NOVEMBER 15TH : NOT A RED LETTER DAY FOR EVERY ILLINOIS ADOPTEE
Illinois adoptees all over the country are celebrating since November 15th. On that date, the new Illinois Adoption Act of 2010 went into effect. Most Illinois adoptees will now be able to request and receive an unaltered copy of their original birth certificates. It’s been a long time coming. Our original birth certificates have been impounded and sealed since 1946. I wholeheartedly rejoice with my fellow adoptees.
At the same time, though, I ask you not to forget some adopted citizens whose birth parents do not want them to receive any identifying information. Under the new adoption law, birth parents have been given an option to file a Denial Form which instructs the state to continue to keep the original birth certificates of their “children” under lock and key. The State will honor each and every one of these Denial Forms, and as a result, some adopted citizens will NOT get an original birth certificate any time soon. The most they can receive is an altered obc, with all identifying information redacted. A Denial Form acts just like a blackball.
As of this writing, at least 305 birth parents have filed Denial Forms. I understand that this number seems tiny compared to the multitude of adoptees who are now applying for their original birth certificates. But please don’t brush these blackballed adoptees aside as being merely a tiny statistic on a page of numbers, so miniscule that they can be easily overlooked.
All of these blackballed adoptees are real people, alive and well and living among you all: your mail carrier, a colleague at work, your son’s piano teacher, a neighbor serving in Iraq, a best friend of your sister- in-law, or maybe one of your cousins. The only “crime” these blackballed adoptees are guilty of is being the subject of their birth parent’s Denial Form.
There is another appalling section in the new adoption law; it spells out what to do with the blackballed adoptees in the future. The legislators wanted to show their “compassion” for them so they enacted a plan that permits the blackballed adoptees to come back and try again - in 5 years! That will be in the year 2017. How’s that for compassion?
And what happens in 2017 if the birth parents’ Denial Forms are still in effect? Well, the State, in its overwhelming benevolence, will give the blackballed adoptees yet another chance to come back - after another 5 year wait- which pushes them forward into the year 2022.
This outrageous treatment of blackballed adoptees is unconscionable and unjust. We can only have a truly wonderful celebration when our legislators see fit to amend the new adoption law so that ALL adopted people can get copies of their unaltered original birth certificates, with no strings attached. For now, please keep these blackballed adoptees in your thoughts.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
GIVE ADOPTEES ALL RIGHTS, OR NONE
USA TODAY, June 1, 2011
Give adoptees all rights, or none
I am a senior citizen who was adopted at birth. I have lived more than six decades without knowing who my birth parents were. I understand what it feels like to be discriminated against by the state because I was adopted. I know how frustrating and humiliating it feels to have my own identifying information withheld. Yet, I do not support New Jersey's bill.
If Gov. Chris Christie signs it, birth parents who gave their children up for adoption before the law was enacted will have the right to withhold their names from the birth certificates. All the birth parents would need to do is file an affidavit of disclosure, within the year, requesting the state keep their identities secret. If this bill passes, the birth mother's right to veto will ultimately trump the adoptee's right to get that information.
Six states have granted adoptees unconditional rights to birth information. If it works for them, surely it can work in New Jersey.
Anita Walker Field; Skokie, Il
Give adoptees all rights, or none
I am a senior citizen who was adopted at birth. I have lived more than six decades without knowing who my birth parents were. I understand what it feels like to be discriminated against by the state because I was adopted. I know how frustrating and humiliating it feels to have my own identifying information withheld. Yet, I do not support New Jersey's bill.
If Gov. Chris Christie signs it, birth parents who gave their children up for adoption before the law was enacted will have the right to withhold their names from the birth certificates. All the birth parents would need to do is file an affidavit of disclosure, within the year, requesting the state keep their identities secret. If this bill passes, the birth mother's right to veto will ultimately trump the adoptee's right to get that information.
Six states have granted adoptees unconditional rights to birth information. If it works for them, surely it can work in New Jersey.
Anita Walker Field; Skokie, Il
Friday, May 20, 2011
N.J. ADOPTEE BIRTHRIGHT BILL: THE "RIGHT TO KNOW" v "THE BALANCE OF RIGHTS"
I have been reading editorials from various New Jersey newspapers supporting the New Jersey Adoptee Birthright Bill, A1406. The bill has passed both houses and now has only one more hurdle. A1406 awaits Governor Christie’s signature in order to become the law.
These editorials shout out how good it is that adoptees will finally have the “right to know.” So many citizens now agree that it’s a good thing for adoptees to finally be able to see their original birth certificate and learn about their past and so they cheer for A1406.
The supporters of the bill say that one of the reasons why A1406 is a good bill is because it contains a “balance of rights.” If Gov. Christie signs the bill, birth parents will get a new right, in law, to veto the issuance of an original birth certificate to their “adult children.” All the birth parents need to do is file an affidavit of disclosure, within the year, requesting that the state keep their identities secret. The affidavit insures that these birthparents will retain their anonymity from their adult adoptees. This request is accomplished by preventing their adult children from receiving an original birth certificate, even though original birth certificates will soon be issued to the other adopted adults in the state. Here’s how it will work.
When a birthparent files the veto, the adoptee is automatically bumped off of the “Right to Know” list. The adoptee’s name will then be indelibly inscribed on “The Right NOT to Know” List, meaning that he or she will not receive an unaltered original birth certificate like the other adoptees. These adoptees will receive only an amended document of their original birth certificate with all identifying information whited-out.
It’s impossible for me to accept the reasons that legislators, the media, lobbying groups, adoption agencies, attorneys, major church organizations, et.al, give for insisting that the adoptee’s “right to know” has to be somehow balanced with the birth mother’s new right to remain anonymous. These groups chose to wear blinders or else they are ignorant about the original intent of sealed records. They are revisionists, rewriting history. For their own personal interests, they have found it expedient to elevate birth mothers to the top of the food chain – something that never happened. Ask any first mother how she was treated at the time she relinquished her child.
This revisionist version of history says that promises and assurances were made to first mothers long ago that their identities would be kept secret from their children forever. Now that the state is getting reading to unseal most original birth certificates, it believes that it must uphold these long-ago “promises”. And the way they will do that is to snuff out an adoptee’s right to know.
The irony of the situation is that the birth certificate is sealed only upon the decree of adoption, not upon the birth mother’s relinquishment. A child relinquished but not adopted has an unsealed birth certificate. If protection of the birth mother was intended, the original birth certificate would be sealed upon the termination of her legal relationship to the child, not at the beginning of the legal relationship of the adoptive family.
If truth be told, adoptive parents were relieved that birth certificates were sealed because many of them were afraid that the birth parent might locate them a few years later and grab their child back. I know my mother was always afraid that “that other family” as she called them, might kidnap me. (Could that have been her conscience bothering her?)
The adoptive family was considered sacred in law - the forever family - and no outsider should ever be let in. What better way to accomplish this than to impound and seal in perpetuity all birth records.
It is readily apparent that our birth records were not sealed to protect our first parents from anything. Therefore, there should be no acceptable reason today for the state to give any birth mother a new right, in the law, to keep her identity a secret from her child. Furthermore, the state has no business upholding promises made between private parties.
In 1999, 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. [Doe v State of Oregon, 164 Or.App. 543, 993 P. 2nd 833, 834 (1999).
If the state wants to restore the “right to know” to its adopted citizens, then it must guarantee, through legislation, that 100% of the adopted men and women will receive the same right. It is the civil and human right of every adoptee in the state to be able to request and receive an unaltered, original birth certificate, with no vetoes or other conditions tacked on.
The New Jersey Adoptee Rights Bill, A1406, does not guarantee the “right to know” to each and every adopted person in the state. The bill adds to the adoption law a new “right” allowing first mothers to keep their identities secret from their own adult children at the expense of their adoptee’s “right to know.”
This bill is flawed, and I would urge the governor to veto it. It is not a true Adoptee Birthright bill – by any means.
These editorials shout out how good it is that adoptees will finally have the “right to know.” So many citizens now agree that it’s a good thing for adoptees to finally be able to see their original birth certificate and learn about their past and so they cheer for A1406.
The supporters of the bill say that one of the reasons why A1406 is a good bill is because it contains a “balance of rights.” If Gov. Christie signs the bill, birth parents will get a new right, in law, to veto the issuance of an original birth certificate to their “adult children.” All the birth parents need to do is file an affidavit of disclosure, within the year, requesting that the state keep their identities secret. The affidavit insures that these birthparents will retain their anonymity from their adult adoptees. This request is accomplished by preventing their adult children from receiving an original birth certificate, even though original birth certificates will soon be issued to the other adopted adults in the state. Here’s how it will work.
When a birthparent files the veto, the adoptee is automatically bumped off of the “Right to Know” list. The adoptee’s name will then be indelibly inscribed on “The Right NOT to Know” List, meaning that he or she will not receive an unaltered original birth certificate like the other adoptees. These adoptees will receive only an amended document of their original birth certificate with all identifying information whited-out.
It’s impossible for me to accept the reasons that legislators, the media, lobbying groups, adoption agencies, attorneys, major church organizations, et.al, give for insisting that the adoptee’s “right to know” has to be somehow balanced with the birth mother’s new right to remain anonymous. These groups chose to wear blinders or else they are ignorant about the original intent of sealed records. They are revisionists, rewriting history. For their own personal interests, they have found it expedient to elevate birth mothers to the top of the food chain – something that never happened. Ask any first mother how she was treated at the time she relinquished her child.
This revisionist version of history says that promises and assurances were made to first mothers long ago that their identities would be kept secret from their children forever. Now that the state is getting reading to unseal most original birth certificates, it believes that it must uphold these long-ago “promises”. And the way they will do that is to snuff out an adoptee’s right to know.
The irony of the situation is that the birth certificate is sealed only upon the decree of adoption, not upon the birth mother’s relinquishment. A child relinquished but not adopted has an unsealed birth certificate. If protection of the birth mother was intended, the original birth certificate would be sealed upon the termination of her legal relationship to the child, not at the beginning of the legal relationship of the adoptive family.
If truth be told, adoptive parents were relieved that birth certificates were sealed because many of them were afraid that the birth parent might locate them a few years later and grab their child back. I know my mother was always afraid that “that other family” as she called them, might kidnap me. (Could that have been her conscience bothering her?)
The adoptive family was considered sacred in law - the forever family - and no outsider should ever be let in. What better way to accomplish this than to impound and seal in perpetuity all birth records.
It is readily apparent that our birth records were not sealed to protect our first parents from anything. Therefore, there should be no acceptable reason today for the state to give any birth mother a new right, in the law, to keep her identity a secret from her child. Furthermore, the state has no business upholding promises made between private parties.
In 1999, 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. [Doe v State of Oregon, 164 Or.App. 543, 993 P. 2nd 833, 834 (1999).
If the state wants to restore the “right to know” to its adopted citizens, then it must guarantee, through legislation, that 100% of the adopted men and women will receive the same right. It is the civil and human right of every adoptee in the state to be able to request and receive an unaltered, original birth certificate, with no vetoes or other conditions tacked on.
The New Jersey Adoptee Rights Bill, A1406, does not guarantee the “right to know” to each and every adopted person in the state. The bill adds to the adoption law a new “right” allowing first mothers to keep their identities secret from their own adult children at the expense of their adoptee’s “right to know.”
This bill is flawed, and I would urge the governor to veto it. It is not a true Adoptee Birthright bill – by any means.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
VOTE NO TO NEW JERSEY ADOPTEE BIRTHRIGHT BILL
URGENT: STOP NJ A1406/S799 - FLOOR VOTE SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011.
Distribute Freely
BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT!
STOP DISCLOSURE VETO/WHITE OUT LEGISLATION IN NEW JERSEY!!!
ASK THE NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY: VOTE NO ON A1406/S799
Read full text of A1406 here.
Read full text of S799 here
A1406 (companion to S799 already passed in the NJ Senate) is scheduled for a floor vote on MONDAY MAY 9, 2011.
Please contact Assembly members immediately and urge them to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799. (Contact information below.) If you are from or in New Jersey or have a New Jersey connection, mention it in your communication.
Be sure to put: "Vote No On Adoptee Birthright Bill "in the header
Bastard Nation's letter to the Assembly is here.
A1406/S799 is: restrictive, discriminatory, creates a new, special and temporary ”right” for "birthparents," and exempts the state's adopted adults from equal protection and treatment regarding the release of the government-generated public record of their births.
THE BILL
*includes a 12- month open enrollment period, starting after the Department of Health releases regs for A1406/S799 implementation, that allows "birthparents," to file disclosure vetoes (DV) before obcs, past and future, are unsealed
*authorizes the state to replace the original birth certificat, of those subjected to the DV with a mutilated copy of the obc with all identifying information, including the address of the parent(s) at the time of birth (if it appears on the cert) deleted.
*requires "birthparents" who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.
*requires "birthparents" who file a "contact preference form," which, in fact, acts as a disclosure veto, to fill out the same family history and possibly illegal intrusive medical history form to activiate the veto.
