Then and Now

Adoption Uncensored

A 30-YEAR COLLECTION of SELECTED LETTERS to AmFOR, 1977-2008

As adoptees seek roots, states unsealing records

After backing a bill to give adopted adults access to their birth records, Maine Sen. Paula Benoit, an adoptee, learned she was an aunt of Sen. Bruce Bryant, left, and Rep. Mark Bryant.
By Joel Page for USA TODAY
After backing a bill to give adopted adults access to their birth records, Maine Sen. Paula Benoit, an adoptee, learned she was an aunt of Sen. Bruce Bryant, left, and Rep. Mark Bryant.
 ACCESS TO RECORDS
Next January, Maine will become the eighth state to give adult adoptees full access to their original birth certificates, which lists birth parents' names. Other states that allow such access:
-Alabama
-Alaska
-Delaware -- allows access unless birth parents veto disclosure
-Kansas
-New Hampshire
-Oregon
-Tennessee -- provides birth certificate unless rape or incest was involved. Allows birth parents to refuse contact with their children.
Another dozen states allow adult adoptees some type of "partial" access to their records, depending on the date of adoption and whether the birth parents have granted permission. Others allow access through a state-appointed intermediary if the birth parents agree, or if a court approved an adoptee's request for such records.
Here's the experience of four states that unsealed records:
Alabama, which began releasing records in August 2000, received 4,186 requests through November 2007. It got requests from 189 birth parents to seal their contact information.
New Hampshire, which began releasing records in 2005, received 1,056 requests through 2007. Of 56 voluntary forms filed by birth parents, 12 requested no contact.
Oregon, which began releasing records in June 2000, received 9,571 requests through November 2007. Of 565 voluntary forms filed by birth parents, 85 requested no contact.
Tennessee, which began releasing records in July 1999, received 4,639 requests through June 2007. Of birth parents who responded to requests for contact, 1,326 consented and 685 vetoed contact.
Source: State governments
Eileen McQuade, left, watches her daughter, Kathleen Laing, light birthday cake candles for Laing's son in December. McQuade, who put her daughter up for adoption in 1966, reconnected with her a decade ago.
  By Ana N. Zangroniz for USA TODAY
Eileen McQuade, left, watches her daughter, Kathleen Laing, light birthday cake candles for Laing's son in December. McQuade, who put her daughter up for adoption in 1966, reconnected with her a decade ago.
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
When Maine state Sen. Paula Benoit got a bill passed last year, she got more than a new law: She found pieces of her past.
For years, Benoit, 52, had wondered about the parents who had put her up for adoption. That helped lead her to support a plan to give adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates. After the bill passed, Benoit learned the names of her birth parents and their hometown. She e-mailed a colleague, Sen. Bruce Bryant, who represents that area and supported her bill, and asked whether he knew them.
His reply: The deceased couple were his grandparents.
"Oh, for the love of God, I need to call him and say, 'I'm your aunt,' " Benoit recalls thinking. "Can the world be any smaller?"
There was more: Bryant's brother, Mark, serves in Maine's House of Representatives and had opposed Benoit's bill. "It's too open," he says, adding that birth mothers expected privacy when they placed children for adoption years ago. He says he's happy Benoit is in his family but worries the new law may force some birth parents into contact they do not want.
Three lawmakers, two points of view, one family.
As unusual as Benoit's story is, the debate within her family over whether adult adoptees should be able to learn more about their backgrounds is echoing across the nation.
Last year, Maine was one of three states to pass laws to give such adoptees full or partial access to their original birth certificates more than in any year since 2000, according to a USA TODAY analysis of state records. Massachusetts approved access for those born before July 1974, when records were sealed, or after January 2008. North Carolina approved indirect access through a state-appointed intermediary. When its law takes effect next January, Maine will become the eighth state to give adult adoptees full access to their birth records, which list birth parents' names.
The controversial push to open adoption records is driven in part by the increased interest among many Americans in finding their ancestral roots. Many adult adoptees may be able to find their birth parents without an original birth certificate by searching databases and the Internet, but the official record makes it easier. Some adoptees want to establish a relationship with birth parents; others are more interested in family medical histories. Some don't want to contact their birth parents, they simply want to know their past.
"For 52 years, I know I've been loved," Benoit says of her adoptive parents, who are alive and support her desire to know birth relatives. Even so, she says, she wondered whom she looked like. She wondered why, despite diet after diet, she couldn't lose weight. "Does obesity run in my family?" she'd ask herself.
"This is really about identity and the truth of a human being's existence," Darryl McDaniels, known as the rapper DMC, told lawmakers last month in New Jersey, where bills to open birth records have languished for decades. McDaniels, 43, learned at 35 that he was adopted and has since backed a bill to unseal birth certificates.
"We never start a book from Chapter 2," he said. "As adoptees, we live our lives from Chapter 2."
As the situation in New Jersey suggests, unsealing birth certificates often has been difficult. Bills to do so were proposed in at least seven other states last year but did not pass. Some proposals, such as those in New Jersey, have been stymied by opposition from the National Council for Adoption and some Catholic bishops, abortion opponents and civil libertarians.
Thomas Atwood, president of the council, which represents adoption agencies, says birth mothers were promised privacy and if that promise is broken, fewer women will choose adoption over abortion.
Despite the opposition, "the general trend is clear: Adoptees are being given access, state by state," says Fred Greenman, legal adviser to the American Adoption Congress, which supports open birth records.
Greenman reconnected with his daughter in 1991, more than 30 years after agreeing to her adoption. The daughter's husband made the first call and set up a meeting. "We spent the whole day at the dining room table talking," he recalls. He says most birth parents welcome contact, as he did, and adoptees deserve to know their past.
Last year's increase in access laws also reflects a larger trend toward openness in adoption, as more birth parents seek to stay in contact with kids they relinquish. "There's far more acceptance of it being open," says Herbert Brail, head of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys.
That was not the case decades ago when many women, under the stigma of unmarried pregnancy, felt forced to relinquish their babies, says Ann Fessler, author of The Girls Who Went Away, a 2006 book about women who gave up children in the 1950s and 1960s.
Fessler, an adoptee, says many of the women she interviewed have "tremendous guilt." She says they want contact with their children, and about half have it. The rest, she says, feel they have no right to it but wonder about their children.
