Compromising On Adoptee Access? The Foot You Shoot May Be Your Own

I wrote this as a response to the news that Missouri has enacted a compromise bill for adult adoptee original birth certificate (OBC) access. I really wish people would understand that compromise legislation is a ploy to get us to shut up and go away. You never know if you yourself may be the one vetoed out of your own rights.

If you are thinking of supporting a bill, please understand what these compromises actually mean. Insist upon clean bills, every time, no exceptions.

What I said was:

While I appreciate all the hard work those involved have done to enact this bill [in Missouri], baby steps and compromises are not a fair solution. So-called "disclosure vetoes" such as the one in this new MO law require adoptees to get approval from their birth mothers before they can have their original birth certificates. Disclosure vetoes are sometimes phrased as "contact preferences", but if it is binding on adoptees and prevents them from accessing their OBCs, it's a veto.

This is unequal and a blow to the civil rights of adoptees. No one else needs such approval. The fact is that "baby steps" end up stopping at step one. No state that has enacted compromise legislation like this has ever revisited it. The legislators consider it a done deal and don't want to revisit. Speaking from experience, a system like this does NOT work. The people typically in charge of it are often political allies of those who enact it. In other words, it's a way to make money off adoptees, again. For example in Illinois the people who run the program are political allies of the legislator who enacted it, and make six figure salaries off babysitting adoptees and their birth families.

Compromise legislation is neither right nor fair. ALL citizens, regardless of adoptive status, deserve the same equal treatment. That means ALL adult adoptees should be able to access their original birth certificates in the same manner, and for the same reasonable fees, as everyone else.

Forgive me but this strikes close to home. I am an adult adoptee who has been denied her original birth certificate because of Illinois' disclosure veto. I personally could not look at myself in the mirror if I got my OBC via a law that meant the adoptees in front of or behind me were unable to get theirs. We must all stand together and insist upon our civil rights instead of falling for cleverly-worded "solutions". This is a political gimmick to lure you into thinking you are restoring your rights when you are really shooting yourself (and others) in the foot. Please think about and understand what compromise legislation means. It means you get your information at someone else's expense. It means you yourself could very easily be the one left behind. You won't know until you try to access your OBC and discover that you're one of the "small percentage" that got bit by a veto.

It is perfectly possible to enact clean legislation. Other states like Maine have done it. You have to take the higher ground, insist on clean bills, and kill the bill if it is amended with a disclosure veto. South Dakota just went through that and I admire the South Dakota SEAL group for vowing to kill the bill they worked so hard for if it was compromised.

For every state that enacts a compromise, it makes it that much more difficult to enact clean legislation elsewhere. This is why we have not made more progress in opening records, because people are willing to fall for these compromises. Working together is paramount. Access must be equal, across the board. I have no problem with true contact preferences, those that allow birth families to state their preference while still allowing the adoptee to obtain his/her OBC (versus a binding veto, whatever it might be called). The notion that such preferences must be binding assumes that all adoptees are potential stalkers, which is demeaning and discriminatory. There is a vast difference between search/reunion and the right to one's identity. The former is a decision that families must make among themselves. The latter should be a basic right of all human beings. Missouri's bill is a tragedy for those who will be left behind.

--

One thing I would like to mention is that I do actually have a problem with true contact preferences (those that are not binding on the adoptee). Namely, that is that it is too easy for what begins as a "preference" to become a binding veto. Politicians are confused as to the difference between a contact preference and a disclosure veto. See the recent South Dakota decision on HB 1223 for an example of that. But I would rather see an otherwise clean bill pass with a nonbinding preference than a binding veto.

When Adoption Collides With The Rest Of Your Life

This post isn't spurred by any particular incident, just the fact that my worlds are starting to collide. I've been having some interesting conversations lately about adoption with, of all people, my business associates. You see, some of them are friending me on places like Facebook and LinkedIn, but I also use Facebook and LinkedIn to stay in touch with the adoption community. Even if I wasn't participating in social media, the amount of letter-writing and blogging I do about adoption draws attention. "Triona Guidry" is not exactly a common name, and people are asking me questions.

Being in the IT industry I've watched as the Internet in general, and social media in particular, has caused the various parts of our lives to intersect in unexpected ways. It used to be that you would have a business persona and a family-and-friends persona, and never the twain did meet. These days, it's all a great big jumble. I've never hidden my interest in adoption reform. I've been known to stuff envelopes to legislators before business meetings, and tend to spread the word wherever I go, should the subject arise. I think it's important to put a human face on the issue of adult adoptee rights. But this is getting more convoluted. How much do we tell people? What do we share about our personal lives? When do we go too far?

