This article brings up a different side of the open adoption records argument.
Asked by Anonymous at 6:32 PM on Jun. 24, 2009 in Adoption
Answer by doodlebopfan at 9:56 AM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by kemclaughlin at 6:35 PM on Jun. 24, 2009
The different side being that birth mothers rights should come first? Or, that the state is in danger of being sued?Â Firstly, she chose adoption, not the adoptee. The adoptees rights should come first. Second, If all adoptees had access to their OBC as non-adopted people do, the state wouldn't be liable for anything.
Something else to consider; reunions are happening despite open records.Â The articleÂ doesn't actually say that the state provided the adoptee with any information. The usual procedure is to assume that no answer is a rejection and only supply personal information with consent.Â It is quite probably that the adoptee got her name and address another way.
Answer by onethentwins at 8:49 PM on Jun. 24, 2009
Answer by onethentwins at 8:50 PM on Jun. 24, 2009
Answer by Iamgr8teful at 9:31 PM on Jun. 24, 2009
Answer by bellacocco at 12:10 AM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by onethentwins at 12:16 AM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by Southernroots at 12:57 AM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by Southernroots at 1:02 AM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by frogdawg at 7:02 AM on Jun. 25, 2009