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?
Thanks. I think you're right. The commonest reason opponents of unsealing give is birth parent privacy. I don't think there is a privacy right, but my reason for thinking that is that the fact to be kept private from me is as much a fact about me as it is about my birth parents. And a very important one at that. That argument can look like it gives a positive reason to unseal.
Yes, the more I think about it the more weird I find the parent's right to privacy argument. I suppose it has roots in the really old fashioned idea that it was necessary to protect the 'reputation' of the birth parents, an idea that is quite ridiculous today. But I think it still suits many of the non-adoptee adults involved, birth and adoptive, as it appears simpler and cleaner (but isn't!). (And sure, some of them aren't that keen on their child digging up what they buried long ago) . I don't see how anyone can argue that hiding a child's genetic heritage is in the best interests of the child, and anyway, if it is argued that the reason for sealing the records IS because it was best for the child, then once that child is an adult it should certainly now be up to that adult child to decide for themselves what's in their best interest.
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?
Oh, shoot. Now I feel badly about writing sardonically about adoptive parents and their dread of separation. Two of my oldest friends are in that category, and I think they would find the comment hurtful. I really don't want to be hurtful and wish I could retract those words.
"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?
Thanks. I think you're right. The commonest reason opponents of unsealing give is birth parent privacy. I don't think there is a privacy right, but my reason for thinking that is that the fact to be kept private from me is as much a fact about me as it is about my birth parents. And a very important one at that. That argument can look like it gives a positive reason to unseal.
Yes, the more I think about it the more weird I find the parent's right to privacy argument. I suppose it has roots in the really old fashioned idea that it was necessary to protect the 'reputation' of the birth parents, an idea that is quite ridiculous today. But I think it still suits many of the non-adoptee adults involved, birth and adoptive, as it appears simpler and cleaner (but isn't!). (And sure, some of them aren't that keen on their child digging up what they buried long ago) . I don't see how anyone can argue that hiding a child's genetic heritage is in the best interests of the child, and anyway, if it is argued that the reason for sealing the records IS because it was best for the child, then once that child is an adult it should certainly now be up to that adult child to decide for themselves what's in their best interest.
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?
Oh, shoot. Now I feel badly about writing sardonically about adoptive parents and their dread of separation. Two of my oldest friends are in that category, and I think they would find the comment hurtful. I really don't want to be hurtful and wish I could retract those words.
"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!!!