Black Market, 1945 Illinois Adoption Act & Sealed Records

ILLINOIS: A BLACK MARKET HAVEN
When Jacob Kepecs, executive director of the Chicago Jewish Children's Bureau was asked why that agency placed only 12 children for adoption in 1944, he replied: “We don't have them to place. The black market gets them.”
Up until 1945, the Illinois Adoption Act was woefully weak and unregulated. Back then, any person at all could “facilitate” an adoption: an attorney, a doctor, a social worker, a taxi driver, a midwife, a judge, a nurse, your next door neighbor - it didn’t matter. If you knew of a baby who needed to be adopted out, you could just go ahead and find a family who wanted that baby, go to court, and the judge would almost always grant the adoption. The absence of specific adoption regulation in Illinois was a magnet for criminals who made money from selling babies.

In 1944, Illinois statistics revealed that of the 2,680 adoptions in Cook County, only about 680 were investigated by social agencies. What about the other 2,000?

The primary intent of the 1945 Illinois adoption reform legislation was to do away with the rampant illegal baby selling racket in Illinois – the black market. 1945 ADOPTION REFORM LAW

A report commissioned by the Illinois State House of Representatives in May, 1945, concluded that “It would appear from a study of the statutes that the majority of the states have decided, especially in recent years, that the interests of the child are best upheld by a more considered and complex proceeding, with the added safeguard of having the records closed to public inspection.”

A variety of social work organizations, state public health departments, adoption agencies and civic groups throughout the state wanted to clean up the black market adoption of babies. They believed that the only way to get rid of the racketeers was to make some important changes in the Illinois adoption law.

It’s interesting to note that this report states that an added safeguard would be closing the records to PUBLIC INSPECTION. It does not say to close them to adoptees! As a matter of fact, to this day in Illinois, all non-adopted citizens’ birth certificates are closed to public inspection. The difference between them and us is that their birth certificates are made available to them upon request, while ours are not..

As a result of the hue and cry from the social work community, legislators began working on a bill to add major amendments to the Illinois Adoption Act. In May, 1945, the bill was filed in the Illinois General Assembly that contained four new procedures for adoption practice which would give the well-meaning social work community almost total control over adoption proceedings.

1) Social investigation of the adopting home and the children.
2) Six months’ resident period in the adopting home before signing the final decree.
3) Consent for adoption to be signed in the presence of a licensed agency or clerk of the court.
4) Sealed adoption records which would remain confidential.

According to The Illinois Children’s Home and Aide Society, “74 per cent of the 1943 adoptions in Illinois were not arranged by licensed welfare agencies…the majority of Illinois adoptions are the sordid negotiations of a few unscrupulous doctors and lawyers, and of unlicensed ‘homes’ and pseudo social agencies of well meaning but uninformed people who strove to befriend an unmarried mother.”


Mrs. Marion K. Craine, regional representative of the state department of public welfare reported that there were many adoption cases in which they had reason to believe that large sums of money changed hands, but these cases were hard to prove because you could be sure that the individuals involved would always protect each other. Mrs. Craine said that “there is no way to control this practice until Illinois has more adequate laws for protection of the child.”

Mrs. Florence Fifer Bohrer of Bloomington, president of the Illinois League of Women Voters in 1945, called Illinois ‘the Gretna Green or Crown Point’ for hasty adoptions for illegitimate children whose mothers knew how easy it was to get rid of them here.’”

“Illinois has become a state for hasty adoptions for orphaned children by couples who cannot qualify as satisfactory parents under the laws of their own states,” declared Joel D. Hunter, superintendent of the United Charities.

The Rev. Vincent Cooke, speaking for Catholic Charities said, “Do you believe you can eliminate all the world’s evils merely by passing more laws against them?”

Mrs. William B. Walrath from The Cradle Society noted, “We passed a law once to make people stop drinking. But did they?”

John C. Slade, a prominent Chicago attorney who led the opposition, said “It seems to me this is a question of the social workers wanting to substitute their judgment for that of the courts and the judges.” He objected to the proposed changes because he felt that the new legislation would imply that duly elected judges were not competent to decide on the fitness of adoptive parents and this he found to be unacceptable.

