Breaking the Seal on Adoptions

Should adoptees have access to their original birth certificate … not just the one that is altered once they are adopted?

This question has caused much controversy over the yearson a moral, political and legal platform. New laws, such as the one just signed in Connecticut, are making it easier than ever for adoptees turning 18 to find their birth parents by accessing their original birth certificate, and in some cases, their medical records.

Taking effect on July 15, 2015, the Connecticut law applies only to adults whose adoptions were finalized after Oct. 1, 1983 and will effect approximately 26,000 adoptees throughout the state. Why 1983? Because birth parents that year began receiving warnings their identities could eventually be revealed.Their “surrender papers” started including language that their offspring may someday contact them. In fact, sealed birth records did not exist before the mid-20th century and were not widespread until after the 1960s.

For more than 30 years, the battle over unsealing adoptions has raged. However, as there are two sides to every story, let’s discuss the pros and cons.

Pros

Currently, only 14 states allow full or partial access to birth certificates for adoptees. These states include: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Tennessee, according to the American Adoption Congress. Alaska and Kansas never enacted laws restricting access.Adoptees fought hard for these laws, feeling they had a right to have answers to the basic questions — “who am I” and “where did I come from?”

In addition to having a major “void” in their life, many adoptees want access to their biological parents for medical reasons — so they know more about genetic issues that they may be facing in the future. For instance, does cancer run in the family? Will they be prone to a heart attack at a young age? Although a medical history may have been included with the original adoption, a lot may have changed over the years.

Cons

What about the mothers and fathers who want to remain anonymous? Who selflessly gave their child up for adoption under the guise of privacy? Who might not want to be contacted?

Or the religious groups and pro-life supporters who fear that easing privacy protections for birth parents will jeopardize new adoptions and increase abortions? For instance, Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, said she worries some mothers will abandon newborns at emergency rooms or police stations rather than go through a formal adoption because their child might contact them one day.

State Senator Toni Boucher who fought against the new law in Connecticut, called it “morally wrong” to put birth parents in the position of potentially being contacted by a child given up for adoption.

A New Outlook

From the 1930s to the 1980s, many adoption records were sealed because of the stigma of unwed motherhood at the time. Shame surrounded the adoption process and everything was very secretive. In fact, many women were “sent away” by their families to have the baby far from the prying eyes of family and friends.

Now it is more common to have an “open adoption” in which both the birth parents and the adopted parents keep in regular contact. This has been found to be better not only for the adoptees, but the biological parents as well.

Society’s outlook on unwed mothers has also changed dramatically … in fact, many actresses have made it quite popular to have children without being married!

According to the American Adoption Congress, more than 95% of birth parents want reunions with their adopted child as well.

Sealed versus unsealed records continues to vary widely by state. Although 14 states allow access, in some states access to birth certificates depends on the year of birth or type of adoption (Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Vermont). In Texas, recent legislation allows adoptees who already know their birth parents’ names to obtain a copy of their original birth certificates. And in Virginia, court records for private placements taking place after 1984 are available to adoptive parents, adult adoptees, and birth parents named in the records.

Unfortunately, politics often lags way behind societal norms. Although strides have been made in granting adoptees access, there’s still a long way to go for many states, and a consistency needs to be developed.

In the absence of ANY negative evidence that indicates unsealing adoption records is a good thing, I think it’s time to free adoptees from the closet of secrecy.

About The Author

Jeffrey A. Kasky, Esq. is a Florida adoption lawyer and Vice President of One World Adoption Services, Inc., a Florida-licensed not-for-profit child placing agency. Jeff’s diverse career experiences include co-authoring the book, “99 Things You Wish You Knew Before … Choosing Adoption” with Robert A. Kasky, Florida-certified law enforcement officer, and involvement in the autism community, including a TV show focused on helping families with legal issues related to autism called “Spectrum at Law” on The Autism Channel. A practicing attorney since 1995, he has worked on more than one thousand adoption cases