*seals by default all "safe haven" birth certificates, even though most "safe haven" babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.
*requires adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees
*requires the state to mount an "information" campaign to inform "birthparents" of their "protection" options
A1406/S799 IS NOT AN OBC ACCESS BILL.
A1406/S799 IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS.
A1406/S799 IS ABOUT PRIVILEGE
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization opposes legislation that denies any adult adoptee access to his or her own original birth records on par with all other citizens. Please let the Assembly know that this issue is not about relationships between adoptees and their "birthparents." It is about basic human and civil rights.
Passage of bad legislation is New Jersey could easily undermine efforts of dedicated reformers who are holding the line for adoptee rights in other states.
New Jersey's A1406/S799 is an abomination in light of the restoration of the right of original birth certificate access to all persons adopted in Oregon, Alabama, and New Hampshire, and Maine. Adult adoptees and all who support adoptee rights should stand united for unrestricted access laws and not sell out just to get a bill passed! Disclosure veto legislation is unethical and unjust!
Please e-mail the New Jersey Assembly today and urge members to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799.
CONTACT INFORMATION
(write one letter, cut and paste for all)
AsmAlbano@njleg.org, AsmMilam@njleg.org, ASmDeAngelo@njleg.org, AsmGusciora@njleg.org, AsmChivukula@njleg.org, AsmEgan@njleg.org, AsmBarnes@njleg.org, AsmDiegnan@njleg.org, AsmCoughlin@njleg.org, AsmWisniewski@njleg.org, AsmCryan@njleg.org, AsmGreen@njleg.org, AsmMcKeon@njleg.org, AsmCaputo@njleg.org, AsmCoutinho@njleg.org, AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org, AsmMainor@njleg.org, AsmODonnell@njleg.org, AsmPrieto@njleg.org, AsmRamos@njleg.org, AsmGiblin@njleg.org,
AsmSchaer@njleg.org, AsmJohnson@njleg.org, AsmMoriarty@njleg.org, AsmWilson@njleg.org,AsmGreenwald@njleg.org, AsmConaway@njleg.org, ASmConners@njleg.org, AsmHolzapfel@njleg.org, AsmWolfe@njleg.org, AsmRible@njleg.org,AsmOScanlon@njleg.org, AsmThompson@njleg.org, AsmBiondi@njleg.org, AsmAmodeo@njleg.org, AsmPolistina@njleg.org, asmbramnick@njleg.org, AsmDiMaio@njleg.org, AsmPeterson@njleg.org, AsmChiusano@njleg.org, AsmBucco@njleg.org, AsmCarroll@njleg.org, AsmDeCroce@njleg.org, AsmWebber@njleg.org, AsmDancer@njleg.org, AsmMalone@njleg.org, AsmSchroeder@njleg.org, AsmRumana@njleg.org, AsmRusso@njleg.org, AsmDelany@njleg.org, AsmRudder@njleg.org, AsmRumpf@njleg.org,
AsmFuentes@njleg.org, AsmDiCicco@njleg.org, AswWatsonColeman@njleg.org,
AswQuijano@njleg.org, AswStender@njleg.org, AswJasey@njleg.org, AswTucker@njleg.org, AswSpencer@njleg.org, AswRiley@njleg.org, AswQuigley@njleg.org, AswRodriguez@njleg.org, AswOliver@njleg.org, AswEvans@njleg.org,AswPou@njleg.org, AswVainieriHuttle@njleg.org,
AswVoss@njleg.org, AswWagner@njleg.org, AswLampitt@njleg.org,
AswAngelini@njleg.org, AswCasagrande@njleg.org , AswHandlin@njleg.org,
AswCoyle@njleg.org, AswMunoz@njleg.org, AswMcHose@njleg.org, AswVandervalk@njleg.org,
AswGove@njleg.org
Distribute Freely
BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT!
STOP DISCLOSURE VETO/WHITE OUT LEGISLATION IN NEW JERSEY!!!
ASK THE NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY: VOTE NO ON A1406/S799
Read full text of A1406 here.
Read full text of S799 here
A1406 (companion to S799 already passed in the NJ Senate) is scheduled for a floor vote on MONDAY MAY 9, 2011.
Please contact Assembly members immediately and urge them to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799. (Contact information below.) If you are from or in New Jersey or have a New Jersey connection, mention it in your communication.
Be sure to put: "Vote No On Adoptee Birthright Bill "in the header
Bastard Nation's letter to the Assembly is here.
A1406/S799 is: restrictive, discriminatory, creates a new, special and temporary ”right” for "birthparents," and exempts the state's adopted adults from equal protection and treatment regarding the release of the government-generated public record of their births.
THE BILL
*includes a 12- month open enrollment period, starting after the Department of Health releases regs for A1406/S799 implementation, that allows "birthparents," to file disclosure vetoes (DV) before obcs, past and future, are unsealed
*authorizes the state to replace the original birth certificat, of those subjected to the DV with a mutilated copy of the obc with all identifying information, including the address of the parent(s) at the time of birth (if it appears on the cert) deleted.
*requires "birthparents" who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.
*requires "birthparents" who file a "contact preference form," which, in fact, acts as a disclosure veto, to fill out the same family history and possibly illegal intrusive medical history form to activiate the veto.
*seals by default all "safe haven" birth certificates, even though most "safe haven" babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.
*requires adoption agencies and adoption lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees
*requires the state to mount an "information" campaign to inform "birthparents" of their "protection" options
A1406/S799 IS NOT AN OBC ACCESS BILL.
A1406/S799 IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS.
A1406/S799 IS ABOUT PRIVILEGE
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization opposes legislation that denies any adult adoptee access to his or her own original birth records on par with all other citizens. Please let the Assembly know that this issue is not about relationships between adoptees and their "birthparents." It is about basic human and civil rights.
Passage of bad legislation is New Jersey could easily undermine efforts of dedicated reformers who are holding the line for adoptee rights in other states.
New Jersey's A1406/S799 is an abomination in light of the restoration of the right of original birth certificate access to all persons adopted in Oregon, Alabama, and New Hampshire, and Maine. Adult adoptees and all who support adoptee rights should stand united for unrestricted access laws and not sell out just to get a bill passed! Disclosure veto legislation is unethical and unjust!
Please e-mail the New Jersey Assembly today and urge members to VOTE NO ON A1406/S799.