Fessler, 58, says women in their mid-70s and 80s, are like her own birth mother often more reticent about a reunion. She wrote her 77-year-old mother a letter, then a postcard, and waited more than a year but got no response. So she called. "I was very, very nervous kind of shaking," she says. Her mother was friendly on the phone, so they met in person a few months later. "We chatted like crazy," Fessler says.
Now, however, they have "minimal" contact. Her mother has not told her other three children about Fessler. "She's still torn about whether she can come out about this," Fessler says.
Eileen McQuade, president of the American Adoption Congress, says unsealing birth records has not created problems in the states that have done so Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee. Two other states, Alaska and Kansas, have never sealed birth records. Delaware allows full access except when birth parents object.
Abortion rates have declined in the states that allow full access to records, as they have nationwide. Most birth parents in Alabama, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee have consented to contact with their children or the release of records, according to records reviewed by USA TODAY.
After Oregon began releasing records in 2000, few birth mothers complained, says E. Wayne Carp, author of Adoption Politics: Bastard Nation & Ballot Initiative 58, a book on the state's experience.
As each state opens records, others will follow, says Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, which favors unsealing records. "Success breeds success."
A battle of legal rights
The legislative battles often pit an adoptee's right to his or her birth certificate against a birth mother's right to privacy.
"People have a right to their birth records," says Marley Greiner, founder of Bastard Nation, a group pushing to unseal records.
There is no such legal right, Atwood counters, adding that birth mothers believe they were promised privacy when states sealed records. He says many won't speak out because they have other kids or spouses who don't know about the adoption.
Birth records were sealed not to give birth mothers anonymity but to protect adoptive parents from interference from birth parents, says Elizabeth Samuels, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She says some were sealed to protect adoptees from the stigma of illegitimacy.
If birth mothers or adopted children really want to find each other, Atwood says, they can list their names in registries set up by states.
Not all states have registries. Many that do make few matches, says Marri Rillera of the International Soundex Reunion Registry, which gives adoptees and birth parents free help in finding each other. In Texas, about 8,500 adoptees, siblings and birth parents have registered. One or two matches are made each month, says Patricia Molina, who oversees the registry.
"A registry is not the answer," Rillera says. "Open records are."
She says some companies charge thousands of dollars to search records and some adoption agencies charge $400 to $500 for non-identifying information about birth parents, such as age, medical history, ethnicity and religion. An adoptee's search will be quicker and cheaper if birth records are open, she says. "Frankly, I'd like to be out of business."
'We've had mixed emotions'
At least 19,000 adoptees have asked for their birth certificates in Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon and Tennessee.
"I've seen a lot of people whose hands shake" when they get the record, says Melanie Orman, adoption coordinator for New Hampshire. She says many had met their birth mother or knew her name but wanted the piece of paper as a record of their past.
Birth mothers can be distressed. Orman got a call from an angry woman who said she was awakened at 11 p.m. by a call from someone who said, "You're my mother." She says the woman felt her privacy had been invaded.
"We've had mixed emotions: happy, sad, upset," says Carolyn Jones, coordinator of post-adoption services at the Tennessee Department of Children's Services.
Adoptees seeking birth certificates is "routine now," says Carol Sanders at Oregon's Center for Health Statistics. From June 2000 through November 2007, 9,571 adoptees sought records in Oregon. Of 564 birth parents who filed forms on whether they wanted contact, 85 said no.
"I've seen very few who say no," says Dorothy Harshbarger, Alabama's registrar of vital records. She estimates 95% of birth parents allow contact. She says a few complained after records were unsealed in 2000, but not many since then.
A dozen states provide partial access to original birth certificates, depending on the date of the adoption and the permission of birth parents. Another dozen allow indirect access through a state-appointed intermediary if birth parents agree. In other states, adoptees need court approval.
In Illinois, which allows access via an intermediary, 25% of the parents decline contact, says Nancy Golden, co-director of the Midwest Adoption Center, a group that does adoption counseling. She says the women may have kept the birth a secret or may fear anger from the adoptee. She says reunions usually are positive if people don't expect too much. Still, she says the experience can be "overwhelming."
Illinois state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, who plans to sponsor a bill this year to fully open records, says she was in her 20s when she found her birth mother. The woman's first response: "What took you so long?"
McQuade was 19, a college freshman, when she relinquished a baby girl in 1966. "I felt so powerless and shameful," she recalls. She later married the father and had two more daughters, but they didn't discuss their first child. "We hoped the pain would go away," she says, "but it never did."
Then came the phone call on Nov. 28, 1997, about 9:30 p.m. "I'm calling from New York," a woman said. "I knew what it was immediately," McQuade recalls. The caller, a friend of her first child, asked if the parents wanted contact. They did. The friend handed the phone to the daughter.
Mother and daughter spoke for the first time, neither sure what to say. McQuade started by telling her family medical information.
"It was kind of indescribable terrified, excited, surreal," says her daughter Kathleen Laing. "We e-mailed every day for a year. It was incredibly intense."
They met in person the following July 4th weekend. "It was a complete roller coaster," McQuade says, from joy and hope to sadness at missing so many years. She says their reunion is "a fairy tale come true" that prompted her activism.
Benoit says that after she began pushing to unseal Maine's birth records, she asked a judge for her own. He said no. Later, to her surprise, she received a letter from the court that included her birth mother's name. She still does not have her original birth certificate.
She says the Bryants invited her to a Christmas party and other get-togethers. "Our family is happy to know her," Mark Bryant says.
Benoit says her birth mother was poor and about 50 when she was born, and did the right thing in relinquishing her baby. If her birth mother were alive, Benoit says, "Boy, would I love to put my arms around her and thank her."
User Image
msbutterfly wrote: 5h 48m ago
As in all human interactions we must take care not to inflict unnecessary trauma into the lives of others. The initial contact by either the parent who relinquished, or the adult who was that relinquished child, must minimize that emotional impact. Organizations such as ALMA have volunteers who coach searchers in making contact w/o disclosing private info to anyone but the intended recipient. Perhaps these procedures should be electronically shared to prevent the unpleasantness that has been described in some of these comments. And, as an 80 year old woman who relinquished & kept "the secret" for 30 years, I urge all Birthparents to stop burying the secret and face the truth. An honest birth certificate is everyone's right!

