Original Birth Certificate vs. Amended Birth Certificate
After reading FosterMommy's blog post, maybe it is time that someone goes into a little more detail and explanation as to why there should be a different document for an amended birth certificate. In 44 states, an adoptee can not get unrestricted access to their original birth certificate. Tennessee and Delaware are considered semi open. Tennessee has a contact veto that is imposed until the state can contact the birth parents. Delaware is a disclosure veto which allows the birthparent to deny access to the original birth certficate. Keep in mind that these states too have a very low percentage of birthparents denying contact or disclosure. This percentage is 1-5% of denial. Some states also give more power to birthmothers over birthfathers. That is exactly what happened with me. I have a father who probably wanted contact with me but he is denied access just as I am.
In order to understand the sealing of records, you have to know the historical perspective. In the late 1920s and 1930s, the court documents and the original birth certificates were being denied to the birth parents by one simple stroke of a pen. The terminology was changed from parties of interests to parties on record. That denied birth parents access to the documents. From the 1940s on, the records were being sealed to the adoptee. By the 1960s, those same records were sealed to the adoptive parents. Some states as late as the eighties were sealing records to the adoptee.
The records were sealed to protect the adoptive family unit. There were times when a child was not placed for adoption. The original birth certificate is not sealed to them because they were never adopted. There is no promise of confidentiality at relinquishment but at finalization of the adoption.
The other issue to look at is the birth certificate laws themselves. Every non adopted person is allowed immediate access to their birth certificate on file once they have proven their identity. In this situation, there is no parent that can deny access to that document to their adult son or daughter. They need that document to prove their identity.
Lets also look at the Privacy Act of 1974. It states that the government is to give every American citizen access to the files and papers that it has on its citizens. Yes there is a right to be left alone. That right to be left alone does not circumvent another's right to their documents. Every person has the right to say no to contact. In the states that have restored OBC access, there has not been a reported issue of stalking or harassment on the part of the adoptee or the birthparent.
Lets also look at the effects on the birthparent laws. I know that Indiana and Texas has this. The birth parents are DIVESTED of all rights in regards to the adoptee. If they have this right to deny access to the original birth certificate, then it must be assumed that they still have parental rights. This leaves the door open for adoptions to be contested. So do they have parental rights or don't they? The states must realize the loopiness of their argument. We also come back to the argument. Can a parent deny access to a birth record once their son or daughter has reached adulthood? No they can't. We also must decide if an adoptee ever becomes an adult? Are adoptees equal citizens under the law?
Because of all of the secrecy in adoption, there can not be an accurate statistic on adoption. We do not know why women place. We do not know how many adoptive parents are really infertile. We do not know how many adoptees actually search. We do not know how many birthparents actually search either. Until the shield of this imposed secrecy is removed, we will never get an accurate reading on anything adoption.
In today's adoption world, as long as there is secrecy, there will still remain the mythical arguments about birthmothers, adoptees, and adoptive parents. Birthmothers are crack whores, adoptees are ungrateful for searching, and adoptive parents are infertile nervous wrecks about both their child and their parents of origin. I want these myths to end.
- Amyadoptee's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Tone
Great post Amy. I would suggest 'No they can't' regarding what the states may do should be stated 'No they shouldn't'. The state, like a judge, may do whatever it wishes, logic is not required.
One could make the argument that a TPRed birth parent still having veto power over the adoptee getting the OBC isn't parental rights at all, but a right to privacy issue for the birthparent.
You are missing the point on this
Who owns the birth certificate? The person that it belongs to. That is in every state vital statistic law in the country. When a person reaches adulthood, the parent of the non adopted does not have the right to privacy. That non adopted person has access to that birth certificate.
I am not saying that a person does not have the right to privacy. They have the right to no to contact. However, no person has the right to deny another person access to their own documents. The birthmother has relinquished her right to say yea or nay on the birth certificate when she signed the termination of parental rights. She does not get special rights that no other parent in the country gets.
Birth certificates may be private documents but the record of the birth like as in birth indexes are not private information. Every state has a birth index. Texas has their driver's license numbers on line. Death indexes are on line. There is no guarantee of confidentiality or privacy in this country.