CONTACT INFORMATION
(write one letter, cut and paste for all)
AsmAlbano@njleg.org, AsmMilam@njleg.org, ASmDeAngelo@njleg.org, AsmGusciora@njleg.org, AsmChivukula@njleg.org, AsmEgan@njleg.org, AsmBarnes@njleg.org, AsmDiegnan@njleg.org, AsmCoughlin@njleg.org, AsmWisniewski@njleg.org, AsmCryan@njleg.org, AsmGreen@njleg.org, AsmMcKeon@njleg.org, AsmCaputo@njleg.org, AsmCoutinho@njleg.org, AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org, AsmMainor@njleg.org, AsmODonnell@njleg.org, AsmPrieto@njleg.org, AsmRamos@njleg.org, AsmGiblin@njleg.org,
AsmSchaer@njleg.org, AsmJohnson@njleg.org, AsmMoriarty@njleg.org, AsmWilson@njleg.org,AsmGreenwald@njleg.org, AsmConaway@njleg.org, ASmConners@njleg.org, AsmHolzapfel@njleg.org, AsmWolfe@njleg.org, AsmRible@njleg.org,AsmOScanlon@njleg.org, AsmThompson@njleg.org, AsmBiondi@njleg.org, AsmAmodeo@njleg.org, AsmPolistina@njleg.org, asmbramnick@njleg.org, AsmDiMaio@njleg.org, AsmPeterson@njleg.org, AsmChiusano@njleg.org, AsmBucco@njleg.org, AsmCarroll@njleg.org, AsmDeCroce@njleg.org, AsmWebber@njleg.org, AsmDancer@njleg.org, AsmMalone@njleg.org, AsmSchroeder@njleg.org, AsmRumana@njleg.org, AsmRusso@njleg.org, AsmDelany@njleg.org, AsmRudder@njleg.org, AsmRumpf@njleg.org,
AsmFuentes@njleg.org, AsmDiCicco@njleg.org, AswWatsonColeman@njleg.org,
AswQuijano@njleg.org, AswStender@njleg.org, AswJasey@njleg.org, AswTucker@njleg.org, AswSpencer@njleg.org, AswRiley@njleg.org, AswQuigley@njleg.org, AswRodriguez@njleg.org, AswOliver@njleg.org, AswEvans@njleg.org,AswPou@njleg.org, AswVainieriHuttle@njleg.org,
AswVoss@njleg.org, AswWagner@njleg.org, AswLampitt@njleg.org,
AswAngelini@njleg.org, AswCasagrande@njleg.org , AswHandlin@njleg.org,
AswCoyle@njleg.org, AswMunoz@njleg.org, AswMcHose@njleg.org, AswVandervalk@njleg.org,
AswGove@njleg.org
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
CONDITIONAL OBC BILLS
MARCH 8, 2011
Caveat: This list is a “WORK IN PROGRESS.” There are so many changes made so quickly each day in the various legislatures that I cannot vouch for its 100% accuracy on any given day after it has been posted. However, I will try to keep this list as up-to-date as possible.
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization opposes each and every one of these access bills that have been filed in their respective legislatures this session. We oppose them because they all put conditions & restrictions upon how and from whom an adoptee can obtain his original birth certificate. In each bill, the state retains power over some adoptees. Not one state restores to all adoptees their civil right to request and receive their obcs with no conditions and no falsifications.
The states reported here are: ARIZONA, CONNECTICUT, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN.
ARIZONA – SB 1595
SB 1595 is similar to Texas in that it allows an adult adoptee to obtain a copy of his or her certified birth certificate if the adoptee provides the following: a) the name of the adoptee’s biological mother b) the adoptee’s date and place of birth; and c) payment of the applicable fee.
http://www.azleg.gov/search/oop/qfullhit.asp?CiWebHitsFile=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1595p.htm&CiRestriction=%22SB+1595%22
CONNECTICUT – BILL 890
ATTENTION: 3/10/11: A substitute Bill 890 has now been sent to the House Judiciary Committee. This is a clean bill. Supporters are asking everyone to write to the Judiciary Committee in support of this bill.
) On and after October 1, 2011, regardless of the date parental rights were terminated, any adult adopted person, twenty-one years of age or older, or if such person is deceased, an authorized applicant, as defined in subparagraph (D) of subdivision (3) of section 45a-743, may apply for and receive a copy of (1) the person's sealed original birth certificate or record pursuant to section 7-51, as amended by this act, and (2) any contact preference form attached to the sealed original birth certificate or record pursuant to section 7-51, as amended by this act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit such person's or authorized applicant's access to information pursuant to this part.
This bill would provide adult adopted persons, twenty-one years of age or older, whose adoptions were finalized after October 1, 2012, with access to their biological parents' health information and information in the person's original birth certificate or record. This is a prospective bill and it contains a third-party disclosure veto.
A hearing was held on February 8, 2011
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgasubjectsearch/subbills.asp?subj_code=100358
GEORGIA – HB 65
This bill was sponsored by Rep. Tom McCall, and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
The bill calls for nonidentifying medical information contained in adoption records be open to certain persons for purposes of providing medical treatment and diagnosis. A House Second Readers session called for Jan/26/2011. There is no report yet on this action
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/sum/hb65.htm
HAWAII –
A clean bill was filed, but as of this writing, but very quickly it has been amended or changed in some way so that it is no longer an unconditional access bill.
ILLINOIS - HB 1255
This bill is meant to be a “trailer bill” –a bill that is written to clean up errors that have been discovered in a recently passed piece of legislation, i.e.: HB5428 that was passed into law in May, 2010.
Upon a first reading, there appeared to be in this bill a significant change who can be issued an obc. The Summary of the Bill states:
“Provides that the Registry may not release identity information when a birth parent is deceased and when the deceased birth parent's Birth Preference Form indicates that the birth parent did not allow the release of identifying information and did not want to be contacted by the birth child after the child attains the age of 21.”
I have been told by an associate of Representative Feigenholtz that this is an error, it should have not been in the bill and that it needs to be rewritten. BN will be watching and waiting for the correction. Several members of BN read this first page Summary and understandably reported that the conditions for releasing obcs had been changed from last year. Hopefully, this section of the Bill Summary will be removed as soon as possible.
Several things were targeted for “fixing,”
There is a provision in the new law that allows adoptees born after 1946 whose birth parents are already deceased to obtain their obc before next November if there is a death certificate on file for the birth parent who filed the denial/request for anonymity with the Registry. The newly passed law said that a death certificate could be filed by a "surviving relative" of the birth parent in order to get the obc before next November. But, when IDPH legal took a look at the bill, they decided that "adoptees" were not "technically" "surviving relatives" of birth parents. According to the legal dept., once relinquishment papers are signed, adoptees and birth parents are, technically, no longer relatives.
