.
To the Connecticut House Judiciary Committee:
Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support only full unrestricted access for all adopted persons, to their original birth certificates (OBC) and related documents.
We are happy to support passage of HB 5408, an inclusive bill that when passed:
- restores the right of Original Birth Certificate access to those adopted before October 1, 1983. without restriction (currently only those born after that date can access
- permits the release of the OBC to an adoptee’s adult child or grandchild
- contains a genuine confidential voluntary Contact Preference Form which lets a birthparent register a preference regarding contact without abrogating the right of access to the OBC
We urge you to support this bill and pass HB 5408
******
Unrestricted OBC access is not a “privacy” or “birthparent confidentiality” issue. In fact, “privacy” “confidentiality,” and” anonymity” are not synonymous either legally or linguistically.
The passage in 2015 of Public Act 14-133 which restored the right of OBC access to Connecticut adopted persons whose adoptions were finalized before October 1, 1983, shows that the legislature understands the justice in OBC access. Unfortunately, 30,000 of the state’s adoptees were left behind in that limited law—their records remaining sealed and available only through a court order. HB 5408 finishes the job making all Connecticut adoptees subject to the same right of access and due process.
There is no evidence in any state that records were sealed to “protect” the reputation or “privacy” of biological parents who relinquished children for adoption. On the contrary, records were sealed to protect the reputations of “bastard children” and to protect adoptive families from birthparent interference.
Family Courts can and do grant the opening of OBCs and other adoption records request without notice to or input from the birthparent(s). Moreover, courts have ruled that adoption anonymity does not exist. (Doe v Sundquist, et. al., 943 F. Supp. 886, 893-94 (M.D. Tenn. 1996) and Does v. State of Oregon, 164 Or. App. 543, 993 P.2d 833, 834 (1999)). Laws change constantly, and the state, lawyers, social workers, and others were never in a position to promise anonymity in adoption. In fact, in the over 40 years of the adoptee equality battle, not one document has been submitted anywhere that promises or guarantees sealed records and an anonymity “right” to birthparents. Identifying information about surrendering parents often appears in court documents given to adoptive parents who can at any point give that information to the adopted person. (In some states adoptive parents, at the time of the adoption order, can petition the court to keep the record open.) The names of surrendering parents are published in legal ads. Courts can open “sealed records” for “good cause.” Critically, the OBC is sealed at the time of adoption finalization, not surrender. If a child is not adopted, the record is never sealed. If a child is adopted, but the adoption is overturned or disrupted, the OBC is unsealed.
The influential American Academy of Adoption and Assisted Reproduction Attorneys recently passed a monumental resolution in support of adoptees’ right to full access to our OBC, court, and agency records.
Legislation needs to catch up with technological reality. We are well into the 21st century. The information superhighway grows wider and longer each day, and adoptees and their birth and adoptive families are riding it, utilizing the Internet, social media, inexpensive and accessible DNA testing services, and a large network of volunteer “search angels” to locate their government-hidden information and histories. Thousands of successful adoption searches happen each year—hundreds in Connecticut alone—making adoption secrecy virtually impossible. The minuscule number of birthparents or so-called “professionals” who believe that restricted OBC or records access or no access equals adoption anonymity are greatly mistaken. The fact is, nearly all successful searches are done without the OBC and other court documents.
OBC access is not about search and reunion. It is about the right to one’s own state-held birth record. Rights are for all, not some. Clearly, Connecticut law discriminates against the state’s adoptees with its tier-access time frame based on the date of adoption finalization.
There is no state interest in keeping original birth certificates sealed from adult adoptees to which they pertain. Nor does the state have a right or duty to mediate and oversee the personal relationships of adults. Those who claim a statutory right to parental anonymity through sealed records to them promote statutory privilege and state favoritism. 30,000 Connecticut adoptees were left behind in 2015. The passage of HB 5408 brings them back.
HB 5408 and its sponsors get it right. HB 5408 creates equal birth certificate access for all Connecticut adoptees. It treats the state’s adoptees as equal with the not-adopted, and post-October 1, 1983 adoptees. It stops the humiliating onerous legal (and sometimes costly) process for adoptees simply to get their own birth certificates. HB 5408 reflects the simple inclusive, unrestricted access process that nine states have on the books (Oregon, Alabama, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Kansas and Alaska).
There is no tenable reason to maintain segregated and restricted OBC access. Support Connecticut in being a leader in adoptee equality and adoption reform. Please return unrestricted and unconditional OBC access to all Connecticut adoptees. When HB 5408 crosses your desk on March 9, 2018, please vote DO PASS. It’s the right thing to do!
Thank you!
Marley Greiner
Executive Chair
@BastardsUnite
New York Adoptee Rights Coalition
