And so it begins… Today is the first day of National Blog Posting Month (NaBloPoMo). My solemn vow to all of you is to post, meaningfully, every day this month. I’ll try to do it in the morning, but I will certainly do it before midnight. 
(Remember, I’m on Central time in the U.S., so my midnight might not be your midnight.)
I’ve thought long and hard about what this first post should be about. I’m sick of politics right now. (Though that could change tomorrow.) Nobody wants to listen to me talk about what television I’m currently watching. (Even I would feel like a dork just talking about Heroes and Bionic Woman every day.) And I’m not feeling particularly creative right now. So what to talk about?
Well, there is one thing that’s been on my mind a lot lately. And so it seems like the thing to write about today. Indeed, since today is also the first day of National Adoption Month, it seems particularly appropriate.
And I was thinking about this topic… It seemed to me, the one time I brought up Open Records a few days ago, the discussion got heated (myself included). I respect you guys. Even when I disagree with you, I respect you. Even when I don’t act like it, I respect you. And talking about adoption again seemed likely to lead to more bad feelings. And I don’t want that.
I also remember, however, why I started this blog in the first place. I started it to raise difficult questions about life, politics, and everything. I’m supposed to be playing with fire, and sometimes people get burned, myself included. (Everyone wave to my internet stalker!) I’m not looking to upset people. But I also cannot censor myself on my own blog. (I should say, too, that no one has asked me to censor myself. This is all an internal struggle for me.)
So now that I’ve wasted a good chunk of this post talking about blogging, rather than adoption, I should at least say a few things about that.
Those of you who don’t know me in real life won’t know all of this. Those who do know that I was adopted by two loving parents. They have both given me a lot of love and support. I don’t need to reassure them that I love them, and vice versa. But that doesn’t stop me from wondering about my birth family. And four months ago, I found my birth mother. We have since developed a good relationship. Given some of the stories I’ve heard, I think I’ve been pretty lucky.
And yet, my records were sealed. Because of that seal, does that mean I shouldn’t have looked for my birth mother? I didn’t know that she wanted to be found. I didn’t know the circumstances leading to my adoption. I had no idea if she would be horrified for me to show up in her life the way that I did. In short, I had no idea if I was going to be accepted or rejected.
And yet, I had to do it. And if a note had been left for me 30-some years ago that I shouldn’t look for her, I still would have. Because I had to know. And I couldn’t know whether she would have changed in her mind in more than three decades.
Does that make me a bad person? I don’t think so. Does it mean I did something wrong? I don’t think so. (And, happily, she agrees with me on this.) Does it say anything about the parents that loved me, cared for me, and raised me? Of course not. The fact of the matter was, and is, that I needed to know about my past, my history. These form part of my identity. Mundane facts about medical history are important to me and decisions I make affecting my life. But there are also, more ephemeral, questions about who I am and where I came from. I couldn’t not at least take the chance to try to find some answers here.
If sealed records are meant to protect birth mothers, then shouldn’t searching for them, the way that I and others have done, also be illegal? I have no idea what I’m going to discover or disrupt. If birth mothers have the right to privacy the way that some claim, my search is, itself, a violation of my birth mother’s right. (That she doesn’t see it that way is immaterial, proponents of sealed records might claim. Others would see it as a violation of their rights.)
The thing I always come back to is this: Adoption is supposed to be about helping children. The birth mother’s needs and the adoptive parents’ needs are secondary. The child being adopted (usually when it is far too young to stand up for itself) is the one that needs to be protected and supported. Thus, the rights of the adoptees should take precedence over the interests (even legitimate interests) of the adults involved.
Adoptees have a right to know where they came from. They may not have a right to have a relationship with their birth family (that is up to the birth family, at least in part). What other people do, or how they react, is not up to the adoptee. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a chance to know important (both practically and emotionally) information about their origins.
That, for me, is what open records are about. It’s about protecting the rights of individuals to know their origins. Rights that every other U.S. citizen has. And rights that were sealed away when they were infants or young children.
* * * * * * * * *
Okay, enough for now. I’ll try to come up with something a little lighter for Day Two. 
Entries (RSS)
I can understand wanting very much to know one’s origins and where one comes from. It still would probably be a good idea to honor a request by the birth mother to have the records sealed and remain private. The right to left alone is pretty primal, and for many people I imagine the circumstances/decision to place a child up for adoption were extremely painful and agonizing, so to have old wounds re-opened could do more harm than good. I heard about a website (there are probably more than one) where birth parents/adoptees go, supplying birthdates/locations/hospital info if they have it/etc and it is open on both sides. Each side knows that if they’re at that site, they are wanting to find/be found.
Secondarily, a consequence of people wanting anonimity but fearing they won’t get it, could lead to mothers abandoning the children in dumpsters, doorsteps, or not “risking” adoption at all. Ending the child’s life or jeopardizing it. Having a safe, no-questions-asked, or secured confidentiality for women who want to give their child up for adoption but are fearful of public exposure for whatever reason, is good for them and of course better for the child than a more extreme alternative.
While I understand your points, the right to be left alone (which none of us as members of society have, as it turns out) is not the same as hiding information that belongs to another information. Further, as I suggested in my post, if this reasoning is correct, then it would follow that a search (not a registry, but an actual search where contact may be made without consent) would be illegal. It isn’t. So sealing records does not provide protection from being found (and I’m not sure I like the blanket assumption that birth mothers need protecting from their children).
But your second point seems highly problematic. That sort of consequentialist reasoning allows for the trampling of all rights if the consequences are good. We are allowed to torture innocents, if we have good consequences. The question is, should we allow the (possibly) good consequences for some people to outweight the protection of rights of others? Our very society is founded on the idea that we cannot sacrifice some for the greater good. So even if it were true that the bad consequences you imagine might happen, it is not a justification for eliminating the rights of an entire group of citizens.
Good point about the second point. Doing actual harm in the now for imaginary good in the future is a devilish bargain.
The right to be left alone may not be legally recognized and I don’t know about BLANKET assumptions of bm needing protection from their children, but a request/demand to be left alone a la sealing one’s records, is like putting out a “Do Not Disturb” or “No Trespassing” sign, and it’s good form to honor those if only to avoid sleeping dogs/hornets’ nests.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. When you say hidden information, perhaps you’re suggesting just giving a child a packet of forms with the parent’s name, medical file, resume, and the like. Or do you mean more than that, like the right to converse with them or encounter them personally, interrogate them directly until you get answers to your satisfaction?
And I’m not quite persuaded that the identity of one’s biological parents is information that BELONGS to someone. I totally get that a sense of identity is a felt need, and knowledge of one’s past is part of that need. But I’m not sure having a real need translates into a Right to have that need met.
Abstracts aside, I am very happy that your real life-situation has had such fruitful results. Your birth mother must be quite pleased that you are decent human being (well, as much as a philospher can be) and its wonderful that you have a good relationship with her.
Yeah… Let me be clearer… I’m thinking of access to original birth certificates (and possibly other information generated at the time of birth and/or adoption, but primarily birth certificates). This is information everyone else has access to. Only adoptees are denied this (without a petition to the court). But I’m not suggesting that adoptees have the right to a relationship (or even to meet) their birth parents. Only to access information that is generated upon their birth, and that is kept for all citizens.
The point is, all birth records of adoptees, for roughly 40 years, were sealed, with or without the mother’s request. I cannot currently access my original birth certificate, even though I know exactly what it says, without petitioning the court and paying court fees.
I also don’t mean to argue that need generates rights. Certainly not all needs. But here’s some additional food for thought:
Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:
“Everyone . . . is entitled to realization . . . of the economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.”
Further, Article 25, section 2 reads:
“All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protections.”
Why, then, should some children be granted unfettered access to their birth records, but not all?
But, I haven’t been called a decent human being in a while, so I’ll take what I can get.
Having access to your Original Birth Certificate does not mean you are going to violate anyones privacy. My OBC is mine period. During my long search, I did everything I could to protect my mother’s privacy. Now, having found her, I am honoring her wishes not to contact anyone else in her family about me.
Great post.