User Image
triona wrote: 1d 14h ago
Dear Editor,
I read with interest your article, As adoptees seek roots, states unsealing records. As an adult adoptee, I hope this article will show the deplorable second-class status to which adoptees are reduced.
The problem is worse than your article indicated. While some states have opened adoptees' records without condition, compromise solutions like registries and intermediaries are inaccessible, ineffective, and largely unaccountable.
Because there is no such thing as a standard adoption, these solutions are not available to everyone. Some states have a sandwich situation in which adoptees have complete access or none, based on when they were born. Interstate and international adoptions further complicate matters. There are few procedures for cooperation in the release of information, so many cases fall through the cracks.
The services are poorly advertised and lack adequately trained staff. Most people don't know post-adoption programs exist, so match rates are low. Staff may or may not have a broad understanding of the resources available for researching adoptions. Searches are often limited to a brief review of indexes, and key steps are overlooked, such as obtaining relevant files.
Worse, participants in such programs will find little accountability. Requests for standard program policies is met with the classic excuse, confidential. The programs are overseen by judges who do not inquire as to the procedures used, or not used. How is a participant supposed to know if the services he or she purchased are being executed in a satisfactory manner?
Because of this lack of oversight, any violation of statute may go unaddressed. As a participant in the Illinois intermediary program, my identifying information was disclosed to my contacted relative without my consent. Although I have been promised written notification, six months later I have yet to receive it. There are no mechanisms for holding these programs accountable for services that, under current law, only they can provide.
The only equitable choice is to grant adoptees unconditional access to their records, in every state.