The state does
Amy, the State owns the birth certificate, it is their property. It is not the property of the parent or the child. Yes, in most instances we are allowed to have certified copies, but we don't own it, please remember that the actual signed original is something that we never get or see. It is no different than your drivers liscense, in the event of a serious driving offense, or incapacity,the state has the right to demand its return, even though you paid fees and met all the requirements to get it.
Personal privacy rights are quite absolute. An under age girl gets an abortion and does not tell her parents, the parents suspect this happened and contact the clinic that happend to do the procedure. They will get no information due to the underage girl's right to privacy. This, despite a real need to care for their child and the possible after effects of the proceedure. The need to breach privacy here is much greater than in the amended BC vs OBC scenario, there is a real risk of physical harm, yet privacy trumps disclosure.
Have you read the vital statistics codes in any state?
It states in every state that an individual has the right to see their birth certificate immediately upon proof of identity. They are given a copy of it immediately. No parent in this country has the right to deny their adult son or daughter access to that document. There is no special privacy issues in regards to that document. Adult adoptees in 44 states are treated as forever children.
Birthparents are divested of all rights in regards to the adoptee. They do not get special rights as a result of relinquishment. In fact, in most states, they do not even get a copy of the original birth certificate. What you are saying is that they should have a special privilege or immunity that no other parent in this country has. In fact, that special immunity or privilege is against most state constitutions.
Yes the right to privacy includes the right to be left alone. That right to privacy does not include the violation of another's right to privacy. The right to privacy as defined by the Privacy Act of 1974 states that all American citizens should have access to the documents that the government has on its people. Adult adoptees and birthparents do not want nor do we need special considerations because of adoption.
Well Said, FBI
It is too bad that the Privacy Act of 1974 only covers federal records. This law allows me to get my FBI record or my daughter's immigration record.
AngelaW
The ones that you love the most are usually the ones that hurt you the most. - Unknown
Wide and to the right
First, the statutes on BCs obviously do not say that every individual may see their original BC on demand, or you would already have that and wouldn't be writing this post.
You are right, no parent has the right to deny you the right to the original BC, that right is reserved for the State, and in most states, they do not release that version after a finalized adoption, but it is the state acting as the state, not as a functionary of the birth parent. While legislators may have concern for the birthparents, it is the law that dictates what is and what is not released, not some power of the birthparent (ie, its the legislators that would be the bad guys in this situation).
The right to privacy is more than a right to be left alone, it is a right to have information that a court or the law deems detrimental to someones privacy from being released. An example again is the underage Mom that gets an abortion and doesn't tell the parents, and they cannot get any medical information from the provider, that is far more than being left alone. In no way is your privacy invaded by this action, nothing is being disclosed about you that harms you. What you are seeking is a right to disclosure. That is not a 'right' that I know of under the law.
As Angela pointed out, the 1974 act is federal, and they do not issue birth certificates. That act also has many exceptions, it is not a blanket irocnclad promise.
I am in agreement with you Amy, on BCs from adoption after the 'sealed' period ended. The issue is who is the bad guy, and how is the dirty deed being done. Aim carefully. It isn't birthparents, or adoptive parents, it isn't agencies. The target has to be state legislatures, they created the current system and only they can fix it.
Actually It is Certain Agencies
It is agencies like Gladney Center for Adoption, Bethany, and other members of the NCFA, National Council for Adoption that fight against adult adoptee access. It is also the Mormons and the Catholics. I can give you a huge long list of adoption agencies that have come out against adult adoptees. It is also adoption attorneys that have come against it specifically the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. Not all of them are bad. Lord knows I have spoken with Steve Kirsh from Kirsh and Kirsh on a few occasions via email. Historically very powerful adoptive parents have fought against adult adoptee access. It is why the National Council for Adoption was created. Here in Texas, Gladney, its founding member, has deep seated control over the state legislature especially the Texas State Senate.
