Degenerative Policy Design: An Examination of Sealed Adoption Record Policy by Larry Watson, LMSW-ACP

(this is a very long entry-but it is an incredibly insightful look at these policies! please read!)

Degenerative Policy Design: An Examination of Sealed Adoption Record Policy


Public policy is often the result of a policy system influenced by social constructions that stigmatize some groups and extol the virtues of others. The societal view of each group coupled with the political power of the groups, determines the political agenda and influences the process that eventually determines the policy design. (Schneider & Ingram, 1997) This article will examine the sealed records policies that denies adult adoptees accesses to their original birth records
Few issues in American adoption policy have been so widely debated as the right of adoptees to have access to their original birth and adoption records without a court order (Wegar, 1997). Currently, only four states are open records states that allow adult adoptees access to their birth records. It is generally thought that adoption records are a single entity but, in fact, there are three sources of family information about an adopted person: (1) records of the court that approved the final adoption, (2) the state repository for birth certificates, and (3) case files of the adoption agency (Carp, 1998). This article focuses on policy related to birth certificates and adult adoptees access to those records. Examining this one issue allows us to bring the debate into clear focus. We do not examine questions related to the rights of adopted children, but instead; focus on the issues related to adults who were adopted as children. We do not examine the issues of access to adoption agency records, but only study the question as it relates to birth certificates. The debate over open vs. confidential or closed adoption is examined briefly, but only in terms of the influence of adoption professionals in the question of sealed birth records and the role of adoption agencies as stakeholders. By examining this single issue within the larger adoption policy debate, we bring into clear focus the complexity of the issues and the many layers of policy questions.
The present state of this sealed records policy and the history of adult adoptee access to birth records are explored. We examine the stakeholders in this debate—the adoptees, the adoptive parents and the birthparents and the interest groups that purport to represent them. The changing values of our society and the social constructs of each of the triad groups is explored in light of the policy debate. We look at the nature of the debate, the policy design issues and where we are on a policy shift timeline. Finally, we examine the policy options for the future.
What is the Present Policy?
Adult adoptees in all but four states in the U.S. are forbidden access to their own original birth certificates (Bastard Nation, 2003). Alabama, Alaska, Kansas and Oregon are open records states, meaning that adult adoptees can receive copies of original documentation about their adoptions just by completing an application process. Other states also provide for the release of original information with some restrictions (About Adoption, 2003). These arrangements, known as conditional access legislation, include disclosure vetoes, contact vetoes, and intermediary systems (Bastard Nation, 2003). Some states have established passive and active registries as a means to reunite willing adult adoptees and birthparents. Activists have responded that these arrangements are ineffective, they demean adult adoptees and do not remedy the fundamental denial of adoptees’ right to basic information. Troxler (2001) has stated that reunion rates achieved through state and local registries are low, ranging by one estimate from a high of 4.4% to a median of 2.05%, with the lack of higher rates attributed to factors such as being under-funded and understaffed.
The History of Sealed Records in the United States
There is a general perception that adoption birth records have been sealed throughout most of our history, but adoption records and original birth certificates have not always been sealed. Sealing records is, in fact, a relatively recent development in our nation’s history. Birth certificates themselves only came to be required in the first decades of this century. In a 2001 Rutgers Law Review article, Elizabeth J. Samuels (2001) states:
Adoption law did not proceed in a simple, single step from a period in which court and birth records were closed to the public to a period in which the records were permanently closed to all of the parties. Instead, a more complete and accurate history of the law reveals interim periods, lengthy ones in many states, in which court records were closed to all, while birth records, as recommended by social services and legal authorities, were closed to everyone except the adult adoptees whose births they registered. Laws closing adoption records to the parties were enacted not as a shield to protect birth parents from their adult children’s ever learning identity, but as a sword to prevent them from interfering with the adoptive families raising the children. (p. 228)
The history of sealed adoption records is complex and fraught with misconceptions and misunderstandings. Over the past sixty years states have sealed and unsealed their records and have from time-to-time allowed or restricted adult adoptee access. Within the ever changing approach to adoption birth records there is a general historical pattern. Samuels (2001) has made a major contribution to understanding this issue by her detailed analysis of the development of the law. The patterns with this detailed history are as follows:
In the mid-1920s there were virtually no confidentiality or secrecy provisions in adoption law.
By the mid-1930s to the early 1940s, there were more state provisions for confidentiality with respect to the general public’s access to court records, but still few provisions for secrecy among the participants.
In the 1950s states began to provide adoptees with new birth certificates (listing the adoptive parents names of the birth certificate) and provisions were developed to limit access to the public but not to the adult adoptee.
By the 1960s twenty-eight states made birth records available only by court order.
The largest number of legislative actions closing birth records took place after 1979.
The Interest Groups and Their Agendas
Social constructs of interest groups are a major factor in adoption policy design. There are several groups with a stake in the policy debate over sealed records. The obvious groups are those of the adoption triad—adoptees, adoptive parents and birthparents. The other stakeholders are the adoption agencies and the adoption professionals within the agencies. There is not clear agreement within these shareholder groups, and there are vocal advocates for either open or sealed records within each of these stakeholder groups. Subgroups within the stakeholder groups have organized in an attempt to influence public policy related to sealed adoption records. Regardless of their membership as triad member or professionals, the major organizations in this policy debate can be clearly divided as advocates of sealed records or advocates for open records.
Organizations Advocating for Sealed Records
National Council for Adoption (NCFA). The National Council for Adoption, formerly the National Committee for Adoption, is a non-profit membership organization based in Washington D.C. The organization was founded in the late 1980s as an outgrowth of the efforts of the Edna Gladney Home in Fort Worth, Texas to defeat the open records provisions of the Model State Adoption Act. This opened records to adult adoptees and instructed adoption agencies to serve as intermediaries in the search by birthparents and their adult adopted children. NCFA remains the driving force in maintaining policies for sealed records. In the 1980s, the membership of NCFA included many adoption agencies throughout the country, but as adoption practices shifted from closed adoption to open adoption, many of the agencies withdrew from membership. Today their strongest members and supporters include the Gladney Center and the Latter Day Saints Social Service (National Council for Adoption, 2003).
Organizations Advocating for Open Records
Adoptees’ Liberty Movement Association (ALMA). The Adoptees’ Liberty Movement was founded by adoptee Florence Fisher, who is the author of The Search for Anna Fisher (1971). There had been earlier critics of sealed records, but the establishment of ALMA is seen by many as the beginning of the adoption reform movement in the U.S. When ALMA was formed, it strongly asserted that adoptees had a right to their records. In more recent years ALMA has focused more on search and support activities rather than open recores activism (Adoptees’ Liberty Movement, 2003).
The American Adoption Congress (AAC). AAC was founded in 1978 as a volunteer, non-profit organization bringing together the local and regional search, support, and advocacy groups on a national level. On their website, The American Adoption Congress statement of belief declares that “growth, responsibility, and respect for self and others develop best in lives that are rooted in truth. The AAC is therefore committed to achieving changes in attitudes, policies, and legislation that will guarantee access to identifying information for all adoptees and their birth and adoptive families” (American Adoption congress, 2003, p. 1).
Concerned United Birthparents (CUB). CUB began in 1976. A small group gathered to provide mutual support for birthparents, men and women who had surrendered children to adoption. CUB is in support of open records for all and does not support legislation that opens records for adult adoptees if birthparents are not included in having equal access to the birth records (Concerned United Birthparents, 2003).
Bastard Nation (BN). Bastard Nation was established in 1996 as a website and was incorporated later in the same year. The single unifying issue for Bastard Nation is equal access to adoptees original birth certificates. On their website they state:
The only unifying concepts of BN are those of being for equal access to our own original birth certificates, combating negative stereotypes of adoptees, and providing a forum for the wide spectrum of adult adoptee experience…. We are unlike any other adoption organization: we are…without a whole truckload of associated “positions” on adoption and adoption reform. (Bastard Nation, 2003, p. 1)
Bastard Nation has been focused in its mission to redefine the issue of access to birth certificates as a struggle in terms of civil rights, empowerment and tactical activism.
State Based Groups. There are numerous other interest groups operating to influence the sealed records policy. Some are state-based such as the Texas Coalition for Adoption Resources and Education, a grass-roots organization of adult adoptees, adoptive families and biological families as well as adoption professionals, organizations and others concerned about adoption issues. The stated vision of TxCare is “to see adult adoptees have access to their original Texas birth certificates and court records and to promote improved integrity in adoption law” (Texas Coalition for Adoption Resources, 2003, p. 1).
Adoption Agency Groups. The Federation for Open Adoption and the American Association of Open Adoption agencies are two of the groups made up of adoption agencies and adoption professionals who support open records. Many adoption professionals and adoption agencies that support open records either belong to or support the work of the triad-based advocacy groups. These groups were formed to combat the impression that the NCFA speaks for all adoption agencies and adoption professionals
The Nature of the Debate: Good of Society
vs. Individual Rights
On one level, the nature of the debate on adoptees access to their birth certificates is a very complex issue, but at its core it is actually two basic beliefs that are in conflict. Those who advocate sealed adoption records view adoption as “a perfect and complete substitute for creating families through childbirth" (Samuels, 2001, p. 20) and are invested in the proposition that birthparents, once separated from their children through adoption, should have no opportunity to interfere with the family created through adoption. Conversely, those who advocate for access to birth records, believe the policy of sealed birth records denies the individual rights of adults to have information that belongs to them and is being denied to them. In their view, sealed records are based on shame associated with adoption. Although most adoption experts today agree that information about one’s adoption should not be hidden from the adoptee, opponents of adoption reform have continued to characterize institutionalized secrecy or sealed records as serving the best interest of all parties involved. Search activists, on the other hand, have argued that institutionalized secrecy reinforces rather than remedies stigmatization and shame (Wegar, 1997). The sealed records controversy is a debate between two opposing conceptions of kinship, one emphasizing the biological nature of kinship and the other emphasizing the primacy of social bonds (Wegan, 1997).
Since the first sealed records law was enacted, the major argument for sealing adoption records has been that confidentiality benefits all the parties involved, including the state, as well as public interest. Hollinger (1995) states, “Sealing the adoptees’ birth certificates was intended to ensure the adoptive parents the same rights to parental autonomy and family privacy that the birthparents once had” (p. 49). By converting the issue of confidentiality into an issue of secrecy, a practice that was formerly represented in positive terms became invested with negative social meanings. This transformation was made possible by linking claims for openness with the moral themes of sincerity, authenticity and truthfulness (Wegar, 1997).
The social construct of those seeking their birth information has changed over time. Seeking to find one's birthparents or offspring was often perceived symptomatic of underlying pathology (Wegar, 1997). The Adoption Triangle, written in 1979 by a psychiatrist and two social workers, concluded that “taking a child from one set of parents and placing him/her with another set, who pretend that the child is born to them, disrupts a basic natural process. The need to be connected with one’s biological and historical past is an integral part of one’s identity formation" (Sorosky, Baren & Panner, 1979, p. 67). In clinical and popular literature, the desire to search is no longer perceived as unreasonable or as symptomatic of underlying pathology; today a lack of interest in one's biological origins is often viewed as a sign of repression (Wegar, 1997).
Advocates of open records have chosen to attack secrecy. To insert secrets (even lies) into the domain of family, intimacy, and love provided a reaction. In the wake of federal freedom of information acts, depriving an individual of “vital facts” about her- or himself was easily constructed as a denial of “rights” (Model, 2002, p. 27). NCFA Adoption President Bill Pierce has said, “Birthparents request privacy, adoptive parents have a right to non-intrusion, and above all, children deserve to be protected from the conflicting interest of adults (Model, 2002, p. 27). Florence Fisher, however, gets to the heart of the matter when she asks, "Where else in our free society is such secrecy condoned?"
In the debate over sealed records, both the search advocates and their opponents argue that their view genuinely expresses the American ethos of individualism. Adoption professionals and policy makers who oppose change have argued that the desire of some adoptees to find their biological parents jeopardizes the social institution of adoption, which, according to their views, currently benefits the society as a whole. In contrast, by positing the “social fiction” of adoption against the “natural desire” to search, activists have portrayed the adoptees' search for their biological origins as a triumph of the individual will to self-realization over the oppression of social arrangements (Wegar, 1997).