User Image
kepsaw5 wrote: 2d 10h ago
I think it would be wonderful if all the states unsealed records in adoptions. The birth mother should ALWAYS be honest with anyone she could be involved with in the future about giving a child up. If you are in a relationship where you don't think a man would understand, then you probably shouldn't pursue that relationship. I also strongly feel that the birth mother should tell the father about the baby just so there won't be any surprises. I am adopted and I am curious about my biological family. I would also like to meet my mother and tell her thank you for giving me a chance at a life she couldn't give me. I love her for that. My adoptive parents are WONDERFUL, but there is always wonder in my mind about the family I never knew. I was born and raised in Oklahoma and I hope and pray that the laws change soon. If nothing more than to know what my family medical history is. By the way, it is NOT just the child who is left to deal with the emotional wreckage. I could not imagine the emotional turmoil that I would have to deal with deciding whether or not to give one of my children up for adoption. Lastly to adoptive parents, PLEASE TELL YOUR ADOPTED CHILDREN THAT THEY ARE ADOPTED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

User Image
timojera wrote: 2d 13h ago
Denial, its a powerful mechanism. I wont defend my adoptive parents actions. They kept my story a secret for 38 years. Nor will I defend an industry that pretends to base itself on the needs of the child.
It is clear that it is adults whose needs are being met when an adoption is being arranged. It is the children who are left come to terms with the emotional wreckage.
Open records is a distraction that the adoption industry uses to keep adoptees unaware. The real question is what gives a parent the right to anonymity from their children? What right does any human have in denying other humans a heritage, a sense of beginning, belonging, being part of the continuing human legacy.
You all gather and celebrate heritage based holidays that are based on people and experiences of the past. Yet, you deny us that same connection. It is an injustice, a violation of human rights, created as an escape from truth.

User Image
Romany777 wrote: 2d 15h ago
BobMarley wrote:

"Ohiomum,

You must be friggin high if you can't understand how a bombshell like this would destroy a marriage.

Quite frankly, the fact that you must have seeked out and made contact with the daughter you gave up 15 years ago WITHOUT upfront consent from her parents, shows that YOU are a bit "self-absorbed" to pull such a stunt."

Yes - there will be people who are so self-absorbed that they will stop at nothing to get answers and acknowledgement from children they've relinquished or parents they've been relinquished by. There are also people who cannot divorce without exacting some "revenge" on their ex-spouses, people who poison their children's minds with racial hatred, people who feel entitled to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. Bad behavior is not limited to the adoption triad. You can find examples everywhere you look.

But is that any reason to keep EVERYONE ELSE from knowing where they were born and who their parents are? The vast majority of adoptees have a loving relationship with their adoptive parents, and those parents understand the need to find the one piece of the adoptee's identity that the adoptive parents (no matter how supportive) cannot provide.

Why are ALL adoptees automatically judged guilty for something they haven't done because of a handful of horror stories? There are just as many (if not more) stories of happy reunions or even reunions that didn't work out but the parties respect each other's wishes to have limited or even no further contact. No headlines, no horror stories - just adults acting like adults.

It is time that adult adoptees are treated like the responsible adults that they are.



User Image
BobMarley wrote: 2d 17h ago
ohiomum wrote: 22h 2m ago

"My husabnd and I nearly split up when a son that he didn't know he had ( the mother never told him ) showed up on the phone and doorstep. It was a shock to our families, as well.

PLEASE, reconsider what you will do to someone's life when you try to find your birth parents. It really is NOT necessary to do this. Take it from someone who was hurt by it..."

You sound very selfish and self involved. Its no wonder your family has issues adjusting with an attitude like that. Like it or not, this child existed before you and deserves the chance to know your husband, and even you, too. Sounds like this kid might have walked into a hornets nest tho....