Their claim is that it will cause more abortions. In fact, that argument was used in the Oregon testimony on their lawsuits against Measure 58. The right to privacy as even defined by Roe Vs. Wade states that it means the right to be free from governmental interference.
According to Indiana's vital statistic statutes, it states that a person seeking their birth certificate shall be granted immediate access to that document. I can give you the code for that. The exception is stranger adoption. I use that in my arguments with the state of Indiana along with the effects on birthparents code which also states that birthparents are divested of all rights. There is no special privacy written into the law at this point. The law is contradictory to its citizens. It is only written in the code on adoption.
Opponents vs bad guys
Only the legislature can correct the rules on access. Yes, there are folks who disagree with your position, but, by themselves, they have no more power than you do. The law has to be changed to get a different result.
The code says what it says, only with all caveats included. If it says access for all, but not for this group, then it doesn't say access for all. What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.
Roe goes after a lot more than government interference, ie restricting private parties that want to protest outside clinics, parents who want info on the underage daughters abortion, pharmacists that don't want to provide the morning after pill, etc.
You are doing a good job of going after what you believe is right. I would suggest sticking with inequity, and stating the law as it actually is, that helps sell your point.
Thanks for posting this
Amy, thanks for posting this. By the time I reached fostermommy's post, comments were closed. I would have said there, and I'll say here, that secrecy and lies in adoption, no matter the reason given to justify them, damage children and parents. Reading the discussion on that post and this one shows that people look at this issue from many different angles. But at the end of the day I think we as a society have to ask ourselves if there are any circumstances that justify robbing an individual of their knowledge of self.
I don't believe there are. I believe this information belongs to the adopted individual, period.
NJ birthmom
In today's news is a NJ birthmom who placed a baby that was a product of rape. She did not want contact. The child searched and contacted the mother, it was very traumatic for her. She is suing the state based on 'right to privacy'. It will be interesting to see how the courts handle this. At the least, it proves that not all birth mothers want contact, and some dont want it a whole bunch. Indeed, there may be a right to privacy for birth mothers, and disclosure may turn out not to be about the adoptee only.
There is another issue here.
Before I want to jump on that bandwagon, I want to know where she got her information. This adopted daughter could have gotten the information from another source. Kinsolving comes to mind. How else would she get the information? She contacted the woman's children. The only way that she could get that information is from a service like Kinsolving because the state of New Jersey would not have that information.
To me, it sounds like she is trying to scam the state of New Jersey. There is no guarantee of confidentiality in this country. It is impossible. I would also like to hear from the adoptee on this situation as well. There are birth indexes all over the country. A person go into the library and the information is in newspapers. This adoptee could have found this information anywhere.
It is fine that someone does not want contact. I would not be a bit surprised if this was a NCFA set up as well.
Before we flip out over this situation, I would like to see the court documents on this case. I would like to hear from both sides.
I am an Indiana Adoptee living in the wilds of Texas.
NJ Woman Sues State of NJ
"But that wasn't the case last Dec. 13, when an Atlantic City woman came face to face with the daughter she placed for adoption 30 years ago after being raped.
This short reunion on the woman's doorstep left her feeling "violated, in shock, and short of breath," according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, in Camden, and she believes that a division of New Jersey's Department of Children and Families helped set up the traumatic event."
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/48836567.html?cmpid=15585797
It sounds like NJ's Division of Youth and Family Services handed over the birth mother's id to the adult adoptee.
AngelaW
The ones that you love the most are usually the ones that hurt you the most. - Unknown
The thing with this
Is that we are only hearing one side of the story. We have not heard from the adoptee. We have also not heard from the state. The state of New Jersey is historically known for denying information. You can not even get non identifying information without a court order in New Jersey. So I doubt very seriously it was the state that gave her that information. There are search angels out there. Libraries are now actually manually putting in birth announcements into a form of birth index. There are companies like Kinsolving and Omni Search out there. There are private investigators. It happens all the time. I think that this is a scam. Either that or it is a set up by the NCFA. I honestly believe that. It sounds incredibly like a woman who claimed to have been raped and had her daughter find her. In fact that adoptee left a reply to that article as well:
It may not even be true. My birthmother has said horrible, totally false things about me on public venues. Her husband is behind a lot of the anti-adoptee rights stuff because he didn't even know I existed. She alleged my birthfather was also a rapist. However, people who knew her at the time said that there was no indication of that allegedly and my birthfather asked my birthmother to marry him. I'm saying all of this because she lives near Atlantic City and has said these claims before -- #1 I never met her in person and #2 I'm significantly over 30! But, it rings exactly like the lies my birthmother was telling.
