Found Book Tour Discussion

I participated in the Found Book Tour.  I read Found by Jennifer Lauck along with other adoption bloggers and submitted several discussion questions.  I was given a list of discussion questions of which I picked three to answer here.  Others have been posting their own answers to these and other questions.  I'd love to hear what you have to say down in the comments section!

As someone who does not have living children, I felt a little dissed by the author's assertions that being a mother brings clarity that is otherwise impossible to have. Did others read this the same way? Do you agree? Disagree?

I do not have children either; however, I did not feel dissed in the least by those assertions.  I’m an adoptee who was separated from her mother immediately after birth.  My mother did not hold me.  She did not even see me.  Despite the nurses encouraging her to hold me, she refused and asked that I be taken away for fear she would change her mind about giving me up.  I know these things from her.  As an adoptee who did not know where she came from until two years ago, I can attest to feeling lost and alone.  I had a feeling like I just emerged in this world.  I was not “born” in my eyes.  I used to call myself a stork baby, someone who was just dropped on my parents’ doorstep at two months old.  I have nothing, no pictures, no stories, nothing, from the time before my life with them.  It is from this perspective that I understood that as an adoptee without children, I know nothing of that bond.  I suspect that should I have children someday, I’ll have that clarity.  I’ll understand what it is that as a baby I lost.  Do I think that having a child will change the way that I see the world?  Most defiantly.  Do I think that I can’t be a person without one?  Not at all.  Only time will tell I suppose.

Who would you suggest should read this memoir, and why?

I think that anyone connected to adoption should read this memoir.  And I don’t mean connected as in just adoptive parents, prospective adoptive parents, first parents, and adoptees.  I’m talking people who have friends who are adopted.  I’m talking about people who have nieces, nephews, grandchildren, neighbors, husbands, wives, etc. who are adopted.  I think there are a lot of misconceptions about adopted people out there, and I think this memoir challenges a lot of those misconceptions.  I also think that the author speaks with a great voice, one that should be listened to.  As a society, we accept adoption as a wonderful thing.  As a society, we tend to not listen to adult adoptees.  Their voices (my own included) are often silenced because we don’t always speak what everyone wants to hear.  Things that other people take for granted we are denied and told we cannot speak about.  We are told by people who know their biology and history that biology and history don’t matter.  People will access to their original birth certificates tells us that we shouldn’t have access to ours.  I think that memoirs like this are the key to getting others to take a step back and start listening to the voices of those who are arguably the most affected by adoption.

On pp 17-18, Jennifer talks about a baby searching for her mother after being born. How did this sensory-rich passage strike you? What thoughts did it trigger about the role you play in adoption?

I’ll admit, I cried when I read these pages and had to put the book down.  I never had that with my mother.  I was completely overwhelmed reading this and had to walk away for days before I had the courage to pick up the book again.  I could see myself as a baby looking for my mother, someone I couldn’t find and was separated from.  It broke my heart that I went through that as a child.  It made me yearn for my mother all over again.  I have yet to meet her.  Reading this just makes me want to meet her even more.  As I read this, my role was more defined for me than ever.  I was the helpless baby looking for my mother.  I was the one without a choice.  As a baby, I would have chosen my mother.  Nothing else mattered to me.  I didn’t know anything else.  I just knew her.  I knew her voice, her smell, her being.  And she was gone.  I was born and that was it.  I didn’t have a say in it.  My wants weren’t taken into consideration.  My mother could have kept me.  It would have been hard.  It would have been challenging.  But she could have made it work.  She chose not to.  It was about her.  Just like my adoptive parents adopted me for them.  It wasn’t about giving a baby a home; it was about finding a baby for their home.  My adoption wasn’t about me.  It was about everyone else.  This passage made that pretty clear to me all over again.  It helped me to realize that I do need to spend more time thinking about this and working on these issues before I have my own children.

To continue to the next leg of this book tour, please visit the main list at The Open Adoption Examiner.

