short.
Rape or not rape I wasn't there but the daddy who Elaine wants to believe is a good guy because his parents say so, and Elaine who believes it wasn't rape says herself in adoption forums her daddy also got 1 other girl pregnant who had to go away to a home. Maybe 2. Elaine's words.
Not such a good guy. Poor girls.
Elaine thinks because he had a good job he couldn't rape. Elaine thinks because his parents say it wasn't rape it can't be rape. I hope your daughter doesn't meet such a swell guy.
This is where open records states can be beneficial. Because the adoptee has to apply for the OBC, the government can send out information with the OBC giving the adoptee information about possible outcomes and ways of making approach.
Elaine would have done exactly what she did. Her birth mother said no if there was a no contact veto she would have went on to other family members. She thought she was entitled a message sent by you and others. You know that fairy tale.
Actually, these birthsiblings were the ones who made original contact with the adoptee in the first place - them not her. This whole story is one great tragedy - the poor mom died from cancer not long after birth - I am sure she would be horrified with the feud that is going on.
Yes they wanted the happily every after. None the less the adopted sibling has caused headaches for the birth siblings. Still won't stop. The birth siblings say "be careful of that can of worms" "you don't know what you will get you didn't raise the adopted person." The adoptee Another very active member in the adoption reform movement, entitled. Mutual consent all parties matter in adoption. Not just the now grown adoptee.
As yet, you haven't given any examples of birthparents who have received unwanted contact AFTER these laws have been passed. All examples given have been from closed records states.
Opening birth certificates, once the name is out there just makes it easier. All the examples I gave the women said no contact and it wasn't enough for the adoptee. Why would a no contact when they get their birth certificate stop them. There are no consequences. It most affects the birth mother, since many times the birth father's name wasn't included. Sometimes the birth mother never told the birth father. Surprise..... Different times. It doesn't just affect the birth mother it affects her family and any ancestors.
Just like Oprah's mother said no contact more than once it wasn't enough. You don't think she was pressured by Oprah who supports her financially? The point is one no from the birthmother should be enough. It is a forced relationship that may or may not work out.
Many adoptees get their information from their non-ID info and tend to weigh up the info from what info they have. Certainly, I know of a few adoptees who have no wish to make contact based on that info.
To sum it up, it actually sounds like open records would have helped all the bmothers in the examples you gave as they would have had a choice to place a no-contact veto on their files.
Actually it looks like opening birth certificates will create more cases like this. It is a small percentage of adoptees who are able to figure out and get information to be able to get the name of the birthparent with sealed birth certificates. Why would you think it would be any different if they are told no contact when they get their opened birth certificate or if they are told no contact over the phone, in a letter, or in person? There are no consequences. Elaine was told no by her birth mother in a letter. Elaine continued to send a letter, contact a lawyer, sibling and other relatives. Only after a lawyer sent her a letter did she stop. Her words and she couldn't understand why, she didn't think she was doing anything wrong.
Most of these women are older. They don't know the law can change. They don't speak out. Most women went into adoption knowing birth certificates would be sealed (again even the judges protected birthparents privacy). If they didn't they were wrong.... it's what you are fighting for. If they believed they would be opened when the adoptee was 18 they were wrong. There didn't have to be anything written.... birth certificates were sealed upon adoption and not to be opened unless going to court with good cause. (Superior Court Judge Philip Gruccio, in Mills v. Atlantic City Department of Vital Statistics, 148 N.J. Super. 302 (Ch. Div. 1977), explained that the purpose of New Jersey’s Adoption Act is to protect the interest of all three parties: the child, adoptive parents and birth parents. The law as it now exists assures birth parents that the intensely private and emotional decision to place their child for adoption will not become public knowledge).
Just as there are some adoptees who aren't interested in contact so too are some birthmothers. They should be able to have a say. 11% after years of access to birth certificates. Taking choices away from women. 40% semi open ... no names not even the birthparents.
Not against opening birth certificates mutual consent.
It's taking a choice away from women when found in an unplanned unwanted pregnancy. Which is difficult enough. Why take a choice away when it gives a child a chance at life.
PS there is no study that relates adoption with abortion rates not going up. Teen pregnancy is down, better sex education, tougher abortion rules and women go out of state.
Ohio right to life president is an adopted father. I'm sure there are many adopted father's who do not want to take the opportunity of allowing their child to have a choice when they are 18. He stood up for a bill that opens birth certificates for past adoptions. Many of those women didn't have the option of abortion. And it is to late for them to have an abortion now because. Ohio still has a law that allows women who choose adoption today to veto opening birth certificates being opened. Right to life and this new bill hurts the old ladies in the past. As these women age and die as open adoption is pushed ( sadly pushed just like closed adoption was pushed in 1950's and 60's) there will be less and less reason organizations will fight to protect privacy for women. Unless birthparents who want privacy start to speak out, find out about the law, people who believe women should have a choice speak out there is no doubt this law will pass in time. I don't think it is right. I think women should have choice, I think adoption is better than abortion even though I am pro choice. Whatever helps a women to choose adoption I'm for. I have many adopted family members that we are so grateful to have in our family, who have had good lives, maybe not perfect but good lives.
Sorry if I didn't say I'm pro choice. Choices to keep the child with help, choices for abortion and choices in adoption.
Last edited by Priscilla151; 09-03-2013 at 04:00 PM..
Birthparents that want privacy don't talk about it. If they want privacy they aren't going to legislature or putting a story in the newspaper or on the internet, they have put it in their past, they believed what they were told that birth certificates would be sealed , aren't aware there is an adoption reform movement and they can't speak out without giving up their identity.
It would be wonderful if every birthparent welcomes contact or wants her name out there for generation after generation but they should have a choice. No surprise unwanted contacts. No forced relationships, no threats to go to family members in order to get what they want. Mutual consent.
The history of the sealing of birth certificates belies the birthparent privacy issue. In some of these states OBC's were not sealed until many years after the adoptions occurred. They were retroactively sealed. It is possible in a state like Alabama that the OBC was available to someone adopted in say 1945, but then in 1957 they were retroactively sealed. There have been many reasons given over the years The Strange History of Adult Adoptee Access to Original Birth Records by Elizabeth J. Samuels :: SSRN for turning adoption into a secret. Originally it seems it was promoted to protect the child adoptee from the shame of illegitimacy by limiting the public having access to the record, though the adult adoptee could access them. Then it was to protect AP's from interference by birth parents. The birth parent concern comes very late to the fray & from most accounts was apparently raised by adoption organizations. None of them address the basic question of why a class of people are denied a right afforded to every other citizen.
Court cases [OR, TN]have held that state adoption laws do not guarantee privacy or anonymity from your adult child, and that promises made by agencies do not establish law nor commit the state to those promises. Guaranteed [legal] anonymity from your adult child was not a choice. Birth parents gave up all rights surrounding their child; but not the child's future rights as an adult citizen to the rights other citizens enjoy.
My argument for access to OBC's to adult adoptees is not based on the side issues. It is very basic: a group a people, through no fault or choice of their own, are denied access to information about themselves. The state keeps some people's origins secret from them. This is the bottom line. These are adult citizens who have done nothing wrong, are not as a class defective in any way which abridges their rights in other ways, have not been party to any agreement which denies their right to information about themselves, and yet are denied that right afforded to every other citizen.
Access to information and contact are two very separate issues. Birth parents have access to the same means of refusing contact or relationships as any other citizen does.
(I tried to make the link as short as possible - hope it is OK).
Last edited by Jaded; 09-04-2013 at 12:15 AM..
Reason: Copyright violation...see bottom of webpage for articles.
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.
