You have to love that term - "tracking down." For me it evokes an image of someone dressed in camouflage gear traipsing through the woods carrying a long rifle, and ready to aim and fire. Although I do not believe it is the best way to describe an adoption search, sometimes searching is a matter of tracking someone down. Therefore "tracking down" does not bother me.

Tracking Down Biological Kids or Parents is an article about recent changes in adoption access laws in North Carolina. The reporter began this story by using "biological parents" and "tracking down" in the title of this story. Two faux paux already for those advocates of positive adoption language(PAL). Good thing I loathe much of PAL personally!

This article discusses recent changes in the law in North Carolina regarding adoption access. The vote was to initiate a confidential intermediary system, but open access to adoption records was voted down. You will notice in the article that pesky worry that open access equates to less adoptions. However, no one has ever been able to prove that adoptions decrease in states with open records. In fact, just the opposite is the case.

The article mentions that birth parents and adoptees have been pushing to eliminate the 1949 law which keeps records sealed in North Carolina.

Other advocates disagreed, saying the change would possibly
discourage adoption and unravel the understanding by some mothers
that their identities would remain confidential.

"Unravel the understanding?" Huh? Does that statement make sense? What understanding? No birth mother I know wants to remain a secret to her child. The compromise bill which was approved today would allow an adoption agency to act as a "confidential intermediary" between an adoptee age 21 years or older and a biological parent. If the agency has written permission from both sides, they can (if they want to, that is)bring about contact between the parent and child or share identifying information.

Many birth mothers that I know are not too keen on most adoption agencies, and have valid reasons to feel as they do. Having the same adoption agency arrange the details of reunion would certainly not be most birth parent's first choice. In fact, many birth mothers would rather walk on glass than ever hear from the adoption agency again. Many birth parents have a low degree of trust in adoption agencies.

Besides, most adoptees and birth parents who want open records feel perfectly capable of handling their own affairs. They neither want, nor need an agency to act on their behalf. When they were children, they had no choice. As adults, they would like to control their own lives.

Written permission from both sides, huh? In theory it may not sound too bad, but how many birth parents or adoptees will ever learn about the new confidential intermediary("CI")system? So far, few states or agencies broadcast their CI systems and most are understaffed.

The reactions to this bill are mixed. Some advocates for open records are pleased that the bill passed, but wish that it had not been so radically altered. They feel that it is a beginning at least. I asked adult adoptee Laurie Dunfield Baker to give me a quote as to her opinion of the bill that passed. Here is what Laurie thinks about the bill that was passed:

H445 as amended is not an equal access bill. It is a reunion bill. When we ask for equal access to our original birth certificates, we are not asking for reunion. We are asking to be given back our right to access these documents. It's time to get down to the real issue of adopted citizens having the same rights as all other citizens

Her comments are an excellent reminder that equal access bills are not about reunions, but equal rights. This important point is worthy of a separate post on this issue!

Further Reading:

Access to Adoption Records.

Are you Ready for Open Records?


Photo by Jan Baker 2007