Starting March 20, anyone adopted in Ohio between 1964 and 1996 can request their adoption file and original birth certificate. Birth parents were given the option to have their names redacted, and out of 400,000 records, about 100 people asked for the redaction.
It's a complicated question, and I've seen it from the perspective of knowing and working with birth parents, adoptees, and adoptive parents. On balance, I think Ohio's approach is a good one: make secrecy opt-in, not opt-out.
But first, a word from our sponsor!
Up until recently, adoption was routinely stigmatized and clouded in secrecy. The cliche was that the young woman would be sent off to an institution with "Magdelene" in the name, and hidden for nine months while the family told everyone back home that she was visiting an auntie out of state. When the baby was born, she signed relinquishment papers and walked away, never to be heard from again. The children might not ever be told they were adopted.
Now it's more common to have some degree of open adoption, though the form varies widely. It might mean the occasional exchange of letters and photos, or visits around the holidays. This requires a certain amount of trust between people who don't know each other well: here in California, for instance, any promises around post-adoption contact are nearly unenforceable once the adoption is final.
I've met adult adoptees who had always felt there was a piece missing, struggling with all the unanswered questions, even when the adoptive parents were wonderful. I've met a few others who didn't feel it was important to find out about their birth parents. And in between, there were others who found it became an issue at certain milestones in their lives: when they had their own children, when they dealt with medical issues, or when their adoptive parents died.
Aside from the medical history, the question that came up the most was why. Why would their birth mothers give them up? And these led to other questions: Why weren't their birth fathers there for them? Were there brothers and sisters out there somewhere?
About those few who wanted their names redacted: as hard as it may be from the adoptee's end, the birth parent's wishes have to be respected here. (And I'm a bit concerned about those who may have left Ohio, and didn't hear about the changes.) More than once, I've sat across the desk from a terrified young woman who was certain her family would disown her if they ever found out about the baby. She might be underestimating them. But she's met them and I haven't. I promised her that her identity would be kept confidential unless she decided otherwise, and that promise has to be kept.
Eighteen years later, her life might look very different, and she might be willing to give consent for contact. But in those panicky moments after the birth of a child she can't keep, she doesn't know that. This is why all states now have some form of safe surrender law, where a newborn can be handed over at a hospital or other designated site with complete anonymity. Given a choice, I'd rather have a proper adoption relinquishment with papers signed, the father contacted if possible, and a full medical history taken. But if it comes down to anonymous surrender vs. babies abandoned in an unsafe place, I know which one I'd rather see. Incidentally, when Nebraska passed its safe surrender law in 2008, there was no age limit specified. Four months later, after at least 35 children and teenagers were abandoned in that state, they closed the loophole and to limited future surrenders to newborns.
Some of the coming reunions will be joyful ones, with compassion and understanding bridging the years spent apart. I've known adoptees who just wanted to say Thank you, you made the right decision and my life turned out fine. Some others will be disappointed when the real person doesn't match the fantasy. (As one adoptee told me, "Nobody gives up a baby because they're in a good situation.") But the chance to have all those questions answered - even when the answers aren't all happy ones - can bring peace of mind.
On to Top Comments!
From Angie in WA State:
This comment by Gooserock in this hilarious and highly delightful diary by xaxnar.
Truthfully, I must nominate the Diary and 99% of all the comments therein for Top Comments. It's that good.
;-)
-- thanks TC Team!
angie
From
2thanks:
In the diary, Eclectablog tips up his bushel basket to shed light on a Christian dominionist who complains of being persecuted by Eclectablog's LGBT "spear" campaign.
Succinct sagesource summarizes the essentials.
Thanx again, Top Commies! ;o)
From
ontheleftcoast:
A wonderful response to a troll who thinks that pointing out police brutality is like crying, 'Wolf!' from PhilJD really puts things in perspective.
From your humble (if antisocial) diarist:
RETIII asks if there's Any Andrew Sullivan news since Sully quit blogging. LeftHandedMan offers a likely theory.
Top mojo, courtesy of mik:
1) Here Are 2 Constitutional Freedoms FROM Religion by Gooserock — 165
2) Isn't it nice that you can leave a job and not by We Shall Overcome — 116
3) His was a virgin birth. by Bob Johnson — 103
4) Sedation isn't an especially effective treatment by samanthab — 95
5) So help us, God, save us from Teh Stupid. by Railfan — 87
6) Drought by defndr — 86
7) Good work Bernie, as always! by elwior — 84
8) And how much of the nation's food supply won't by ontheleftcoast — 84
9) I imagine they're locked in till then by AustinCynic — 83
10) Wow, so it's true by white blitz — 83
11) Excellent! by penelope pnortney — 76
12) This, of course, cites the Constitution. by Railfan — 69
13) I'm stunned by the "logic" of these two statements by ontheleftcoast — 66
14) Something is rotten in the State of by elwior — 64
15) I have a Planet Fitness membership by Ellid — 64
16) Wow, you just can't make that up by Texas Lefty — 62
17) It's good that she's suing the city, but by journeyman — 61
18) This just in from repulicanland , by indycam — 60
19) it taught me two things, by agnostic — 59
20) That is disgusting. Will absolutely try. by eltee — 59
21) True by Steven D — 56
22) Make no mistake, they want full discrimination by OregonWetDog — 56
23) And they could probably argue that conditions by anonevent — 56
24) To my knowledge Hillary is a hawk on by Fishtroller01 — 56
25) Because it isn't about the gym. by leftykook — 54
26) This is, beyond doubt, one of the most awesome ... by Cthulhu — 52
27) The RW is trying hard to make Walker by Puddytat — 51
28) This is the very definition of reasonable doubt by Senor Unoball — 50
29) lol by annieli — 49
30) You know it... by PvtJarHead — 48
Photo quilt, courtesy of jotter: