"Safe Haven" Laws Destroy Adoptee Identities

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are a prison for oneself.
-- The Prisoner

There is a war going on over the identities of adoptees, under the guise of so-called "safe haven" laws. Take a look at this position paper from Bastard Nation, plus this impressive analysis courtesy of Baby Love Child. As Dave Barry says, no, I am not making this up. "Safe haven" laws are designed to destroy kids' identities in order to fast-track them into the adoption market.

Please go read BLC's analysis. Here's what she has to say (from her blog posts on the Nebraska situation):

There is no ‘fixing’ these laws. Even should it be modified to apply only to “newborns” (define and prove that one…) or kids in ‘imminent danger’ (again proving that one will be no end of tricky) it will STILL deny infants their identity, circumvent all best practices in child welfare and adoption, and create a class of kids relinquished in a ‘paperfree’ manner.
...
After all, how can one have open records when there are no records to get?
...
(Now these boys [the tweens/teens dumped in Nebraska] being less than desirable adoption fodder, what with being termed ‘unruly juveniles’ and all, odds are pretty slim they’d be finding a new adoptive home within the week. Young, cute, and perhaps less verbal dumplings on the other hand, are in high demand, with phone calls coming in wanting to adopt almost from the first mention on many local newscasts.)
...
[T]he unseen and often unvoiced full horror of the law is that it intentionally encourages legalizes child abandonment AND effectively works to short circuit the fundamental identity rights of adoptees.

Do you know why international adoption is so popular? Because it's less likely that adoptive parents will have to deal with the birth family. And what's happening right now? Foreign countries are closing their doors to U.S. prospective adopters, and the adoption reform movement is making strides in opening records. What to do? Create a domestic subset of legally relinquished, guaranteed tabula-rasa children prime for adoption. Presto! Restock the supply chain, reassure customers, get rid of the nay-sayers, and give the politicans good election-year campaign material, all at the same time. "Safe havens" are a safe bet, politically, because it's for the children, and you're not against helping children, are you?

As for the lack of paperwork, baby dump advocates call it "non-bureaucratic placement." And ANY person who has custody of the kid can dump, no questions asked. One of the Nebraska tweens was legally abandoned by his aunt. Imagine this: somebody gets ticked at you, swipes your kid and dumps him/her at a "designated safe haven." We all know (from the recent Texas "sect" case, and elsewhere) that once a kid is in the foster care system, it's damn near impossible without money and influence to get that kid back. As a parent, your rights are now zero. And as an adoptee, that child-turned-adult's rights will also be zero. They won't have any sealed records to open because no records will exist. How convenient for adopters like these who refuse to acknowledge that adoptees had lives and families prior to adoption.

Baby dump laws should be repealed. They're not about saving kids, they're a new twist on perpetuating the same old secretive system. Adoption should be rare and as transparent as possible. If we really want to save kids, we must protect their rights until they are adults and able to speak for themselves.

Google "Bastard" Update (Or Is It Bastard "Google" Update?)

As an update to our earlier conversation about Google's censorship of the word "bastard," I caught this little gem from one of my favorite IT sources.

A Google spokesman said that publishers do have control over the adverts that appear beside a story and can stop particular adverts appearing. He also said that Google itself carries out some work to avoid insensitive matches.

"Google automatically uses technology to stop ads appearing around sensitive issues, such as a plane crash," said the spokesman. "Technology recognises sensitive topics and does not serve ads which might seem insensitive."

Guess that depends on your definition of "insensitive."

Here's the Google AdSense Review Center. This seems more geared for stopping certain ads on your page, which may be of benefit to AdSense-using adoption reformers who want to get rid of those adoption agency and expectant-mom-lure ads that pop up at the keyword "adoption." But it doesn't address the larger issue of Googling "bastard," akin to how Googling "breast" brings up cancer research instead of breast cams.

Except... guess what? I can Google the word "bastard" again now. Just goes to show, folks... don't let them get you bastards down.

La La La, I Can't Hear You!

A colleague recently directed me to a blog by a prospective adoptive parent, containing a post discussing politics and adoption. The author of the blog made the following remark in the comments:

I also think that by feeling that you have a right to know your bio parents you violate the rights of the bio parents who do not want to be named. Why do your rights supercede theirs?