The new language in the vital statistics act makes sure that while the original birth certificate will not be available for inspection (i.e. sealed) until the adoptee reaches the age of 21, thereafter its status depends on the new law and not the previous vital statistics provisions.
The final provision needing “fixing” in HB 1255 is the new Birth Parent Preference Form to ensure that all birth parents can use the form to express an interest in contact, even if pre-1946 birth parents have no say in the release of their identifying information
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=1255&GAID=11&LegID=57230&Sp
ecSess=&Session=
INDIANA – HB 1255
This Bill passed the full House on February 20, 2011. It was sponsored by Representatives Karickhoff, Riecken, Welch, and Klinker.
HB 1255 concerns access to identifying information for adoptions. It repeals, effective July 1, 2012, provisions applicable to adoptions finalized before January 1, 1994, that prohibit the release of identifying adoption information unless a consent to release the information is on file. It also provides that, beginning July 1, 2012, identifying adoption information may be released unless a nonrelease is on
file, regardless of when the adoption was filed. (Under current law, this provision applies only to adoptions filed after December 31, 1993.)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/HB/HB1201.2.html
MISSOURI – HB 427
HB 427 was sponsored by Representative Barnes.
For adoptions completed after August 28, 2011, the bill:
(1) Requires the juvenile court to provide each birth parent with a confidentiality preference form prior to the entry of any adoption decree;
(2) Requires, if a birth parent objects, the juvenile court to provide the form to the State Registrar, to be filed with the original birth certificate of the adopted person;
(3) Allows any adopted person who is at least 18 years of age, born in Missouri, and who provides proof of identification or the adopted person's descendants if the adopted person is deceased to obtain a copy of the adopted person's original birth certificate unless the birth mother or birth father has objected. If a birth
mother or birth father has objected, the person can request the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to make reasonable efforts to notify the birth mother and birth father of the request for its disclosure. The requestee may be charged for
the actual costs of attempting the notification;
(4) Requires, if the birth mother and birth father consent to the release of the original birth certificate, the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to obtain a copy of a notarized form signed by the birth mother and birth father, if known, giving consent to release the original birth certificate;
(5) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate cannot be released if the birth mother and birth father cannot be located or if they do not consent to its release. Another request for the release can only be made until at least three years after the original or any future request; and
(6) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.
For adoptions completed on or prior to August 28, 2011, the bill:
(1) Allows any adopted person who is at least 18 years of age, born in Missouri, and who provides proof of identification or the adopted person's descendants if the adopted person is deceased to obtain a copy of the adopted person's original birth certificate unless the birth mother or birth father has objected. If a birth
mother or birth father has objected, the person can request the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to make reasonable efforts to notify the birth mother and birth father of the request for its disclosure. The requestee may be charged for the actual costs of attempting the notification;
(2) Requires, if the birth mother and birth father consent to the release of the original birth certificate, the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to obtain a copy of a notarized form signed by the birth mother and birth father, if known, giving consent to release the original birth certificate;
(3) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate cannot be released if the birth mother and birth father cannot be located or if they do not consent to its release. Another request for the release can only be made until at least three years after the original or any future requests; and
(4) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.
http://house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB427&year=2011&code=R
NEW JERSEY A1406 & S799
As of this writing, New Jersey is close to voting on A1406, companion bill to S799 which already passed in the New Jersey Senate. Bastard Nation believes that these two bills are restrictive, discriminatory, create a new, special and temporary “right” for “birthparents” and exempts the state’s adopted adults from equal protection and treatment regarding the release of the government-generated public record of their birth. This bill contains:
A 12 month enrollment period that allows birthparents to file disclosure vetoes before obcs, past and future, are unsealed.
An “authorization for the state to replace the obc, of those subject to the Disclosure veto, with a mutilated copy with all identifying information deleted.
Requires birthparents who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.
Requires birthparents who file a “contact preference form” which in fact acts as a disclosure veto, to fill out the same family history and possibly illegal intrusive medical history form to activate the veto.
Seals by default all “safe haven” birth certificates even though most of these babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.
Requires adoption agencies and lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees.
Requires the state to mount an “information” campaign to inform birthparents of their “protection options.”
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
NEW JERSEY A3672/S2586 (Alternative Bill)
These two bills, backed by the NCFA, the NJ RTL and the NJ ACLU, are even more restrictive. These bills call for a new Confidential Intermediary System. Supporters of AB 3672 claim that their bill provides protections against unsuccessful reunions and unwelcome upheaval.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
NEW YORK – A02003, S0143
A02003 enact a Bill of Adoptee Rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates ad nmedical histories of adoptees.
S01438 Enacts bill of adoptee rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates and medical histories for adoptees
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A02003%09%09&Summary=Y&Text=Y#jump_to_Text
OKLAHOMA – HB 1748
Since 1939, the adoption act was vague enough to allow judges to open adoptees’ records when they wanted to. This new is all about medical records.
HB 1748 wants to weigh the rights of adoptees to their medical information against birth parent privacy.
Whichever side the judge thinks - wins. This new bill now puts birth parent privacy into the statutes when it was never there before.
The bill was passed 12 -0 out of the Human Services Committee.
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1748
TEXAS SB 287
SB 287 has been introduced into the legislature by Senator Lucio. It is really more of the same as is already written into current Texas Law.
This bill contains both a contact preference form and a disclosure veto which act alike – both forbidding issuance of an obc. The contact preference form contains 6 options for birth parents, only two of which are choices that give the adoptee permission from the birth parent to issue an obc.
Also, the bill contains a section which allows an adoptee to have a copy of the obc, w/out court order, if he/she can produce the names of both birth parents.
The bill has not been acted upon in either House as yet
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB287
VIRGINIA – HB 1868
As of February 23, 2011, the bill passed in both houses of the legislature with nearly unanimous vote in both houses.
Essentially, the bill requires that adoptees may only receive their obc by order of the Commissioner of Social Services or order of a circuit court.
NOTE: The original bill, before amendments, provided for the release of identifying information about an adult adopted person's birth parent or parents, unless the birth parent or parents can show good cause why such information should not be disclosed. This section was removed by a House amendment saying identifying information can come only by order of the Commissioner of Social Services or by order of a circuit court.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=111&typ=bil&val=HB1868&Submit2=Go
WASHINGTON – SB 5178
The State of Washington filed yet another restrictive bill, SB 528, in the Washington State Senate. The sponsors are Senators Carrel and Stevens. The bill has been assigned to the Committee on Human Services & Corrections. A first reading was scheduled for January 17, 2011.
SB 5178 removes a phrase from the current law: ““For adoptions finalized after October 1, 1993.” This single change holds great meaning for adopted adults. It means that an affidavit of nondisclosure for post ’93 birthparents will now be extended backwards to adoptions before 1993 as well. This change gives more birth parents special rights to refuse adult citizens access to their own birth documents.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5178&year=2011
WEST VIRGINIA – HB 223
ARTICLE 23 WILL CHANGE THE VOLUNTARY ADOPTION REGISTRY.
§48-23-503. Cases where disclosure of identifying information cannot occur; exception.
(a) In any case where the identity of the birth father was unknown to the birth mother, or where the administrator learns that one or both of the birth parents are deceased, this information shall be shared with the adult adoptee. In these kinds of cases, the adoptee will not be able to obtain identifying information through the registry, and he or she would be told of his or her right to pursue whatever right otherwise exists by law to petition a court to release the identifying information.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, in addition to the disclosure procedures provided in this article, an adoptee who is eighteen years of age or older may petition a court to release the names of the adoptee’s birth parents who are not registered in the voluntary CONDITIONAL OBC BILLS
WISCONSIN - ASSEMBLY BILL 12
This bill was filed on February 2, 2011; Introduced by Representatives KESTELL, MILROY, STONE, BARCA,BERNARD SCHABER, BEWLEY, BROOKS, D. CULLEN, DANOU, JORGENSEN, KESSLER, LEMAHIEU, PASCH, RIPP, SHILLING, SEIDEL, SINICKI, TURNER and VRUWINK. It is cosponsored by Senators LAZICH, JAUCH, LASSA and OLSEN. The bill has been referred to Committee on Children and Families.
In this bill, an adoptee can petition for restoration of birth parents’ names of birth certificates provided that birth parents and adoptive parents agree
Under current law, at the time a person is adopted the state registrar must prepare a new birth certificate for the adoptee unless the adoptive parents or the person being adopted objects. The new birth certificate must contain, among other information, the names and personal information of the adoptive parents, unless the court’s order of adoption indicates otherwise. When a new certificate is issued, the original certificate is impounded and may be accessed only by court order, with permission of the birth parents, or for processing purposes of the state registrar.
This bill allows an adult who has been adopted to petition the court to order the state registrar to prepare a new birth certificate based on information on the person’s original birth certificate if the person did not have the opportunity, at the time of the adoption, to request that a new birth certificate not be prepared; any adoptive parent who is alive and who is named on the person’s birth certificate does not object to the removal of his or her name from the birth certificate; and any birth parent who is alive and who is named on the person’s original birth certificate does not object to the restoration of the information on the person’s original birth certificate. Under the bill, if the court finds that all of those circumstances apply, the court must grant the petition. The state registrar must issue a new birth certificate.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2234intr.htm&yr=2011&sesstype=RS&i=2234
.
MARCH 8, 2011
Caveat: This list is a “WORK IN PROGRESS.” There are so many changes made so quickly each day in the various legislatures that I cannot vouch for its 100% accuracy on any given day after it has been posted. However, I will try to keep this list as up-to-date as possible.
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization opposes each and every one of these access bills that have been filed in their respective legislatures this session. We oppose them because they all put conditions & restrictions upon how and from whom an adoptee can obtain his original birth certificate. In each bill, the state retains power over some adoptees. Not one state restores to all adoptees their civil right to request and receive their obcs with no conditions and no falsifications.
The states reported here are: ARIZONA, CONNECTICUT, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN.
ARIZONA – SB 1595
SB 1595 is similar to Texas in that it allows an adult adoptee to obtain a copy of his or her certified birth certificate if the adoptee provides the following: a) the name of the adoptee’s biological mother b) the adoptee’s date and place of birth; and c) payment of the applicable fee.
http://www.azleg.gov/search/oop/qfullhit.asp?CiWebHitsFile=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1595p.htm&CiRestriction=%22SB+1595%22
CONNECTICUT – BILL 890
ATTENTION: 3/10/11: A substitute Bill 890 has now been sent to the House Judiciary Committee. This is a clean bill. Supporters are asking everyone to write to the Judiciary Committee in support of this bill.
) On and after October 1, 2011, regardless of the date parental rights were terminated, any adult adopted person, twenty-one years of age or older, or if such person is deceased, an authorized applicant, as defined in subparagraph (D) of subdivision (3) of section 45a-743, may apply for and receive a copy of (1) the person's sealed original birth certificate or record pursuant to section 7-51, as amended by this act, and (2) any contact preference form attached to the sealed original birth certificate or record pursuant to section 7-51, as amended by this act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit such person's or authorized applicant's access to information pursuant to this part.
This bill would provide adult adopted persons, twenty-one years of age or older, whose adoptions were finalized after October 1, 2012, with access to their biological parents' health information and information in the person's original birth certificate or record. This is a prospective bill and it contains a third-party disclosure veto.
A hearing was held on February 8, 2011
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgasubjectsearch/subbills.asp?subj_code=100358
GEORGIA – HB 65
This bill was sponsored by Rep. Tom McCall, and it has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
The bill calls for nonidentifying medical information contained in adoption records be open to certain persons for purposes of providing medical treatment and diagnosis. A House Second Readers session called for Jan/26/2011. There is no report yet on this action
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/sum/hb65.htm
HAWAII –
A clean bill was filed, but as of this writing, but very quickly it has been amended or changed in some way so that it is no longer an unconditional access bill.
ILLINOIS - HB 1255
This bill is meant to be a “trailer bill” –a bill that is written to clean up errors that have been discovered in a recently passed piece of legislation, i.e.: HB5428 that was passed into law in May, 2010.
Upon a first reading, there appeared to be in this bill a significant change who can be issued an obc. The Summary of the Bill states:
“Provides that the Registry may not release identity information when a birth parent is deceased and when the deceased birth parent's Birth Preference Form indicates that the birth parent did not allow the release of identifying information and did not want to be contacted by the birth child after the child attains the age of 21.”
I have been told by an associate of Representative Feigenholtz that this is an error, it should have not been in the bill and that it needs to be rewritten. BN will be watching and waiting for the correction. Several members of BN read this first page Summary and understandably reported that the conditions for releasing obcs had been changed from last year. Hopefully, this section of the Bill Summary will be removed as soon as possible.
Several things were targeted for “fixing,”
There is a provision in the new law that allows adoptees born after 1946 whose birth parents are already deceased to obtain their obc before next November if there is a death certificate on file for the birth parent who filed the denial/request for anonymity with the Registry. The newly passed law said that a death certificate could be filed by a "surviving relative" of the birth parent in order to get the obc before next November. But, when IDPH legal took a look at the bill, they decided that "adoptees" were not "technically" "surviving relatives" of birth parents. According to the legal dept., once relinquishment papers are signed, adoptees and birth parents are, technically, no longer relatives.