We, in Australia, in most states, have complete access to our Original Birth Certs – AND – information taken by hospital staff & social workers – and we’ve been allowed to apply for them since the early 1990′s.
There HAS NOT been an increase of abortions.
There HAS NOT been an increase in baby dumping.
(sadly this is what society has been led to believe by powerful adoption lobby groups – who wish there to be an increase in adoption numbers every year – such as the NCFA)
There has also been NO reported harassment cases between adoptees and birth parents since the records were opened.
Adoption levels have actually dramatically DECREASED since then – as Australia has a much better child/mother friendly – family preservation policy of trying to keep mothers and children together – if at all possible. (with a lot of support, counseling and funding if needed) The way nature intended.
We have adoption numbers under 500 per year. The US has adoption numbers at over 120,000 per year.
Adoptees should be allowed to have their OBC – just like every other real-kid (non adopted) is allowed them!!
Possum. (Aussie adoptee)
straying from the main ethical discussion, and i think the points made have been good, i’m curious about the effects this has on other things that involve proof of US citizenship. As we all know, passports are becoming the indisputable norm, and there’s almost no reason for a person over 25 to not have one, if anything just in case. Not everyone is in possession of their little blue SS card, and I’m wondering how sealing these records would further hinder someone that is not in possession. Not just for passports, but in applying for many different government benefits, grants, loans, and even simply a job. Even applying for a new SS card, it requires proof of birth. I cannot come up with any federal legislation off of the top of my head that would consider this “preventing of proving US citizenship” illegal. Nor can I think of any legislation or case law that addresses placing an “undue hardship” upon persons needing proof of citizenship, undue hardship here being strictly in the legal sense.
It would seem quite logical that there must be a basic constitutional right of all US citizens to be allowed to prove they are US citizens. surely it does not make sense to say “as a US citizen you are hereby granted all the rights and liberties contained herein, but you are not allowed the right to prove that you are a US citizen.” now, whether one actually does so prove is of their own responsibility and negligence, but to be denied the means to do so prior to any reason to do so, seems – on face value – to be quite constitutionally invalid and illogical.
my knowledge of the constitution through educational environments is pretty good, but i don’t recall seeing anything addressing proof of citizenship. the 14th amendment mentions “depriving citizens of life liberty, property and due process of law”, but thats literally all it says. my knowledge of the US Code isn’t as good, but it is quite extensive and would take a bit of searching to find anything that has been enacted. Also, the case law of this I have nothing that would be of importance.. surely there are plenty of cases involved in citizenship, i.e. slavery, immigration, annexing of land in the south west, but i don’t think any of these cases involve the hindering of being able to prove citizenship.
i have a lot of access to westlaw and an extensive law library. i’ll do a little digging and if i come up with anything worth reporting i’ll get back. again, please read this from strictly a legal standpoint and not of an ethical one, especially when interpreting the words “undue hardship”. for surely that phrase carries 2 very different but equally important weights in a legal sense vs. a moral sense.
legit email this time, by the way
Adoptees do have access to their amended birth certificates. These documents indicate the adoptive parents as the parents. So I have not had problems getting passports or driver’s licenses. It is the original birth certificate, the one produced at birth, that is sealed.
Hmmm Looks like you need some help from Little ol’ me. I am a proud member of Bastard Nation and many other organizations that all support adoptee rights.
First and foremost, what adoptees are asking for is equal rights and equal protection under the law. We want the documents that accurately record our birth. That means our original birth certificates. We do not have a right to reunion. We should have the same basic civil right to the very documents that record our birth as do non adopted individuals.
One person pointed out that we should have the documents that record that we were born in America. My amended birth certificate does not show the date that it was filed. That would make me a suspect terrorist in my own country. Because of recent changes at the state department, I would not be allowed a passport because of this. Oh I could leave this country but I would not be allowed to ever return because I can’t prove that I am an authentic American. Thus I am a prisoner in my own country.