The Policy Shift Time-Line
There have been several key events that have shaped the debate on sealed records. In 1978 President Carter convened a panel of independent experts in child welfare. The result of this panel's work was a Model State Adoption Act that would open records to adult adoptees and instruct adoption agencies to serve as intermediaries in searches by birthparents for their adult adopted children (Bastard Nation, 2003). As a reaction to this event, the National Committee for Adoption was formed and has aggressively opposed open records since that time until the present.
It was not until 1994 that the next model law was recommended in the form of the Uniform Adoption Act drafted by a study committee of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The ACT would seal adoption records for ninety-nine years. The ACT was overwhelmingly approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Statute Laws (NCCUSL) for submission to the state legislatures. NCCUSL is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of more than 300 lawyers, legislators, judges, and academics who propose legislation to the states (Hollinger, 1995). The ACT is opposed by the Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, Adoptive Families of America, Catholic Charities USA, American Adoption Congress Concerned United Birthparents, National Adoption Center Adoption Exchange Association, Children Awaiting Parents and the Joint Council on International Children’s Services (Hollinger, 1995). This ACT seemed to unite the triad advocacy groups and the professional groups in opposing the act and in supporting access to birth records by adult adoptees.
In closing her law review of sealed records laws, Elizabeth Samuels (2001) says:

Although the movement of the states toward greater openness has been slow and cautious, it has been nation wide and its pace has been accelerating sharply n recent years. The numerous passive and active registries are being supplemented or supplanted by the growing number of states opening all records, re-opening records not closed at their inception, opening records prospectively, or opening all or some records subject to disclosure vetoes by birth parents. These changes both reflect and foster the difficult process of deconstructing lifelong secrecy. It may be expected that one day the number of states opening birth records will reach a critical “tipping point,” a point after which a majority of states will reject lifelong secrecy as expeditiously as they once embraced it. (p. 104)
The Debate in the Popular Media
The popular media has been a major influence in changing the social construct of adult adoptees. In the early 1970s, the effort to reform sealed records laws and agency practices was spurred by two influential autobiographical accounts of the psychological effects of the sealed records policy—Florence Fisher’s The Search for Anna Fisher and Betty Jean Lifton’s Twice Born: Memories of an Adopted Daughter (Wegar, 1997).
Search and reunion stories of adoptees and their birth relatives are common themes often featured in books, newspapers, magazines, daytime television dramas and the talk shows. Movies in popular release have also been built on an adoption search and reunion story line. The search movement has not yet reached its goal of overturning sealed records laws, but search activists have been extraordinarily successful in attracting attention to their claims by tapping into America n ideals and values. The adoption theme, particularly the theme of searching for birth parents, has emerged as a compelling human-interest story and has inspired myriad novels, plays and movies (Wegar, 1997).
Policy Design

The policy debate concerning sealed adoption records can be viewed in the context of Schneider and Ingram’s (1997) degenerative policy-making process model. In this model, the social construction identifies four different kinds of policy targets that are based on social constructs and to the extent of the political power of each group. The authors identify these groups as: (1) advantaged (who are powerful and positively constructed); (2) contenders (powerful but negatively constructed as undeserving or greedy); (3) dependents (positively constructed as “good” people but relatively needy or helpless, who have little or no political power; and (4) deviants who have virtually no political power and are negatively constructed as undeserving, violent, mean, and so forth (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). In looking at the sealed adoption record policy question, it is instructive to view the groups as the targets of the policy within this framework. In addition to the four target groups, there are also policy entrepreneurs such as policy makers, interest group leaders, political parties, media, scientists, and others. These groups anticipate how an issue needs to be framed so that the public policies advantageous to their own cause will appear to be the only rational response (Schneider & Ingram, 1997).
The group advocating to maintain sealed records are, for the most part, members of the “advantaged” class—affluent adoptive parents. As members of this group they carry a positive social construct and are thought to be deserving. They are solidly a part of the middle to upper class. Their inability to have biological children evokes empathy and there decision to adopt is viewed as commendable. On this issue they have demonstrated their ability to organize and influence policy decisions. The most effective strategy for the closed records advocates it to continue to frame the issue as their protecting birthparents rights to privacy. This is one, if not the only, justification to oppose the adult adoptees' claim of rights to their birth records. This group must also continue to assert their claim that closed records are good for society and that their position protects children from the conflicts between adults. Adoption is a popular political issue and the advocates of sealed records will do well to promote their position as promoting family values.
The advocates of open records and their activities can best be understood by viewing them as an emergent contending group whose power lies mainly in their legal, ethical, and moral claims for equality and justice (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). In the legislative arena this group is no match for the elite advantaged group. While they may continue the policy battle in the legislatures it is most likely that the courts are their best avenue for opening birth records. As these groups continue their advocacy with the backing of the professional groups and positive portrayal in the media, their power and ability to impact the policy debate will improve. Their cause will best be served by continuing to frame open records as a justice issue and their birth records as their rights. The advocacy groups have been successful in moving the public perception of adult adoptees from a status of dependency to a status of emerging contender. Their challenge is to continue their progress toward being seeing as deserving of their rights and refuting claims that this is being done at the expense of adoptive parents are birthparents.
While it may seem contradictory, it will be wise for the adult adoptee advocacy groups to separate themselves from the birthparent advocacy groups. Birthparents are likely to be viewed, at best, a dependent group and at worst a deviant group. While birthparent advocacy groups share the goal of open records, their claim to these records are seen in a very different light. At the time of the adoption, they relinquished their rights and therefore are most likely to been seen as having no claim to re-assert those rights. Birth parents have also received a more positive public image due the popular media interest in search and reunion stories, but it will be difficult for this group to be viewed as deserving. Birthparent groups can be supportive of the efforts of adult adoptee groups, but they are not likely to have success is asserting their “rights” to open records. Their most effective role in the policy debate is to dispute the claims of the sealed records advocates that they are protecting the privacy rights of birthparents, a right which studies have shown is not wanted by almost 95% of birthparents. (Samuels, 2001)
Conclusion
Due to a change in the social constructs of adult adoptees, we are currently observing is the final stage of a policy shift from a policy of sealed adoption records to a policy of open records. Since the early voices of change in the 1970s, we have moved to a time in which open records are supported (or at a minimum, sealed records are opposed) by the majority of professional organizations. Adoption practice has moved far in the direction of openness, as have the rank and file adoption workers.
Public opinion has moved from viewing searching adult adoptees as defective or unappreciative to viewing them as people seeking information that this rightly theirs. The only group standing squarely in opposition to open records is the National Commission for Adoption and the few powerful adoption agencies and the adoptive parents that they represent. This group, however, represents adoptive parents who are politically powerful and influential
Adult adoptees actively seeking access to their birth records have moved from a position of dependency to a more powerful political presence. If there is to be a final move in policy to open records, it will most likely come from the courts and will be based on a finding of individual rights (Schneider & Ingraham, 1997). As long as the question remains in the legislative area, open records activists will continue to face attitudes that the country is not ready for this policy shift. Sealed records advocates will continue to do well in the legislative arena. Policies that favor the advantaged group, adoptive parents advocating closed records, will be implemented by written statute. The legislative strength of this group is seen in its ability to have the 1994 Uniform Adoption Act call for sealing records for ninety-nine years. The slow pace of change, in spite of the changes in professional opinion, public opinion and increased activism, can be understood by the reluctance of legislators to impose burdens on this advantaged group (Schneider & Ingram, 1997).
There are several possible scenarios that can settle the sealed records policy debate. The courts could rule that the adult adoptees have a right to their birth information, and with that the issue would be settled. Or as, Elizabeth Samuels (2001) has suggested, the legislatures will continue to move, albeit slowly, toward opening the records until we reach a critical “tipping point,” a point at which a majority of states will reject lifelong secrecy as expeditiously as they once embraced it. Or in the absence of either of these events, the informal structures of search and reunion and agency practice toward open adoption will continue until the policy of sealed records becomes moot. Regardless of the policy path taken, the time for sealed adoption records appears to be nearing its end.
References
About Adoption. Home page. Retrieved from the Web March 3, 2003. http://www.adoption.about.com/
Adoptees’ Liberty Movement. Home page. Retrieved from the Web march 3, 2003. http://almasociety.org/
American Adoption Congress. Home page. Retrieved from the Web march 3, 2003. http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/
Bastard Nation. Home page. Retrieved from the Web March 12, 2003. http://www.bastards.org/
Carp, E. W. (1998). Family matters: Secrecy and disclosure in the history of adoption. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Concerned United Birthparents. Home page. Retrieved from the Web March 5, 2003. http://www.cubirthparents.org/
Freundlich, M. (2000). Adoption ethics (p. 8). (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Hollinger, J. H. (1995). The Uniform Adoption Act. The Future of Children: Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs, 5(3).
Lang, S. S. (1997). Adoptive parents favor opening adoption records. Human Ecology, 25(2), 2.
Modell, J. S. (2002). A sealed and secret kinship: The culture and policies and practices in American adoption. New York: Berghahn Books.
National Council for Adoption. Retrieved from the Web March 5, 2003. http://www.ncfa-usa.org/
Open Adoption. Home page. Retrieved from the Web March 1, 2003. http://www.openadoption.org/
Samuels, E. J. (2001). The idea of adoption: An inquiry into the history of adult adoptee access to birth records. Camden, NJ: Rutgers University.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas
Texas Coalition for Adoption Resources. Home page. Retrieved from the Web March 11. 2003. http://www.cubirthparents.org/
Troxler, G. W. (2001). Human rights and responsibilities in adoption. Retrieved from the Web, March 11, 2001). http://americanadoptioncongress.org/regional.html
Wegar, K. (1997). Adoption, identity, and kinship. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

NJCARE responds with facts

NJCARE responds with facts
to the claims of NCFA (National Council for Adoption)

National Council for Adoption makes several claims against access to original birth certificates.


NJCARE provides the facts and data…You decide.


1. NCFA says, “Access legislation violates birth parents’ basic human right to privacy.”
NJCARE asserts that allowing adopted adults access to their own birth and adoption records does not violate the alleged promise of privacy made to birth parents in the past. The laws of New Jersey have never guaranteed a right of lifelong anonymity to birth parents.
In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) reiterated their opinion, “…the Constitution does not encompass a general right to nondisclosure of private information.” (Doe, et al v. Sundquist, et al No. 96-6197)
Access to original birth certificates will not be available to the public.

2. NCFA says, “Access legislation would increase the number of unwanted, unilaterally imposed contacts and wreak havoc in people’s lives.”
In 1996, Gerald Gioglio, Division of Youth and Family Services, Adoption Registry stated, “95% of birth families contacted on behalf of adopted adults welcomed direct contact by the adoptee.”
NJCARE asserts that access legislation gives birth parents an opportunity to make their wishes known by filing a contact preference form. We further believe that adult adoptees would honor a request for “no contact” to avoid further rejection by their birth parents.

3. NCFA says, “Access legislation would undermine the strength of the adoptive family.”
Knowing that records are accessible does not force either search or reunion; it simply makes it possible for the adopted person to obtain their own birth records. The family created by adoption is the individual’s forever family. Access to the truth of the adopted person’s origins puts them on an equal basis with other family members and all other non-adopted citizens. Access to the truth does not diminish or sever relationships cemented by love and a shared history. When openness replaces secrecy, the blessings of adoption are multiplied for all family members.
(continued)

4. NCFA says, “Access legislation would reduce the number of adoptions and increase the number of abortions and the number of children in foster care.”
Their arguments about women choosing abortion or single parenting are inconsistent. In Alaska and Kansas, which always allowed access to adult adoptees, adoption rates are higher than the national average while abortion rates are lower than the national average.
The “U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics” published in 2004 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute indicates that New Jersey, a “sealed records” state since 1940, has the highest rate of teenage abortions in the country.
If Oregon and Alabama trends following access legislation correlate with New Jersey, adoptions here will increase and abortions will decrease following passage of such legislation.

5. NCFA says, “Access legislation would perpetuate the myth that adopted persons face debilitating identity problems.” And, “A vast majority of adoptees do not search.”
NJCARE agrees with NCFA: “The vast majority of persons adopted at a young age accept their adoption readily and grow up to be successful, happy, stable adults at the same rate as people raised in their biological families.” If it is true that very few adopted persons care about their identifying information or actually search for birth family members, then what is all the fuss about? When the adopted adult’s personal history is not shrouded in secrecy, the ties of trust within the family are strengthened.

6. NCFA says, “Access legislation would add nothing to the adopted person’s ability to obtain medical information.”
NJCARE asserts that access to original birth certificates will restore the adoptees’ right to know the truth of their heritage, and it will provide them with the opportunity to learn their own social, ethnic and family medical histories. To be helpful, medical histories should be current. Accurate medical history cannot be obtained from decades-old records; someone must contact birth family members to gain access to that history.
The proposed law gives birth parents the opportunity to choose whether or not, and if so, how, they would prefer to be contacted, if their adult daughter or son wishes to be in touch with them. If this isn’t leveling the playing field, we don’t know what is.
Note: The documentation that NCFA provides is largely anecdotal and uses statistics from its own “Fact Book”. In addition, NCFA has never produced documentation to substantiate their claim that confidentiality was promised to birth parents.

NJ Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE) http://www.nj-care.org
Contact: Judy Foster, birth parent, 973-455-1268, jfoster7@optonline.net; Pam Hasegawa, adoptee, 973-292-2440, pamgawa@optonline.net; or
Jane Nast, adoptive parent, 973-267-8698, janenast@compuserve.com.2 September 2004

NJCARE on National Council for Adoption (NCFA)

NJCARE on National Council for Adoption (NCFA)

Background:
NCFA…
has opposed adult adoptee access-to-birth-certificate legislation since its founding in 1980.
unsuccessfully funded litigation against access-to-records laws in Tennessee and Oregon when State Supreme Courts in Tennessee and Oregon upheld the access laws.
unsuccessfully lobbied the New Hampshire legislature to bury an access bill, SB 335 (similar to NJ S1093), which was passed into law on May 11, 2004.
successfully lobbied against access legislation in Georgia and Nevada.
provides anecdotal “documentation” and unsubstantiated “evidence” from NCFA’s own Adoption “Factbook” to influence legislators.
NCFA has never produced documentation to substantiate their claim that confidentiality was promised to birth parents.
represents two of the 64 agencies licensed to do adoptions in New Jersey.
History:
NCFA…
is a Washington, DC-based trade association supported by the Edna Gladney Home (a Texas adoption agency with 11 state branches), 56 LDS (Mormon) agencies, and 32 other private agencies/branches.
was established and has been funded by the Edna Gladney Home since NCFA’s incorporation in 1980.
primary goals were:
to stop the ratification of the Model State Adoption Act (MSAA) - Federal Register, Feb. 15, 1980.
to establish state-level mutual consent voluntary registries run by state chapters of NCFA.
convinced legislators in 21 states to establish mutual consent voluntary registries instead of supporting the MSAA. Such registries have a median success rate of 2%.
has collaborated with NJ Catholic Conference and NJ Right to Life lobbyists in opposing access legislation at previous NJ hearings. All alluded to breach of “promises of confidentiality” and predicted an increase in abortions and decrease in adoptions if access legislation became law. The facts prove otherwise.
and other opponents have implied that legislators supporting access will lose votes.
has implied that implementing the legislation will be very costly. Note: S1093 appropriates $90,000 for implementation. Those requesting documents will pay other incidental costs.
NJCARE Notes:
Each member agency pays NCFA a substantial membership fee and additional money for every child the agency places. Adoption is a lucrative business - for some.
New Jersey Assemblyman Al Burstein chaired the HEW panel that drafted the proposed Model State Adoption Act. Gladney and NCFA opposed the Act because of its fundamental premise that, “parent and child are considered co-owners of the information concerning the event of birth”.
NJCARE respectfully requests that the Committee require NCFA et al to document their claims.There are over 1,400 adoption agencies in the nation and 64 in NJ. (As per National Adoption Information Clearinghouse). NCFA represents only 3% of agencies licensed to do adoptions in New Jersey.

NJ Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE) http://www.nj-care.org
Contact: Judy Foster, birth parent, 973-455-1268, jfoster7@optonline.net; Pam Hasegawa, adoptee, 973-292-2440, pamgawa@optonline.net; or
Jane Nast, adoptive parent, 973-267-8698, janenast@compuserve.comSeptember 2004

Student Group Advocates for Original Birth Certificates for Adult Adoptees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Student Group Advocates for Original Birth Certificates for Adult Adoptees

AUSTIN, Mar 16, 2005/ A group of students from the University of Texas at Arlington Graduate School of Social Work will get a lesson in legislative education on Thursday and Friday. As part of a class project, they will go to Austin to educate legislators about House Bill 770 and Senate Bill 364, which would grant access to original birth certificates for adult adoptees. The group of students have teamed up with the Texas Coalition for Adoption Resources and Education (TxCARE) to meet with legislators and discuss personal stories of how adoption has affected them. They will be joined by students from the Texas Tech University Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance, the Texas Tech School of Nursing, and individuals affected by adoption from Austin and East Texas.

Since the early 1970s, the state of Texas has sealed birth certificates when an adoption is finalized. An amended birth certificate is issued, and the original is only accessible with a court order. This can be difficult to obtain, as the petitioning party has to show “good cause”. Sometimes, even adoptees who need this information for medical history purposes are denied access to their records. The most common reason cited is the preservation of “birth parent confidentiality”. HB 770/SB 364 would grant access to original birth certificates to adoptees upon reaching age 21, and would create a “contact preference form” to allow those birth parents who do not wish to be reunited with the adopted person an opportunity to express that preference. If any birth parent can provide a copy of the signed affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights relating to the adopted child that promises anonymity, the original birth certificate cannot be released without a court order. It is doubted that any such document exists.

“Over 95% of birth parents do not want ‘confidentiality’, nor were they ever promised it. This notion of a lifetime of secrecy was forced upon them, and we have never found a legal document making that kind of a promise,” said Nancy Schaefers, adoptee, and President of TxCARE. Katy Perkins, President of the National Association of Social Workers Maverick Student Chapter and adoptee, explained “this is not about search and reunion, it is about rights. Most people have easy access to this very personal and vital information about themselves, and they take that for granted.”

The students from UTA believe that having such a diverse range of perspectives will help legislators see that records access is an important issue affecting many different facets of life. “If I were adopted, I would want to know that I had the same rights as everyone else,” said Karyn Kelbaugh, social work group project member, “and it’s discriminatory to treat them differently simply because of the circumstances surrounding their birth.”

TxCARE is a grass-roots organization of adult adoptees, adoptive & biological families, adoption professionals, organizations & others concerned about adoption issues. TxCARE’s mission is “to promote an adoption system based on honesty and trust that protects the interests of the adoptee, birth family, and adoptive family, while placing the adoptee's interests first if there is a conflict.”

Contact: Nancy Schaefers, TxCARE President, +214-363-0515, nes710@aol.com
Katy Perkins, NASW-UTA Maverick Student Chapter President +214-952-2125, kathrynkperkins@yahoo.com

###

Testimony Before the Children and Family Law Committee

Testimony Before the Children and Family Law Committee
of the New Hampshire House of Representatives on Senate Bill 335
by Adam Pertman
Executive Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
April 6, 2004


Good morning and thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify on SB 335, permitting adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates. The issue you are examining today is far more important than most people perceive it to be, both in practical terms for the tens of millions of Americans that it stigmatizes – and I mean both birth parents and adopted people – and symbolically, because we keep secrets about things we are ashamed of or embarrassed about. So, when we seal birth certificates, we send the clear signal that adoption is somehow a lesser way of forming a family, because it has something to hide from the very start. Thank God, we are emerging from the period of our history in which people actually believed that was true, a period in which adoption was a shadowy secret, a period in which we denigrated nearly everyone touched by this wondrous institution, a period in which we even turned the words “you’re adopted” into an insult. My children are not an insult, and neither are anyone else’s, regardless of how they came into a family or why they left one. But some remnants of those dark days remain, and sealed birth certificates are one of those remnants.

It is also difficult to learn much about secrets. As a result, many myths, misconceptions and stereotypes have come to be widely accepted – even by some professionals in the adoption field. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, which I am proud to head, has no formal ties with any interest group or segment of the adoption community. It is an independent research and education organization that was created for just one reason: to provide accurate, research-based information for practitioners, policymakers, journalists and others so that we, as a society, can shape better laws, policies and practices to improve the lives of everyone touched by adoption, especially children.

I will try not to take up too much of your time. So I’ve boiled down the rest of my testimony into bullet points about research that applies specifically to the issue of sealed birth certificates. I will steer away from any disputed findings, and will stick to only those confirmed by hard data, widely accepted studies, or pervasive experience. I will submit footnotes and supporting materials for the record:

* First, as you have already heard, it is a historical fact that adoption-related records – in New Hampshire and across the United States – were closed to protect adopted children from the stigma and shame of illegitimacy, and biological mothers from the stigma and shame of unwed motherhood. The clear legislative and professional intent was to prevent access to those records by the public, not by the parties to an adoption themselves. Historically, the notion that birth certificates were sealed to ensure the anonymity of birth mothers is simply untrue, irrespective of whether providing anonymity is a good idea or not.

* Second, it needs to be stressed that adopted people are not stalkers or ingrates or children in search of new mommies and daddies. They are simply adults who want the same information the rest of us receive as a birthright. In his book “Roots,” Alex Haley wrote: “In all of us there is a hunger, marrow deep, to know our heritage, to know who we are and where we have come from. Without this enriching knowledge, there is a hollow yearning; no matter what our attainments in life, there is the most disquieting loneliness.” Research, experience and instinct all affirm Haley’s eloquent observation. And adopted people are not exempt from the laws of nature. They love their parents – that is, their adoptive parents – just as much and are just as loyal as if they had been born to them. But a growing majority wants to know who they are and where they came from.

Statistically, most do not form relationships with their biological kin or even make contact; for them, just having the most basic information about themselves is enough; it makes them feel they are treated equally, and it makes them feel whole. The fact is that access to their documents has become an issue that is separate from the question of “search” anyway. That is because, as a result of the Internet and other modern-day resources, many if not most adoptees who want to find their birth relatives can do so with or without their original birth certificates. One other detail relating to adoptees: They are wrong when they complain that they are the only Americans whose records are automatically sealed, and cannot be opened without court approval. In fact, the same process applies to people placed in the Federal Witness Protection Program.

* Third, the notion that a lack of anonymity leads women to have abortions rather than place their children for adoption is pure fiction. It may sound correct intuitively but, in fact, just the opposite is true in practice; the research indicates that women are at least as likely to carry their babies to term and place them into adoptive homes if they believe they will have ongoing knowledge about what happened to those children. The evidence is in the growing number of states where adoption records have most recently been unsealed, and it extends much further and for much longer: In Kansas and Alaska, the only two states in which records have never been closed, there have consistently been fewer abortions and more adoptions than in states that border them or in the country as a whole.

* Fourth, on the critically important question of the birth mothers’ desires, the research is unambiguous: Every study I have seen or am aware of relating to whether they want anonymity clearly shows that the vast majority do not – and that applies to those who were verbally assured of anonymity as well as those who were verbally assured they would one day have contact with the children they bore; yes, many women were promised exactly the opposite of anonymity, but those promises are seldom publicly discussed. Back to the numbers: Depending on the study, between 80 and 95 percent of birth mothers do indeed want some level of information or contact with the lives they created. That doesn’t mean they want to give up their privacy, but there’s a huge difference between privacy and secrecy. And it doesn’t mean they necessarily want the information or contact right away – some only want it years later, when they’ve had enough time to deal with the personal and emotional consequences of their action or, increasingly often, when they discover they have genetic or medical information they want to share.

Even among those who genuinely thought they wanted anonymity at the time of placement, the majority eventually changes their minds. Life is not a snapshot, after all, and few of us would want to live forever with the decisions we made at the age of 17, or even 25. Yet the core argument against unsealing birth records is predicated on the mistaken belief that birth mothers are of one mind – and it will never change. This is not only a fundamental misunderstanding of research and experience, on a human level it assumes a woman can carry a child within her and then part with that child and just “move on,” as though she has given away an old record player. That view – essentially relegating women to the role of baby-making machines – pervaded adoption for generations. Thank God, it is changing radically and adoption practices are being reshaped in comprehensive, historic ways as a result. The bottom line is that birth certificates remain sealed in most of our country today because of lingering myths and mistaken stereotypes.

Finally, keeping birth certificates sealed contradicts the stated desires of almost everyone directly affected, and it flies in the face of majority opinion throughout the United States. That applies to birth mothers, who seldom choose not to be contacted in states where they can state a preference; it applies to adopted people who – once they are adults – favor access to their records by margins of about 4 to 1; it applies to a large and growing number of adoptive parents, a clear majority of whom have already told their children about their origins anyway; and, according to a recent study, it applies to the American public as a whole. The study, which had a 3 percent margin of error, asked this question: “Should adopted children be granted full access to their adoption records when they become adults?” Eighty-four percent responded, “yes.”

I respectfully ask the members of this committee to put aside the aberrational anecdotes, emotional appeals, and corrosive myths on which too much public policy relating to adoption has been based for far too long. Instead, please examine the research. I believe that, after you do, you will come to the same conclusion as that 84 percent. Again, thank you very much.







Copied With Permission

Landmark Study Shows Vast Majority of Americans Support Adoption

LANDMARK STUDY SHOWS VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT ADOPTION
Positive Attitudes Toward Adoption Give New Reason for Hope

DUBLIN, Ohio, June 19, 2002 – Nearly 40% of American adults, or 81.5 million people, have considered adopting a child. If just one in 500 of these adults adopt, all of the 134,000 children in foster care waiting for adoption would have permanent, loving families, according to the new National Adoption Attitudes Survey. Among a number of other insights now available to the adoption community, the survey revealed overwhelming support for adoption, giving America’s waiting children new reason for hope.

Commissioned by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption and conducted in cooperation with the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, the research has established important new benchmarks about society’s perception of adoption. Prior to this landmark study, very little comprehensive research existed on Americans’ attitudes toward adoption, particularly related to children in foster care.

“This groundbreaking information gives us even greater optimism that we can absolutely place far more children with safe, loving and permanent families,” said Rita Soronen, executive director of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. “The key is to use this valuable tool to further heighten public awareness about foster care adoption and shift positive opinions into tangible actions.”

Survey statistics overall showed that adoption in the millennium has a better reputation than ever, and that people are connecting with the idea of adoption as good for their families and for society:

· 4 in 10 American adults (81.5 million) have considered adoption for their own families
· 63 percent of all American adults have a very favorable opinion about adoption (seven percentage point increase since measured in 1997)
· 64 percent have experienced adoption within their own families or among close friends (a six percentage point increase since 1997)
· 78 percent believe the country should be doing more to encourage adoption
· 95 percent think adoptive parents should receive the same maternity and paternity benefits from employers as biological parents
· Hispanic populations are more likely (54 percent) to consider adoption than African-American (45 percent) and White populations (36 percent) – though African-Americans are most likely to consider adopting a child who has been in foster care for a few years

- more -

NATIONAL ADOPTION ATTITUDES SURVEY/2

“This research shows that Americans are more positive about adoption than ever before – in large part due to their personal experiences with it,” said Cindy Freidmutter, executive director of the Adoption Institute. “We still have a lot of work to do to address misperceptions and improve support for adoptive families, so that every child has a home.”

MISPERCEPTIONS ADDRESSED
While the study revealed a large number of potential parents for the adoption community to recruit, it also noted some misperceptions that easily can be overcome with the right education and communication initiatives.

Perhaps the most common misperception was the fear of a birth parent taking back a child. Eighty-two percent of Americans cited this concern in the study, when in reality this practically never happens.

Respondents also were concerned about the costs of adoption. One in two Americans say that the cost of adoption is a major concern. Adoption cost issues worry almost half of middle income Americans (45 percent) (those earning from $25,000 to $99,000) who comprise the majority of American households, as well as over half (52 percent) of lower income Americans. This concern exists despite a $10,000 federal adoption tax credit, low-to-no cost foster care adoptions and growing employer benefits.

“These examples show that all of us in the adoption community need to do a far better job educating potential families about the realities of adopting a child from foster care,” added Soronen. “But while we certainly need more support for adoptive families, the good news is that many excellent resources already exist to help them.”

According to the survey, concern over the health and behavior of an adoptive child ranked highest – above concerns over adopting an older child or one of a different race. Although half of Americans said they have a high opinion of the foster care system, survey participants were more concerned about potential future problems affecting children from the foster care system.

“It is a common misconception that adopted children experience significantly more long-term problems than biological children.” Cindy Freidmutter points out. “In reality, the differences are less significant than people think.”

Respondents also cited specific support needs, including insurance for pre-existing conditions, increased education, support and counseling.

The survey results will be disseminated nationally to the adoption community, policymakers and other interested parties. The full report and results are available online at www.davethomasfoundationforadoption.org and www.adoptioninstitute.org.

- more -
NATIONAL ADOPTION ATTITUDES SURVEY/3

The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption is a non-profit public charity dedicated to increasing the adoptions of the more than 134,000 children in North America's foster care system who are without permanent families. The Foundation focuses on supporting and creating premier adoption programs related to special needs children waiting for homes -- sibling groups, teenagers, minorities and medically fragile children -- in support of Dave Thomas' vision that every child can and must have a permanent home and a loving family. For more information, visit www.davethomasfoundationforadoption.org.

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute is a national not-for-profit organization that provides a reliable, objective and respected voice for adopted persons, biological and adoptive families, and adoption professionals. Its mission is to improve the quality of information about adoption, enhance the understanding and perception of adoption, and advance adoption policy and practice based on reliable information. For more information, visit www.adoptioninstitute.org.

###


The National Adoption Attitudes Survey was fully commissioned by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption in cooperation with Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute in New York. The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive, publisher of The Harris Poll ® by telephone from January 10 to January 31, 2002 polling 1,416 Americans 18 and older. The survey drew responses from the general population, including more than 250 interviews with African Americans and more than 250 interviews with Hispanics to ensure adequate representation of minority opinion. The margin of error attributable to sampling and other random effects for percentages near 50 percent is plus or minus three points for the entire sample.

Annotated List of Books on Adoption

New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE)
Annotated List of Books on Adoption
A selected list (not meant to be all-inclusive)
Adoptive Parenting
ADOPTION WITHOUT FEAR. James L Gritter. Corona Publishing Co., 1989. Seventeen couples tell their emotion-filled experiences with open adoption. They conclude: “Would we do it again? You bet!”
ADOPTIVE KINSHIP: A Modern Institution in Need of Reform. H. David Kirk. Ben-Simon, 1985. A critical examination of adoption practices and legal provisions in North America, which subscribe to secrecy, contradiction and discrimination. Academically oriented, this book delves into many more sensitive, secrecy-related topics often ignored.
BEING ADOPTED: The Lifelong Search for Self. David M. Brodzinsky et al. Doubleday, 1992. Uses Erik Erikson’s stages of life, the expertise of adoption professionals and adoptees to show how adoption is experienced over a lifetime.
COURAGEOUS BLESSING: ADOPTIVE PARENTS & SEARCH. Carol L Demuth. A thoughtfully written handbook for adoptive parents. Available through: Aries Center, 1437 Meandering Way, Garland, TX 75040-4213.
DEAR BIRTHMOTHER. Kathleen Silber & Phyllis Speedlin. Corona, 1991 (1st Ed 1983). A compilation of letters written to birthmothers by the adoptive parents of their children. An early perspective on open adoptions.
The FAMILY OF ADOPTION. Joyce Maguire Pavao. Beacon Press, 1999. An insightful book which enlightens everyone about adoption.
HOW TO OPEN AN ADOPTION: A Guide for Parents and Birthparents of Minors. Patricia Martinez Dorner. R-Squared Press, 1997. A valuable resource for families in closed adoptions, those who are in the process of opening an adoption or those who have already done so.
INSIDE TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION: Strength-based, culture-sensitizing parenting strategies for inter-country or domestic adoptive families that don’t “match.” Gail Steinberg & Beth Hall. Perspectives Press, 2000. Comprehensive guide aimed primarily at white adoptive parents; offers practical information from hair care to holidays. A must-read for multi-racial families created through adoption and helpful for anyone raising children today.
The MULBERRY BIRD: Story of an Adoption. Anne Brodzinsky. Perspectives Press, 1996. For younger children (beyond pre-school); tells the story of a mother bird who tries to care for her baby, then decides to place it for adoption and explains her reasons in a non-threatening way.
OVER THE MOON: An Adoption Tale. Karen Katz. Henry Holt, 1997. Magical and reassuring story of international adoption just right for the youngest child. A good model for sharing your child’s own story with him or her.
New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE), 29 Hill Street, Morristown, NJ 07960.
973-292-2440 or 973-267-8698, Fax: 973-267-8305 or 973-267-3356, Email: pamgawa@optonline.net



PERSPECTIVES ON A GRAFTED TREE. Patricia Irwin Johnston. Perspectives Press, 1983. A lovely collection of poetry expressing perspectives of all members of the triad.
RAISING ADOPTED CHILDREN: Practical Reassuring Advice for Every Adoptive Parent. Lois R Melina. Harper Perennial, Rev. 1998. Editor of Adopted Children newsletter, mother of two adopted children, draws on latest research in psychology, sociology and medicine to guide parents through stages of adoptees’ development. Addresses open, international and transracial adoption & parents’ FAQs.
REAL PARENTS, REAL CHILDREN: Parenting the Adopted Child. Holly Van Gulden & Lisa M. Bartels-Rabb. Crossroad, New York 1995. Leading adoption authority gives practical advice for parents on how to talk with their children about adoption. Addresses special challenges and concerns of interracial, international and older-child adoptions.
SHARED FATE: A Theory of Adoption and Mental Health. H. David Kirk. Free Press, 1964. Adoptive father/sociologist expresses a theory of adoptive relationships - thoroughly attuned, insightful, compassionate and timeless in its wisdom.
The SNAKE-STONE. Berlie Doherty. Orchard Books, 1995. A well-written book for young teens in which a young man’s search for his birthmother leads him to feel more connected to his natural talents and at ease with himself.
TALKING WITH YOUNG CHILDREN ABOUT ADOPTION. Mary Watkins & Susan Fisher, MD. Yale Univ. Press, 1995. A clinical psychologist and a psychiatrist, both adoptive mothers, insightfully & sympathetically prepare parents for conversations with their children about adoption.
TELL ME A REAL ADOPTION STORY. Betty Jean Lifton. Illustrated by Claire A. Nivola. Knopf, 1993. A small boy listens to his adoptive mother’s made-up stories about his adoption but insists on the real one, which she then tells. This story he likes because it’s his.
TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT THE NIGHT I WAS BORN. Jamie Lee Curtis. Harper Collins Juvenile Books, 1996. Beautifully illustrated by Laura Cornell, the story of a young adopted girl’s birth is a cherished family tale.
TELLING THE TRUTH TO YOUR ADOPTED OR FOSTER CHILD: Making Sense of the Past. Jayne Schooler & Betsy Keefer. Bergin & Garvey, 2000. Provides excellent and straightforward guidance for adoptive and foster parents. Easy format gives parents the help they need to share information openly and honestly at various stages with their children, adolescents and adults.
TWENTY THINGS ADOPTED KIDS WISH THEIR ADOPTIVE PARENTS KNEW. Sherrie Eldridge. Dell, 1999. A guide to emotions of the adoptee and ways adoptive parents can allay feelings of fear, abandonment and shame.


