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.
This should be available in other states before too long. How do you feel about this? I'm sure many adoptees will be happy but I feel sorry for birth parents who placed a child for adoption under the assumption their privacy would always be maintained.
In many states an OBC is unsealed when adoptees reach adulthood. So, I'm not surprised. I'm still worried about birth parents who don't want to be found and older adoptees who make the assumption that all biological family members will accept them with open arms. This can be painful for all involved. I believe in the old adage to let sleeping dogs lie.
I don't even track down "cousins" on Ansetry.com! And technically, we're "family". But everyone has a different definition of family. To me, we share DNA and nothing else...I don't know them!
Also, domestic adoption today pretty much eliminates the mystery that surrounded adoptions years ago. There are rarely 100% closed adoptions anymore, the culture of adoption is different. Our kids won't be in the dark about their identity. Because that's just the function of private and county adoptions today.
But, I think for a lot of adult adoptees, particularly those adopted before say 1980 (perhaps even 1975), this piece of their identity is still important to them. Not all, of course. And, I don't think it's a good idea to assume birth families want contact. We'll see how this unfolds...
I have some friends who placed children in the 60's and they tell me it would ruin their families if they were "discovered". One was a one night stand at a frat party and she didn't even bother to track down the father, nor did she list his name on the OBC. She just wanted it over. The other was in a long term steady relationship with a high school boy but his parents didn't want him to marry her- she always felt it was the ultimate rejection and she just wanted to get it over with but she did list the boy as the father. She is now wealthy in her own right and fears somebody coming along to want something from her and to out her and this boy.
I believe in open adoptions now and think it is probably best for everybody but for the birth mothers who made plans thinking it would always be behind them, I think it would be devastating in their elderly years to have to deal with somebody asking a bunch of questions and making accusations. And if they are deceased then what would keep an adoptee from contacting a family member who might not have known and then open a big can of worms for everybody.
Illinois opened their records in November 2011 - 20 months ago - that article seems a bit behind with the times. On another well known forum, there has been plenty of online adoptees who have received their OBCs.
These are the preferences for those birthparents who don't wish to have contact. Those whose children are under 67 years of age can have their names/addresses removed, those whose children are over 67 can't have that information removed but can request that they not be contacted.
Quote:
Option D. I agree to the release of my name as it appears on my birth son’s/daughter’s original
birth certificate, but I do not wish to be contacted by my birth son/daughter when he or she has
reached the age of 21 or by his or her adoptive parents or surviving relatives.
Signature _______________________________________ Date _________________________ NOTE: Birth parents of an adopted or surrendered person born before January 1, 1946, are not permitted by the Illinois statute (750 ILCS 50/18.1b(d)(3) to select Option E.
Option E. I wish to prohibit the release of my (check ALL applicable items): first name,
last name, last known address, and/or birth son’s/daughter’s last name (if last name is same
as mine), as they appear on my birth son’s/daughter’s original birth certificate, and I do not wish to
be contacted by my birth son/daughter when he or she has reached the age of 21. (If there were any
special circumstances that played a role in your decision to remain anonymous that you would like
to share with your birth son/daughter, provide them in the space below.)
I have some friends who placed children in the 60's and they tell me it would ruin their families if they were "discovered". One was a one night stand at a frat party and she didn't even bother to track down the father, nor did she list his name on the OBC. She just wanted it over. The other was in a long term steady relationship with a high school boy but his parents didn't want him to marry her- she always felt it was the ultimate rejection and she just wanted to get it over with but she did list the boy as the father. She is now wealthy in her own right and fears somebody coming along to want something from her and to out her and this boy.
I believe in open adoptions now and think it is probably best for everybody but for the birth mothers who made plans thinking it would always be behind them, I think it would be devastating in their elderly years to have to deal with somebody asking a bunch of questions and making accusations. And if they are deceased then what would keep an adoptee from contacting a family member who might not have known and then open a big can of worms for everybody.
If your friends live in Illinois, they can fill out a no contact form and even remove their names etc. With it being upfront that they don't want contact, there is probably even less risk of direct contact than if they are in a closed state - especially with DNA becoming so popular. Most states considering opening records will forewarn bparents in advance via large advertisements so that they have plenty of time to put on vetoes.
Quote:
And if they are deceased then what would keep an adoptee from contacting a family member who might not have known and then open a big can of worms for everybody
I did that - I took that fact into deep consideration (which is why it took 4 years for me to decide how to make contact) and was deeply respectful - if they had said "get lost", I would have done so. In my case, my bfamily have been very welcoming. At the same time, I didn't contact my bmom's husband because he was sick.
I also took into consideration information given on my so-called non-ID info (which is an information sheet that one gets outlining information).
Information packs for adoptees along with their OBCs outlining possible outcomes would be a helpful thing, I think. I received a booklet which I thought was pretty good.