Adoption-Ed 101: Conclusion

I hope you all enjoyed my first round of Adoption-Ed.  I really enjoyed writing these blog entries and I tried to keep them as simple as possible.  I had fun looking for good links to show that I don't just pull stuff out of thin air and I enjoyed future educating myself about the issues.  I hope that I've provided you with some food for thought and possibly given you some information that you didn't have before.

I have several topics already lined up for the next go around.  I want to write more about some of the history of adoption (an area that I'm going to have to read up on) and maybe even a few summaries of adoption related literature that I've read.  If you have any suggestions for me or things that you would like to learn more about, feel free to add them to the comments.  I'm looking at running my second "class" in a few months.  I need some time to digest and there's really only so much of this a person can handle without going crazy.

All in all, my take away message about adoption is this: adoption is a complicated subject and the only way to attempt to understand it is to educated yourself about it.  I believe that there are a lot of adoptees out there who do not know anything about adoption as an institution.  I used to be one of them.  It takes time and it can be pretty triggering.  I also think that there are a lot of other people out there who need to educate themselves.  I believe that all natural parents should have some sort of idea as to what they are getting their child into.  Adoptive parents I think have a pretty good idea about the institution of adoption because they have to go through it.  They are the ones with the power, and I've learned the in order to get that power, you usually have to have some sort of information.

I also think that the general public needs to know.  While it's estimated that 60% of people in the US are connected to adoption, we need more people to know about the issues in order to have better laws in our country.  Adoptees are a minority that needs the help of the majority in order to get our rights.  We need help and the only way we are going to get it is if society starts to see the problems with adoption rather than all the rainbows and flowers.

I hope that I was able to teach somebody something.  If not, well there's always next time...

Adoption-Ed 101: Guardianship Solution

Now that we know some of the problems with adoption, the question becomes, what do we do about it?  That pesky original problem has not gone away.  There are still people out there who cannot or do not want to parent who have children and people who want and are able to parent, but cannot have children.  If adoption isn't the answer, then what is?

One proposed solution is guardianship.  What this solution proposes is that children go to live with a different set of parents who become their guardians.  Names are not changed, birth certificates aren't sealed, and the child still gets to keep their sense of identity.  People who do not want to parent don't have to, people who do can, and the child gets to remain as themselves.

A few potential issues that I can see.  Adoptive parents want to be considered parents.  They want children of their own.  If they are guardians and the natural parents come back and decide they can and are willing to parent, then the guardians are out of luck.  I can see people getting really upset about this.  Does that make guardians glorified babysitters?  They might pour money into a kid who is then taken away by their biological parents.  Also, who's to say that the biological parents won't find a way to use the system?  I mean, that would make sense.  If you're poor and can't feed your kids, send them to live with the nice rich people who can afford it for a few years, and then come back and help the biological family out.  I could see some really big problems with this.

That being said, the adoptee in my argues that while biological families can come back in this model, isn't that what might be best for the child?  Isn't knowing where you come from important?  Should adoptive parents/guardians be willing to sacrifice and put themselves in hard positions for the sake of a child?  Isn't it supposed to be about the child?

This solution has potential.  It has worked in the past and could potentially work in the future.  Do I think this will happen?  Not in my lifetime.  I think that adoption is too rooted in our society to see it be eradicated.  Most people don't have it in them to raise someone else's child with the threat of that child's parents coming to take them away.  Just look at some of the public custody cases that have been playing out across the media.  These children were not even adopted yet.

I think the main point is that there are other options.  Someare good, some are bad.  Some need to be worked out a bit more.  However, there are other options out there and those options are worth looking into.

Adoption-Ed 101: International Adoption

I don't pretend to be an expert when it comes to International Adoption but this blog post in an attempt to show the side that nobody likes to talk about.