============================
Ohiomum,

You must be friggin high if you can't understand how a bombshell like this would destroy a marriage.

Quite frankly, the fact that you must have seeked out and made contact with the daughter you gave up 15 years ago WITHOUT upfront consent from her parents, shows that YOU are a bit "self-absorbed" to pull such a stunt.


User Image
circle92 wrote: 3d ago
ADOPTEES DESERVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND THEIR TRUTH!

BIRTHMOTHER NEVER PROMISED CONFIDENTIALITY NOR ANONYMITY, NOR COUNSELED ABOUT THE PROCESS OF BIRTH AND ADOPTION; LOSS, ADJUSTMENT AND LIFETIME GRIEVING FOR FIRST BORN BABY BOY!

I am a 64 yr old birthmother who gave birth to my son "out of wedlock" in 1964. I had to have an emergency C-section late at night, therefore, was put to sleep for the operation. Upon waking up from the doctor's performing the C-section to have my son, I found myself in a psychiatric room... LOCKED UP... placed in this horrible room by a nurse without doctor's orders "just because I had my son without benefit of marriage" - this treatment was meant to be my punishment!! My new born son had been whisked away from the hospital that morning without my being able to see him - he was gone! I was devastated!

Adoption was the only option in that timeframe - there was no welfare assistance, no family assistance, I could not work after having major surgery, so there was no other option! It was not what I wanted to do, but I had to do to assure that my son would be taken care of and have what he needed that I could not offer him. This was a time when society encouraged secrecy about out-of-wedlock pregnancy, which brought about stigma, and brought shame for birthmothers.... and certainly, a time when society never held the boyfriend accountable or responsible! Birthmother was "ditched" and boyfriend was "gone with the wind" - no consequences!

As a birthmother, I was promised "NOTHING"... certainly not confidentiality about my son's birth ... while I was in the hospital, after being MOVED from the psychiatric room, many people heard the gossip and came to the hospital to visit me. In fact, I recall leaving the hospital without my baby boy and declaring on the steps of the hospital that I would search and find my baby boy... when he became 19 years of age (not wanting to disturb his life while young).

I began my search for my son when he was 19 = = = 9 years later I found him ... one (1) block from where I had been searching for him in the same community where I gave birth to him. We have been reunited for 15 years and have a wonderful relationship... our story includes lots of conversation and times for reflection, as well as great healing for my birthson and myself... by getting to know each other and by dealing with our truth and honesty! It has been an amazing experience... because of our openness, honesty/truthfulness, communication and because of the work of a TRIAD post adoption support group for adult adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents.

My birthson's adoptive mother and I have a fantastic relationship, because we have been open and honest - - secrecy would not have brought about "our son's" truth, nor answers to his many questions, nor his medical history and healing... nor would we have enjoyed our friendship years later!

As an adoptee, "our son" has a right to his original birth certificate, a VITAL statistic that should never have been amended or changed. Often times, the "amended" birth certificate has inaccurate information, wrong birth dates, no time, no hospital listed, and is falsely altered! Vital statistics must be left in original form from birth. For adoptions, an "Adoption Certificate" should be issued to the adoptive parents. All adoptees, just as non-adopted persons, must be given access to their original birth certificate which is rightfully their vital birth record. The birth certificate documents the date and time of birth that is a critical document for school and college admission, obtaining a passport, employment, retirement, social security, and other types of legal requirements.

Every state must adopt new policies for adoptee's to access their original birth certificate! The truth shall set everyone free!

User Image
awf5000 wrote: 3d ago

I am a resident of Illinois, an adopted woman, a senior citizen and have been active in the adoptee rights movement for over 15 years. I was delighted to read in USA Today that Ms. Koch had interviewed Illinois State Representative Sara Feigenholtz. Ms. Koch reports that Rep. Feigenholtz is planning to sponsor a bill this year to fully open records. There is a large grassroots following eagerly awaiting such a bill.

Id like to clarify one misleading statistic about Illinois. Nancy Gordon, head of Midwest Adoption Agency which operates the Confidential Intermediary Program in Illinois, says that 25% of birth mothers decline contact with their adopted offspring.

However, these birth mothers were asked only about having immediate contact with their adopted adult children and not about their beliefs on adoptee access to original birth certificates. The numbers change dramatically when the question is about adoptee rights and not about search & reunion. Its like comparing apples and oranges.

