Adoptees Should Have the Right to View Their Adoption Records

Adoptees Should Have the Right to View Their Adoption Records Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . Adoptees Should Have the Right to View Their Adoption Records â€Å"In all of us there is a hunger, marrow deep, to know our heritage, to know who we are and where we have come from. Without this enriching knowledge, there is a hallow yearning; no matter what our attainments in life, there is the most disquieting loneliness† (Haley Roots qtd. in Freundlich 3). Sealed birth records are a generally new tradition in society. In fact, the idea did not exist before the 1950’s, and was not widespread until the 1960’s. Most records were sealed in two steps – first from the public, and then from those named in the records. â€Å"The constant closing of records arose from the upcoming idea that families formed through adoption should be indistinguishable from those formed by birth. In addition, society was changing its perception and treatment of adult adoptees and unmarried birthparents† (Hasegawa, Busharis 24). During the 1970’s, search and reuni on support groups formed throughout the country. Then, in 1978, the Department of Housing, Education, and Welfare assembled a pair of experts, including a birth parent and an adoptee, to draft model uniform adoption legislation. Proposed in 1980, the act recommended that adult adoptees have access to their original birth certificates, as well as court and agency records about their adoption. â€Å"Unfortunately, the proposed legislation energized groups that wanted adoption to remain a secret† (Hasegawa, Busharis 24). The act finally endorsed did not address adoption records, and a system of unequal treatment under law – where adoptees were denied the right to access birth information that everyone else had – continued to become more established. Throughout the 1980’s and into the early 1990’s, no state reversed its sealed records laws and some that had not until that time finally did. Only Kansas and Alaska continued to give adoptees access to the ir birth records. Most recently, many states created intermediary, or registry systems. â€Å"Registries, though, were a ‘compromise’ supported by closed records advocates, and were highly restrictive. Some systems required adoptees to obtain their adoptive parent’s permission, and at least one had a counseling requirement. Such restrictions, along with a lack of funding and popularity, kept registries from accomplishing much of anything† (Hasegawa, Busharis 24). The opposition has many arguments to support their cause. They believe that opening records violates promises to birthmothers; imposes unwanted relationships; increases abortions and decreases adoptions; undermines the integrity of the adoptive family and the institution of adoption; increases the foster care population; violates constitutional rights to familial and reproductive privacy; violates rights to avoid disclosure of confidential information and constitutional equal protection; and the p rivacy rights of adoptive parents. However, these arguments are not accurately based off of collected data and a correct analysis of the law. â€Å"To begin, state laws have never promised birth mothers complete confidentiality from their children, and adoption practitioners’ verbal promises of confidentiality are not – and cannot be – binding unless they are supported by law† (Freundlich 17). Courts have proven that such promises can exist only if the laws expressly state that the closure is both absolute and permanent. The statues and adoption records are neither. Furthermore, reviews of signed agreements have found no such â€Å"promises† in writing.