Sadly women like your friends in the 1960s didn't really get great counselling did they - they were more or less made to feel ashamed so it is hardly surprising so many women from that era tied their shame with their baby.
I think part of the problem is that many in the general population still think that the only people who wish to know their bparents are sick individuals who have issues with their adoptive parents. I have a deep love for my aparents and my contact of bfamily is totally separate to that. Sadly also some bparents may also be under the false assumption that they would only get contacted by adoptees wishing to cause trouble and that is often far from the truth.
Last edited by susankate; 08-13-2013 at 12:32 AM..
Adoptees cannot inherit from their family of birth unless specifically mentioned in the will, so your friend doesn't have to worry about that. The flip side if you are concerned for your friend of being asked for money - I would suggest that the majority of adoptions happened into well off families like doctors because an adoption agency adoption was almost, or as expensive back then, as it is now. I have never talked to any adoptee who wanted to out their family of birth, rather the opposite, with the first question of what is the best way to protect her privacy if she has never told anyone. Fear of the unknown allows false assumptions to become real. Frankly, it surprises me that people would assume that adoptees haven't been brought up well enough to not do something like that, especially seeing as most from that era know they were given up do to the stigma and societal pressure of unwed mothers.
Illinois opened OBC's to adoptees in a two stage process - those before 1946 were opened a year prior to the November 2011 opening. Since then from the 1946 forward opening 8,800 OBC were requested of the 350,000 formerly sealed OBC's (2.5%) (see below). To me it shows an amazing number so soon after the opening considering that within this age group many have already passed, some don't know about the change, others aren't interested in it, others weren't ever told...
Illinois is one of 11 states to have open birth certificates and one of nine
to have unsealed them since 1999, according to the American Adoption Congress.
And because of its size, the Prairie State has seen more adoptees get those
papers than most. Still, the 8,800 is only 2.5 percent of the 350,000 Illinois
adoptees' records that were sealed beginning in 1946.
In Oregon, which opened its records in 2000, 11,500, or nearly 11 percent of
the 108,000 records sealed after 1957, have been requested. Alabama didn't seal
300,000 records until 1991, reopened them just nine years later, and 5,800
adoptees have requested them. Rhode Island reopened 24,000 records in 2012 after
68 years, and 759 people have laid claim to their birth certificates.
An Illinois state representative is testifying in PA for adoptee rights. She would be in the know if there had been any fall-out from unsealing OBC's in Ill or even Oregon, RI, Al, etc as that would have been part of testimony or information in the change for Ill. If I remember correctly PA didn't seal OBC's until the 1980's and then retroactively sealed all of them back decades.
Other than Kansas and Alaska (who never sealed OBC's) the few states that now allow the OBC to be accessed by the adoptee has all been changed thanks only to adoptee rights groups fighting to get the laws changed back to what they were. Most states still have the adoptee's OBC sealed. Open adoptions of today still have those OBC's sealed away and the adoptee denied, open adoption is not the same thing.
I'm one of "those" adoptees who continued my search after I found my mother had passed away. My family did not know I wouldn't know who they were. They thought I didn't want to meet them. I didn't barge in, I contacted the family member I knew - knew about me. She then shared the news with those who also knew about me and wondered all those years, and told those too young to know about me.
Gaining access to your original birth certificate is knowing you have the same rights as every other non-adopted person.
Susankate, you mention that birthparents can have their names removed. What exactly is the point of an original birth certificate if the birthparents have their names removed?
Most states still have the adoptee's OBC sealed. Open adoptions of today still have those OBC's sealed away and the adoptee denied, open adoption is not the same thing.
I'm one of "those" adoptees who continued my search after I found my mother had passed away. My family did not know I wouldn't know who they were. They thought I didn't want to meet them. I didn't barge in, I contacted the family member I knew - knew about me. She then shared the news with those who also knew about me and wondered all those years, and told those too young to know about me.
Gaining access to your original birth certificate is knowing you have the same rights as every other non-adopted person.
I don't understand this. Isn't the point of unsealing OBC to learn the identity of birth parents? It wouldn't be a secret if it is an open adoption.
No, it is restoring the right to access and receive the same documents the US government holds that every non-adopted person has access to.
Many adoptees get their OBC when the laws changed who have no intention of searching, they just want a factual record of their birth that up till then they had been denied. Some who receive them only want to do their family tree but not make contact. Oregon did a study on the first wave of adoptees in that state to receive their OBC two years out that if memory serves confirmed that - I can try to dig it up if you are interested. Many also search.
Unsealing my records was court ordered for "good cause" so I could search - which by the way also negates that promise of privacy seeing as any judge, any day, can unseal the records and the family of birth is none the wiser.
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.
My family did not know I wouldn't know who they were. They thought I didn't want to meet them. I didn't barge in, I contacted the family member I knew - knew about me. She then shared the news with those who also knew about me and wondered all those years, and told those too young to know about me.
