Sealing records and privacy rights?

Why do we have the idea that a person's right to privacy trumps the rights of another person to know the information they are entitled to?

If by "we" you mean the majority of people who are unaware of the history of adoption laws, it's because the urban legend is so pervasive. Those with a vested financial interest in keeping birth certificates sealed from adult adoptees also have the financial means to lobby and outreach, and continue to spread this propaganda.

--------------

If courts find it untenable to change the law in regard to records already sealed, isn't it still possible to change the law now and make it illegal to seal any more records?

Yes, that's very do-able, and even some members of the most vocal opponents of restoring access (the NCFA and the American Adoption Lawyers organization) support prospective bills like these.

The problem with prospective-only bills is that they remove forever ANY chance of those already living from having equal rights.

Let's say State A has sealed birth certificates, and they pass a prospective law stating that adoptees born 2011 and forward will have their birth certificates. In the passing of this law, what they are doing is adding TO the existing law and for the first time granting mothers who surrender confidentiality that they never had before. Once a prospective law like this passes, those left behind will not have any justice.

--------------

Sort of a side question, in a foster adoption, if the adoptive family went against all advice and hid information from the adoptee, can the adoptee still access those records? And similarly, if the adoption was "open" and the adoptive parents later "closed" the adoption, are those records also sealed? I would think they should be available to the adoptee on request.

No. Once an adoption is finalized the birth certificate is sealed. We even have in our group someone who chose to be adopted by her stepfather as an adult because he was the man who raised her, but she was unaware what this would do to her original identity at the time. Because she is adopted, her birth certificate is against the law for her to have.

Foster care adoption, open adoption, intra-family adoption or step-parent adoption all seal the birth certificate from adults. There is no reason someone should be treated as a child forever.

--------------

Does anyone know what percentage of birth records are still being sealed today?

Kansas, Alaska, Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine do not seal

States like Illinois, Tennessee, Maryland, Massachusetts and a handful of others have arbitrary laws and dates that seal birth certificates or restrict access

--------------

EDIT: On a humorous note, Yahoo wanted to put this question in Decorating and Remodeling. How'd they get THAT?

Because every house needs an adoptee as a fashion statement ;)

Original birth certificates and adoption files are sealed ONLY when an adoption become final. Since there is never a guarantee that a baby will be adopted, there can never have been a guarantee of anonymity for birth parents. If the adoption fails, the amended birth certificate is sealed, and the original birth certificate becomes "active."

I agree that there must be a balance between my rights and those of others. But, what about the bio-sibling that I have? What about my bio-aunt that was beyond-words to happy to know me? Do those people have any rights? How can they know me unless my bparents' secret is revealed? So, the price of bparent secrecy extends much further than just to the adoptee. Should it be allowed to effectively eliminate everyone else's rights as well?

And, really, I do not understand why potential embarrassment should even be considered as a reason for maintaining sealed records. None of us have a right to freedom from embarrassment. Have the courage to declare your convictions publicly. Secrets and lies are simply different flavors of cowardice and fraud.

In the US, the Adoption Industry is now using the Mother's Skirts to hide under and using the Mother now as the excuse to keep OBCs sealed. They want to 'protect' us now....yet where was the protection (and help) of mother and baby, to keep us together, when we truly needed it? They didn't care back then, why should they care now. I find it ludicrous that the people who want to keep OBCs sealed are the very same people who have enjoyed that 'privacy'. That of adoptive parents, adoption agencies, religious orgs...the adoption industry. Even more insane now...supposedly we have all these wonderful open adoptions...where supposedly all parties know each other...why would those records be kept under lock and key? Though I am hearing that quite a few aparents are receiving the adopted child's OBC and even the natural mother's social security number...yep I read that at adoption.com posted by an adoptive mother.

There is absolutely no excuse for any records, from anytime, to be sealed today...not from the adoptee nor from the mother herself. But even in the states that are supposedly opening records...those laws are including all sorts of restrictions and demands built into those laws. What does need to happen is the complete tear-down of whatever laws exist allowing Amended Birth Certificates...this to me is the major problem today and always has been. There is no need for an ABC...they can attach an Adoption Certificate to the OBC. Get rid of that ABC and that will be a most significant *cure* from herein out.

Even in open adoption, the records are sealed...nuts isn't it?! When a child is surrendered the child's records are NOT sealed at that point....the records are only sealed upon the finalization of an adoption. If a mother surrenders, and the child remains wherever without being adopted, the child's records are still open. If that child is never adopted, those records are never sealed. So it is NOT the mother's actions that seal the records...it is most certainly the Act of Adoption, where and when the sealing takes place.

Only the adoption industry, most aparents, religious orgs engaged in adoption, adoption lawyers, etc., the clueless general public and the rare mysterious Jane Doe *birth mothers*, believe that the mother privacy rights trumps the rights of the adopted. Thousands upon thousands of mothers have signed petitions, have become very involved (some for decades), some have sent off copies of their surrender docs to those states fighting for open records (me included), to prove there was no written guarantee of *privacy & confidentiality*. We are all adults now...we can manage our own adult business with our now adult children. Adoption is the only place where the state governments feel it is their *parental* duty to manage/interfere in the business of adults....those adults being genetically connected and many times already reunited. The whole issue of closed records is archaic, a method to control adult people and is entirely insane.

AND...open records should NOT be a search & reunion issue...should simply be that adults have the right to that which has been theirs all along and should be their with what they decide to do or not to do with that OBC...it is nobody else's business. None of us adults need outside permission to be allowed to associate with other adults, those who agree to association. Yet again...it is only in Adoption Land...where both adult adoptee and the mother are treated like the perpetual child and the perpetual young, unmarried mother. Insane, insane, insane!

This question is irrelevant to me as I am in the UK, I'm not an adoptee and records aren't sealed.

I was asked if I was willing to contact if my son wanted to search and I said I was. This should have been put on the paperwork but it wasn't. I was also told I would never be allowed to (legally) search for my son. This wasn't strictly true and the law has changed over the years so natural families can search for an adopted family member.

However to get back to your question whilst there are parents who don't want to have contact far more are open to contact once the adopted person becomes an adult. It also doesn't take records to be sealed for contact to be refused. If my son had found me I could have refused contact the same as when I found him he could have refused contact with me. It works in the UK so I can't see why it couldn't work in the US.

Privacy for the natural mother is a sham. If a child is surrendered but never adopted their original identity stays intact. If the sealing of records was to protect the natural parents the original birth certificate would be sealed upon surrender not upon finalization of an adoption.

Adoption records started being sealed to protect the adoptive, not natural, parents. Don't kid yourself here, sealing the records has nothing to do with the natural mother, that is merely a ploy being used to keep records sealed.

You said:

//Applying this to the sealing of birth records in adoption: on the one hand a woman wants to be free from potential embarrassment and complications, on the other hand a human being wants to know their history and medical information.//

You're assuming that the sealing is due to the "woman" (you mean the mother, right?) and her desire to remain anonymous. But records aren't sealed until an adoption takes place, so who is the sealing of records really "protecting"?

This has nothing to do with "embarrassment" of the relinquishing mothers and all to do with the adopting parents and the agencies who work for them. The records are sealed in order to keep the fantasy of "as if born to" the adopters alive.

Clever to blame the surrendering mother AGAIN, isn't it?

I have only ever heard of one natural parent who lobbied for sealed records. That person was a natural father in Ontario who lobbied against Bill 183 along with three adoptees. The father was anonymous. They used a lawyer, Clayton Ruby, to lobby against the bill instead of doing it themselves. Michelle Edmunds did a segment on The Adoption Show (aired May 27, 2007) about it. In the show she talks with Wendy Rowney, from COAR (coalition against sealed records), about what the purpose of these 4 people lobbying against the records was. It appears that they did not want to stop all adoptees and natural parents from accessing the information but did want a non-disclosure veto put in the bill, meaning that either the adoptee or natural parent could file a veto stopping the other party('s) from obtaining their identifying information. The four people who were against open records in Ontario did not lobby with their names but used only their initials instead. I'm unsure if these four people actually appeared in court of if their lawyer appeared on their behalf but the court date was near the end of June 2007, I'm unsure about the exact date. This is the only case I am aware of where a natural parent lobbied against a bill to open records. Again this was ONE natural father who lobbied along side three adoptees. One.

Yes, the freedom of one's hand ends where the nose of another begins. People are free to create children, but once those children are born, they are not free to dispose of them as they please.

Relinquishing a child is a statutory right, not a fundamental right. Since there is no fundamental right to relinquish, it's pretty difficult to argue for a fundamental right to privacy upon relinquishment. It just doesn't exist.