WHERE ARE MY BIRTH PARENTS? A Guide for Teenage Adoptees. Karen Gravelle & Susan Fischer. Walker, 1993. Discusses how and why adopted children may try to locate and get to know their birth parents. Examines possible psychological benefits and associated problems.
THE WHOLE LIFE ADOPTION BOOK: Realistic Advice for Building a Healthy Adoptive Family. Jayne Schooler. Navpress, 1993. Author deals with issues of attachment, adjustment and identity. By being prepared, parents can avoid the disillusionment, feelings of inadequacy and resentment that may come with unrealistic expectations. Gives hope and direction to all involved in adoption issues.
Personal Accounts
A MAN AND HIS MOTHER. Tim Green. Harper Collins, 1997. With intelligence and emotional honesty, former football star Tim Green (now a novelist and commentator) tackles the subject of his search for his birthmother.
AIN’T NOTHIN’ AS SWEET AS MY BABY. Jett Williams. AdJett Productions, 1997. The autobiography of a child who became a ward of the State and later was adopted. The legal system conspired to keep her from knowing who she was. Follow her through the court battle to be acknowledged as Hank Williams’ daughter.
AN ADOPTED WOMAN. Katrina Maxtone-Graham. Remi, 1983. A well-written memoir by a New York City woman who found her birth mother in Mexico. Obstacles to searching twenty years ago are powerfully and poignantly documented.
The ADOPTION READER: Birth Mothers, Adoptive Mothers & Adopted Daughters Tell Their Stories. Susan Wadia-Ells, Editor. Seal Press, 1995. Thirty women, including well-known writers and adoption activists, write eloquently about a wide range of adoption experiences, including international adoption.
BENEATH A TALL TREE. Jean Strauss. Arete, 2001. Best-selling author’s memoir about her quest to unearth her past. An incredibly funny and touching journey that redefines the meaning of family and celebrates the universal connections that link us all.
BIRTH MARK. Lorraine Dusky. M. Evans & Co., 1979. Eloquent first memoir written by a birthmother.
BIRTHMOTHERS: Women Who Have Relinquished Babies for Adoption Tell Their Stories. Merry Bloch Jones. Chicago Review Press, 1993. Seventy women share their experiences of giving birth and placing a child for adoption, raising subsequent children, searching and being found.
FAMILY SECRETS. Harriett Webster. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1991. Through down-to-earth and true-life stories, this book gives a bird’s-eye view of the damage that is done when we keep family secrets. The author says the biggest secret of all is that sharing our shames and sorrows helps us grow in love and understanding.
The GIFT WRAPPED IN SORROW: A Mother’s Quest for Healing. Jane Guttman. JMJ Publishing, 1999. A memoir spanning three decades of loss and love, regret and remorse, during which the author discovers the gifts that are ever-present amid many saddening recollections.
GIVING AWAY SIMONE: A Memoir. Jan Waldron. Times Books, 1995. The author reunited with her daughter when the girl was eleven years old. Waldron powerfully describes the struggle of birthmother and child to build a relationship.
ITHAKA: A Daughter’s Memoir of Being Found. Sarah Saffian. Basic Books, 1998. A gripping true story of a young woman’s quest for the meaning of family and belonging.
LOOKING FOR LOST BIRD: A Jewish Woman Discovers Her Navajo Roots. Yvette Melanson. Bard Books, 1999. An inspirational story for adoptees, particularly Native Americans seeking to uncover their past. Hallmark TV movie.
LOST & FOUND: The Adoption Experience. Betty Jean Lifton. Harper Collins, 1988 (1st Ed. 1979). Based on an adoptee’s talks with other adoptees. Includes conversations with birthparents and adoptive parents, making this a good all-around starter book.
MAY THE CIRCLE BE UNBROKEN: An Intimate Journey Into the Heart of Adoption. Lynn Franklin & Elizabeth Ferber. Harmony Books, 1998. A no-nonsense book that weaves a poignant memoir of a woman who reunited with the child she gave up for adoption with many stories from others into an intelligent, well-informed and complete picture of the varied experience of adoption.
MOMMIE DEAREST. Christina Crawford. Seven Springs Press, 1997 (1st Ed. 1978). A shocking and heartbreaking story by Joan Crawford’s adopted daughter. Also 1981 movie about the abuse suffered by Joan Crawford’s adopted children.
MOTHER CAN YOU HEAR ME? Elizabeth Cooper Allen. Dodd Mead, 1983. An extraordinary true story of an adopted daughter’s reunion with her birthmother after a separation of fifty years. Order from author via email: betglori@aol.com.
OUT OF THE DARKNESS: How a Birthmother Found Herself While Searching for Her Daughter. Helen Stummer. HMS Press. For birthmothers who have put the past behind them or those interested in experience of relinquishment. Contact author, hmstummer@earthlink.net ($7, incl. postage)
OUT OF THE SHADOWS: Birthfather Stories. Mary Martin Mason. Howard, 1995. Frank, honest look at those who had confidence to speak out. Often invisible, birthfathers care deeply and in many cases had no say in their child’s future.
The OTHER MOTHER: A Woman’s Love for the Child She Gave Up for Adoption. Carol Schaefer. Soho Press, 1991. A Bay Area woman tells her experience of pregnancy in a Midwest maternity home, relinquishing her son, her years of loss, her search and reunion. 1995 TV movie.
REUNION: A Year in Letters Between a Birthmother and the Daughter She Couldn’t Keep. Katie Hern & Ellen McGarry Carlson. Seal Press, 1999. Beautifully written and authentic exchange between an English instructor at a Bay Area university and gay adoptee and her birthmother as they get to know each other and face the inevitable issues and emotions of reunion.
SACRED CONNECTIONS – Stories of Adoption Essays. Mary Ann Koenig. Running Press 2000. Twenty-four stories in which adopted persons, birth parents and adoptive parents share their moving experiences of finding the sacred connections in their lives. Niki Berg’s beautiful photography.
The SEARCH FOR ANNA FISHER. Florence Fisher. Arthur Fields and Fawcett Press, 1973. Groundbreaking memoir by the founder of Adoptees’ Liberty Movement Association (ALMA) that catapulted the adoption reform movement into public consciousness.
SEARCHING FOR A PAST: The Adopted Adult’s Unique Process of Finding Identity. Jayne Schooler. Pinon Press, 1995. Provides insight into adoptees’ motivations to search for their birth families. Essential resource for all members of the triad as well as anyone desiring a better understanding of the search and reunion process.
SECOND CHOICE: Growing Up Adopted. Robert Anderson, M.D. Badger-Hill, 1993. A psychiatrist, who was a black-market adoptee, tells how the search process can be healing even when no birth relatives are found.
SOUL CONNECTION: Memoir of a Birthmother’s Healing Journey. Ann Hughes. Otter Bay Books, 1999. Captures the spiritual journey of a birthmother who holds onto hope that something, someday, will heal the darkest, blackest hole in her life — the surrendering of her daughter.
THANK YOU SON, FOR FINDING ME: A Birthmother’s Story. Beth Kane. Aslan, 1999. A personal story about the reunion of a birthmother and the son who searched for her.
THEN SHE FOUND ME. Elinor Lipman. Washington Square Pr., 1991. A story of what happens to a Latin teacher’s quiet life when her birthmother, a flamboyant talk show hostess, decides to contact her daughter after 36 years.
TO PRISON WITH LOVE: The True Story of an Indecent Indictment and America’s Adoption Travesty. Sandy Musser. Adoption Awareness Press, 1994. A personal story of a birthmother’s search for her child and her subsequent involvement in assisting other members of the triad to search, resulting in her imprisonment.
TOUCHED BY ADOPTION: Stories, Letters and Poems. Nancy A Robinson. Green River Press, 1999. A variety of literary expressions about the adoption experience.
TWICE BORN: Memoirs of an Adopted Daughter. Betty Jean Lifton. Griffon, 1998. Travel with the author through her journey of self-discovery, from her need to know, through her search and into reunion.
Search and Reunion
The ADOPTION REUNION SURVIVAL GUIDE: Preparing Yourself for the Search, Reunion, and Beyond. Julie Jarrell Bailey & Lynn N. Giddens, M.A. New Harbinger Publications 2001. Using real-life examples, this compassionate guide helps adoptees and birthmothers decide whether or not to search, prepare for reunion, survive emotional turbulence of initial meeting and avoid common pitfalls. Includes an overview of pertinent state laws.
ADOPTION REUNIONS: A Book for Adoptees, Birth Parents and Adoptive Families. Michelle McColm. Second Story Press, 1993. An adoptee working with other adoptees and birth parents explores the roots of reunion and how to support the reunion process.
ADOPTION SEARCHBOOK. Mary Jo Rillera. Triadoption, 1991 (1st Ed. 1988). A basic handbook outlining techniques for finding people. Author is both an adoptee and birthmother, making her uniquely qualified to scrutinize the emotional and procedural aspects of post-adoption issues.
BIRTHBOND: Reunions Between Birthparents & Adoptees, What Happens After. Judith Gediman & Linda P. Brown. New Horizons Press, 1989. Interviews with birthmothers, adoptees, adoptive parents and others to discover the impact of reunion on all involved.
BIRTHRIGHT: The Guide to Search and Reunion for Adoptees, Birthparents, and Adoptive Parents. Jean Strauss. A. S. Penguin Press, 1994. Important, valuable reference by an adoptee; includes guidance on decision to search, negotiating legalities, surviving emotional turbulence of a reunion and dealing with impact on adoptive parents.
DISTURBING THE PEACE: A Novel. Nancy Newman. Avon, 2002. Fresh and funny fiction about an adoptee’s search for her birthmother, but ultimately for direction and meaning in a precarious world.
I’M STILL ME. Betty Jean Lifton. Bantam, 1986. Family tree research assignment propels a high school junior to search for truth and her birth parents. Through her loving adoptive parents, Lori comes face-to-face with her past - and herself.
SEARCH: A Handbook for Adoptees and Birthparents. Jayne Askin. Oryx Press, 1998. Detailed step-by-step process for unearthing adoption information through sealed records, government data and reference resources. Includes listing of online services for networking with other searchers.
SHEA’S SEARCH SERIES. Shea Grimm. A guide to self-empowered search written by an adoptee rights activist. Available online at www.bastards.org/bookstore. Click ‘Search’ to download.
SO HERE I AM BUT WHERE DID I COME FROM? An Adoptee's Search for Identity. Mary Ruth Wotherspoon. Pate 1994. The author shares the account of her search for her birth parents and offers ways to help others understand the process and what to expect in their own quests.
Emotional/Psychological Aspects
A GHOST AT HEART’S EDGE: Stories and Poems of Adoption. Susan Ito & Tina Cervin, Editors. North Atlantic Books, 1999.
ADOPTEES COME OF AGE: Living within Two Families. Ronald J. Nydam. John Knox Press, 1999. For adoptees and anyone who relates to them. Describes distinct emotional and spiritual challenges and emphasizes importance of ongoing issues of adoption and relinquishment.
ADOPTION AND THE FAMILY SYSTEM. Miriam Reitz & Kenneth Watson. Guilford Press, NY. 1992. Brings together family systems theory and adoption with case samples, useful interventions and examples of good practice for working with all members of the adoption triad.
ADOPTION HEALING: A Path to Recovery. Joe Soll. Liturgical Press, 2000. Traces adoptee’s personality from birth through developmental milestones; techniques for healing, visualizations and anger management.
ADOPTION IN AMERICA: Coming of Age. Hal Aigner. Paradigm Press, 1992. Thoughtful chronology for all whose life is touched by adoption as well as professionals.
ADOPTION WISDOM: A Guide to the Issues and Feelings of Adoption. Marlou Russell. Broken Branch Productions, 1996. Well-balanced perspective that fosters insight and understanding of adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents.
ADOPTION: Philosophy and Experience. Randolph W Severson. House of Tomorrow, 1994. Deeply spiritual and emotional, covers adoption practice, adoption rights movement and social science/social service with sensitivity and eloquence.
ADOPTING THE HURT CHILD: Hope for Families with Special Needs: A Guide for Parents and Professionals. Gregory C. Keck & Regina M. Kupecky. Pinon Press, 1998. Comprehensive and beneficial guide. Includes foreign adoption and integrates social and psychological issues that interrupt the adopted children’s normal development.
BIRTHMOTHERS AND TIME: Putting the Baby Back in the Cradle. Mary Anne Cohen. Self-published. 2001. Helps birthmothers recognize that in reunion they need to let go of the “lost baby” image. Send $3.00 to author at: 34 Highland Ave., Whippany, NJ 07981.
JOURNEY OF THE ADOPTED SELF: A Quest for Wholeness. Betty Jean Lifton. Basic Books, 1994. Addresses the myths and psychological effects of adoption. Highly recommended reading after general books.
JOURNEYS AFTER ADOPTION: Understanding Lifelong Issues. Jayne Schooler & Betsie Norris. Bergin & Garvey, 2002. Drawing on experiences of dozens of triad members, authors offer insight into concerns, issues, joys and pain experienced by those whose lives are framed by adoption.
LETHAL SECRETS: The Psychology of Donor Insemination: Problems and Solutions. Annette Baran & Reuben Pannor. Amistad Press, 1993. The authors explore the implications of the secrecy that surrounds human donor insemination in the firm belief that maintaining the human element and historical connection is crucial.
PANDORA’S HOPE: Poems and Prose About Being Adopted. Penny Callan-Partridge. Illustrated by Charles Filius. $12 to author at P.O. Box 3193, Amherst, MA 01004.
The PRIMAL WOUND: Understanding the Adopted Child. Nancy Verrier. Gateway Press, 1993. Provides profound information about pre- and perinatal psychology, attachment, bonding and loss. Clarifies the effects on adoptees of separation from the birthmother. Outlines the pain of loss and abandonment and gives insight into the healing process.
The PSYCHOLOGY OF ADOPTION. Edited by David Brodzinsky & Marshall Schechter. Oxford Press, 1993. Theoretical, empirical, clinical and social policy issues offer new insights into the problems facing adoptive parents. A comprehensive study of interest for all professionals.
SECRETS IN FAMILIES AND FAMILY THERAPY. Edited by Evan Imber-Black. W.W. Norton & Co., 1993. This collection reveals the confusion, mystery and terror associated with secrets. Secrecy in adoption is comprehensively covered in one section and reveals that secrecy does the most harm in the family of adoption.
Note: Many books are available from your local library. If not, you may ask them to order recently published books. To purchase, we suggest patronizing
your local independent bookseller. If you order from amazon.com via http://americanadoptioncongress.org, AAC will receive a referral fee.
NJCARE thanks the Post Adoption Center for Education and Research (PACER), Oakland, CA, for their significant input and support.
Please send any suggested additions to this list, briefly annotated, to jfoster7@optonline.net.

SYNCHRONICITY AND REUNION: The Genetic Connection of Adoptees and Birthparents. LaVonne Harper Stiffler. Stiffler 1992. A book exploring the nature/nurture connections through studies and the author’s life situation.
The THIRD CHOICE: A Woman’s Guide to Placing a Child for Adoption. Leslie Foge & Gail Mosconi. Creative Arts Book Co., 1999. Family and child counselors who have facilitated hundreds of adoptions discuss practical and emotional issues birthmothers face in choosing adoption.
Political/Policy Issues
ADOPTION NATION: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America. Adam Pertman. Basic Books, 2000. Groundbreaking work that examines historic metamorphosis occurring in the adoption world and resulting extraordinary changes in the U.S. This Pulitzer Prize nominee and adoptive parent, through compelling true stories, covers issues on foster care, international and domestic adoption, open adoption, use of the internet, infertility, sealing of adoptees’ birth certificates - and more.
The ADOPTION TRIANGLE: Sealed or Open Records, How They Affect Adoptees, Birth Parents, and Adoptive Parents. Arthur Sorosky et al. Anchor Books, 1984 (1st Ed. 1978). Groundbreaking research classic based on 1000 interviews of adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents.
BEGGARS AND CHOOSERS: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States. Rickie Solinger. Hill & Wang, 2002. Author compares white women with women of color, poor or middle class, during the era of ‘choice’. Well-written and researched, the book defines the politics of motherhood and how it pertains to Medicaid funding for abortions to family tax credits, infertility treatments, international adoption, teen pregnancy and welfare.
ETHICS IN AMERICAN ADOPTION. L. Anne Babb. Bergin & Garvey, 1999. A review of ethical standards in the U.S. and a call for reform.
The IDEA OF ADOPTION: An Inquiry into the History of Adult Adoptee Access to Birth Records. Elizabeth J Samuels. Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 53, Winter 2001, Number 2. An outstanding overview of the history of sealed records and how they were affected by social attitudes and understandings. The entire article may be read under News and Events on the AAC web page by going to http://americanadoptioncongress.org.
WAKE UP LITTLE SUZIE: Single Pregnancy & Race Before Roe V. Wade. Ricki Solinger. Routledge, 2nd Ed. 2000. A pioneering work, the author reveals how current attitudes toward these issues developed by examining their roots in the postwar era and discerning how differently they affected black and white women. A powerful and shocking book; a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the complex and disturbing politics surrounding issues of race, class and reproductive rights.
November 2002