For those who don't know, by "adoption reform" I mean the struggle, of adult adoptees, birth (aka first or natural) families, and adoptive families, to change the way adoption is practiced in the United States and elsewhere. It includes, but is not limited to, eliminating corruption in adoption as well as the restoration of original birth certificate access. (Adoptee birth certificates are legally falsified "as if" our adoptive parents gave birth to us, and the originals sealed in all but a handful of states.)

Coincidentally, BlogHer just had a post on a similar topic. It's interesting reading. Personally I don't worry too much about what other people think of my adoption opinions, but I'm in a unique position. I run my own company, so I can't get fired; the worst that can happen is losing a client or two. It doesn't matter if my adoptive family finds out because they already know, and besides we're estranged anyway, in part due to my searching for my origins. I doubt there's any more damage I can do on that front that I haven't already done. I do worry about what my birth mother would think of my sharing so much of my experience... but it's MY experience to share. I have never named her, can't anyway since I don't have her identifying information (although she has mine), and even if I did I still wouldn't out her or the rest of my birth family in public. My family in the here-and-now is my husband and kids who are entirely supportive, as is my mother-in-law. So there is no real danger in me expressing my opinion. Others are not so fortunate. I feel that I have an obligation to speak out for those who can't, for whatever reason. I talk about personal aspects of my life, but these aspects are nothing I wouldn't share at a cocktail party. My hope is that by sharing my experiences others will begin to understand more of what it is to be an adopted adult--that we exist beyond childhood, that we are as capable of being neighbors or friends or business-people as anyone else.

Yes, I know. I could write under a pseudonym. I could adjust my Facebook and LinkedIn settings so my business contacts don't see the adoption stuff. But I don't want to. For one, it's a pain to set permissions for every single thing I post. For another, it doesn't always work. I started doing that on Facebook at the beginning, but the privacy controls aren't always functional. Besides, I don't think I should have to hide my adoptive status. The honest truth is that I am a bastard, and I'm not referring to my illegitimate birth. I have been bastardized, as have many others, by the laws that coerce expectant mothers, lure prospective adopters, and falsify and conceal adoptee records. I think that's wrong, and I want it to change. The only way to do that is to publicize our plight and gain support.

Why should my status as an adoptee, or my interest in adoption reform, change how others see me? I know it does sometimes, and I think that's sad. For the record, I also watch Star Trek, listen to Duran Duran and write fantasy stories for teenagers. Does that change how you see me too, and if so, why? Wouldn't it be a boring world if we all watched the exact same shows, listened to the exact same music and read the exact same books? Isn't it more interesting to know what makes each of us unique, what drives us, what we feel passionate about?

All I ask of anyone is that you keep an open mind, and remember that other people in your life, your family, friends, neighbors and business associates, doubtless have a connection to adoption too. Just because I am a vocal advocate of adoption rights, that doesn't affect my ability to fix your computer or design your web site, any more than does your interest in your church group or your animal shelter or whatever. We all have causes we support, and we don't necessarily expect others to agree with them. Adoption reform just happens to be one of mine.

My Letter: YES on South Dakota SB 152 Adoptee Access Bill

There's still a few hours left! Please visit the web site below to learn how you can help passage of SB 152, a clean bill that restores adult adoptee original birth certificate access. Hurry, they're voting today!

http://bn-action-alert.blogspot.com/2010/02/action-alert-south-dakota-sb-152.html

I am writing to ask you to vote YES on SB 152, a bill that would restore original birth certificate access to adult adoptees.

For too long, adult adoptees have been denied their civil rights. SB 152 restores those rights by allowing adoptees to access their original birth certificates, without restriction, in the same manner as the non-adopted.

This is a simple matter of identity. It is not about search and reunion, but the rights of everyone to access the unmodified records of their birth. Adoptees who do not have this information are routinely denied driver's licenses, passports and other necessary documentation. Identity is identity, whether you are adopted or not. South Dakota has the opportunity to acknowledge this right through passage of SB 152.

Thank you for your time.

Triona Guidry

Midwest Coordinator, Green Ribbon Campaign For Open Records

Author of the 73adoptee blog, www.73adoptee.com

Will The Haiti Incident Reform The Adoption Process?

See also my previous posts on Haiti here and here.

In watching and reading the news coverage about the ten Americans arrested for child trafficking in Haiti, I've been wondering if this might be the catalyst that starts some serious reform in adoption.

When this incident first occurred, I figured the news media would do what they always do: gloss it over. I was expecting a lot of whining about "poor Americans", plus condemnation of the Haitian government which would capitulate to U.S. pressure and give these people a slap on the wrist. And who knows, maybe that will still happen. Personally I would like to see the lot of them get convicted in a Haitian court and receive the highest possible term in a Haitian prison. That Laura Silsby seems like a piece of work. The Haitian judicial process will have to determine the culpability of the rest of the group. "God told us to" is not a defense.

But on a broader level, I would like to see this be the catalyst to cease ALL private facilitation of adoption. If we're going to have adoption--and I'm under no illusions that we're going to get rid of it--then it should only be done by accredited agencies that are monitored by independent third parties. As this incident illustrates, anyone, regardless of qualifications, can set themselves up a "non-profit" and start facilitating adoptions. That has GOT TO STOP. Contrary to the whining of some (mostly prospective adopters), I don't think that would make the adoption process harder or more expensive. I think it would offer greater protections for everyone, including prospective adopters. It might reduce the number of adoptable kids... but did you catch what was said on Anderson Cooper (CNN)?

COOPER: It's -- and so they're handing this out. I mean, essentially, what we now know is, they were around in Port-au-Prince trolling for kids, I mean, going around, trying to collect kids under the age of 10, so, for whatever reason, they could take them to the Dominican Republic.

And what they -- we had also just learned today is they told that guy David Louis they were actually going to bring some of these kids into the United States, or they had offered to -- to bring Richard's kids into the -- back to the United States, which, you know, the fact that Richard and his wife -- that his wife said, look, do not go to this orphanage where our kids are in the process of being legally adopted, and they went anyway to try to get them, to me, that just raises all sorts of red flags.

PENHAUL: It certainly does raise red flags, as well as the fact that they were looking for children aged from zero to 10, kids aged under 10.

I asked an NGO specialist about that. Why zero to 10? He says kids zero of 10 are much easier to send in adoption. You can bet your bottom dollar, if those kids were going to be sent into adoption, they were not going to be adopted in the D.R. They would have been sent abroad for that. Maybe the D.R. was a halfway house.

I don't know that for sure, though, but, certainly, the people that you have talked to tonight, you can piece it together. It seems like that. And, yes, certainly, they were trawling for orphanages as well, because the three translators that we have spoken to extensively have said that they also were asked to telephone another orphanage, and that other orphanage also declined help.

These people were deliberately going after kids ages zero to 10... BECAUSE THEY WERE MORE ADOPTABLE. In other words, more lucrative, more palatable to prospective adopters. Read the rest of the transcript for more on how blatant they were about sweeping in and snatching children, including those who were already cleared for adoption by American families (and whose adoptive families told them outright to stay out of it). So, yes, restricting who can facilitate adoptions might result in less children available for adoption, but you know what? That's a good thing for prospective adopters. Unless you're saying you don't really care where the kid comes from as long as you get one...

My adoption was private. It was facilitated by the delivery doctor and two attorneys. One attorney took my mother's relinquishment and passed it to the second attorney, who happened to be my adoptive father. The first attorney and the doctor were affiliated with a highly-regarded adoption agency here in the Chicago area, but for mysterious reasons they were able to moonlight a few private adoptions, like mine. I have been asking myself why for a long time and the only answers I've come up with are unpleasant. There were no checks and balances, no accredited entities verifying the procedures, no one independently advising my birth mother on her options and rights. There was just the handing off of a newborn in a hospital parking lot. I think that's wrong and I want it to stop. And the only way it's going to stop is if we quit letting any random bozo facilitate adoptions, and if we throw the book at people when they're caught.

I'd also like to know why it is that no one is investigating other incidents of potential child trafficking, like the Rendell raid or Mike Roberts, the Texas businessman who's trying to pull a raid of his own. Apparently if you're the governor of Pennsylvania or a hotshot CEO it's okay to snatch kids. Laura Silsby's problem was that she was an amateur, flagrantly flaunted the rules and got caught. I think the Haitian prime minister is exactly right in requiring his personal approval for each and every child leaving the country.

But I'd like to see more protections from the U.S. side, starting with a public outcry over baby brokers of all stripes and utter refusal on the part of prospective adopters to deal with these sorts of criminals. Only by shutting down the market demand will we see an end to baby selling.