Friends of “clean” adoption reform,

Hope all remain well and safe as we approach October. If you’re reading this, then it’s very likely that a birth certificate was created when you were born. For those of us who become adopted, this “original” birth certificate (OBC) is sealed by the court— when an adoption is finalized. As previously reported, the sealing of an OBC occurs whether any adoption is “open” or “closed.”

After each adoption, another birth certificate is created and provided to the adoptive family. This is a supplementary or “amended” birth certificate (ABC). ABCs include the adoptive name of the adopted person, and the only parents listed are the adoptive parents.

Original Birth Certificates Equal Adoptee Equality
“Clean” adoption reform, as we advocate for and we achieved together in New York, requires the restoration of unrestricted access to OBCs for all adult adopted persons. This is true both retroactively—for past adoptions, and prospectively—for future adoptions. In New York, government agencies sometimes also refer to the OBC as a “pre-adoption” birth certificate.

Our advocacy continues in New York and elsewhere, consistent with American Adoption Congress (AAC) formal legislative policy for “clean” adoption reform.

Integrated Birth Certificates Equal Discrimination
With your help we’ve successfully opposed legislation that would have failed to honor adoptee equality. Recently, we’ve observed a newer form of disagreeable legislation. This type would, in various ways, allow for an amended birth certificate (ABC) to be supplemented with, or replaced by, a more newly conceptualized, third type of birth certificate—an “integrated” birth certificate (IBC). An IBC would combine information on the sealed OBC with an ABC. This “record of parentage” would include the names of birth and adoptive parents. It would also include the birth and adoptive names of the adoptee.

How IBCs Would Fail: Lost OBC, Lost Control and Missed Opportunities
On the surface, “integrated” birth certificates might seem desirable, until one looks closer. This is partly because IBC proposals would sacrifice adoptee equality and, thus, allow a fatally flawed approach to an, otherwise desired, increased “openness” in adoption. Happily, our advocacy, and the advocacy of our friends and allies, has already helped to defeat IBC proposals in two unrestricted access states—New York and Maine. In short, we have successfully asserted that IBC proposals would defeat the purpose of “clean” adoption reform. More specifically, any stated interest in doing away with “sealing” could not, in reality, be achieved if, as a corollary, an OBC is simply withheld via a different scheme than in the past. Nor can it work if attempted in advance, or at the expense, of adoptee equality. Reasons would typically include, but not necessarily be limited to, any of the following:

1. Lost OBC: Any issuance of an “integrated” birth certificate (IBC), even if accompanied by a traditional “amended” birth certificate (ABC), would preclude unrestricted access to original birth certificates (OBCs), for adult adoptees. A justification would be that the adoptive family (but not the adopted person) would have already received pre-adoption information (a record of parentage compilation—clearly not a true birth certificate as others maintain a right to). Such discrimination would end or preclude adoptee equality, violate “clean” adoption reform and, thus, be totally unacceptable.

2. Lost Control: Adoptee equality demands the same control over personally identifying information that non adopted citizens have. But any IBC would end that. It would often be shared by adoptive parents as proof of identification to, for example, schools, athletic leagues, etc. This would preempt adopted persons from decision making about whether or not to disclose their adopted status when transacting personal affairs. Further, it could even trigger unsolicited, and thus insensitively crafted and sourced, disclosures of adopted status to the adopted people themselves. Such discrimination would end or preclude adoptee equality, violate “clean” adoption reform and, thus, be totally unacceptable.

3. Missed Opportunities to Improve Adoption Practices: Some maintain that an IBC or IBC + ABC provision would ensure that adopted people would learn of adoption status, preventing the sometimes-seen, very unfortunate phenomena of late discovery or never knowing the truth. They feel an option to access the OBC would, then, not be needed by the adopted person during their lifetime. This is of course flatly false. From a practical standpoint, unfortunately, secrets can still easily be kept from adopted persons, especially as minors, regardless of the format of a birth certificate. And, although the vast majority of adoptions already have “openness,” we know that the very worthy goal of ensuring that adoptees learn of adopted status, particularly within any “closed” and / or early age or development adoption, could much more effectively be reached in at least two possible ways:

• Adoptive Parent Practices: Adoptive parents have long been officially counseled, and advised, to inform their adopted children of their adopted status at a very young age. A recent study affirmed this, and also asserted the importance of this learning beginning when under the age of three. We were recently advised that “developmental” criteria are also a critical factor in determining best timing to introduce adoptees to their status. However, that such disclosures would “certainly be no later than elementary school.” In any case, clearly, consensus exists around the importance of disclosure. Redoubled efforts, aided by early childhood development professionals (clinical psychologists or clinical social workers focused on adoption), to encourage such communication will, naturally, aid in ensuring that adopted persons are properly advised.
• Social Work Practices: There could be enhancements to post adoption services. For example, as a condition within both “closed” and “open” Adoptive Placement Agreements, the adoptive parents could, prospectively, agree to semi-annual, or somehow regularly timed, adoptive family training sessions (commencing after the adoption is finalized and, thus, the more regular home visits). Such visits, also in the adoptive family’s home, could help facilitate an understanding of how adoption can be assimilated (to encourage, or buttress, the communication mentioned above in “Adoptive Parent Practices”). This could have the added benefit of increasing the odds of preventing alleged adoptee physical and emotional abuse tragedies, such as recently reported in Elko County, Nevada.

In any case, and though ideas to ensure communication could naturally evolve, it is clear that solutions in this context would never involve the format of a birth certificate. As such, “integrated” birth certificates represent an unacceptable trade-off between information and necessary adoptee equality.

RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS! DON’T BE FOOLED!

Original Birth Certificates Equal Adoptee Equality

Integrated Birth Certificates Equal Discrimination

We will continue to act for adoptee equality!

Contact Tim if you’d like to reach out!   tmw713@gmail.com

Thank you for your continued support!

Please share!

Tim and Shawna