The new language in the vital statistics act makes sure that while the original birth certificate will not be available for inspection (i.e. sealed) until the adoptee reaches the age of 21, thereafter its status depends on the new law and not the previous vital statistics provisions.
The final provision needing “fixing” in HB 1255 is the new Birth Parent Preference Form to ensure that all birth parents can use the form to express an interest in contact, even if pre-1946 birth parents have no say in the release of their identifying information
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=1255&GAID=11&LegID=57230&Sp
ecSess=&Session=
INDIANA – HB 1255
This Bill passed the full House on February 20, 2011. It was sponsored by Representatives Karickhoff, Riecken, Welch, and Klinker.
HB 1255 concerns access to identifying information for adoptions. It repeals, effective July 1, 2012, provisions applicable to adoptions finalized before January 1, 1994, that prohibit the release of identifying adoption information unless a consent to release the information is on file. It also provides that, beginning July 1, 2012, identifying adoption information may be released unless a nonrelease is on
file, regardless of when the adoption was filed. (Under current law, this provision applies only to adoptions filed after December 31, 1993.)
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/HB/HB1201.2.html
MISSOURI – HB 427
HB 427 was sponsored by Representative Barnes.
For adoptions completed after August 28, 2011, the bill:
(1) Requires the juvenile court to provide each birth parent with a confidentiality preference form prior to the entry of any adoption decree;
(2) Requires, if a birth parent objects, the juvenile court to provide the form to the State Registrar, to be filed with the original birth certificate of the adopted person;
(3) Allows any adopted person who is at least 18 years of age, born in Missouri, and who provides proof of identification or the adopted person's descendants if the adopted person is deceased to obtain a copy of the adopted person's original birth certificate unless the birth mother or birth father has objected. If a birth
mother or birth father has objected, the person can request the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to make reasonable efforts to notify the birth mother and birth father of the request for its disclosure. The requestee may be charged for
the actual costs of attempting the notification;
(4) Requires, if the birth mother and birth father consent to the release of the original birth certificate, the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to obtain a copy of a notarized form signed by the birth mother and birth father, if known, giving consent to release the original birth certificate;
(5) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate cannot be released if the birth mother and birth father cannot be located or if they do not consent to its release. Another request for the release can only be made until at least three years after the original or any future request; and
(6) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.
For adoptions completed on or prior to August 28, 2011, the bill:
(1) Allows any adopted person who is at least 18 years of age, born in Missouri, and who provides proof of identification or the adopted person's descendants if the adopted person is deceased to obtain a copy of the adopted person's original birth certificate unless the birth mother or birth father has objected. If a birth
mother or birth father has objected, the person can request the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to make reasonable efforts to notify the birth mother and birth father of the request for its disclosure. The requestee may be charged for the actual costs of attempting the notification;
(2) Requires, if the birth mother and birth father consent to the release of the original birth certificate, the Department of Social Services, the child-placing agency which processed the adoption, or the juvenile court personnel to obtain a copy of a notarized form signed by the birth mother and birth father, if known, giving consent to release the original birth certificate;
(3) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate cannot be released if the birth mother and birth father cannot be located or if they do not consent to its release. Another request for the release can only be made until at least three years after the original or any future requests; and
(4) Specifies that a copy of the original birth certificate can be released upon the birth mother's and birth father's death.
http://house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB427&year=2011&code=R
NEW JERSEY A1406 & S799
As of this writing, New Jersey is close to voting on A1406, companion bill to S799 which already passed in the New Jersey Senate. Bastard Nation believes that these two bills are restrictive, discriminatory, create a new, special and temporary “right” for “birthparents” and exempts the state’s adopted adults from equal protection and treatment regarding the release of the government-generated public record of their birth. This bill contains:
A 12 month enrollment period that allows birthparents to file disclosure vetoes before obcs, past and future, are unsealed.
An “authorization for the state to replace the obc, of those subject to the Disclosure veto, with a mutilated copy with all identifying information deleted.
Requires birthparents who file a disclosure veto to submit a family history and a possibly illegal intrusive medical form to activate the veto.
Requires birthparents who file a “contact preference form” which in fact acts as a disclosure veto, to fill out the same family history and possibly illegal intrusive medical history form to activate the veto.
Seals by default all “safe haven” birth certificates even though most of these babies are born in hospitals to identified mothers.
Requires adoption agencies and lawyers to receive a written veto status report from the state before they can release identifying information to adoptees.
Requires the state to mount an “information” campaign to inform birthparents of their “protection options.”
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
NEW JERSEY A3672/S2586 (Alternative Bill)
These two bills, backed by the NCFA, the NJ RTL and the NJ ACLU, are even more restrictive. These bills call for a new Confidential Intermediary System. Supporters of AB 3672 claim that their bill provides protections against unsuccessful reunions and unwelcome upheaval.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
NEW YORK – A02003, S0143
A02003 enact a Bill of Adoptee Rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates ad nmedical histories of adoptees.
S01438 Enacts bill of adoptee rights clarifying language and procedures for obtaining birth certificates and medical histories for adoptees
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A02003%09%09&Summary=Y&Text=Y#jump_to_Text
OKLAHOMA – HB 1748
Since 1939, the adoption act was vague enough to allow judges to open adoptees’ records when they wanted to. This new is all about medical records.
HB 1748 wants to weigh the rights of adoptees to their medical information against birth parent privacy.
Whichever side the judge thinks - wins. This new bill now puts birth parent privacy into the statutes when it was never there before.
The bill was passed 12 -0 out of the Human Services Committee.
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1748
TEXAS SB 287
SB 287 has been introduced into the legislature by Senator Lucio. It is really more of the same as is already written into current Texas Law.
This bill contains both a contact preference form and a disclosure veto which act alike – both forbidding issuance of an obc. The contact preference form contains 6 options for birth parents, only two of which are choices that give the adoptee permission from the birth parent to issue an obc.
Also, the bill contains a section which allows an adoptee to have a copy of the obc, w/out court order, if he/she can produce the names of both birth parents.
The bill has not been acted upon in either House as yet
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB287
VIRGINIA – HB 1868
As of February 23, 2011, the bill passed in both houses of the legislature with nearly unanimous vote in both houses.
Essentially, the bill requires that adoptees may only receive their obc by order of the Commissioner of Social Services or order of a circuit court.
NOTE: The original bill, before amendments, provided for the release of identifying information about an adult adopted person's birth parent or parents, unless the birth parent or parents can show good cause why such information should not be disclosed. This section was removed by a House amendment saying identifying information can come only by order of the Commissioner of Social Services or by order of a circuit court.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=111&typ=bil&val=HB1868&Submit2=Go
WASHINGTON – SB 5178
The State of Washington filed yet another restrictive bill, SB 528, in the Washington State Senate. The sponsors are Senators Carrel and Stevens. The bill has been assigned to the Committee on Human Services & Corrections. A first reading was scheduled for January 17, 2011.
SB 5178 removes a phrase from the current law: ““For adoptions finalized after October 1, 1993.” This single change holds great meaning for adopted adults. It means that an affidavit of nondisclosure for post ’93 birthparents will now be extended backwards to adoptions before 1993 as well. This change gives more birth parents special rights to refuse adult citizens access to their own birth documents.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5178&year=2011
WEST VIRGINIA – HB 223
ARTICLE 23 WILL CHANGE THE VOLUNTARY ADOPTION REGISTRY.
§48-23-503. Cases where disclosure of identifying information cannot occur; exception.
(a) In any case where the identity of the birth father was unknown to the birth mother, or where the administrator learns that one or both of the birth parents are deceased, this information shall be shared with the adult adoptee. In these kinds of cases, the adoptee will not be able to obtain identifying information through the registry, and he or she would be told of his or her right to pursue whatever right otherwise exists by law to petition a court to release the identifying information.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this code to the contrary, in addition to the disclosure procedures provided in this article, an adoptee who is eighteen years of age or older may petition a court to release the names of the adoptee’s birth parents who are not registered in the voluntary CONDITIONAL OBC BILLS
WISCONSIN - ASSEMBLY BILL 12
This bill was filed on February 2, 2011; Introduced by Representatives KESTELL, MILROY, STONE, BARCA,BERNARD SCHABER, BEWLEY, BROOKS, D. CULLEN, DANOU, JORGENSEN, KESSLER, LEMAHIEU, PASCH, RIPP, SHILLING, SEIDEL, SINICKI, TURNER and VRUWINK. It is cosponsored by Senators LAZICH, JAUCH, LASSA and OLSEN. The bill has been referred to Committee on Children and Families.
In this bill, an adoptee can petition for restoration of birth parents’ names of birth certificates provided that birth parents and adoptive parents agree
Under current law, at the time a person is adopted the state registrar must prepare a new birth certificate for the adoptee unless the adoptive parents or the person being adopted objects. The new birth certificate must contain, among other information, the names and personal information of the adoptive parents, unless the court’s order of adoption indicates otherwise. When a new certificate is issued, the original certificate is impounded and may be accessed only by court order, with permission of the birth parents, or for processing purposes of the state registrar.
This bill allows an adult who has been adopted to petition the court to order the state registrar to prepare a new birth certificate based on information on the person’s original birth certificate if the person did not have the opportunity, at the time of the adoption, to request that a new birth certificate not be prepared; any adoptive parent who is alive and who is named on the person’s birth certificate does not object to the removal of his or her name from the birth certificate; and any birth parent who is alive and who is named on the person’s original birth certificate does not object to the restoration of the information on the person’s original birth certificate. Under the bill, if the court finds that all of those circumstances apply, the court must grant the petition. The state registrar must issue a new birth certificate.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2234intr.htm&yr=2011&sesstype=RS&i=2234
.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
CT Bill 890 - Oppose
This is a reprint of a blog by Marley Greiner from THE DAILY BASTARDETTE at http:bastardette.com. It says it all.
Grannie Annie
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization, is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full, unrestricted access for all adopted persons, upon request, of their own true, unaltered original birth certificates (OBC). We oppose HB 890, a bill that would prospectively the OBC to adoptees, with disclosure veto restrictions, to persons 21 years of age or older, whose adoptions were finalized on or after October 12, 2012.
This bill is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, February 8, 2011 by the Select Committee on Children.
Bastard Nation. opposes HB 890, and urges you to vote Do Not Pass.
HB 890 creates a nonsensical tiered discriminatory system of OBC access for Connecticut adoptees based on their date of birth, date of their adoption finalization,and their birthparent consent.
HB 890 ignores thousands of the state's adopted population who will still be unable to acquire their OBC, while at the same time creates a new class of adoptees not even born yet, who can acquire their OBCs unless their birthparent(s) object.
HB 890 creates a prospective new special "right" for birthparents that enables them to bar their adult offspring from acquiring their own birth certificates, a right that no other parent has.
In sum, HB 890 reinforces out-dated adoption secrecy. It does nothing to restore the right of unrestricted OBC access that all Connecticut adoptees enjoyed until 1974. It makes adoptee access to their own birth certificates a state/birthparent conditioned privilege separate and unequal from the right enjoyed by Connecticut's not adopted who can acquire their own birth certificates unhindered.
Please vote DO NOT PASS on HB 890, and support a bill that mandates equal OBC access, without conditions, to all Connecticut adoptees, past, present, and future.
Sincerely yours,
Marley E. Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization
Grannie Annie
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization, is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full, unrestricted access for all adopted persons, upon request, of their own true, unaltered original birth certificates (OBC). We oppose HB 890, a bill that would prospectively the OBC to adoptees, with disclosure veto restrictions, to persons 21 years of age or older, whose adoptions were finalized on or after October 12, 2012.
This bill is scheduled to be heard tomorrow, February 8, 2011 by the Select Committee on Children.
Bastard Nation. opposes HB 890, and urges you to vote Do Not Pass.
HB 890 creates a nonsensical tiered discriminatory system of OBC access for Connecticut adoptees based on their date of birth, date of their adoption finalization,and their birthparent consent.
HB 890 ignores thousands of the state's adopted population who will still be unable to acquire their OBC, while at the same time creates a new class of adoptees not even born yet, who can acquire their OBCs unless their birthparent(s) object.
HB 890 creates a prospective new special "right" for birthparents that enables them to bar their adult offspring from acquiring their own birth certificates, a right that no other parent has.
In sum, HB 890 reinforces out-dated adoption secrecy. It does nothing to restore the right of unrestricted OBC access that all Connecticut adoptees enjoyed until 1974. It makes adoptee access to their own birth certificates a state/birthparent conditioned privilege separate and unequal from the right enjoyed by Connecticut's not adopted who can acquire their own birth certificates unhindered.
Please vote DO NOT PASS on HB 890, and support a bill that mandates equal OBC access, without conditions, to all Connecticut adoptees, past, present, and future.
Sincerely yours,
Marley E. Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