Talk about dumping on the birthmother!
Amy, in the article, NJ admits they gave the adoptee the contact info. Why on earth would you go to the extreme that Mom lied about being raped? It is one thing to push your viewpoint and another to trash others who don't fit with that view. At least have some evidence before going that route.
Hearing from the adoptee, in this case, is simply not a valid point. No matter what the adoptee's view, it is the Mom who was harmed, it is the Mom who did not consent to disclosure.
This case may establish if a birthmother has privacy rights, and if disclosure is only about the adoptee. No, if I was for disclosure, I wouldn't want this case to go forward, it is about the worst possible effects of disclosure. It is hard not to feel sympathy for the Mom.
I am not blaming the mother for being upset.
You missed my point. You obviously did not read the article. Yes NJ DYFS did contact her via mail. She chose NOT to answer the letter. The laws in NJ do not allow the state to give out that information at all without consent. The state can not even give non identifying information without a court order. The laws as they stand now do not give her even a say in whether or not she wanted the records open or closed. If she never replied, I bet money that the adoptee did not get her information from the state. In fact, I absolutely positive that the adoptee did not get information from the state. This adoptee used a service like Kinsolving to get her information. Another possibility is search angels as well. There are ways around this. That is what you are not understanding. She is blaming the state when it was very very likely that the state did not give that information to the adoptee. If the adoptee had information on the birthmother and her family, she got that someplace else. Kinsolving is one of those sources
She is suing for a million bucks. Even the birthmothers are saying that she is doing this for money. I am betting that this is setup by the NCFA. How would the state know one of the woman's daughters? Think about that. They don't. No state keeps track of birthmothers that way. They want them all to disappear.
Red herrings won't work here Amy
The article states that she, or her lawyer, were told by DYFS that they were the source of the mothers information. Yes, Amy, I did read the article. Your earlier assertion that the rape claim was probably a lie engineered by folks who don't want disclosure is way beyond tacky. Shame. You have no knowlege of that being wrong, and it is serious. 'I wonder' is a very different from 'I'm betting', how about putting your advocacy under control a bit, and backing off of the bit about how Mom is lying about being raped. I am amazed that is coming from another woman.
The case is clearly a large blow to the idea that disclosure is harmless, and besides, no one minds anyhow. Cheer up, because the mom did not respond, she will almost certainly lose her suit. The down side is that it is like the lady who sued McDonalds because they served hot coffee. She was vindicated in court by getting big bucks, but is forever seen as a clasic case of the law being unable to see the forest for the trees, and that it was McDonalds, not her that was the victim (I hate cold coffee).
With Amy... We Haven't Heard from All Parties
NJ state is avoiding comment at this time. Either they had an employee who failed to follow NJ law. Or the state didn't screw up. Either way... we won't find out until NJ settles or the case goes to court.
AngelaW
The ones that you love the most are usually the ones that hurt you the most. - Unknown
A direct quote from the
A direct quote from the article:
According to the complaint, the woman - whose name is being withheld by the Daily News - received a letter from the Division of Youth and Family Services in August 2008 saying that an adopted adult was seeking information about her birth parents. DYFS asked her to confirm her identity and whether she wanted to pursue the matter.
The woman never responded. In New Jersey law, there can not be a release of information without consent. In fact, New Jersey requires adoptees and/or birthmothers to go to court to get non identifying information.