Attorney Slade continued, “One of the most dangerous features of the amendment is the requirement that the written reports of the investigations be made a part of the records of all adoption proceedings. It would be a vicious thing to attach to the child a permanent record of the details connected with his birth and background. Nothing could provide a more prolific storehouse of ammunition for future troublemakers and busybodies than the contents of such reports.”


Adoption attorneys believed that the existing act was just fine the way it was because they felt that it encouraged adoptions and promoted the welfare of orphans and dependent children. Therefore, they concluded, the new proposed amendments to the law were “in direct conflict with the purpose and spirit of the current adoption act.”

Despite its critics, the Illinois Adoption Act of 1945 was approved by the House, 127-4. The Senate concurred with a vote of 41 -0, and in June, 1945, Governor Green signed the bill into law. While making some inroads into reform, the social workers lost their most important battle, that of securing for themselves exclusive investigating rights in all adoptions. The final bill allowed County Judges to appoint any one to make the investigation during a 6 month probationary adoption period.
GRANNY ANNIE’S THEORY
HOW TO TURN LOSS INTO VICTORY

Granny thinks that during the early years of the 1940s, unscrupulous attorneys and doctors began to see the handwriting on the wall. Adoption reforms were coming and they feared that these reforms could put a dent in their lucrative baby-selling business. So the baby sellers put on their thinking caps and Eureka! They found "an out" - it was called SEALED RECORDS.

In particular, the attorneys and judges hooked onto the all important phrase: "All records pertaining to an adoption shall be impounded by the clerk of the court and shall be open for inspection only upon specific order of the court." This new idea could help the black marketeers continue to operate in the lassie faire atmosphere they loved so much and that had prevailed up to now.

Unscrupulous baby sellers saw the beauty of the sealed records section - for them. Granted, they would have to put up with the law's new rules of record keeping. But the black market folks also knew that no one was ever going to lay eyes on these records . They could continue to promise people anything that would make them happy and at the same time continue their baby-selling business as usual.

How ironic it is that Illinois added a sealed records clause to its adoption act as a way to help bring about reform measure to the practices of adoption. It was part of a plan to keep the black market out of Illinois. Instead, it has helped dishonest lawyers, doctors, agencies and other individuals who have vested interests in adoptions to carry on with their criminal activities for 65 years now.

LISTEN TO GRANNY. SEALED RECORDS ARE A LICENSE TO LIE.

Resources
Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper articles. ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago

May 6, 1940. “Nab 2 Women in Trailer Camp for Baby Quiz”
May 7, 1940. “ List 1,922 ‘Baby Farm’ Girls”
May 28, 1941. “Lawyer Admits Handling Baby Home Adoptions.”
July 12, 1944. “Assert Illinois Laws Aid Black Mart in Babies”
July 13, 1944. “Council Head Assails State Adoption Law.”
July 14, 1944. “Adoption Laws Permit Rackets, Hunter Asserts.”
July 30, 1944. “The Adoption Racket”
January 3, 1945. “Loopholes in Adoption Law Cited in Battle for Revision.”
January 31, 1945. “Present Adoption Law Adequate, Says Cradle Head”
February 7, 1945. “Veteran Attorneys Oppose Adoption Law Amendments”
February 16, 1945. “Fight Foreseen on Adoption Law Proposals.”
February 17, 1945. “Illinois Judges Redraft Code for Adoptions.”
April 5, 1945. “Senate Group Approves New Adoption Bill.”
June 12, 1945. “Adoption Bill is Approved by House, 127-4.”
May 27, 1947. “Adoption Bill Called Invasion of Family Right.”

May, 1945. Publication No. 69. Adoption Laws. Report Pursuant to Proposal No. 209. Sponsored by Representative Ben S. Rhodes. Research Dept. Illinois Legislative Council, Springfield.

Social Workers v Attorneys
Giving over total control of adoption procedures to the social work community was abhorrent to the attorneys and judges. They were determined never to give up exclusive investigative powers to professional social workers. They believed that the power belonged to them.

Adoptees & the "Birther" movement

I wrote this letter to the editor in reply to an Op/Ed piece in the Chicago Tribune about the "birthers" movement. They"birthers" are the kooks who think President Obama cannot be president because he doesn’t have a “proper birth certificate.”


Don’t worry, all you vigilant “birthers.” I can assure you that President Obama’s credentials are as good as gold. Here’s why. He has a United States of America passport.


