Do You Condone Sealed Birth and Adoption Records for Adoptees?

No, I don't support sealed records.

I actually don't think birth certificates should be amended at all, honestly. A birth certificate is a record of birth, and it doesn't make sense to me to alter that after the fact. I think children should have a birth certificate and a separate certificate of adoption.

If either party (parent or child) is truly a danger to the other, a no-contact order or restraining order is possible. I don't think those rare circumstances justify restricting access for everybody.

Get a No Cost Background Check Scan at https://bitly.im/aNywT

Its a sensible way to start. The site allows you to do a no cost scan simply to find out if any sort of data is in existence. A smaller analysis is done without cost. To get a detailed report its a modest payment.

You may not realize how many good reasons there are to try and find out more about the people around you. After all, whether you're talking about new friends, employees, doctors, caretakers for elderly family members, or even significant others, you, as a citizen, have a right to know whether the people you surround yourself with are who they say they are. This goes double in any situation that involves your children, which not only includes teachers and babysitters, but also scout masters, little league coaches and others. Bottom line, if you want to find out more about someone, you should perform a background check.

I absolutely do not support or condone the legalized fraud perpetrated by the state called an Amended Birth Certificate. It is a theft of the mother's medical history by granting it to strangers.

I further do not support the sealed records being sealed to mothers, either. It is unconscionable that a document signed at the moment of peak stress be enforceable forever. Murderers get a parole hearing, but a woman guilty of giving life outside the strictly defined parameters proscribed by society are given a life sentence. More times than not, the ap's have information about the mother, and are allowed to get more as time goes by. I say that the mothers are entitled to equal access. Women who surrendered their infants to adoption have nothing to back up their memories except the stretch marks on their bodies and the medical scars that make a lie of the ABC.

No I do not condone sealed records. A mother or a father can deny contact all they want. They do not have the right to deny access to the OBC. It belongs to the person whose birth it records. Do the non adopted have to deal with this issue? Are the mothers and fathers of the non adopted denied access to those records? No they are not. So shouldn't the laws be the same instead being separate? Being separate is not equal. Don't believe me? Read Brown vs. Board of Education. The right to privacy is the right to be free from governmental interference as shown in Roe vs. Wade, Griswold vs. Connecticut, and the Eisenstandt cases. There is no right to total anonymonity

I absolutely DO NOT condone sealing birth and adoption records. As an adopted person, I passionately believe in open records. What I don't believe in is open adoption. Children do not need to know their biological relatives until they are adults and then only if they want to meet them. I am a victim of open adoption and it SUCKS!!!

Not at all. Adopted citizens in 44 states are the ONLY citizens denied access, on equal par to the non-adopted, to their OWN actual, factual records of birth.

People given up by their parents for adoption who don't get adopted have equal access. People put up for adoption by the state following their parents' loss of parental rights who don't get adopted have equal access. But, when an adoption finalizes and the amended birth certificate is issued, it is only the adopted person's status as "adopted" that takes away that equal right under the law.

This cannot be condoned in a society that purports equal treatment under the law for its citizens. Yet discrimination exists based on whether a person is "adopted" or "not adopted."

No I don't.

It shows our naivete about adoption, but we were shocked when we learned that there was such a thing as an amended certificate. We actually thought it was a seperate form. Seems so silly to think that way now, but we did.

Absolutely not.. It makes me mad.

AS a future adoptive mother (possibly) I do not want my child to have any birth cirtificate except the factual, true one with his/her biological parent(s) name(s) on it.. I don't like lies, and have no desire or need to have a lying certificate that says "I" gave birth to a child when that is not the case. I either intend to adopt from a "free" state or get ahold of all my child's records as quickly as I can any way I can before they are sealed.

I'll still be his/her mother.. I don't need a Birth Certificate to lie to "prove" I am.

Randy has a point, but possibly he doesn't realize that a DNC (Do not contact) being in the birth/adoption files should be sufficient (and honored)

what lousy answers

No they should be accessible to the adoptee and the new parents only...not the bio parents. They lost those rights.