Editor:
As an adult adoptee who was born, adopted and raised in this state, I'd like to point out a few problems with your Sunday editorial about HB 2810 and SB 6496, which pertains to the disclosure of the original birth certificate to an adult adoptee. First of all, lets talk about what birthmothers were "promised". You say they were commonly told that records would remain permenantly sealed, and perhaps some were. What you do not mention is that many of those had that imposed on them no matter what their wishes. You also do not mention that many other birthmothers were told that their relinquished child would receive their records at age 18, or that some were told nothing at all. The "promises" made to birthmothers have been shown to be agency dependant, go to one agency and relinquish and they will tell you a quite different story than if you relinquish at another. So I ask, who are you to decide which agency policies from 20, 30, 40 years ago should be upheld and which shouldn't? This brings me to the next problem in your editorial. You also go on to say adoption was considered to be a final step in transferring the child from one set of parents to another and that "The transfer was treated as final, inviolable and irreversible". If this is the case, then how do you explain the Good Cause clause that currently exists in adoption law in this state? Any adult adoptee can petition the court with a show of good cause, and their records will be unsealed. Not just the original birth certificate that HB 2810 and SB 6496 pertain to, but everything. And "good cause" is a very loose term. Depending on the judge, "good cause" can be just being an adoptee, while another judge may not see a bone marrow transplant as good cause. The very existence of this clause in the current adoption law makes any agency statement of privacy, promised or imposed, to be null and void. In short, it is impossible for any agency to uphold any promises of privacy as long as the good cause clause exists in the law.
As you state in your editorial, adoption searches are currently happening every day. With the easy availability of the internet more adoptees and birthparents are finding each other. What you failed to mention is that they are doing it WITHOUT their original birth certificate. As a search document, the original birth certificate holds very little value. If the birth happened more than 20 years ago and the birth parents were not married, then most likely the birthfather's name will not be on it. And the birthmother's name is most likely going to be her maiden name. If an adoptee is doing a search, there is much better information available in our public libraries and on the internet that will help. Also available is the existing CI system, which by the way is only being used by a percentage of adult adoptees as a search tool. More and more, adoptees are choosing to search outside the CI system. These bills being presented in Olympia are not going to change that. Adoptees will still appear in unsuspecting birthparent's lives if this bill passes or not. And if this happens, the birthparent has every right to say NO. If the adoptee does not respect their wishes, then the birthparent has the same laws available to them as in any other relationship, such as restraining orders and the stalking law. Just as we would not outlaw marriage because an occasional ex-spouse cannot accept the end of a relationship, why would we outlaw an adult adoptee from obtaining a document that pertains to them? Then there are the adult adoptees such as myself who are already reunited. Why should we be denied a document that the US Supreme Court has recently decided belongs to us? And lets not forget the adult adoptees out there who will have absolutely no desire to obtain their original birth certificate. The choice to not obtain their original birth certificate should be a choice made by them, not imposed upon them by this state.
The fact is that denying the adult adoptee the choice to obtain their original birth certificate is denying them a basic human right enjoyed by non-adoptees everywhere. It also violates their consitutional right to privacy, which as defined means the right for an American citizen to live parts of their lives without government interference. Adult adoptees in Kansas and Alaska can obtain a copy of theirs upon request, when or if they feel like it. So I ask you, why should adult adoptees in Washington State be treated any differently?
Julie M. Dennis
Seattle, WA
[ Prev ] [ Up ] [ Open 98 Home Page ] [ Next ]