We adoptees are intimately acquainted with getting a passport. Our original birth certificates were ordered impounded and sealed in perpetuity on the day our adoption was finalized. So we don’t have the ordinary means of proving our birth when applying for a passport.

I guarantee one and all that if President Obama did not have an acceptable, genuine, 100% authentic original birth certificate – any ordinary worker at any passport office in our country (including Hawaii) would have caught up with him years ago. The feds just don’t give out passports to anyone who asks. You do it their way, or you stay home.


I am an adoptee and a survivor of “Sorry! Bad Birth Certificate – No Passport for You” experience, and let me tell you, it’s not a pretty story.

I was denied a passport in 1993 because the old Certificate of Birth that had been handed down to me by my adoptive parents wasn’t sufficient. It didn’t say where I was born.


So I set out on a 2-week odyssey to somehow adequately prove my place of birth. The feds gave me choices. First choice was to produce an Adoption Decree, which ironically, is one of the documents that is impounded and sealed forever upon adoption. That left me with three other choices and these were only to get a black-cover, temporary, 1-year passport. In order to get this, I would have to produce a family bible, school records, or I could produce someone who had witnessed my birth. Being adopted, these choices were not really swell options for me.

With 3 days to go, the state of Illinois came to my rescue. They did whatever it is they do that enabled them to issue me an Amended Birth Certificate. This is a document for adoptees. It’s a mish-mosh of information mostly attesting that I am the biological child of my adoptive parents. But it was my golden ticket for a passport. I was born in Chicago, Illinois, says my Amended Birth Certificate. And that was good enough for the passport office.


So President Obama, just renew your passport every 10 years and you’ll be fine. And birthers, why don’t you just give up already and go away!

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

When’s the last time you heard…?

“Adoptee groups must never publically criticize the actions of another adoptee organization – it is bad for the total adoption reform movement.”

“Adoptees must stick together.”

“If we don’t support each other, no one else will.”

“You mustn’t poke your nose into a state in which you don’t live because you don’t understand what is right and wrong, good or bad, for that particular state.”

How tired I am of hearing these excuses whenever I publically disagree with a bill or a position or an event held by another adoptee or adoptee group. I am just like any citizen of the United States. I can exercise my freedom of speech and speak out for or against any piece of legislation, in any state, for any reason. I’ve been told that this is name-calling, ignorance, sabotage. But it’s not – it’s debate, dissent, disagreement.

Adoptees don’t belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold the “party line.” We are individuals who happen to have been adopted.

Being an adoptee does not define me. Being a citizen with the courage and conviction to speak my mind does.

Three cheers for America, where I can criticize government, write about elected officials, and shout my opinions from the rooftop.

"2009: Year of the Velcro": Redux

I wrote the blog, "2009: Year of the Velcro" because I was concerned about all the deformers we were seeing year after year. My entire blog was aimed directly at the deformers: their actions, motives, their actions, and the consequences of their strategies. It was not a blog to analyze any one state's bill. Nor was it a blog that was comparing bills, state by state, and rating them or ranking them in any way. This blog was all about deformers.

Someone called my attention to the fact that I put California onto the wrong list - I said they had a good bill and turns out it was a bad one. I can't remember anymore where I read that CARE was actually going to file a bill w/out amendments, perhaps thinking that people would be blinded by their tricks. A few days later, though, everyone knew exactly what CARE was really up to and I never thought about that sentence again until a few days ago, when the same someone continues to remind me of my error.

I am guilty as charged. It turned out that CARE filed a bill that went directly onto the "bad" list.

Mea culpa.

Please read "2009: Year of the Velcro" again now that I have corrected my mistake.

Saturday, March 07, 2009

2009 THE YEAR OF THE VELCRO


The 2009 Legislative Session is upon us. I’m unhappy to report that there have been 5 new bills introduced already which contain conditional provisions. Imagine! Right off the bat, five (5) brand new bills contain sections that will prohibit some adoptees from having any access to their original birth certificate.

There is a new brand of deformers afoot, folks. I call them the Velcro deformers. Their official motto is: STICK IT TO ME!

The Velro deformers have decided to start right out by adding conditions up front which they think the legislators will accept.

Velcro Deformers don’t care about helping 100% of the adoptees in their states. They never did and they never will. They’re just off and running to see if they can pass a bill. And in order to do this, they have decided to “fool” the legislators. They build restrictions right into their original bill. Then they carefully wrap up their entire bill in a shiny silver Velcro-covered package. They stick their fancy conditions and restrictions right onto the top of the Velcro bill, so the legislators will be sure to see how accommodating they are.

What these deformers don’t see is that by handing over a Velcro package to the legislators, they are issuing an open invitation to the lawmakers to stick even more amendments and restrictions onto the bill. The legislator’s motto is “Right Back Atcha.” It will become an open season for amendments.

It will be much easier for our opponents to throw on more conditions and restrictions to a Velcro-wrapped bill instead of a pure bill. After all, the sponsors of the Velcro bill have already given in once at the very beginning. Right? It will be like playing darts blindfolded down at the local pub. No matter your aim; wherever the restriction dart lands, it is going to stick and it will become yet one more obstacle to equal rights for all adopted adults.

“Throw on the disclosure vetoes! Stick on the contact vetoes. Try for some white-outs too.” This is the message that Velcro deformers send to the legislators when they file a conditional bill. “We started you off with a bad bill. See what else you can do to make it worse.”

Velcro Deformers, I think that you must be incredibly naïve or very power hungry or some of each. What are you thinking of when you write your bill, knowing ahead of time that you will be selling some of your fellow brother and sister adoptees down the river? Grannie Annie believes that Velcro deformers are found at the very bottom of this river and she hopes some great big fish will gobble them all up.

Granny Annie thinks that Velcro Deformers are calculating, controlling, power hungry, and most of all - extremely selfish. What they are doing is worse than introducing a bill, supporting it for awhile, and then changing their minds, like the regular deformers do. Velcro Deformers are throwing away some adopted men and women before the opening bell sounds. “Go straight to jail. Do no pass Go. Do not collect $200.”

GRANNIE ANNIE’S QUESTIONS FOR VELCRO DEFORMERS

How will you explain to the left-out adoptees that you never tried to get a bill passed for ALL adoptees?

Will you tell the left-out adoptees that leaving them out in the cold from the get go was the politically expedient thing to do?

Will you pin a badge onto the left-out adoptees and thank them for being martyrs to the cause?

Will you tell the left-out adoptees that you'll come back in five years to revisit the law and then you will support changing it to include all adopted adults in the state at that time?

And what will you say to the left-out adoptee whose birth mother passed away two years after your bill was passed?

Will you tell the left-behinds that with all political issues there have to be some scapegoats?

Are you considering an insanity defense?

Will you tell them you’re sorry?

Currently, there are six states with Velcro bills: California, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Texas.

South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Missouri have filed clean bills. In the clean bills, the needs of 100% of the adoptees in their states have been respected.

Posted by Grannie Annie at 5:22 PM 11 comments
Labels: adoptees, equal access, original birth certificates
May 2009 February 2009 Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Grannie Annie

YOUR GOAL IS NOT MY GOAL

There has been criticism in various blog and comments concerning the Philly- ARD march. Adoptees have been taken to task for writing statements not friendly to the Philly march. We have been chastised for not being in attendance. It’s been said that we are not loyal to our fellow brother and sister adoptees.

But the reason is so simple. It’s so basic! YOUR GOAL IS NOT MY GOAL.

Why on earth would I march in any protest when my ideas of an adoptee equal rights bill do not agree with your ideas?!. Do you think that I should support your protest march or other events just because I am an adoptee? Are we going back to the days when all adoptees were supposed “to stick together” if we wanted to “get anything done?” Not on your life.

I will never swell a crowd of adoptees just to get the attention of lawmakers because here’s what will happen. These legislators will look out their windows and see a lot of adopted people carrying signs and shouting slogans. Then these very same legislators will go right back to their desks and write a bill with restrictions. And worst of all, maybe half of the marchers will go back to their various states and accept those very amendments which do not restore equal rights to ALL adoptees. That is why I won’t be in the crowd.

I will march and support events only when I am certain that the entire group is all on the same page as far as restoring equal rights to all adopted men and women. Nothing less is acceptable. Not one single adoptee must be left behind.

Now do you see?

Your goal is not my goal.

A Tweet for Friday

only gd bill is 1 w/out condishuns. no disclosure r contct vetoes aloud

Thursday's Tweet

Who wnts obcs sealed? ncfa, rtl, aclu, adop attys, adop agencys, RCC, paps,

Ask yr slf y y y!

Wednesday's Tweet

vry impt notis

CA AB 372 suks

it mst b dfeted

Go to www.calopen.org

TWEET OF THE DAY

TUESDAY'S TWEET

adoptees nt etrnl childrn we grow up we don’t want st8t 2 run r lives

Tweet - a - Day from Grannie A

adptees nt stawkrs adptees nt hom rekrs we r jst lik free1 ls

obcs 4 adptees

A TWEET A DAY FROM GRANNIE A

Deary me! I have come to the sad conclusion that even though educated people are tuning out thoughtful blogs about all subjects, including equal rights for adoptees, no one is paying them any attention. These articles are laid out in a logical manner and contain good evidence to back up each statement. They have a beginning, with an introduction to the subject; a middle, where the main arguments are laid out, and a conclusion .

Our blogs are written in the “Queen's English.” All sentences begin with capitals letters, end with periods, and have commas in all the right places. Usually these blogs run about 500 words or more. I always thought that educated people of all ages could easily handle a 500 page blog.

NOT ANY MORE.

No one wants to read anymore. All any one wants is the MESSAGE – without any extraneous bells or whistles.

I like to keep up with the times. So I give you my first tweet.

gv adptees obcs bmthrs wl thk u 2
stay 2nd 4 mr

2009 THE YEAR OF THE VELCRO

The 2009 Legislative Session is upon us. I’m unhappy to report that there have been 5 new bills introduced already which contain conditional provisions. Imagine! Right off the bat, five (5) brand new bills contain sections that will prohibit some adoptees from having any access to their original birth certificate.

There is a new brand of deformers afoot, folks. I call them the Velcro deformers. Their official motto is: STICK IT TO ME!

The Velcro deformers have decided to start right out by adding conditions up front which they think the legislators will accept.

Velcro Deformers don’t care about helping 100% of the adoptees in their states. They never did and they never will. They’re just off and running to see if they can pass a bill. And in order to do this, they have decided to “fool” the legislators. They build restrictions right into their original bill. Then they carefully wrap up their entire bill in a shiny silver Velcro-covered package. They stick their fancy conditions and restrictions right onto the top of the Velcro bill, so the legislators will be sure to see how accommodating they are.

What these deformers don’t see is that by handing over a Velcro package to the legislators, they are issuing an open invitation to the lawmakers to stick even more amendments and restrictions onto the bill. The legislator’s motto is “Right Back Atcha.” It will become an open season for amendments.

It will be much easier for our opponents to throw on more conditions and restrictions to a Velcro-wrapped bill instead of a pure bill. After all, the sponsors of the Velcro bill have already given in once at the very beginning. Right? It will be like playing darts blindfolded down at the local pub. No matter your aim; wherever the restriction dart lands, it is going to stick and it will become yet one more obstacle to equal rights for all adopted adults.

“Throw on the disclosure vetoes! Stick on the contact vetoes. Try for some white-outs too.” This is the message that Velcro deformers send to the legislators when they file a conditional bill. “We started you off with a bad bill. See what else you can do to make it worse.”

Velcro Deformers, I think that you must be incredibly naïve or very power hungry or some of each. What are you thinking of when you write your bill, knowing ahead of time that you will be selling some of your fellow brother and sister adoptees down the river? Grannie Annie believes that Velcro deformers are found at the very bottom of this river and she hopes some great big fish will gobble them all up.

Granny Annie thinks that Velcro Deformers are calculating, controlling, power hungry, and most of all - extremely selfish. What they are doing is worse than introducing a bill, supporting it for awhile, and then changing their minds, like the regular deformers do. Velcro Deformers are throwing away some adopted men and women before the opening bell sounds. “Go straight to jail. Do no pass Go. Do not collect $200.”

GRANNIE ANNIE’S QUESTIONS FOR VELCRO DEFORMERS

How will you explain to the left-out adoptees that you never tried to get a bill passed for ALL adoptees?

Will you tell the left-out adoptees that leaving them out in the cold from the get go was the politically expedient thing to do?