Adoption recently is posing an interesting supply and demand problem.  There is simply not enough domestic supply to meet the demand.  Sound cold?  The adoption industry brings in billions of dollars a year.  It's economics.  Lets just forget for a minute we're talking about children, because I can almost guarantee that the people who profit from adoption are doing the same thing.

Because of the domestic supply problem, more and more Potential Adoptive Parents are going overseas.  They may have more luck with international adoption.  Also, I've found that a lot of Americans feel they can "save" children from their fate if they are left in the countries in which they were born.  I used to feel this way too about international adoption, so I'm not really one who is in a position to judge.

For whatever reason, many PAPs seek to adoption internationally.  The biggest countries are China, Ethiopia, Russia, and South Korea.  It costs lots of money, a bit more than domestic adoption, and the parents have to travel to the country to pick up their child.  Some have to travel there more than once.  Eventually, they are able to bring their new child home with them.  These are usually not babies either.  They are children who speak another language, and often have been living in orphanages.  However, most of them are not really orphans.

Some countries have halted adoptions to the US.  Russia halted all adoptions by American families after a child was put on a flight back to Russia after his adoptive parents decided they didn't want him anymore.  He was alone.  Other countries like Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Nepal, Guatemala, Swaziland and Sierra Leone have also halted adoptions due to civil unrest or flaws in the adopting process.  Ethiopia recently slowed down the adoption process.  They were processing about 50 adoptions a day and now they have it down to 5 per day in order to investigate the corrupt system.

How is it corrupt?  Well, for starters a number of these children are not orphans.  Some have been sold by their families because they simply cannot feed them.  Other families have been told that their child will get a better life if they are adopted and then when they are older they will return to their families.  Others have been taken from their families.  Don't get me wrong, there are defiantly some ethical and legal international adoptions.  But there are a lot that are not ethical or legal.  There are two sides to this story, and most people only hear the flowers and rainbows version of this sad story.

Never mind the fact that if the paperwork isn't processed correctly, children can be deported from the US.  It has happened before.  These children lose more than a typical domestic adoptee.  They lose their language, their culture, their country, and it is harder for an international adoptee to enter into reunion.  These are children who look radically different than their adoptive families.  These are children who have feet in two worlds.

Adoption-Ed 101: Open Adoption

In today's post, I'm going to write about open adoption.  There are two main kinds of adoptions, open and closed.  In a closed adoption, everyone's identities are hidden.  Adoptive parents do not know the names of the natural parents and the natural parents do not know the names of the adoptive parents or the adoptee.  In open adoptions, the natural parents and adoptive parents know the identities of all the members of the adoption triad (adoptive parents, natural parents, and adoptee).

These days, more and more domestic adoptions are becoming open, so it's important to understand what it means to have an open adoption.  I would recommend further education on this subject as this blog post is merely an attempt to outline some of the issues with open adoption.  The main idea is that open adoption offers the same solution to the problem (outlined earlier) but that the adoptee and the natural parents can still know each other and possibly avoid some of the issues that come with adoption, such as the lack of identity that some adoptees feel, and the loss of a child that some natural families feel.  It's the idea that everyone can be one big happy family, unconventional perhaps, but everyone is happy in the end.

Usually, the parents come to an agreement where they decide how much contact the natural parents will have with the adoptive family and child.  However, in almost half of the states, these agreements are not legally binding.  Open adoptions can close where the adoptive parents can sever the link to the natural family.  It happens more often then people realize.  Once legal rights are trasfered to the adoptive parents, it can be nearly impossible to enforce agreements (some states do have laws that protect against this, but not all do so you need to check the laws of your state).

Open adoption has it's own host of issues.  I'm not sure how I would have felt if my adoption had been open.  I'm not sure that if I was a child I would be able to understand why I couldn't live with my natural mother.  I would have known that she was married to my natural father, and I would have been hurt when they had more children because as a six and a half year old I wouldn't have understood.  I wouldn't have liked having a sister I couldn't play with whenever I wanted.  And I don't think I would have been able to understand.  I would have been hurt.  It wouldn't have solved my problems.  It would have been great to know some of my missing pieces, but I'm not sure if that would have been the best thing for me.  Then again, who really knows?

