Friday, February 16, 2007

 

Brainstorming Equal Rights for Adoptees

.
As the title of this posts suggest, I am opening up a discussion into ideas for obtaining Equal Rights for Adoptees. I would like us to think outside the box of what has been tried since Jean Paton first spoke pout on behalf of adoptees being denied their rights.

I would like us to think outside the box that says that this is a state issue.

I would like us to think outside the box that limits asking for rights only for adults, as this is NOT true equality with non-adopted persons.

I would like us to brainstorm a means of WORKING TOWARDS the end of falsified birth certificates. Working Towards may mean never reaching that goal but simply bringing public awareness to it. Working towards
may mean it taking a very long, long time...but long is better than NEVER, if we do NOTHING!

This is best exemplified by the Equal Rights Amendment for women's rights which was first proposed in 1923. While it is still not part of the U.S. Constitution, the ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment. AND, no one can deny the public awareness and change in status of women's lives in the twentieth century.

Earlier this month I put out a plea for attorneys who would help us with a class action suit. I learned through a triad attorney who contacted me privately that this really was not a good idea. BUT...

What about an equal rights amendment for adoptees??? ERAAP - Equal Rights Amendment for Adopted Persons. OR: Equal Access Amendment: EAE??

Here is my FIRST ROUGH brainstorming idea on this:

WHEREAS, all individuals have a unique identity that is legally required;
WHEREAS, one's certificate of birth is most often the basis of all other forms of identity;
WHEREAS, it is one's certificate of birth that not only names an individual but also names his parents of birth;
WHEREAS, theft of such identity is a crime;
THEREFORE, be it unlawful for any person or entity to destroy, withhold, or change said identifying information from the person whom it identifies, without their clear and willing consent to do so.

OR: WE could follow more closely the ERA which states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" and simply change the last word to "birth status or adoption."

I put this out as food for very serious thought. Let's kick it around and see how it flies. I KNOW it will not be easy. I KNOW it will take decades. I KNOW it will take money. I am not asking for naysayers. I am asking for those who are will to TRY!

AND...let me clear: I am not asking anyone to do this INSTEAD of any other things they are currently committed to, i.e. open records for adults, search and support, inquiries, etc..
I think we can all contribute some of our time and effort to more than one cause simultaneously. This is not an either or. It is not a put-down of any other goal. It is an ADDITIONAL goal and strategy I am suggesting.

Every fight starts with a first step!

"Always dream and shoot higher than you know you can do." William Faulkner

"You cannot cross the sea merely by standing and staring at the water." ~ R. Tagore

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something I can do." ~ Edward Everett Hale

"I have learned, that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours." ~Henry David Thoreau

"No one knows what he can do till he tries." ~ Publilius Syrus

"There is only one thing more powerful than all the armies of the world, that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic." ~ Dave Barry

"Change starts when someone sees the next step." ~William Drayton

"The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you. They are unique manifestations of the human spirit. "~ Wade Davis

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly." ~ Einstein

Do ya' need more motivation??? I've got more! :-)

Comments:
> I would like us to think outside the box that says that this is a state issue.

Good because it is not

This is is well thought out, Mirah

How to get people to band together is (to me) the issue

The NY City Human Rights Commissioner under Mayor Dinkens came to kick-off of one of our Marches to DC and said sealed records is a violation of Human, Civil and Constitutional Rights of adoptees and mothers who lost children to adoption, not just adoptees.. He, as an attorney, said take it to DC it is not a state's issue

Tis Time to band together and March
 
Adopttalk,

Thank you for this.
I agree that falsified birth certificates should be illegal. And it should be pointed out that at least in some states it is the adoptive parents who request the fake birth certificate. it really is not necessary.

The act of relinquishment/surrender does not set the fake birth certificate in motion..it is the act of adopting the child that does that.Surrendered children who are never adopted retain their original birth certificate.

I have never heard much interest coming from adoptees regarding the fake birth certificate. They don't seem to mind. They just want the real one at age 18.(I am glad to see that Joe Soll is supportive of this anti-fraud move)

Because as long as adoptees give the nod to the fake one existing at all, it is hard to argue for their right to the real one.Lawmakers have indicated their confusion over this.

The fake birth certificate also falsifies the mother's ob/gyn medical history and part of her life history...that of giving birth to this particular child at this particular time and place.

And it inserts the name of a stranger as the "mother.'The natural mother's name is nowhere to be found on the fake BC.

these falsified "documents" are a form of identity theft and fraud and should be outlawed.
 
K,

"at least in some states it is the adoptive parents who request the fake birth certificate."

I am unfamiliar with any states in which this occurs. It is my understanding that in all states at the time the adoption is finalized the original certificate is "sealed" a new "amended" [read: falsified} certificate is issued indicating the child was born to the adoptive parents.

It is the choice of the adoptive parents what to name the child, including a choice to leave the first name unchanged. But I am unaware of any state in which an adoptive parent can choose whether or not the original cert. is sealed or not a new one issued.

I am very grateful for Joe's support as I am of anyone's!! I am very pleased to hear his enthusiasm...Indeed, it IS time to band together and March!!
 
Adopttalk,

I read something about this "optional amended certificate' on the Evan B Donaldson website a couple of years ago.It was in an article by attorney Fred Greenman. But I don't know if it is still there, or what the article was called.

