Your argument is that there is a weighty reason for, e.g., original birth certificates to be available. Why isn't it enough just to argue that there is no good reason to keep them sealed? Why is the burden of proof on the side of unsealing them? If John Lennon's FBI file cannot be kept secret (and that is something the government surely had *some* interest in keeping secret, just, as it turned out, not one strong enough to justify keeping it secret), what could justify keeping birth certificates secret?
As a "birth" mother (1967), I have somewhere a copy of the papers I signed to relinquish my son. My recollection is that nowhere does it say, nor did anyone say to me, that my "confidentiality" would be protected. I was instructed to "forget all about it and get on with your life." The papers I signed did have language about how I agreed not to "molest" or "interfere with" the couple who were adopting my child. So the arguments that relinquishing parents were promised confidentiality don't work for me. I do have empathy, though, for women who were social pariahs back in the day and who, for whatever reason, never told their husbands, lovers, children, friends -- anyone -- about their lost child or children. And I even have a teeny tiny bit of feeling for adoptive parents who dread/fear that they will lose their child to the original parent(s). I mean, isn't adoption all about loss?
"I feel like a guest in my adoptive family and a latecomer to my biological one."--100%. It's like being in this eternal limbo, floating, untethered, never finding a safe place to land. And I love your acknowledgement that adoptees are not a monolith--my brother is also adopted, but has never had any desire to search. Thanks for another great article.
Your argument is that there is a weighty reason for, e.g., original birth certificates to be available. Why isn't it enough just to argue that there is no good reason to keep them sealed? Why is the burden of proof on the side of unsealing them? If John Lennon's FBI file cannot be kept secret (and that is something the government surely had *some* interest in keeping secret, just, as it turned out, not one strong enough to justify keeping it secret), what could justify keeping birth certificates secret?
Thank you. Your voice is so clarifying in our struggle. I hope you will give in-person testimony some time.
As a "birth" mother (1967), I have somewhere a copy of the papers I signed to relinquish my son. My recollection is that nowhere does it say, nor did anyone say to me, that my "confidentiality" would be protected. I was instructed to "forget all about it and get on with your life." The papers I signed did have language about how I agreed not to "molest" or "interfere with" the couple who were adopting my child. So the arguments that relinquishing parents were promised confidentiality don't work for me. I do have empathy, though, for women who were social pariahs back in the day and who, for whatever reason, never told their husbands, lovers, children, friends -- anyone -- about their lost child or children. And I even have a teeny tiny bit of feeling for adoptive parents who dread/fear that they will lose their child to the original parent(s). I mean, isn't adoption all about loss?
"I feel like a guest in my adoptive family and a latecomer to my biological one."--100%. It's like being in this eternal limbo, floating, untethered, never finding a safe place to land. And I love your acknowledgement that adoptees are not a monolith--my brother is also adopted, but has never had any desire to search. Thanks for another great article.
Another terrific piece,Tony. I appreciate your eloquence and insight. I relate so much to your experience. Thank you for sharing it!
This should be in the New York Times or the Atlantic - Tony you are a brilliant writer!!!