Adoption-Ed 101: I Cost How Much?

One thing that I never really thought about before I started educating myself was just how much adoption costs.  I knew that it must cost something, but I had no clue just how much of a business it is. 

Domestic adoption can cost over $30,000.  It can cost nothing, but those cases are few and far between.  Most adoptive parents have to spend a pretty significant amount of cash in order to adopt a child.  For starters, there are attorney fees, and travel fees.  Attorney's must be paid because adoption is a legal transaction.  If the baby is located in a different geographical area, then the parents must pay to travel there, sometimes several times.  In most cases, fees also must be paid for the natural mother's care and counseling, the cost of the birth of the infant, the home study, supervision after the baby is placed but before the adoption is finalized, and the cost of using the agency.  In some cases adoptive parents might have to pay for advertising in order to find a mother willing to surrender her child to them.  A good reference can be found here: http://library.adoption.com/articles/the-cost-of-adopting-for-usa-domestic-independent-adoptions-international-adoptions.html.

When we get to international adoption, it can cost over $30,000 as well.  In addition to all the fees a couple would have to pay for a domestic adoption, they must also typically pay a fee to the country of birth, and there are more legal fees in the US.  Overall, it can be a very costly process.  Here's a good breakdown: http://international.adoption.com/foreign/international-adoption-costs.html.

Why does it cost so much?  Also, why are the prices so similar?  It would make sense for an international adoption to cost more than a domestic adoption, so why are both adoptions so expensive?

One answer to this question is that white babies are a commodity.  Due to abortions, better access to birth control, and changing views in society, it is more acceptable for mothers to keep their babies in today's world.  They understand that they can find resources in order to keep their children.  This is of course a general statement and not meant to cover everyone.  The point is that there are not as many babies available anymore.  The ones that are available are going to cost more, thanks to the economic principle of supply and demand.

This cost issue is a huge deal, especially when we start to talk about international adoptions.  There are people who put that cash in their pocket at the end of the day, so its very interesting to see where it all goes.  It is my belief that all Potential Adoptive Parents research just where their money is going in order to ensure the most ethical adoptions.

Is it ethical to buy another human being?  The status of adoption in this country shows that the majority of people say that in the case of adoption, it's ok to essentially purchase another human being.  Just some food for thought...

Adoption-Ed 101: Why Adoption Language Matters

Some people probably wonder why people care about what terms are used.  I argue that it does matter.  In fact, it matters very much.  Language is how we communicate with the world.  It enables us to share with others.  Different language has different connotation, and effects how people feel.  Words can hurt.  They can make people feel different things and they can make people think about different situations.  If language didn't matter, if words didn't matter, I wouldn't be blogging and you wouldn't be reading this.

Using PAL assumes that adoption is a one time thing.  It is a marketing language that was created to paint adoption in a positive light and to assume that being adopted is no different from being born to that set of parents.  However, there is a difference.  It's been proven over and over again and I'm not going to get into it here.  I would just argue that being adopted does make a difference in an adoptee's life.  Adoption is a business and it makes people a lot of money.  People profit off of adoption and this language is used to sell the idea.

It needs to be acknowledged that there is pain that comes with adoption.  There is loss.  Natural parents need to be able to grieve for the loss of their child.  Adoptive parents need to grieve the loss of the biological connection to the child.  Adopttes need to grieve the loss of their mothers, the only mother they have known up until the time of their birth.  There is loss, there is pain, and no amount of sugar coating on language is going to change that.

I don't want to make a mother feel like an incubator.  I am not a "birth product", something to be sold.  I'm a person with thoughts and feelings, and I have my own voice and opinions.  I have two sets of parents and by denying the first set of parents, it's denying a part of who I am.  I got my brown eyes from somewhere and that "somewhere" needs to be acknowledged.

I also wanted to add that there is great debate over what to call a first/natural/birth/biological mother.  I've heard a lot of adoptive parents say they are hurt when the other mother is referred to as a "natural" mother.  The reasoning?  Well, they argue that it implies they are "unnatural" mothers in that term and that they deserve to be acknowledged as real mothers.  Here's the thing though; if you are an unnatrual mother vs a natural mother, wouldn't you be a death mother if she is a birthmother?  My adoptive mother is not an unnatural mother.  She is my mother plain and simple.  But so in my natural mother.  She is also my mother.  I have two sets of parents, and neither one of them is unnatural, nor less important that the other.

Language matters, and it needs to be considered.  At times it seems to be a petty argument, and I sincerely hope we can find a way to agree on what terms can be used.  Society needs to accept adoptees, accept reunions, and accept different family situations.  This can only be done with appropriate language and a common way for people to share experiences without fearing hurting other people.

Adoption-Ed 101: PAL vs HAL

There are several different ways of talking about adoption.  There are different sets of terminology and often words can be very triggering to different groups of people.  When speaking about adoption, certain terms can be offensive to different groups.  Often the same word can be preferred by one group and rejected by another.  There are two different types of language that I will outline here along with some of the arguments that I have heard regarding use of language.  Although I'm not a fan of siting Wikipedia, I think they have a pretty good article describing the difference (at least at the time of this posting): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_adoption.

For starters, we need to begin with the idea is that there are several ways to form a family.  They can be formed by blood, by law, by social culture, or by love.  There are people may only accept families formed by blood and they may use language like "real" and "adopted" meaning that adopted people are not real parts of a family or that adoptive parents are not real parents.  I would hope if you are reading this blog you would know that that's just not true.

PAL/RAL is Positive/Respectful Adoption Language.  Here's a site that has a pretty good explanation of it: http://www.perspectivespress.com/pjpal.html.  PAL/RAL assumes that it does not make a different how a family was formed, and that language needs to adjust to assume that it does not matter if a child was adopted or not.  Use of "Mary was adopted" (one time event regarding how the family was formed) vs "Mary is adopted" (describing a state of a person; not a one time event) is a prime example of PAL.  PAL/RAL calls the first parents "birthparents" because they gave birth to the child (provided the DNA) but after that event they are no longer a part of the child's life.  Terms like "real parents" are avoided because it invalidates adoptive parents.  Birthparents make an adoption plan, and choose adoption for their children.  They do not choose to keep their baby, because their baby is not a possession.  Children are placed in new homes.  This language is used to paint adoption in the most positive light possible.

HAL is Honest Adoption Language.  This is a different system of terms that tries to respect all parties in the adoption triad.  It is a way for people who feel that PAL/RAL is not respectful enough toward everyone.  HAL assumes that adoption is a lifelong experience that cannot be limited to one single event.  HAL assumes that adoptees will always be a part of their first or natural family and that adoptees will always have two sets of parents.  The parents who give birth (provide the DNA) are called "natural parents" or "first parents".  They are parents who do not just give birth, but love their child.  As another point, fathers cannot give birth and therefore should never be labeled birthfathers.  What is also overlooked is that when using HAL, adoptees are called "adopted people" rather than "adopted children" and are therefore seen as adults when they turn 18.  Use of HAL acknowledges that there is pain associated with adoption and that it is not a one time event.  This language also reflects original terminology.

Now that we have a basic idea about what the different language is, we can move forward to discuss why it matters.  Yay for tomorrow's post!

Adoption-Ed 101: What is Identifying Information?

Unlike non-identifying information, identifying information does what it sounds like, gives the identities of the involved parties. This is not to be confused with the OBC, because that is an official document with the other information that is included in birth certificates. See the usual state law disclaimer here. This is an area that I am not 100% sure of because I did not do the research I should have before I started my search so I did not know that I had access to this information.

In my state, when an adoptee turns 21, they can request their identifying information from the agency where they were adopted from. The agency then attempts to get the consent of the natural parents to release that information. If consent is not given or the natural parents cannot be found, then the information is never released.

If you have followed the Oprah reunion story in the news, you are watching a classic example of why this is not a solution to the problem of not having OBCs opened or by requiring consent. Oprah’s sister tried to get her identifying information, but her natural mother would not give consent. Instead, Patricia was given her non-identifying information and because her sister was famous, she was able to figure it out. That’s one fantasy though that rarely comes true where an adoptees family is actually famous. The rest of us would have been up the creek without a paddle.

I also wanted to note that identifying information is not a substitute for a OBC.  Identifying information cannot prove when or where you were born.  It is not a legal document.  It can not be used to prove the identity of an adoptee for a passport or job.  While it's a good start, it is no where close to having an OBC.

If you have better information about Identifying information or good resources for people, please post it in the comments! Thanks!

Adoption-Ed 101: What is Non-Identifying Information?

Now that we understand OBCs, we need to talk about the other piece of information. Now, having an OBC isn’t needed to complete a search and reunion. I was able to do it. An OBC makes it easier and for some people it’s the only thing that will help them. For others, having non-identifying information is enough. This is also another area where it all depends on your state so I’m going to talk about my state for the sake of simplicity but please check your state’s laws for a full understanding.

Non-identifying information contains information that does not give the identity of the person. It includes things like physical descriptions of the natural parents, their occupations, ethnicity, birth place, birth date, and medical history, and descriptions of their families. I was able to track down my natural parents because my adoptive mother was told my natural parent’s first names which she wrote on her copy of my non-identifying information and I had their birth dates and birth places, which thanks to public record is enough to limit people down. In my state, my adoptive parents had a copy of my non-identifying information from the time of my adoption. When I turned eighteen, I could have requested my own copy.

Now some people argue because medical history is included on non-identifying information, there is no reason to track down natural parents later. I disagree. When I was born, my natural parents did not have two other children, they came after me. Both of my sisters have medical issues that I should know about. My natural father has high cholesterol, but did not when he was twenty and signed the papers. This information that is provided to me is stalled in the past. A lot can happen over time and therefore this information is not enough to bring to a doctor who is trying to construct a family history.

This paperwork can also contain the reason for surrender. My natural parents chose to keep it short and sweet but the instructions told them that if they wanted, they could write me a letter. This is valuable information for an adoptee, but not enough. Mine wrote one sentence, not enough to answer all of my questions. However, it is a huge part of my adoption story and I would encourage every adoptee to at least have a copy of paperwork.

Non-identifying information is another piece to the complex puzzle.  It's important and can help with search and reunion.  However, it may not help.  It's hard to track down people when they don't have a last name.  My non-identifying information didn't include first names either, I just got lucky.  OBCs, ABCs, non-identifying information, and adoption records are part of our paper trail.  They are a part of who we are and a part of our identity.

Adoption-Ed 101: Should everyone have access to their OBC?

Now that we know what OBCs are and why they matter, the next step is deciding if all people should have access to their OBC.  This is the great debate.  I’m going to come right out and say it.  I believe that every person should have access to their OBC.  I believe that by not having access, my 14^th amendment right is being violated.  I’m going to outline some of the major arguments for keeping OBCs sealed and tell you why they don’t really stand up.  For some basic information, http://library.adoption.com/articles/open-records-for-adult-adoptees.html is a good site at giving an overview.


OBCs were originally left open in the United States until the 1930s when there was a shift to sealed records.  Because OBCs were marked with “Illegitimate” (big taboo at the time), children given up for adoption were not wanted because of this status.  By sealing the record, the government was acting in what they thought was the best interest of the child in the time.  However, “illegitimate” is no longer marked on OBCs and society has changed to the point where it is no longer as big of deal as it was.  So it would make sense to open the records right?  Not so fast say some people.


The first argument is that abortion rates would climb if records were opened.  However, there is no evidence of this anywhere.  If you look at abortion statistics, this has had the opposite effect in open access states.  When states opened records, their abortion rates have gone down (http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/reform_adoption_data.php).  Not only did the number of abortions decrease, but they decreased significantly more than the national average.  The total opposite of what people are arguing will happen.  It would appear that you if you abortion rates to decrease, you would fight for open records.


Another thing that people like to argue is that adoption rates will decrease.  Domestic adoption rates have been decreasing in the US for years now as more people are finding ways to keep their children and there is less stigma surrounding one parent families.  Also, with more access to birth control, unwanted pregnancies are not as common as they once were.  If you look at the statistics, you will see that again, statistics back that open records have a positive effect on adoptions (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07316/833100-84.stm).  While adoption numbers are decreasing, the rate of this decrease is less where there are open records.  So really, this argument has no factual data backing it up.


Some argue that natural mothers were promised confidentiality.  They say that those women deserve privacy.  Let’s take a look at this statement.  First of all, I have yet to hear about or read about any document that a natural mother signed that promised confidentiality.  There is a huge difference between right to privacy, and confidentiality.  These women are owed privacy.  Their names should not be broadcast to the world.  However, their children should have access to their names.  If they signed anything that promised them confidentiality, which would mean no information would be disclosed to anyone, then it would be a different story.  This is a huge adoption myth.


Finally, a lot of people argue that natural mothers do not want to be found.  This may be true in some cases.  I don’t believe my natural mother wanted to be found.  However, I am learning that she is a minority.  There are groups of birthmothers/natural mothers/first mothers who are speaking up about their wish for open records.  Some of them want to be able to access their child’s OBC so they can find them.  Some of them want reunions.  There are a lot of natural mother’s out there who want open records and it’s time for people to start listening to them.  They have a voice and they deserve to be able to use it.

There are so many good compelling reasons to open records.  Adult adoptees are the only group of Americans who can not access their birth records.  Some ABCs are good, but others are not.  I've heard stories of adult adoptees being denied basic things as US citizens because their ABCs are not enough.  It's not right that an adoptee can be denied a passport because they cannot prove who they are using their ABC because it looks like a fake.  They cannot prove that they were born in the US.  They cannot prove they were ever even born.

If this was any other group of people, the American public would be up in arms.  Yet in this case it doesn't seem like they are.  This group of people has a right to their identity, a right to their history, and a right to prove where they were born.  Never mind the fact that in some cases, facts were changed on the ABCs to make it harder for surrendering parents to find their children.  That's correct, there are people out there who do not even know their own birth date.  I've heard stories of people who are actually younger than they thought they were because their parents wanted them to have the same birthday of another child they had lost.  We all deserve the right to know these basic facts, facts that help to shape who we are.  I can only hope and pray that someday we will all have the right to our OBCs.

Adoption-Ed 101: Why does your OBC matter?

Now that we know what OBCs are, we need to understand why they are so important to adoptees, and people in general. If we cannot understand why an adoptee would want their OBC, the discussion about their rights to have them is a moot point.


In order to find people, you typically need their names.  Names are a huge part of our society and we take major advantage of them.  Here’s an example.  If I am talking to a friend about a mutual friend, I don’t say “You know that guy with brown hair who is obsessed with Star Wars that we both know?”  Rather, I say “You know Bob Smith?”  Now imagine you are trying to find your natural parents who you know almost nothing about because you need to find out if a genetic disease runs in your family.  You probably know very little about them and what you know really all depends on another topic coming up, non-identifying information.  Without a name, it is nearly impossible to find a person, and I can tell you this from experience.  It is not impossible, but it is really hard.

Some people are very into genealogy.  Websites like Ancestory.com wouldn’t exist without a real fascination with our roots.  We wouldn’t be drawn to shows like “Who Do You Think You Are”.  As a culture, our roots are important.  To not have access to any of that information is brutal.  To have no connection to where you come from or the people who gave birth to you is not a fun experience.  Even if your parents have both died, chances are you still know their names if you are not an adoptee.  An adoptee does not even have that.  An adoptee doesn’t even know their original name.

OBCs are proof that you were born.  They are your birth records.  They are the piece of paper which says you were born in this place to these people on this date at this time.  It is the representation of your birth.  It tells the world that you were here.  Adoptees are the only group of people in the US that do not have access to this piece of paper, a piece of paper that proves where you were born and when.  While some may not think it's a big deal, I urge them to consider the great debate about the birthplace of our current president.  Something to think about...

Adoption-Ed 101: What is an OBC?

For starters, what is an OBC, who has them, and why do they matter?

An OBC is an Original Birth Certificate.  When a person is born (adopted or not), someone fills out a birth certificate, proof that you were indeed born.  Exactly what they look like and their information varies from state to state, and some states have different forms (long or short forms) but the basics are usually the same.  It contains your name, your mother’s name, your father’s name, and your birth date.  It’s pretty standard stuff.

When a person is adopted, all the names are changed.  My name was changed to the name my adoptive parents gave me; my natural mother’s name was replaced with my adoptive mother’s name; and my natural father’s name was replaced with my adoptive father’s name (actually I’m not sure if my natural father’s name was on my OBC).  I don’t know what my OBC looks like because I do not have access to it.  When my amended birth certificate is issued at the time of my adoption, my OBC was sealed by the judge.

When a non-adoptee wants to get a copy of their OBC, their only birth certificate, they go through a process where they usually have to pay a fee and they get sent a new one.  If an adoptee does the same thing, they get a copy of the ABC (amended birth certificate).  If they want to get their OBC, this is where your state comes into play.

In only six of the fifty states in the US have open records.  That means that in only six states can adoptees request their OBC the same way they can request their ABC.  In Massachusetts, which does not have open records, most adoptees have to go to court and prove to a judge that they have a legitimate reason for getting a copy of their OBC.  That means that it is up to a person to decide what a legitimate reason is.  And that also means that an adoptee has to come up with the money to go to court.  I said "most" adoptees in MA have to do this because if you are born on or before July 17, 1974 or after January 1, 2008 you do have access to your OBC.  However if you are born between July 18, 1974 and December 31, 2007, you are out of luck (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2007/Chapter109).

There is more to come on why OBCs matter, and the great OBC debate…

Adoption-Ed 101: The Problem

What exactly is adoption?  We can't truly learn about adoption until we know what it is, and what it aims to do.  We need to define adoption so that we all understand what it is, what I mean when I use that word, and what different types of adoption look like.

Adoption is when the parenting of a person is transferred from one person to another, and all of the rights and and responsibilities are transferred from one set of parents to another.  This is ultimately a legal transaction that is permanent.  Children who are adopted are never expected to be returned to their original parents.  Depending on the type of adoption, most adoptees are never expected to ever know their original parents in any capacity.

Adoption is seen as a way to solve an interesting problem.  On one hand, you have a parent or parents who feel they are not able to raise a child for whatever reason (assuming they had a choice, there are cases where they did not, especially in the Baby Scoop Era).  On the other hand, you have a parent or parents who are not able to have children of their own (in most cases).  It seems like the perfect solution to transfer the child from the parents who cannot raise him/her to the parents who want to raise the child.  This is done legally and permanently so that there is no question as to who is supposed to be the adoptee's family.

Once an adoption is finalized, the adoptee's original birth certificate is sealed and they are issued a new one with their adoptive parents' names on it.  More on this tomorrow.  Legally, they are treated like property as the responsibility is passed from one set of parents to the other.

The more important part of this post is that adoption is permanent.  There is no going back once a child is adopted.  Once a child is adopted, their first family is erased.  If a first family wants to get a child back, they must re-adopt that child.  Adoption is a permanent solution to the problem which must be carefully considered from all different angles before attempted.