The right to know your origins in an inalienable right

The authors of the Declaration of Independence identified certain rights granted by our creator. These natural rights are inalienable--they can't be taken away by governments. Among them, the authors wrote, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's not an exhaustive list. The Supreme Court has expanded it to include the right to decide on the upbringing of our children, the right to marry the person of our choosing, and the right to make our own reproductive decisions. Surely the right to know where you came from should fall within this list. 

Adoptees made this argument in a 1979 New York court case, Alma v. Mellon.* The federal Court of Appeals pooh-poohed the claim, contending the need to protect the adoptive family and the first mother's family trumped the adoptees' need to know their heritage. The judges made the patently absurd claim that mothers gave up their children on condition of anonymity. Does anyone believe that any first mother had a conversation which went like this: "If you don't guarantee me that my child will never, never, find me I'll just keep him?"

Jane

The New York legislature is still stuck in the archaic thinking that led to the 1979 decision, and consequently, though the group in New York has been lobbying for change for decades, the sealed-records legislation of the 1930s still stands.

But elsewhere, the times they are a'changing. Access bills are beginning to catch on. This year Ohio, Colorado, and New Jersey passed legislation that allowed access with restrictions, bringing the number of states open or partially with records up to sixteen.** The truth is that adoptive families don't need protection from wayward children searching for their original families and most first mothers aren't shaking in their boots fearing their little mistake will come a'knockin. Indeed, as our enlightened adoptive mother readers tell us, they're happy their children's first mothers are in their lives. In fact, one of their chief concerns is about how hurt their children are when their first mothers don't make promised visits.

What about the often touted "right of mothers for privacy"? The old men (and women) in New York were so concerned about that "right" that they turned a good bill into a ridiculous one that we are happy to report did not make it to the floor for a vote.  No court has held that mothers have a right of privacy from their children. As an appellate court in Oregon noted, giving birth is not a private event. A word of advice to open records advocates: Don't ever fall into the trap of allowing opponents to fling around the phrase "first mothers right to privacy" without pointing out that "anonymity" from their children may be their desire--but it is not their right.

It may be time to litigate adoptee natural rights again. Judges today may not be so quick to assume that secrecy is a necessary component of adoption. The case should not be filed in New York since Alma v. Mellon is precedent. California might be a good place, particularly since its northern neighbors, Oregon and Washington, allow adoptees access to their original birth certificates with no reported negative consequences. Oregon now allows adoptees access to their court records.

Pres. Johnson signing Civil rights Bill

Thinking about how attitudes and beliefs can change brought me back to the signing of the Civil Rights Act fifty years ago today. I was thrilled because I had seen so much racism and discrimination growing up in Chicago. That summer in 1964 was a glorious time for me, I had (or so I thought) a fairy tale romance with an exciting older man. Later he become my surrendered daughter's father and proved himself a scoundrel. The Civil Right Bill, though, has lasted and its impact cannot be overstated. It's hard for younger Americans to realize how ingrained racism and discrimination was in the United States, not only in the segregated south, but in the north as well. Racism was everywhere, in housing, employment, hotels, on television, in the movies; it was an integral part of our culture just as adoption is today. Opponents of the Civil Right Act said "the bill can't do anything because you can't change public opinion." How wrong they were.

How wrong they will be when all adoptees have the unobstructed right to their original birth certificates.--jane
______________________________
*601 F.2d 1225
The complete list: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,  New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington.


FROM FMF:
Natural parents have the natural right to nurture their children
How to F-- up adoptee 'rights'