Oregon has issued 8,190 original birth certificates between the years 2000 2005. During this 5 year period, only 83 birth mothers expressed a desire to decline contact with their adopted offspring. That means that 93.3% of first mothers in Oregon did not disagree with the state giving original birth certificates to all adopted adults. Alabama reports 96. % of birth mothers in favor, and New Hampshire, 98.8 % of first mothers approved.

The time has come for all states in the United States of America to restore to adopted adults their right to unconditionally access their original birth certificate.
Sincerely,
Anita Walker Field, Director
Illinois Open Organization
http://www.ilopen.org

5000 Oakton
Skokie, IL 60077
847-677-0594
awfield5000@gmail.com


User Image
Romany777 wrote: 3d ago
If the whole idea of privacy/confidentiality/anonymity for relinquishing parents is to avoid having their adult son or daughter unexpectedly showing up on their doorstep and demanding answers or a relationship - then the parents can file a "no contact" notice. To deny ALL adoptees their heritage, medical history and sense of identity because a few first parents are afraid that their relinquished son or daughter will (1) ask for their original birth certificate AND (2) want to physically find their parents AND (3) be able to find their parents based on the names AND (4) try to make contact despite being warned that a "no contact" notice has been filed - - - is equivalent to a guilty verdict without any crime being commited or even contemplated. And without an open records law - how is an adult adoptee to know that their first parents do or do not want contact in the first place. Reunions happen with or without an original birth certificate. Searching adoptees would love to know if contact would not be welcomed.

Mr. Atwood really needs to read something other than his own website:
1. The Donaldson Report (November 2007) shows proof that open records DO NOT increase abortions and decrease adoptions. Kansas (where records were NEVER sealed) has a lower abortion rate and a higher adoption rate than surrounding closed records states.
2. The Doe v. Sundquist decision specifically ruled that NO legal right to privacy/confidentiality/anonymity existed or exists for birth parents.
3. Mutual consent registries - while they look good on paper - do not match people if one of the parties is deceased or can't afford the fee or is not aware that a registry exists.

For those who believe that family medical history is the only information that should be given to adult adoptees - who is going to provide the updates? Mine hasn't been updated since 1953. I'm told my great-grandfather died of TB in the 1930s. I'm sure a lot has happened in the past 50+ years.

It's amazing that even if an adoptee is happily reunited with their first parents - they STILL cannot get their original birth certificate in a closed records state! Even someone adopted by a step-parent cannot get their original birth certificate. Even if one of the parents has died, and the other parent's new spouse adopts the child - they cannot get their original birth certificate. What is the point of that?

The 1935 sealed records law in New York State came about in part because Gov. Herbert Lehman was an adoptive parent. It's time to restore our rights.

User Image
shadtrain wrote: 3d 2h ago
As a birthmother who relinquished a daughter in Connecticut in 1961 in the era of church and adoption agency rule, I want to adamantly state that all adopted people have a right to their original birth certificates and all of their history. Adopted people are disenfranchised from the right to their heritage, a right that is accepted without question by the rest of us. Adoptees are the only group of American citizens so disenfranchised and, as such, represent a group apart from those of us that enjoy full rights. It is a shock to me that this issue has not reached the Supreme Court with a ruling in favor of adopted people after 30 years of debate.

Let me also adamantly state, as a 'graduate' of a Connecticut Catholic Maternity Home, that birth mothers were NEVER promised anything, including anonymity. The secrecy was created to 'protect' the new adoptive family from the birth mother, not the other way around. It enrages me that Thomas Atwood uses birthparents as a reason for ongoing secrecy and lack of access. Get over it, Mr. Atwood. You do not know what you are talking about. I was there! Do not 'protect' me from my child; how arrogant!

As a person who was involved in the Adoption Reform Movement from 1978-present, it is a great sadness to me that this is still an issue under debate in any state in the union. We have known the truth for decades. Openness is better for everyone. No parent has the right to shut out their child. The adopted person has the right to all information. Any birthparent that is 'shocked' about being contacted has been comatose for the past 25 years, when stories of reunions have become commonplace, thank God.

I have been in reunion with my daughter since 1980. If that had not happened, I would continue to be tormented with only my memories of her birth, the pain of her relinquishment, and the ongoing pain of losing my first child. Thank God I found her. We maintain a very close relationship. I was also welcomed by her wonderful adoptive parents, two sensitive, caring people who loved her enough to understand my need and her need to connect. Unfortunately, they are now both deceased. My daughter and I continue to see each other very frequently and I am "Grandma" to her children. There have been NO negative consequences in our reunion. Additionally, I have always maintained great respect for the family that welcomed her and raised her and loved her. Thank God they were there.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]