I posted a followup comment, which was not approved for publication:

Why do their rights (or yours, for that matter) supercede ours?

She has moderation for comments turned on (as do I, to avoid spam comments), which is fine. I don't particularly care that she didn't post my comment, except I know a couple other people who attempted to post similar opinions, and the next thing you know, this is her next post:

WARNING
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS BLOG THEN STOP READING IT. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO READ IT

And this is exactly what we mean when we talk about the entitlement mentality of some adopters and prospective adopters.

There are some people out there who just don't want to accept that birth relatives and adoptees have their own experiences with adoption, and that those experiences are not always positive. No one wants to admit that birth relatives and adoptees grieve, that adoption isn't 100% happy-fuzzy. Any attempts to have an actual conversation with such people are pointless. They will immediately put their hands over their ears and refuse to hear a single word.

To the author of the aforementioned blog, I would like to ask what you're so afraid of. Yes, talking about these aspects of adoption is a yucky business, but if you don't clean the wound it's going to fester. And I can GUARANTEE you, if you maintain this attitude after adopting, you will do nothing but alienate the person you adopt. The adorable child you are so eager to hold is going to turn into a damn angry adult or, dare I say, bastard, who will want to know why the people he/she called "parents" refused to acknowledge that grief.

And I've had this conversation with adopters before. The best of them say, "Really? I've never talked to an adult adoptee/birth relative before. What's your experience? Why didn't you like it? What can I do to make things better if I adopt?" They may be afraid, angry, bitter or confused, but the one quality they share is the ability to put aside their own feelings to listen to another's perspective. And that is a critical quality for anyone thinking of adopting a child.

Here's a warning of my own. If you don't want to hear what adoptees and birth relatives really think, don't blog about adoption--and certainly don't adopt.

Action Alert: Say No To Michigan HB 4896 and HB 6287

Both AmyAdoptee and GrannyAnnie have posted about the passage of conjoined Michigan bills HB 4896 and HB 6287. GA reports the Michigan House of Reps has passed the bills. We now must focus on the state Senate and encourage them to oppose this legislation in favor of true adoption records access.

I am against these bills for the same reason I oppose Illinois HB 4623. Some people say access for some is better than access for none, and that those who are bypassed will get another chance. Except that once a bill is passed, it's almost impossible to get the legislators to revisit the issue. They think it's done and dusted, which means the have-nots will never have. Would you really accept your adoption information knowing that the same law prevents some of your adoptee brethren from accessing theirs? I know I wouldn't (although for me it's a moot point; thanks to my birth mother's denial, I'm a have-not).

AmyAdoptee also makes the excellent point (that I myself sometimes gloss over), which is that these bills do nothing for granting birth relatives access to the same information.

Michigan's bills are particularly odious because they have renamed a disclosure veto a "contact preference form." The difference is profound. A disclosure veto gives the birth mother the ability to lock the adoptee out of his/her informaton. A preference form is just that, stating preference on contact. I believe the rights of the birth mother to privacy should not trump the rights of an adoptee to access his/her original birth certificate. What is it about adoptees that makes people assume our desire for equal rights makes us crazy-psycho-stalkers who will pounce on the first opportunity to destroy our birth relatives' lives (or vice versa)?

So if you're sick of being treated lower than ass tattoos and bulldog puppies, write Michigan legislators and urge them to vote NO on HB 4896 and HB 6287.

Contact Michigan Legislators:

Cut and Paste email addresses:

senjallen@senate.michigan.gov, senatoranderson@senate.michigan.gov, senjbarcia@senate.michigan.gov , senrbasham@senate.michigan.gov, senpbirkholz@senate.michigan.gov, senmbishop@senate.michigan.gov, sendcherry@senate.mi.gov, coleman@senate.michigan.gov, senhclarke@senate.michigan.gov, senacropsey@senate.michigan.gov, senvgarcia@senate.michigan.gov, sentgeorge@senate.michigan.gov, senjgilbert@senate.michigan.gov, senjgleason@senate.michigan.gov , sentahunter@senate.michigan.gov, sengjacobs@senate.michigan.gov, senmjansen@senate.michigan.gov, senrjelinek@senate.michigan.gov, senrkahn@senate.michigan.gov, senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov, senmmcmanus@senate.michigan.gov, sendolshove@senate.michigan.gov, senjpappageorge@senate.michigan.gov, senbpatterson@senate.michigan.gov, senmprusi@senate.michigan.gov, senrichardville@senate.michigan.gov, senasanborn@senate.michigan.gov, senmschauer@senate.michigan.gov, senmscott@senate.michigan.gov, ofctstamas@senate.michigan.gov , senmswitalski@senate.michigan.gov, senbthomas@senate.michigan.gov, sengvanwoerkom@senate.michigan.gov, sengwhitmer@senate.michigan.gov