Will you pin a badge onto the left-out adoptees and thank them for being martyrs to the cause?

Will you tell the left-out adoptees that you'll come back in five years to revisit the law and then you will support changing it to include all adopted adults in the state at that time?

And what will you say to the left-out adoptee whose birth mother passed away two years after your bill was passed?

Will you tell the left-behinds that with all political issues there have to be some scapegoats?

Are you considering an insanity defense?

Will you tell them you’re sorry?

Currently, the five states with Velcro bills are Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Texas.

California, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Missouri have filed clean bills. In the clean bills, the needs of 100% of the adoptees in their states have been respected.

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION: PUT UP OR SHUT UP

To:

National Council For Adoption (NCFA) and Mr. Marc Zappala

From:

Anita Walker Field, aka Grannie Annie

Re: “Mutual Consent: Balancing the Birth Parent’s Right to Privacy with the Adopted Person’s Desire to Know,” by Mr. Marc Zappala.

Mark Zappala, I read your report with shock and awe. You have played havoc with the truth. You have made sweeping generalizations that are simply not true. And most relevantly, you have come to all of your conclusions based on your single premise that birth mothers have a fundamental right to privacy which the state governments must uphold. That is the underlying principle for all of your arguments. You even used the phrase seventeen (17) different times in your report. It’s your gospel. But you know, Mr. Zapalla, that if this particular statement cannot be proved, then we must throw out everything else in your report as not truthful.

Therefore, I ask you: Where’s your proof? You expect us to just take you at your word. You say it is so – and magically, it is so. Sorry! This just doesn’t work for me.

The NCFA has not now or ever offered up even one genuine proof as evidence of the existence of a legal right of the birth mother to privacy from her adopted adult “child.” Tell me please, where are you hiding all these important documents?

I challenge the NCFA to produce any facts it has to back up its statements that birth parents have a fundamental right to privacy from their adopted “children.” Show me, please, some solid legal evidence of this “right” that would allow birth mothers to be able to choose whether or not their adopted “children” shall receive their original birth certificates. Where is it written?

I know that if someone tells a lie long enough, people start to believe the lie. And I know that you all have created a whopper of a lie when you told us that birth mothers have the “right to privacy and anonymity from their adult adopted “children.” You have put just the right “spin” on this lie for so long now that folks all over the country are feeling sorry for the plight of those poor birth mothers whose lives would be ruined and whose “rights” would be trampled if adopted adult’s original birth certificates were ever issued to them.

Birth mothers DO NOT have a fundamental right to privacy from their adopted adult “children.” And I’ll prove it to you right now, right here, right this minute in this blog.

REASONS WHY A BIRTH MOTHER RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A MYTH

1. The original birth certificate is not sealed to protect the identity of the birth mother. It is sealed upon decree of adoption, not upon the birth mother’s relinquishment. A child relinquished but never adopted has an unsealed birth certificate. If protection of the birth mother was intended, the birth certificate would have been impounded and sealed upon the termination of her legal relationship to the child, not at the beginning of the legal relationship of the adoptive family. The birth mother signs away all legal rights, forever, to her child when she signs the surrender documents.

2. There is no violation of privacy of the birth mother because there is no public disclosure. Only the adult adoptee whose birth occasioned the creation of the original birth certificate, and whose true facts of birth are contained within it, will have access.

3. Birthmothers signed relinquishment, irrevocability and waiver forms, but there have been no contracts produced promising that an adoptee’s original birth certificate would remain sealed at the discretion of the birth mother.

4. Furthermore, such a contract, if ever produced, would be invalid under the terms of contractual law. One cannot create a binding contract which damages or burdens one party without that party being fairly represented.

5. The state is under no obligation to honor or uphold a promise made between private citizens, most especially if this promise arguably violates a third party’s constitutional, civil, and human rights. [For example, real estate developers during the 1950’s entered into “Gentlemen’s Agreements” with their home owners; the realtors promised not to sell any houses to Jews. Eventually this practice was struck down because the contract between the private citizens was violating a third party’s civil rights.]

6. Sealed records proponents claim that birth parents have a right to remain anonymous from their offspring and often articulate this claim as stemming from a constitutional “right to privacy.” However, the courts have generally determined that the federal constitutional right to privacy means protection of individuals from government intrusion.