Adoptees praise new law

Foster’s Sunday Citizen
Dover, NH
Jan. 9, 2005

Adoptees praise new law

By Ulrika G. Gerth
Staff Writer

Never have emotions run as high at the Bureau of Vital Records in Concord as this past week.
Nearly 70 people adopted as children walked down the corridor to request or pick up original birth certificates that for decades have been sealed and attainable by court order only.
One woman flew in from Toronto to recover the sought-after link to her past. Another, according to State Registrar William Bolton, broke down crying as she left the office with the document in hand and young daughter by her side, asking “What’s wrong mom?”
“I saw people in tears, some were relieved, excited, nervous. It ran the whole gamut,” said State Rep. Janet Allen, a Barnstead Republican and adoptee, who fought for three years in probate court to gain access to her own birth certificate.
The scenes at Vital Records brought such happiness to her that she said only getting married and having children could compare.
State Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, the Manchester Democrat, who sponsored the bill that Gov. Craig Benson let become law without his signature in May, reveled in the decision, saying no bill during his 30 years as a legislator had been more important.
“We put politics aside because this was the right thing to do,” said D’Allesandro, who has followed his own adopted daughter’s heart-wrenching search for her past. “For once the stars lined up. I think it happens once every millennium.”
But Lee Allen, communications director at the National Council For Adoption, said the organization has consistently opposed the law because it “has always been a bad idea and now when it’s enacted it’s still a bad idea ... unwelcome contact will inevitably be the result.”
When the law took effect New Year’s Day, New Hampshire joined Alabama, Delaware, Tennessee and Oregon in opening its records retroactively to adult adoptees born in the state. Alaska and Kansas have always allowed adoptees unfettered access to the original birth certificates.
A note added to the chapter on Confidentiality of Records in New Hampshire’s Reference Manual for Adoption for 2005 spells out the new reality.
Although court files containing details of the adoption, including medical information, home studies — and birth certificates — are still confidential, adoptees who have turned 18 and their immediate family can now request a copy of the original birth certificate from the Bureau of Vital Records.
Starting in 1973, all birth records in New Hampshire pertaining to adoption were sealed, including prior records.
As of Friday morning, Kristin Lambert of Rochester was one of 180 adoptees who had filed a mail request to take advantage of the new law.
“I’ve a feeling it could easily be overturned so I thought it was important to do it right away,” she said.
An appeal from a group of birth mothers put Oregon’s law on hold for more than two years after it was passed in 1998, and in Tennessee it took three years of litigation before the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the law, which gives adoptees access to everything from court files to sealed adoption records, does not violate the right to privacy under the state constitution.
So far, the New Hampshire law has faced no legal challenges and Elizabeth Samuels, associate professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, said lawsuits are unlikely to succeed.
Critics argue the state promised birth parents full confidentiality and that it has now breached that contract, but, according to Samuels, they are misinformed.
“Both federal and state courts have looked at laws like the one in New Hampshire and found there is no guarantee of lifelong secrecy. There is not even a reasonable expectation of it,” said Samuels, who testified in support of the bill.
Fears of increased abortion rates and fewer adoptions as a result of the new law also have proved unfounded in other states with open access, she said.
Lambert filled out the request with a great deal of hesitancy. She is afraid of the emotional stress of bringing new people into her life, but would like the record to see if her biological parents submitted a medical history.
“It seems like very hit-or-miss at this point. Most likely I’ll come up with just the birth certificate. But I hope for some updated medical history. I’ve thought about that since the birth of my daughter,” she said. “Genetics is important.”
On the website of the Bureau of Vital Records, birth parents are encouraged to download and submit forms for their contact preference and medical history that will be attached to the birth certificate. If they choose “no contact” the law requires them to fill out their medical information.
Bolton said the office has received only nine medical forms thus far, although the majority of the 19 contact preference forms sent in states the birth parent has no interest in a reunion. As there are 24,000 adoption records on file since 1973, many adoptees looking for their family’s medical history are bound to come up empty-handed.
They can, however, petition the probate court to release nonidentifying medical information or ask the Department of Health and Human Services to act as an intermediary between them and their birth parents.
In some cases, parents will anonymously hand over the information and in other cases the initial request will eventually lead to a reunion.
“The inquiries number in the hundreds,” said Nancy Rollins, director of Children, Youth and Families at DHHS.
In Tennessee, the Department of Human Services has been swamped with requests for birth certificates and with a few years’ experience of the law, K. Danielle Edwards, public information officer, spoke of “highs and lows.”
“A common low point has been that the birth mother has not disclosed to her children they’ve a sibling, but we also get letters saying how pleased they were to be reunited or how happy they are to know they can access the records,” she said.
In Tennessee, unlike in other states, birth parents can sign a “no-contact veto” and any violation by the adoptee is a misdemeanor charge. But nine out of 10 birth parents are open to being contacted, Samuels said, citing only one case — in Texas — when an unwanted visit resulted in a lawsuit.
“In our practice, 70 percent of the birth parents say yes and when their children turn 18, they can get the contact information,” said Jack Lightfoot, attorney and executive director of the Children’s Lobby, an advocacy program of Child and Family Services in New Hampshire.
The private nonprofit opposed the bill in favor of making it prospective, but Lightfoot said it has now moved on to other issues.
Lori St. Laurent of Rochester found her birth family in 1992 and wants those who expect miracles from the new law to remember not all reunions are as glorious as they may appear on television. When she met her biological siblings at age 32, she felt like a stranger and realized she could not relate when they were talking about “her mother” (who was deceased).
“The aunt in the family said ‘Oh, you should’ve been raised with us’ and I said ‘I’m 32, I’m up for grabs now!’” said St. Laurent. “They were nice people but I didn’t want to get involved. I never called them again and they haven’t kept in touch either. They just were not my family. I can meet somebody in the grocery store and be closer to them than to these people.”
Laurent said she also learned a lesson when she tried to contact a man who she felt, according to the grapevine, must be her father. Believing his wife was dead, she felt safe to make the call only to find herself on the line with — the wife.
“It was he who was dead. She went off and said her husband never had an affair and began talking about lawyers. I probably ruined her view of her husband. I felt like two inches high. I decided to back out and leave the dead alone.”
Birth mother and former president of the New Hampshire Open Adoption Council, Donna Chagnon, also cautioned both birth parents and adopted adults against jumping headlong into the new relationship. She has reunited with her son and at his wedding she sat with his adoptive parents.
“A lot of people don’t do the research. Make sure you understand the birth mother and prepare yourself,” said Chagnon, who was one of the key advocates of the new law. “It’s a difficult relationship to foster and it’s often a new thing for the adoptee. You as a birth parent have to allow them to pull back when they want to.”
State Rep. Allen is relieved no New Hampshire adoptees will have to go through what she did, begging bureaucrats to extract her original birth certificate to find out the names of her biological parents.
“When you stand in front of a clerk who very patronizingly says, ‘Sorry, honey, you can’t see it’ even though all clerks and the judge have seen the information, you feel treated like a child.”


Ulrika G. Gerth can be reached at 603-742-4455 ext. 5395 or ugerth@fosters.com

Setting the Record Straight

by Karen Wilson Buterbaugh
More than six million American mothers surrendered children for adoption. In the wake of Oregon's decision to open records, society has a renewed interest in these heretofore invisible women. America has been unwilling to look behind the scenes at adoption practices. After all, adoption is so sacred that it was enshrined on a postage stamp. Myths surround these mothers, who are either cast as sacrificial heroines or vilified as unnatural women who abandoned babies. Society believes that these mothers willingly gave up their babies and that they want privacy from their adult children. Fact is, these women long for contact and were never promised privacy.
It is important to hear this story so you understand that these women were pressured on all sides into surrendering their children and that in many cases their human rights were violated. I know this story because it is my story and the story of many others like me.
When a mother loses her child to closed adoption, it feels as if her child has died, yet there is no wake, no funeral, no sympathy cards, no public acknowledgment. There are no friends or relatives to offer comfort and support. There is no obituary, no grave to visit, no flowers to bring, no grieving permitted and no closure.
Closed Adoption Era
During the era of closed adoption (1950s - 1970s), this was the experience for hundreds of thousands of young women who were unmarried and pregnant. They disappeared into shame-filled prisons called maternity homes. The babies' fathers went forward with lives uninterrupted, their part not criticized, not punished.
It was the era of rock n' roll, the assassinations of both Kennedys and Martin Luther King, civil unrest, hypocrisy and enormous social change. The media played up the swinging 60s, while "unwed mothers" paid a heavy social price. Once their "problem" became known, they were at the mercy of their parents, society and the adoption industry.
The largest residential facility for unwed mothers, Florence Crittenton, had "homes" throughout America. The evangelical women there offered help to "unfortunate girls" by providing food, clothing and shelter. They taught job and parenting skills and provided childcare while mothers worked. When mothers left, they visited frequently bringing food, clothing and money until the mother could fend for herself and her baby.
After the 1940s, things changed. Adoption history indicates that social workers specialized in unwed motherhood. They felt that this would elevate their professional status. Viewing themselves as authorities in adoption and unwed motherhood, they insinuated themselves into maternity homes.
The social workers at the Washington, D.C. Crittenton appeared to agree with the evangelical women's position of helping unwed mothers keep their babies. Their 1950s brochure states:
"Would it be better for mother and child if the baby were given away (adopted)?"
"Not in most cases . . . social workers have learned that no material advantage can make up for the loss of its own mother. Better a poor home, with mother love, they say, than an adopted home in luxury . . ."
As social workers recognized the market for white babies for infertile couples, they decided girls were not worthy to parent. These attitudes freed white babies for adoption by two-parent families. Social Work and Social Problems (1964), published by the National Association of Social Workers, insinuates half-jokingly that unwed mothers served as "breeders":
". . . babies born out of wedlock [are] no longer considered a social problem . . . white, physically healthy babies are considered by many to be a social boon . . .
Because there are many more married couples wanting to adopt newborn white babies than there are babies, it may almost be said that they, rather than out of wedlock babies, are a social problem. (Sometimes social workers in adoption agencies have facetiously suggested setting up social provisions for more 'baby breeding.')"
In Unmarried Mothers (1961), sociologist Clark Vincent commented on an "emerging pattern":
"We predict that-if the demand for adoptable infants continues to exceed the supply . . . unwed mothers will be 'punished' by having their children taken from them right after birth. A policy like this would not be . . . labeled explicitly as 'punishment' . . . it would be implemented through such labels . . . as 'scientific findings', 'the best interests of the child', 'rehabilitation of the unwed mother' . . ."
Rights Were Violated
Many of these mothers were never told about government programs nor were they advised about child support. They did not receive psychological counseling or legal advice. They were not directed to read surrender documents nor asked if they understood them. These mothers never spoke to a lawyer. Instead, they signed legal papers drafted by adoption agency attorneys. Many mothers now question the ethics of this arrangement and raise issues of signing under duress, lack of informed consent, and conflicts of interest.
Marriage was discouraged by maternity homes. Maternity home "inmates" were forbidden communication with the fathers. Most homes censored mail according to "approved lists." Were these restrictions designed to ensure that fathers could not propose a marriage that would allow them to keep their babies?
Many mothers were forbidden to see their newborns. Some were told to sign surrender papers before giving birth. Others were told to sign while heavily drugged or still recuperating. Some were drugged to unconsciousness during the birth while others were given no medications at all. These mothers now raise issues of coercion, pressure tactics, and abuse.
Questions Remain
While living in "wage homes" contracted by the maternity homes, mothers were entrusted with the care of other people's children as unpaid nannies. Yet they were deemed incapable of parenting their own babies.
How strange that the state paid foster parents - complete strangers - to care for babies rather than allowing their own mothers to care for them for free. Why weren't they told that they could see their baby in foster care or of the waiting period during which they could reclaim their babies? Were agencies afraid that they would bond even more and not sign surrender papers? We hear stories from mothers who wanted to keep their babies only to be warned severely by social workers that, if they did so, they must pay all costs: hospital, doctor, lawyer and foster care.
Why are surrender documents the only legal contracts in America that can be signed by a minor? Because these babies were wanted by the adoption industry, a tremendous market with high demand for "the product." According to Marketdata Enterprises of Tampa, the adoption industry earns $1.4 billion annually in the U.S. The company estimates gross income for even small agencies at $400,000 a year and at $10 million or more for larger agencies. It states that "stories of unscrupulous operators abound in this loosely regulated field."
Invisible Mothers Return
These invisible, non-mothers have been ignored when requesting information that pertains to their experience. Requests are met with refusal even when some policy manuals state that they could be provided with access to their files.
Today, the stigma of unwed motherhood may be gone but the perception that these mothers willingly gave away their babies is not. Mothers who lost their children to adoption are now coming forward in record numbers. Having walked out of the fog of enforced silence, we are angry and we will be heard. We are here to set the record straight.
http://www.moxiemag.com/moxie/articles/perspectives/setting.html
© Karen Buterbaugh 2001