Sealing the Records in PA

Sealing the Records in PA

by Cynthia Bertrand Holub

Many Pennsylvania adoptees may not know that there was once a time in this state, not so very long ago, when adult adoptees could get a copy of their unaltered original birth certificate just like everyone else   by sending in a few dollars to the Office of Vital Statistics.

In Pennsylvania, the adoption decree was open to public inspection according to the law of 1925; other court records were sealed only at the discretion of a judge, in which case they could then be inspected by court order. Court records, including the adoption decree, were sealed to all in 1953, with the exception of being able to be opened by show of an undefined “good cause”, which was in general more liberally interpreted in those days.

It was common practice then for birth certificates to be marked “legitimate” or “illegitimate” and the policy of sealing the original birth certificate was meant to protect the adoptee from the shame of illegitimacy. The original intent was NOT to protect birthparent’s privacy, as is claimed by many people who oppose records access by the adult adoptee, because records were not sealed until an adoption was finalized, which could be months after the adoptee’s birth. In most states the original birth certificate was permanently sealed by court order along with the adoption records when the adoption became final. In Pennsylvania, however, there was a distinction between the adoption statutes, which came under the jurisdiction of the Department of Welfare, and the statutes of the Office of Vital Statistics, which was a part of the Department of Health. According to act 66 of the legislative session of 1953, which spell out regulations for the Office of Vital Statistics:

“Any person born in this Commonwealth whose birth is registered a illegitimate who is adopted under the laws of this Commonwealth may request the department to prepare an amended birth certificate on the basis of proof of the new status [or it may be requested by his parent or guardian]. After the amended certificate is prepared, any information disclosed from the record shall be from the amended certificate, and access to the original certificate of birth and the documents of proof on which the amended certificate is base shall be authorized only on request of the person involved if he has attained majority and is not incompetent or on the request of his parent, guardian, or legal representative or upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

My reading of those laws leads me to believe it was not an oversight on the part of legislators, not the “loophole” it has since been claimed, since the law is quite explicit, but that the legislative intent was to shield the adoptee and the adoptive family from the eyes of the public, not to permanently deny the adoptee access to his/her own birth records.

These provisions coexisted for many years, but it only gradually becam known among the adoption community that, while adoption court records were sealed, one could write away for one’s original “long-form” birth certificate, which would contain one’s name at birth, one’s birthmother’s name, and rarely, one’s birthfather’s name as well. By 1978 it had become known to those who had an interest in keeping records sealed that this was going on, and the Catholic Conference and others urged the State Attorney General to rule on the seeming discrepancy in the law. The Attorney General ruled that there was no conflict in the law, since the adoption statutes referred to a copy of the original birth ertificate being included with sealed court records, not the certificate itself, which remained with the Office of Vital Statistics, and that the Office of Vital Statistics could continue to issue original birth certificates to adoptees over the age of 18.

It became the mission of one man in particular, Rep. Stephen Freind (R Delaware Co.), to ” close the loophole” as it was termed, misreading the original legislative intent. Beginning in his 1979-80 term, he introduced legislation to seal adoptees’ original birth certificates. Freind, very active in the pro-life movement, claimed ( with absolutely no basis in fact ) that young, unmarried pregnant women would choose to have abortions rather than relinquish their children to adoption if it were possible for their adult children to discover their identity. He also asserted that the state should “keep its promise” of “privacy” to birthparents.

For six years the Adoption Forum of Philadelphia, one of the oldest search and support groups in the country, was able to mobilize support in favor of maintaining adult adoptees’ rights to their own birth documents. It was to prove, finally, a losing battle, as Freind and the Catholic Conference convinced the legislature of their specious “open records equals more abortions” logic. Freind’s bill permitted searches to be done only through agencies and the court with court or agency officials as mediators, and release of the original birth certificate to the adoptee only with birthparents’ consent. It passed by a landslide in 1984 as Act 185. Records were finally closed after a “grace period” in February 1985. The Adoption Forum mounted a media campaign to inform
Pennsylvania adoptees that time was running out. Thousands of requests poured into Vital Statistics during the final weeks, many by adoptive parents who wanted their children to have their birth records when they grew up.

Since that time, Senator  Stewart Greenleaf  (R.-Montgomery Co. ) has
repeatedly sponsored legislation which would restore this right to adult adoptees. In the last few years his bill has included a provision, put forward by adoption “reformers” in hopes of eliminating opposition, that would allow a birthparent a grace period to veto the adoptee’s access to the document (disclosure veto). Even with this provision, the combined pressure of the National Council For Adoption and the Catholic Conference has kept such bills from ever leaving his committee.

The experience of Pennsylvania can be educational in the fight for adult adoptees’ access to records. If Steven Freind and those who agreed with him had been right, then Pennsylvania’s abortion rate should have declined precipitously after original birth certificates were sealed, and the adoption rate should have risen accordingly. This did not happen. The difference in the abortion rate between 1985 and 1990 is insignificant, and  Pennsylvania still has one of the lowest adoption rates in the country. Neither was there ever a single suit against the Office of Vital Statistics by a birthparent for invasion of privacy. It is time for us to expose these myths as myths, and to let our legislators know that it is past time for adult adoptees to have their right to their recordsrestored. Let our legislators know about our right to access personal government documents in the same manner as all other tax-paying and VOTING citizens. Let your legislators know what you think of a system
that continues to treat adoptees as second class citizens.

Cynthia Bertrand Holub is a member of Bastard Nation’s Executive Committee and Bastard Nation’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Director. She is also a member of the PA Advisory Committee to the Joint State Government Commission on Adoption Law.

A version of this article first appeared in the Adoption Forum of Philadelphia Newsletter.

 Print