7. In a 1997 landmark decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit Court, in Doe v Sundquist , found that information concerning a birth is not protected from disclosure by the Federal Constitution, and that the right of privacy “does not extend as far as to encompass a general right to non-disclosure of private information.” Further, they opined that: “A birth is simultaneously an intimate occasion and a public event – the government has long kept records of when, where, and by whom babies are born. Such records have myriad purposes, such as furthering the interest of children in knowing the circumstances of their birth.”

8. Measure 58, a ballot initiative passed in Oregon in 1998, approved the unconditional opening of original birth certificates to adult adoptees upon request. Immediately after the election, Measure 58 was challenged in court. Six anonymous birth mothers, represented by an attorney with support from the National Council For Adoption filed suit in state court, claiming that open records violated contracts of anonymity made at the time of relinquishments, as well as their right to privacy. This suit was dismissed in mid-1999.

Judge Lipscomb stated, “…Even assuming birth records to be an intimate personal matter, the effect of Ballot Measure 58 is only to give access to the person born, not to the general public. And significantly, there was no privacy or confidentiality at all which was attached to adoption records at the time of the enactment of either Constitutions. See Does v Oregon, Summary Judgement.

9. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that birth mothers have no constitutional guarantee of privacy regarding the fact that they relinquished a child, despite promises they may have received that their identities would be protected. Does v. State of Oregon, 164 Or.App. 543, 993 P.2d 833, 834 (1999). The Court refused to extend an earlier stay blocking the law from taking effect, leaving the U.S. Supreme Court as the only option for the opponents. In May, 2000, the Supreme Court rejected the six anonymous birth mothers’ request to stay the law. After nearly two years of court battles, Measure 58 went into effect.

Mr. Zapalla, I’ve just shown you some of my proofs. Now I ask you to show me some of yours.

ONCE AND FOR ALL, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

ADOPTEES AND THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICTES- FAQs

Join Grannie Annie’s Brainy Bastards Brigade

Forget Your ABC’s

Learn Your FAQ’s

January has brought the opening of many legislative sessions throughout the country.

Little birds are telling Grannie Annie that many states are considering adoptee rights bills this session. Grannie has heard birds chirping from Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Rhode Island, Connecticut, California, Illinois, AZ, and South Dakota. Grannie is sure there are more to come. Some are good bills and some are very bad bills. Many bills start out as good and as they go through the legislative process, they take on restrictions and amendments that turn them into disastrous bills.

Lately, I feel as if I’m only preaching to the choir. However, I can’t help thinking about all the newbies and most especially the silent adoptees. How to reach the silent adoptees? Maybe, I thought, they would speak out and join us if they knew how to better articulate our goals. So I have written this FAQ primer for them as well as for all of us as succinct list of “bullet points.”

Please feel free to forward these FAQ’s anywhere on planet Earth. Print them out (comes to 3 and ½ pages) and use them to spread the word.

Definitions & shortcuts first.

Adoptee Rights Bill: A bill in which adopted adults are issued their original birth certificates, upon request, unconditionally, and without any falsification. The adoptee rights bill puts adopted men and women back on a par with all non-adopted citizens with regards to birth certificates. Adoptee rights bills are also called “open records bills,” “equal access bills,” and “adoptee access bills.” What makes them all similarly unique is they are bills that will restore to all adopted adults their right to access, unconditionally and with no falsifications, their original birth certificates. I am going to use the term “Adoptee Rights Bill” throughout this blog.

Confidential Intermediary - CI

Original Birth Certificate – OBC

Q. Why should adult adoptee’s obc’s be released to them?

1. The state must not withhold identity records from any group of citizens.

2. All adult adoptees should be able to discover the answers to questions regarding medical history, ethnicity, and family heritage. This is a human right that everyone should own.

3. Sealed records perpetuate the culture of shame which stigmatized infertility, out-of-wedlock birth, and adoption.

4. Adopted adults are no longer “children who need homes.” Therefore, when adoptees reach the age of maturity, the state must give up its control of adoptee’s personal affairs.

5. The state must not discriminate against any group of individuals based solely on the circumstances surrounding their birth.

6. We do not want pity, sympathy, or special favors. Our OBC uniquely belongs to us. It was created by the state to record our history, a right that all non-adopted citizens are given under clear statutory procedure.

Q. Who are the opponents of adoptee rights bills?

1. Various state chapters of ACLU and Right to Life.

2. NCFA (National Council for Adoption) and other adoption agency fronts.

3. Large constituency churches (including LDS)

4. Adoptive parents.

5. Some ultra-conservative think tanks

Q. What is a good adoptee rights bill?

A bill that will restore to all (100%) adopted adults their civil and human right to access their original birth certificates, upon request, with no conditions or falsifications.

Anything less than access for 100% of adopted adults in a state is absolutely unacceptable.

The fundamental right of adoptees to have access to their own government-held identity information is a separate issue from whether or not adoptees and birth parents should contact each other.

Q. Will the passage of an adoptee rights bill affect the adoptees’ relationship with the adoptive family?

A. No. The health of a family unit, adoptive or otherwise, and the relationships within it depend on long-standing patterns of parenting and open, honest communication skills, not on whether or not an adoptee, as an adult, is free to access the true facts of his/her birth.

Q. Was the obc sealed to protect the identity of the birth mother?

A. No. The obc is sealed upon decree of adoption, not upon the birth mother’s relinquishment. A child relinquished but never adopted has an unsealed obc. If protection of the birth mother was intended, the obc would be sealed upon the termination of her legal relationship, not at the beginning of the legal relationship of the adoptive family.

Q. Can a birth mother sign a legal contract with the state at any time whereby she may deny her child’s access to his or her obc for life?

A. No. A birth mother signs an irrevocable contract with the state called a Relinquishment of Parental Rights or a Document of Surrender. No contracts have ever been produced that give birth or adoptive parents the right to keep an adoptee’s obc sealed for life.

Q. Can an adoption agency, a social worker, an adoption facilitator or an adoption attorney make a promise to a birth mother that the state will honor and uphold her anonymity for life?

A. No. A promise is just that – only a promise. It is not a legal document and should not be recognized by the state government. States are not in the business of keeping promises made by private parties.

Q. Will the passage of an adoptee rights bill violate the privacy of the birth mother?

A. No. There is no violation of privacy because there is no public disclosure. Only the adult adoptee whose birth occasioned the creation of the obc, and whose true facts are contained within it, will have access.

Q. Would the passage of an adoptee rights bill also involve release of private records, documents, case-work histories or any other paperwork kept by private or state-run adoption agencies?

A. No. Only the obc is affected and it is the only document that will be released.

Q. What states have passed an adoptee rights bill?

A. Kansas and Alaska never sealed adoptee’s obcs. Oregon, New Hampshire, Alabama, and Maine all have adoptee rights laws. (not to be confused with states that have passed laws that put restrictions upon which adoptees can be issued an obc.)

Q. Will abortion rates rise or adoption rates decrease if adoptee rights bills are passed?

A. No & No. There is no evidence that granting adult adoptees access to their own identity information is detrimental to the process of adoption.

Q. Must the state uphold a law no matter how long it has been in existence?

A. No. A wrongful law is a wrongful law, no matter when it was passed.

Q. Will the passage of an adoptee rights bill allow adoptees to “harass” their birth mothers?

A. This statement is discriminatory and needlessly argumentative, yet it is still frequently asked. It is unconstitutional in the extreme to deny a right to a group of citizens based on what they “might” do if they were restored that right. Remember that the right to request and receive a copy of one’s obc is guaranteed all non-adopted citizens in clear statutory procedure.

Q. What is a real Contact Preference Form?

A. The true Oregon “Contact Preference Form” is a way for a birth parent to privately communicate his or her private and personal feelings about having communication with the adoptee. It is not legally binding. It is not a contact veto. The adoptee gets his or her original birth certificate along with the sealed contact preference form.

Q. Are open records the same as open adoption?

A. No. Open records refers to an adult adoptee having equal access to legal documents which pertain to him or her. An adoptee rights bill is an open records bill. An open adoption refers to an arrangement for raising an adopted child in which the birth parents, adoptive parents, and minor adopted child have some form of ongoing relationship. Even in an open adoption the adult adoptee cannot access his birth and adoption records.

[With help from and thanks to Oregon’s Adult Access to Original Birth Certificates and Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization’s The Basic Bastard.