One more time, people!!:

In brief, open records do not equal a reunion, a relationship, an opening of a relationship, or anything of the kind. Open adoption records simply mean that an adult adoptee is permitted access to his/her birth information, the legal documents that the “rest of us” receive as a matter of course. A. Basic. Right.

It DOES NOT mean that said adoptees will force themselves upon their natural parents. Read some blogs of adoptees who have experienced contact denial if you want to see just how often people force themselves on parents who don’t want contact. Puh-leeze!! It just doesn’t happen like the alarmists would like the world-at-large to believe.

As the Evan B. Donaldson report For The Records: Restoring a Legal Right for Adult Adoptees states, one of the objections to open records is the contention that opening up records will “lead to the imposition of unwanted relationships” (p. 16, 18-19).:

Restoring Access to Records Imposes Unwanted Relationships: Allowing adult adopted persons to obtain their information forces birthparents into unwanted relationships with the children they relinquished.

This argument holds that unsealing records will result in highly negative outcomes for women who do not wish to have relationships with the children, now adults, whom they relinquished for adoption. The supporters of this argument frequently refer to birth mothers who were the victims of rape or incest and who wish to maintain secrecy about their experiences. This argument also predicts that adopted persons will “force” themselves on birthmothers who have not told their husbands, children or others in their families, resulting in shame and humiliation if their secret is revealed.

RESPONSE: The right to information is simply that — the right to information.

Proponents of records access maintain that this argument confuses the right to information with the right to a relationship. Their response contends that laws providing adopted persons with access to their information recognize their legitimate interest in and need to obtain personal data and do not mandate — nor could they — that any persons create or sustain personal relationships with one another. It focuses on the nature of relationships as mutually developed between individuals.

The response points to research and the experience of active registry and confidential intermediary programs that have shown the vast majority of birthparents are eager for contact with the children they bore, not secrecy from them. As discussed earlier, the research is limited, but it is one-sided in indicating that birthparents want contact and relationships. The response acknowledges that some birthparents may not want a relationship with their children for a variety of reasons. It maintains that these birthparents are free, as competent adults, to communicate their desires in this regard, having had between 18 and 21 years to decide what they might say if contacted by the child they relinquished. The response also points out that if birthparents are not certain at the moment of contact, they can work through their responses over time, as occurs in any new relationship.

The response further maintains that characterizing contact between adopted persons and their birthparents as “intrusions” and “forced relationships” does a deep disservice to all parties. Assertions that adopted persons are overreaching, thoughtless individuals who could wreak havoc on the lives of their birthparents — or even that they are would-be stalkers — generate fear and distrust. Such characterizations disparage the motives and integrity of adopted persons who seek personal information, some of whom also explore the possibility of relationships. As discussed earlier, these notions contradict the experiences in states that have restored access to records.

This response further argues that depictions of birthparents as fearful individuals who desire nothing more than to hide in the shadows are based on societal attitudes that birthmothers cannot — or, perhaps, should not — overcome the “shame” of a non-marital birth and relinquishment of their children. It maintains that these assertions disparage the motivations and strengths of birthparents, and ignores the changes that many (if not most) experience in their personal views and realities over the years; rather than mature adults able to deal with complex situations, they are cast as child-like individuals who need governments and other people to make their decisions for them.

It’s certainly interesting that, in just this one objection, people have been able to cast aspersions on both adopted persons and natural parents, and in ways that are more subtle and not what we’re perhaps used to with the put-downs associated with these groups.

The Report is stellar. The Donaldson Adoption Institute really does excellent, well-researched work. The Report is worth a read, particularly for anyone who cares to debate the topic of open adoption records. I do believe that I will point anyone with questions or perhaps even any misinformation or not enough information to read the full report. It is THAT good.

If you don’t want to read the whole report, at the very least, read the Recommendations and Conclusions on pages 27-31, including:

Providing adopted persons with the same rights as their counterparts who are raised in their biological families is a matter of legal equality, ethical practice and, on a human level, basic fairness. Furthermore, it is an essential step toward placing adoptive families, families of origin, everyone connected to them — and indeed, adoption itself — on a level playing field within society, without the stigma, shame and inequitable treatment they have experienced in the past.

Ah yes: on a human level, basic fairness.

That’s really NOT too much to ask.

NO. It’s NOT.

Your response: