e-mail
I wrote last week about a group of birth mothers in North Carolina who were pushing for change. Too often we hear of groups of people who want change but are shot down by bureaucracy. In this case, while not fully giving what was being asked, at least a step in the right direction has been made: a step towards reform. Of course, the truth really lies in what is being changed and why certain things were compromised. I have questions about a lot of it but, then again, I always question everything!
While the adoption advocates and birth mothers were pushing for adoptees to have access to their original birth certificates, the bill will not go that far. Again, the article stated that it would “discourage adoption” (which I debated against that line of thought in my previous post) and wasn’t fair to birth mothers who were promised confidentiality.
Instead, North Carolina seems to be putting adoption agencies in the middle of the process, again, and having them act as a “confidential intermediary” between (and here’s the kicker) an adoptee of age 21 or older and a biological parent. Written permission is needed from both sides before contact can be made.
Again, I have to tell myself that this is a positive step in a direction that resembles the right direction. Previously, North Carolina law was completely anti-adoptee. However, I’m curious to understand the reason for the age limit being so high. The rest of the non-adopted world is considered a consenting adult at age eighteen so why are we telling adoptees from North Carolina that they’re not truly consenting enough to know about their heritage until they hit the legal drinking age, three years after the rest of folks their age. These adoptees can get married, join the military and do everything but learn about their genetic identity. Strange to me.
Furthermore, I am concerned about further involving adoption agencies in the process. My opinion regarding the majority (not all) of agencies is not very high, which I have not been silent about in any of my writings. I believe that they further complicate things in the initial adoption process because their concern is with the party funding the adoption, thus making the expectant and future birth family not as high on their priority list. So, I’m left to wonder: are adoptees and birth parents going to be paying for this process? You rarely hear of an adoption agency doing anything for free and this is actually a highly involved process!
My final concern lies with which agencies are going to be doing this work. Are they mandating that the agency through which the initial adoption took place handle the matter? What then shall we do about private adoptions? Certainly no attorney who handled an adoption twenty-one years ago is going to give you his time for free! Furthermore, what about those adoptees who are not privvy to the information concerning their adoption and thus do not know the name or location of the initial agency?
In short, I understand that this is a step in the right direction for a state that has previously not been friendly to adoptees or their biological parents. Any steps toward reform should be welcomed and celebrated. However, this one leaves a lot of questions to be answered. I think this is evidence of what happens when you let policy makers try to dictate how reunions should occur. Unless you understand this ins and outs and politics of the adoption world, making a blanket law to cover the lot of them will end up leaving some without answers. Hopefully this state continues to improve their steps towards reform over the next few years.
Information from the article at WXII. Photo credit.
//
For more on issues concerning adoption reform, read:
1. Birth Mothers Push for Change by Jenna Hatfield.
2. Will Baby Evelyn Come Home by Jan Baker.
3. A Petition for Birth Mothers by Jenna Hatfield.
Previously, North Carolina law was completely anti-adoptee. However, I’m curious to understand the reason for the age limit being so high.
I wonder about this as well. My hunch is that it was probably an attempt to compromise with adoption agencies, who want as many restrictions on it as possible. Then again, I’m a bit of a cynic.
The only upshot I can think of is that it protects relinquishing parents from having to foot their relinquished children’s college bills. Many colleges require non-legal parental figures (i.e., step-parents and domestic partners who have not formally adopted their partners’ children) to pay for a student’s education. The vague language many schools use — including mine — may be construed to include birth parents who relinquished legal custody decades ago.
That said, I doubt that was the purpose behind the provision. If it were the reason, then they would have made the age 18 or 24. 18 because that is the age when most students start college, and 24 is the age at which the Department of Education automatically declares financial independence, thereby automatically precluding relinquishing parents from fiscal responsibility for their child’s education. Adding a provision that birth parents would not be responsible for their child’s education would only apply to in-state schools, and therefore not be terribly helpful for people whose kids attend schools out-of-state.
No parent is required to pay for a their kids’ college education (notwithstanding unusual court-ordered circumstances.) Students who are applying for financial aid are required to list their parents’ incomes on the student aid application, and that income is taken into consideration when deciding if the student is eligible for aid and if so, for how much. Granted, that may make a number of parents feel they have a moral obligation to foot the bill, or part of it, but there is no legal obligation to do so.
Anyway, as far as the NC bill goes, I see it as a step away from a true adoptee rights, equal access bill, not a step forward. I don’t even call it a step backward, because it’s not going backward. It’s going into a different realm altogether. By allowing a bill to be based, in part, on the concept of birthparent anonymity being a reality, we who are fighting for equal access are in effect saying that such a right now exists, when it never did before. It’s a dangerous “compromise” to make, because we’re just adding one more thing against us.
To answer both of the people who commented.
First,
The only upshot I can think of is that it protects relinquishing parents from having to foot their relinquished children’s college bills.
What part of ‘relinquishes ALL RIGHTS’ is not understood? An adult adoptee cannot get any monetary help from the birthparent legally.
The reason for the age rise is that the fight is NOT OVER. The members of the NC Coalition for Adoption Reform WILL be back at the beginning of the Short session. I have to ask if either of you were involved in this legislative effort? If not, then really I don’t believe you have any place to speak on what happened.
The choices which were made were made by the people who WERE INVOLVED and CARED about what was happening. They chose to go this way to get SOMETHING in a state which currently has absolutely NOTHING!!!! It has been this way since 1987. NO other bill has even made it out of committee let alone coming out of it with a unanimous vote.
To the second person, if you are TRULY thinking this is a step backward then all I can tell you is GET INVOLVED… MAKE A DIFFERFENCE!!!
First of all, it was not a group of birth mothers pleading for change. It is, and has been for years, a group of adult adoptees, adoptive parents, birth parents and concerned citizens, that have struggled to get where we are today. Unfortunately, the media “honed in” on the birth mothers because that is the main concern for our legislators: the mythical birth mother confidentiality.
And for the individual who doesn’t believe this is a step in any direction. Should this pass both the senate and the house, individuals will no longer have to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to pursue medical history petitions through the court and to a choice few private investigators in this state. O’ HAPPY DAY FOR SOME!
Additionally, there will be identifying information that can be shared immediately as I am aware of many birth parents and adoptees passing letters to one another via the adoption agency that handled my adoption. The agency will no longer be directed, by law, to black out and white out identifying information! O HAPPY DAY FOR SOME MORE!
We, the North Carolina Coalition for Adoption Reform, the adoption agencies that support open access to OBC and the legislators, have already formed our next step in 2008. We are damn lucky we fought against an adoption registry and WON! More good will come with this compromise than an adoption registry any day.
lauriedb, where were you in all of this? Sitting on the sidelines, watching, waiting, letting someone else do all the work. You chime in after the fact, only to criticize SOMETHING YOU WEREN’T EVEN FIGHTING FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE. The nerve of some people!
No parent is required to pay for a their kids’ college education (notwithstanding unusual court-ordered circumstances.)
Tell that to the colleges.
I should clarify. You’re right — in a strictly legal sense, no parent’s required to pay. (Unless it’s incorporated into a divorce decree.) However, all colleges and universities that I’m aware of do require parental contributions. If the parents don’t pay and refuse to cosign expensive private loans, the kids can’t go to school.
If I remember correctly, it’s the single biggest reason why students drop out of college.
However, remember. All rights are terminated from birthparents, and the adoptive family is substituted as if they were the ‘true’ family. All the way down to putting them on the ‘birth certificate’
I think Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson institute said it best at a conference this past summer.
My wife and I have been through extensive testing. Yet on our childrens birth certificate, there is our name, as if we gave birth.
We both know we can’t yet they actually give us credit for doing so.
If anything the birthparents do not have to worry about anything legally, only if they want to….
However, remember. All rights are terminated from birthparents, and the adoptive family is substituted as if they were the ‘true’ family. All the way down to putting them on the ‘birth certificate’
I’m not doubting that all legal rights are terminated by the birthparents. I’m just pointing out that colleges don’t care about legal parental rights. For the most part, they’re not obligated to follow legal rules about parental rights, so they don’t. It’s why step-parents who have not adopted their step-children — and therefore have virtually non-existant parental rights — are still required by the school to contribute to their step-child’s education. IF they don’t pay, the kid can’t pay the bill — and therefore, they can’t attend.
The “kid” can go to school if they want it bad enough. I say let the kid pay for their own education. I know that my husband and I both worked and paid our way through college. In fact, my husband has four siblings and even though their father was the vice president of a very successful organization and made plenty of money to send all 5 anywhere they wanted to go, all 5 paid for the own education. They have always been independent, responsible and successful adults. The “kid” can’t pay!? Let the “kid” get a job; better yet- get two.