Snail mail and phone contact:

The Honorable Jason Allen
State Senator
Farnum Building, Room 820
PO Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536

MICHIGAN STATE SENATE

Senator Jason Allen
Majority Caucus Whip
Office: Room 820, Farnum Bldg.
866.525.5637
senjallen@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Glenn Anderson
Assistant Democratic Floor Leader
Office: Room 610, Farnum Bldg.
866.262.7306
senatoranderson@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Jim Barcia
Office: Room 1010, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2131
senjbarcia@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Raymond Basham
Democratic Caucus Whip
Office: Room 715, Farnum Bldg.
NO toll free number.
517.373.7800
senrbasham@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Patricia Birkholz
Office: Room 805, Farnum Bldg.
888.28.PATTY
senpbirkholz@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Michael Bishop
Majority Leader
Office: Room S-106, Capitol Bldg.
877.9BISHOP
senmbishop@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Liz Brater
Office: Room 510, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.0318
senlbrater@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Cameron Brown
Assistant Majority Floor Leader
Office: Room 405, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.0316
sencbrown@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Nancy Cassis
Majority Caucus Chair
Office: Room 905, Farnum Bldg.
888.38.NANCY
senncassis@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Deborah Cherry
Office: Room 910, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2126
sendcherry@senate.mi.gov

Senator Irma Clark-Coleman
Office: Room 310, Farnum Bldg.
866.747.7803
coleman@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Hansen Clarke
Office: Room 710, Farnum Bldg.
877.252.7537
senhclarke@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Alan Cropsey
Majority Floor Leader
Office: Room S-8, Capitol Bldg.
866.305.2133
senacropsey@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Valde Garcia
Office: Room S-132, Capitol Bldg.
1.800.516.0026
senvgarcia@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Tom George
Office: Room 320, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2120
sentgeorge@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Jud Gilbert
Office: Room 705, Farnum Bldg.
877.445.2378
senjgilbert@senate.michigan.gov

Senator John Gleason
Assiatant Democratic Caucus Chair
Office: Room 315, Farnum Bldg.
866.268.2914
senjgleason@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Bill Hardiman
Room 305, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2129
email & website are the same:
www.senate.mi.gov/hardiman

Senator Tupac Hunter
Assistant Democratic Leader
Office: Room 915, Farnum Bldg.
866.262.7305
sentahunter@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Gilda Jacobs
Democratic Caucus Chair
Office: Room 1015, Farnum Bldg.
888.937.4453
sengjacobs@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Mark Jansen
Assistant Majority Caucus Chair
Office: Room 520, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2128
senmjansen@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Ron Jelinek
Office: Room S-324, Capitol Bldg.
866.305.2121
senrjelinek@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Roger Kahn
Assistant Majority Whip
Office: Room 420, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2132
senrkahn@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Wayne Kuipers
Office: Room 1005, Farnum Bldg.
877.KUIPERS
senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Michelle McManus
Assistant Majority Leader
Office: Room S-2, Capitol Bldg.
866.305.2135
senmmcmanus@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Dennis Olshove
Assistant Democratic Caucus Whip
Office: Room 920, Farnum Bldg.
NO toll free number. 517.373.8360
sendolshove@senate.michigan.gov

Senator John Pappageorge
Office: Room 1020, Farnum Bldg.
877.SEN.13TH
senjpappageorge@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Bruce Patterson
Office: Room 505, Farnum Bldg.
866.262.7307
senbpatterson@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Michael Prusi
Office: Room 515, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2038
senmprusi@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Randy Richardville
President Pro Tempore
Office: Room 205, Farnum Bldg.
866.556.7917
senrichardville@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Alan Sanborn
Assistant President pro Tempore
Office: Room S-310, Capitol Bldg.
888.353.ALAN
senasanborn@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Mark Schauer
Democratic Leader
Office: Room S-105, Capitol Bldg.
888.962.6275
senmschauer@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Martha Scott
Office: Room 220, Farnum Bldg.
800.SCOTT.78
senmscott@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Tony Stamas
Office: Room 720, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2136
ofctstamas@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Michael Switalski
Office: Room 410, Farnum Bldg.
866.303.0110
senmswitalski@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Buzz Thomas
Democratic Floor Leader
Office: Room S-9, Capitol Bldg.
866.348.6304
senbthomas@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Gerald Van Woerkom
Office: Room 605, Farnum Bldg.
866.305.2134
sengvanwoerkom@senate.michigan.gov

Senator Gretchen Whitmer
Office: Room 415, Farnum Bldg.
NO toll free number. 517.373.1734
sengwhitmer@senate.michigan.gov

Action Alert: Letters To Santa, Adoption Reform Illinois

As posted by Mary on her Rights Of Adoptees blog:

Adoption Reform Illinois Needs Your Help
WANTED: Letters to Santa Claus

Adoption Reform Illinois wants to raise public awareness that adult adoptees cannot legally obtain an original birth certificate in Illinois.

Those who should write letters are:

• adoptees
• birth parents
• adoptive parents
• relatives, i.e. spouses, children, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and those who have found an adoptee on their family tree
• friends who are aware of the need someone is feeling to have an original birth certificate

Letters should be addressed to:

Santa Claus
% Mary Lynn Fuller
109 W. Illinois St., Apt. 506
Urbana, IL 61801

Letters can be signed with just a first name or your full name. Just keep in mind that your letter could be selected to submit to the news media. Although Christmas is a few weeks away, write now. "Santa" will deliver the letters to Vital Records in Springfield before Christmas. The more letters, the better!

Example letters but please use your own words:

1. Dear Santa,
   
   All I want for Christmas is my original birth certificate. 50 years ago when my adoption was finalized, it was sealed. I have family and friends who were not adopted and they have their OBC.
   
   Sincerely,
   Mary (last name optional)
   
2. Dear Santa,
   
   All I want for Christmas is for my wife/husband/sister/brother/daughter/son/niece/nephew/granddaughter/grandson to have their original birth certifcate.
   
   Thank you,
   Mary (last name optional)
   
3. Dear Santa,
   
   While tracing my family history I've discovered that my great-grandmother was adopted. All I want for Christmas is her original birth certificate so that I can prove lineage to join societies.
   
   Thank you,
   Mary (last name optional)
   
4. Dear Santa,
   
   My friend Sandy is adopted and has been denied her original birth certificate. All I want for Christmas is for Sandy to have it.
   
   Sincerely
   Mary (last name optional)

Oh My God, Google Censors The Word "Bastard." You Bastards!

So I started doing some research for a few blog entries, which gave me cause to Google the word "bastard." Being an adoption activist, I've done this plenty of times before, and haven't had a problem. Imagine my surprise when this time Google presents me with the following, along with a bunch of non-relevant results:

"The word "bastard" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active."

If I search for the word "bastard," dammit, I expect to find results containing the word "bastard." Being an IT pro, I am highly attuned to my computer and network. I am running no content filters nor proxy servers, nor have I signed up for SafeSearch. I did some testing, and it seems Google has suddenly decided the word "bastard" needs to be shielded from anyone who performs a standard Google search.

Try Googling the word "adoption." Like the mass media, the results are skewed to the perspectives of adopters/potential adopters and adoption agencies. Google's SafeSearch filter is prohibiting honest discussion about adoption. Some might say that activist groups like Bastard Nation ought to drop such a naughty word from their name, but that's beside the point. You can't have an intelligent conversation about adoption without talking about the illegitimacy of adoptees, and "bastard" is the dictionary term for it. Anybody who's offended by the word "bastard" should try being one.

