The Pros And Cons Of Open Adoption Records
Adoption records should be open to give adoptees the ability to know where they come from. Various state laws create many paths or roadblocks to determining biological parental information. Knowledge is more important than privacy. It is procedure for a new birth certificate(or ABC) to be issued when a child is adopted. The adoptee’s new name appears, along with the names of the adoptive parents. The fact of the adoption, the name of the birth parents and the birth name of the adoptee are excluded from the certificate. At that time the original birth certificate(or OBC) is sealed and becomes unavailable to the triad. Conservatives believe the records should be sealed forever, the practice of allowing the records to be opened would prove to help many adoptees discover their biological background and culture. An adopted child might need medical information from his/her biological parents. Before active lobbying efforts of adoptive parents organizations began in the 1940’s, a majority of states maintained open adoption record policies. Those who proposed the sealed records felt it would protect the adoptive family and the adoptee from feeling the shame of bastardy and believed that it served the best interest of all parties involved in the adoption. They failed to account for the fact that adoptees grow up and that may not be
…show more content…
what is best for an adult who has been adopted.
The information is important to adoptees because it can indicate if they have a higher risk of some diseases. The need for knowledge of the medical history of biological relatives has become more important as genetics become more important in medical diagnosis. Adoption documents with scanty summaries of "non-identifying" information often bring more questions than answers. non-identifying information only covers one point in time so underlying medical information is still hidden despite the “release of information”
The U.S.
is about 20 years behind other countries in opening adoption records. Common Law countries, such as England and Australia, tend to have biases favoring families and privacy. From the 1970s onward these biases have resulted in leaning toward open records. The United States should follow suit with other countries and open adoption records in order to catch up with the rest of the world. The practice of closed adoption changed gradually across each of the states and territories in Australia from the late 1970s through the 80s and 90s. 84% in 2010-11 of local adoptions (but not intercountry adoptions) are "open” in
Australia.
Approximately 120,000 children are adopted each year in the United States. Adoptees are trying to find the circumstances of their births and are struggling due to the difficulty of accessing information. Many news articles tell of situations in which either an adoptee or biological parent is searching for answers or information regarding their adoption and after countless hours and days of searching through a tortuous and often fruitless process, end up exactly where they started. Most state laws restrict access to adoptees under 21(who only receive limited information after filling out many applications and sending letters to the court) and biological parents unless given a medical reason as to why they should rethink the law in that specific case. 23 states have open adoption records which leaves 27 states with restricted access to records. Records of adoption “shall be confidential records of the court and not open to public inspection unless by order of the court.” 1951 Colo. Sess. Laws 154 (§ 15) (emphasis added). According to the judges of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld open records for adopted citizens in Doe v. Sundquist, "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."
The privacy issue for the biological parents is the counter argument for the three warrants. Up until recently, privacy has been the main concern of the courts and people involved in adoptions. With changing times, medical advances, and other reasons to look into the history of an adoptee's biological records, the need for the availability of this information for the overall health of the adoptee is vital.
what is best for an adult who has been adopted.
The information is important to adoptees because it can indicate if they have a higher risk of some diseases. The need for knowledge of the medical history of biological relatives has become more important as genetics become more important in medical diagnosis. Adoption documents with scanty summaries of "non-identifying" information often bring more questions than answers. non-identifying information only covers one point in time so underlying medical information is still hidden despite the “release of information”
The U.S.
is about 20 years behind other countries in opening adoption records. Common Law countries, such as England and Australia, tend to have biases favoring families and privacy. From the 1970s onward these biases have resulted in leaning toward open records. The United States should follow suit with other countries and open adoption records in order to catch up with the rest of the world. The practice of closed adoption changed gradually across each of the states and territories in Australia from the late 1970s through the 80s and 90s. 84% in 2010-11 of local adoptions (but not intercountry adoptions) are "open” in
Australia.
Approximately 120,000 children are adopted each year in the United States. Adoptees are trying to find the circumstances of their births and are struggling due to the difficulty of accessing information. Many news articles tell of situations in which either an adoptee or biological parent is searching for answers or information regarding their adoption and after countless hours and days of searching through a tortuous and often fruitless process, end up exactly where they started. Most state laws restrict access to adoptees under 21(who only receive limited information after filling out many applications and sending letters to the court) and biological parents unless given a medical reason as to why they should rethink the law in that specific case. 23 states have open adoption records which leaves 27 states with restricted access to records. Records of adoption “shall be confidential records of the court and not open to public inspection unless by order of the court.” 1951 Colo. Sess. Laws 154 (§ 15) (emphasis added). According to the judges of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld open records for adopted citizens in Doe v. Sundquist, "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."
The privacy issue for the biological parents is the counter argument for the three warrants. Up until recently, privacy has been the main concern of the courts and people involved in adoptions. With changing times, medical advances, and other reasons to look into the history of an adoptee's biological records, the need for the availability of this information for the overall health of the adoptee is vital.