Opposition to Adoptee Access to Records
Opposition to Adoptee Access to Records While support exists for the open records movement for future adoptions, the main objection to current legislative efforts remains their retroactive application, an objection Ms. Greiner met head on.
In support of her argument that past assurances (or promises) of eternal confidentiality are not legally defensible (even though they may have been made), she had prepared handouts including copies of relinquishment papers dated 1938 and 1998, neither of which contained language concerning "privacy" and/or "confidentiality," as well as copies of adoption notices published (as required by law in many states) in legal newspapers (in 1937 and 2000) which contain information identifying both birth and adoptive parents, and an adoption decree given to adoptive parents containing the child's full birth name. She also noted that, while difficult in some venues and relatively simple in others, adoptees can petition the courts to open sealed records to them for "good cause," and this has occurred on many, many occasions.
Frank Hunsaker, attorney for the anonymous birthmothers who challenged Measure 58 in Oregon, said that promises made to these birthmothers must be kept, to which Ms. Greiner asked why promises made to other birthmothers - that when their birthchildren reached adulthood, they would be given access to their information - didn't also need to be kept. She noted that those adopted before Oregon's records were sealed in 1957 were born into an open system and now have no access. Mr. Hunsaker's response was, "two wrongs don't make a right."
Protecting the right to be afraidMr. Hunsaker spoke of his clients' very "real fears" and said that while some may not have the same fears or even feel them to be justified, they need to be respected. It was never clarified just how the law should protect this right to be afraid, since Measure 58 is
not about search and/or contact, but simply about releasing a document to one intimately concerned adult, and
the Measure contains a provision for the birth parent(s) to request no contact.Measure 58 includes an amendment (HB3194) that provides for a Contact Preference Form for birth parents of adoptees. The form allows a birth parent to express a preference for unrestricted contact, contact through an intermediary, or no contact; however, if the birth parent desires no contact, he/she must complete an Updated Medical History form. (Both the contact preference and medical history form are available online for download.)
No Respect Without a Veto?In a personal anecdote, Mr. Hunsaker spoke of his own children (four adopted children) and his support of their search for information about their birth families. It was difficult to understand that he would expect his own children to respect a birth family member's desire for no contact and not convince his clients that other adult adoptees would exercise the same restraint. It appears that the issue is one of legislated conditions for contact (vetoes, mandatory intermediaries) vs. the ability of one adult to respect the expressed wishes of another adult.
Next page >
Practice vs Theory > Page
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12
Home
Add Your Comments!
We want to know what you think. Your comments are important to us and the other readers. You are what makes this site special.