Google is probably thinking of this from the perspective of "online safety for kids," but it results in censorship. Everyone knows the naked Internet is not kid-safe. Speaking as both a geek and a mom, if you want the word "bastard" blocked, use a content filter. Those of us who prefer our Internet straight up expect companies in the information business to provide equal, objective access. This could also get into the discussion of net neutrality. I could easily see the bigwig adoption agencies (who have money) paying Internet service providers to promote keyword links to their own sites over the sites of birth relatives, adoptees, and activist groups (who, on the whole, don't).

It'll be interesting to see, considering that I used The Word twice in the title, whether this post makes it into cyberspace at all.

The Power Of An Adoptee's Name

"Well, then, if I'm a Namer, what does that mean? What does a Namer do?"
"When I was memorizing the names of the stars, part of the purpose was to help them each to be more particularly the particular star each one was supposed to be."
-- A Wind In The Door by Madeleine L'Engle

"The power of a name--that's old magic."
-- Doctor Who ("The Shakespeare Code")

As is held in folktales and legends, there is great power in a person's name. Madeleine L'Engle brought this up in her Wrinkle In Time series: to Name is to create, to Un-name is to destroy. The practice of unnaming and renaming adoptees is an attempt to assert control over us.

It's said that if you know someone's true name, you have absolute power over them. The very fact that adoptees' true names are sequestered by the state is evidence of this ancient law stretching into our modern society. For if we adoptees knew our true names, we could reclaim the power that has been taken from us, the power to access our records without restriction.

Adopters and prospective adopters are often eager to rename adoptees, especially international adoptees whose foreign names serve as a constant reminder that adoption is not the same as giving birth. By renaming the adoptee, the adoptive parents assert their expectations that the adoptee will have the personality and nature desired--that they will become the person they have been named. Such attempts are doomed to failure. Adopters and prospective adopters need to get out of the mindset that adopting is like picking the exact item they want out of a catalog. Part of this is acknowledging that adoptees had names and identities before they were adopted.

Adoptees are keenly aware of the false nature of their names. Many of us never identified with our adoptive names, or have had different names during different part of our lives, much as some Native tribes take on new names in accordance with life-changing events. I'm curious to know how many adoptees, like myself, have renamed themselves upon becoming adults. I have met quite a number of adoptees who have taken back their birth names or combined birth name with adopted name. Some do so to obliterate the adopted name, that symbol of their adoptive families' unrealistic expectations. Others do so to pay homage to their blood ties, or to synthesize a unique self based upon both birth and adopted heritage.

Is there really a need to rename adoptees? In some cases it borders on ridiculous, for those who were adopted as children rather than infants and are therefore well aware of their original names. Those who promote renaming (and who, primarily, are not adoptees) trot out that tired excuse, "privacy." This further illustrates the power of a name: the assumption that if adoptees know their true names, they will have power over birth families (and vice versa, leading to those ever-popular stereotypes about stalker adoptees and birth relatives).

Or perhaps the greater fear is that we might gain control over our own destinies. As adoptees, I propose that we reclaim the power of our names for ourselves.

How Falsified Birth Certificates Endanger Adoptees

An interesting article from the Washington Post caught my eye:

The State Department is denying passports to people born in Texas near the border with Mexico if they were delivered by midwives because of birth-certificate forgeries there for Mexican-born children dating to the 1960s, according to U.S. officials.

Adoptees are quite familiar with forgery of birth certificates, except in our case it's done by the government, so it's legal and they call it "amending." When a closed adoption is finalized, the adoptee's original birth certificate - containing their birth name and that of their birth parents - is sealed. An amended version is created in its place, renaming the adoptee and listing the adoptive parents "as if" having given birth. As I've mentioned, if adoptees follow the everyman procedures for obtaining birth certificates, the amended one is the one we get.

We already know that adoptees have difficulties with passports and other matters because of our lack of access to records. In this paranoid post-9/11 age, any of us who can't solidly prove we were born in this country are at risk. Those of us who are domestic-born better not leave the U.S., because those amended birth certificates might be worthless. If you're internationally adopted and there are glitches in your paperwork you could wind up deported, even if you're a minor, even if you've done nothing wrong.

This paragraph from the Post article strikes me as ominous:

It is not clear when U.S. officials began viewing midwife certificates with suspicion. State Department spokesman Cy Ferenchak confirmed the policy to The Brownsville Herald in Texas earlier this summer. The newspaper quoted him as saying, "Normally, a birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship. ... But because of a history of fraudulently filed reports on the Southwest border, we don't have much faith in the document."

How much faith are they going to have in adoptees' documents? Those of us whose records are sealed can't prove a thing. The only documents we are likely to have are our amended birth certificates and, if we're lucky, perhaps the final decree of adoption. That might be enough to get us by, but it might not, and there is little we can do about it. Adoptees in closed-records states have about as much access to bona fide records as a Fruit Loop has nutritional value.

The ACLU is all over the situation in Texas, which is why I continue to be puzzled by their failure to stand up for the rights of adult adoptees to access original birth certificates. With regard to opposing Illinois HB 4623, their representatives have told me their stance is based on medical privacy for the birth mother. Strange that they have not realized this is a common adoption myth, considering how much research exists to prove as much (like this, this, and this, for starters). Because adoptee birth certificates get amended when the adoption is finalized, NOT at surrender, how could amending the birth certificate promise a birth parent privacy? It doesn't, of course. The privacy it protects is that of the agencies and the adoptive families, because every birth relative is obviously a stereotypical Stalker out to ruin adopters' lives. As one of my commenters, a birth mother, noted, privacy was the punishment imposed, not the promise made.

I guess we're not entitled to civil liberties if we make the poor choice to be adopted as infants. I shudder to think what happens if you're an adoptee born by midwife in a border state dating to the 1960s - talk about persona non grata!

Personal Bias Against Adoption Records Access

Individuals in positions of power are locking entire groups of people out of their adoption records.

In some states, counties, courts and adoption agencies, certain people are known to block access to records based solely on their own personal bias. It's common knowledge among adoption searchers that some places are much harder to search than others for this reason. Invariably the bias is against open records, not for it. These powerful individuals believe adoption records should not just be closed, but sealed in carbonite for all time. They control all avenues leading to adoption records, including the post-adoption services that purportedly exist to "help" adoptees and birth families.

Let's talk to some people who have run into this experience. LisaKay writes:

As a CPA, I must disagree strongly with the CI system and the sealed files system as well. There is NO OVERSIGHT. There is NO AUDIT. There is NO ACCOUNTABILITY. There is NO INDEPENDENT 3rd PARTY who can verify or contradict what that one person says.There is no way that ANYONE can have any degree of certainty that 1) what they are being told is accurate and complete, 2) the CI and Post Adoption Services Units ever even carry out their job duties, 3) what the "client" adoptee/bMother is telling CI and PAS is being documented and forwarded to the other party.

Nikki says:

I have had trouble getting into my records.I have been told by Lee county FL that even if I petition all I will get access to is non identifying information.So that is a dead end since I've had what little info they gave me since 1994.So in my case I will have to find another way.

To share my own experience, I was told the judge in the Ohio county where my records are sealed never approves petitions for access. Interestingly, my petition to open my records was deemed "granted, in part, as to non-identifying information" - information that should be available without the expense and hassle of the court petition process. I call that carbonite, not records access. I could also mention the fact that my adoptive father was also the attorney who finalized my adoption and therefore had full access to my records, as he was the one who provided them to the court. These powerful people change the rules of the Adoption Game at whim, while the rest of us scramble to keep up.

One wonders what connects these powerful individuals to adoption. Are they adoptive parents with a vested interest in blocking the attempts of their adopted "child" (adult) to learn his/her origins? Are they affiliated with adoption agencies who might see a drop in those lucrative post-adoption profits? Or perhaps some of them have sired one too many bastards to be comfortable with open records.

As another example, let's note that the woman who was recently arrested for child abuse, and was a leader of the Illinois Council On Adoptable Children, was also on the Illinois Adoption Advisory Council which oversees, among other things, access to adoption records. Is this really the sort of person YOU want having control over your information?

I would suggest independent oversight - that we put adoptees and birth parents on these advisory councils - except that's already being done and it doesn't seem to make a difference. Instead, we need to do away entirely with the ability of the adoption industry to operate in a clandestine manner. Restore adult adoptee access to original birth certificates. Grant birth relatives the ability to view documents that pertain to them. Dedicate funds toward helping women in need raise their children. Make adoption rare, and about finding homes for children who need them instead of children for parents who want them.

People in positions of power may still abuse that power, but they should know the world is watching.