The other interesting part of this is that two states went to battle over this very issue. What must be understood is that mothers gave up their RIGHTS which includes the right to privacy. Now the right to private is to be free from governmental intrusion. So really whose rights are being violated here? It does not violate familial privacy. In abortion, contraception, and parenting, women are exercising their right to privacy. In fact two of those situations are medical situations that require a doctor. They are under HIPPA laws. In parenting, every parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit as long as there is no abuse or other such illegal activities. Again I repeat the parents have relinquished their rights in this. Now with this being said, if we are protecting natural parents here, why aren’t they allowed a copy of the original birth certificate? They have never been allowed access to that document either. Most adoptive parents of the past were not allowed access to that information. Shouldn’t those living adoption be allowed access to the very documents that records pieces of their lives? I think so.
Now some interesting statistics. In Oregon and New Hampshire, both states have a 99% rate of natural parents wanting contact from their children. Only one measly percent don’t want contact from their adult adoptees. These adoptees are still not denied access to their records but they know how their parents want to be contact. Kansas and Alaska have never sealed their records from adoptees. They have higher than average adoptions and lower than average abortion rates. In Oregon, adoption is on the rise. The rates of adoption are higher than before this law took place.
This is all very well documented on their website.
If you look at Minnesota and South Carolina, they are putting some interesting points in their arguments. Both states require that an affadavit be signed in order to release the information. This affidavit requires that both the adoptee and the natural parents not sue the adoption agency because of disclosure. Hmmm doesn’t that make you wonder why? They were horribly cruel to our natural parents. Some mothers were tied to their beds. Most mothers were not fed properly. Most were treated like breeders and sluts. Their only redemption was that they give up their children. If these mothers wanted to keep, they were threatened with lawsuits and legal action. These women were told it was a crime if they contacted their children. Many of these women didn’t feel that they had the choice to search. What these people are afraid of is that we adoptees, natural parents AND adoptive parents will sue the crap out of them for unethical practices. The other thing is that South Carolina is mandating that all living adoption especially natural parents and adoptees go through mandatory counseling in the effects of disclosure.
Sorry to take over your blog. I just wanted to state all of this. This is pure fact. I know because the research is out there and I have read it.
I think it’s a mistake to go from (paraphrasing) “adoption is for the benefit of the child” to “adoptee rights should take precedence” to “adoptees have the right to X.” The first step is suspect, I think, because when the adoptee is a child they’re under adult supervision – adults get to make the decisions. And then, when the adoptee is an adult, the ‘for the benefit of the child’ no longer applies.
I’m also uneasy about the “rights” argument, either rights granted or rights the mother is supposed to have given up. The word “right” is thrown around so casually in conversation, but has such a narrow application in law. While the Con. doesn’t explicitly grant a right to privacy, it is generally seen as being in the “penumbra”, or a direct consequence of another right. (The 4th’s protection’s against searches, for example.) I’m not sure where you could pull the right to see a OBC from the Constitution… I guess if you say a “moral” right, as opposed to a legal/legalistic right, my uneasiness is dispelled. Where’s the moral right come from, though? Fairness?
While granting adoptees access to the same records everyone else has would be very fair, and the legal system may be more about fairness than justice, I’m not sure how much traction that’d have. It could be seen as smacking up against another’s “right” to privacy.
I think it’d be best to make that conflict explicit – An adoptee’s desire (or “right”, or whatever) to know is in conflict with the parent’s desire for privacy. But is it? Unless the mother makes an explicit request why should that desire for privacy – at least with regard to the adoptee’s knowledge – be assumed? And even if there is an explicit request why should it be seen as more important than the adoptee’s request to know? At this point we supposidely have two adults. Why should one be denied access to highly significant information on the other’s say so?
I can imagine situations where there’d be an undesirable violation of privacy. Adoptee and mother are in the same town and mother would feel shamed/embarrassed if the adoptee knew her identity. More melodramatically some psychological trauma associated with the adoptee’s birth might pose a risk to the mother if the adoptee knew her identity. But, given the decades it’d take for the adoptee to reach adulthood I think that sort of trauma rare. “Hard cases make bad law.” And, back to the “shame/embarrassment” thing, where 100 years ago the level of discomfort could drive someone out of town, that’s not going to be common today. So, all in all, I don’t see why the bias in the system shouldn’t be toward releasing the full records.