Since then, though, I have read this in other places.There are states where the adoptive parents are given the option to request the new certificate.

If this is true, than it shows that the laws are again "unequal' and that,regarding a person's identity and personal information, the states are given too much leeway.

I am very glad you are speaking out about the falsified birth certificate issue.
 
WHEREAS, all individuals have a unique identity that is legally required;
WHEREAS, one's certificate of birth is most often the basis of all other forms of identity;
WHEREAS, it is one's certificate of birth that not only names an individual but also names his parents of birth;
WHEREAS, theft of such identity is a crime;
THEREFORE, be it unlawful for any person or entity to destroy, withhold, or change said identifying information from the person whom it identifies, without their clear and willing consent to do so.


These premises only make perfect natural, legal, even biblical sense... so its incredible that they even have to be fought for at all, but they do because of how adoption has been constructed.

But we live in the 'postmodern' age, an age of deconstruction, so maybe now is the right time to start! What is built on a lie cannot and will not last forever.
 
K,

I did a Google search for "optional amended certificate" and came up with nothing. If you find anything, please share. Bottom line, it doesn't matter much for what's being discussed here.
 
"The NY City Human Rights Commissioner under Mayor Dinkens came to kick-off of one of our Marches to DC and said sealed records is a violation of Human, Civil and Constitutional Rights of adoptees and mothers who lost children to adoption, not just adoptees.. He, as an attorney, said take it to DC it is not a state's issue"

I looked into who this was...Rabbi Balfour Brickner was appointed NYC human rights commissioner by Dinkins in 1990. Sadly, he is no longer with us. Died at 78 of lung cancer. Wonder if there are others like him (today) who saw it as he did then.
 
Thanks Mary - only the good die young.
 
Adopttalk,
The "Resource Paper" by Fred Greenman(1997) on amended birth certificate laws is available on the Donaldson website. It is listed under their "policy" section.It is a short compilation on different state laws and territories which allow for a birth certificate to be issued after an adoption , with the name changed by the adoptive parents.

In some states the name is changed and a new birth certificate is issued at the request of the adoptive parents. In others, the adoptive parents can request that a new birth certificate should not be issued.They have that choice.

Greenman also lists states where the child's identity is restored to its original birth name, if the adoption is 'vacated.'Then the original birth certificate is reinstated.
Greenman apparently wrote this when arguing the Tennessee case.(Doe v Sundquist)And his issue was to explain how the biological parents had no 'say" in whether the records were changed/sealed or not.

The relevance has to do with the unequal laws. And the fact that whenever controversial legislation is proposed, either to be rescinded or overturned by something new, lawmakers ask "why are these laws and practices in place? Where did this practice come from? Whose rights are being protected? Whose rights are being violated?"

As you know from your adoption research, much of what happens is done for "reasons" that are long forgotten or not understood.So, it is important to understand why and how it came to be this way...and what the actual laws say.
 
K,

Thank you!

Fred Greenman was the attorney for ALMA's class action suit.

The link to the article you mentioned is:
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/confiden.html

The title is: Adoptive Parents' Control over "Confidentiality."
 
Adopttalk,

i didn't know that Greenman argued the ALMA case.
Do you have the ALMA cases, from the 70s and 80s?

My sister is an attorney and she sent them to me.There was a whole collection of them.They were published in the Marquette Law Review, in the 80s.

As I recall, though, there was no mention of the falsification of the birth certificate.The cases were based on a series of different arguments, such as the "suspect class" argument and the "unequal protection under the laws" argument.But it was about the "right" to get the original birth certificate...not about the falsification.

This is why I think what you are proposing is so important. It is possible that the constitutionality of falsifying the birth certificate has not been challenged before.
 
Adopttalk,
Thanks for publishing the link to the Greenman resource paper.
 
Fred Greenman was not the attorney for ALMA's lawauit, which was done around 1977 or so. Cyril Means, now deceased, was the attorney. Fred was not involved in adoption reform until years later. Fred has been involved in supporting and advising AAC since the late 90s and is a reunited birthfather.
 
MaryAnne - Quite right! Got my helpful attorneys confused. Thank you for clarifying.

K - yes, the ALMA class action suit was 1) against just the state of NY, not federal...and, 2) it was for adoptees to obtain their records.

I am sure MaryAnne will correct me on that if I am wrong as she is far more familiar with ALMA than I am, and has written about the history of adoption reform.

Another important word came to me last night in addition to using the term falsified birth certificates - which they are. The word REPEAL.

I want to see all sealed records legislation REPEALED...reversed. I want adoption to be brought back to what it was before these idiotic laws were put in place - OPEN! Truly open.

Every day people are raised by aunts, grandparents, step-parents. They know it and it doesn't harm them nearly as much as secrets and lies do.

Adoptees of BN made a decision some decades ago that they did not want to bring psyhcological need to know into play as an issue. They want their rights because it is their right. I understand that, and yet...

To ask for that right to be returned to them as adults ignores the harm done to children throughout their lives. As a mother, I cannot stand by and ignore an institution that alleges to be in the best interest of CHILDREN to cause them harm!
 
I recently heard from Annette Baran privately regarding this post. She reminded me of Neil Hulbert, "attorney who brought case when they were living in hawaii using notion that falsifying information was illegal."

She has encouraged me to contact him, and his wife who is a birthmother.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Blogging Birthmothers