This is the only part where DYFS stated that they contacted her. A couple of years ago, a woman testified that she was raped. It was in newspapers and everything else that her adopted daughter stalked her. Here is her response to the article. I quote again:
It may not even be true. My birthmother has said horrible, totally false things about me on public venues. Her husband is behind a lot of the anti-adoptee rights stuff because he didn't even know I existed. She alleged my birthfather was also a rapist. However, people who knew her at the time said that there was no indication of that allegedly and my birthfather asked my birthmother to marry him. I'm saying all of this because she lives near Atlantic City and has said these claims before -- #1 I never met her in person and #2 I'm significantly over 30! But, it rings exactly like the lies my birthmother was telling.
This woman has had to fight for her dignity because she contacted her birthmother ONCE. Her mother has told lies about her in public venues. I know because I have seen them. This female adoptee is going to have to do the same thing.
I am telling you that this is a fact. The article states that this adoptee contacted her daughter. Where would she get that information? The state of New Jersey does not have that information. I can tell you for a fact that the states treat birthparents who search horribly. I know that legislators have told birthparents that they do not have the right to search. That their children do not want to hear from them. That is the part that you are not understanding. There are ways to get that information for $3,500. Kinsolving is one of those companies. Search angels can do the same thing. The state of New Jersey is not going to give this adoptee that information. I have reason to doubt all of this based on those facts alone. The fact that the NCFA is involved in this case stinks to high heaven. Why? Because the NCFA and its member agencies have fought against adoptee access for the last fourty years. Adoptees had this right up until the sixties. In some states it was even later than that. Texas did not shut theirs down until 1972. Pennsylvania was in the eighties. The NCFA wants to make an example out of this adoptee.
In fact, one of the comments on that article alludes to that:
Not the same article
Amy, you and I have obviously read different articles. The one I read states the DYFS told her that once she failed to respond they did what they felt they had to. No response is not consent. Interesting comments your post, lots of 'gee, our cause is rightful and great' and zip on this case, other than gossip, speculation and insinuation.
What about it Amy, is it possible that this actually did happen? Or is it all surely just an evil plot to block access, with no possibility of truthfulness? How about allowing for the possibility that this really may have happened?
I have Photo Copy of Original & Adoption is sealed till he's 18
For my Son I got a Photocopy of his Original (adopted @ 10y) as part of his fostercare paperwork, After I adopted him I got a 'new' one with his new Name and me as the father, and the mother section said unknown. When I applied for a passport for him, the clerks questions how the mother could be unknown, They needed to see the Adoption Paperwork, and they questioned that too. (And that paperwork came from there office). My understanding is that its the Adoption copy is sealed till he is 18.
He know he has a mom and he does ask his Half-Sisters (16 with bio dad) 19 in (Ind Living) how she doing from time to time. I did delete his mom phone number out of his cell phone, and have asked his sister not to let him talk to her if they are with her.
Jim
Mother Unknown
I went through that with each boy, both for the passport and the social security card. The first time we spent almost two hours arguing about was it 'Mother Unknown', or 'Decline to state'. They absolutely would not take 'None'. I finally told them to pick. Nowadays, None is an acceptable answer.
In CA, it takes 10 months to generate the new BC. Social security shows my son's new last name, and that I am the father, based on the Order of Adoption, but the birth records per Social Security don't get changed until I can present the new BC. The passport people had a hissy about the original BC with a different name than the Order of Adoption,unfortunately, the child's original name isn't in the order. I had the old SS card and the new one, same number, that did the trick.
SS had no problem changing... but....
SSA had no issue changing his name, I did not request a new number. Only problem was I though my lawyer did it, Found out I had to do it when IRS rejected him for SSN not matching. Scheduled an appointment at SSA, was in and out in 10 mins, His re-issued card arrived 10 day later, I had his passport at that point,
His Passport application was sent to 'special' processing section of State Dept in DC, Not one of the usual processing center. The clerk in Count court house after she figured out how he was allow to have a unknown mother was ok, Directed it there.
Jim
His BC was issued by State of GA, not by the county, but its identical form to his original other then the names and the issuing authority. In GA you can request a copy your BC from issuing county (His Oringal BC has been 'removed' from county files and sent to state, all his issuing county has in its files is a notation that it was sent to State Dept of Health). till you are 18, then you need to get it from the state dept of health (I Think).