Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

what do people think of this

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

This question is closed.
Answers (21)
  • I saw the article on AOL this morning, and didn't know what to think. 30 years ago in 1979, if she requested a closed adoption, she should have had one. When she didn't submit a reply to the letter, it should have been taken as a rejection of the offer to reunite.They certainly hadn't received permission. If the adoptee would have phoned her perhaps, giving her a "graceful way out" if she wasn't ready or needed some time, rather than walking up to the front door.....I can't imagine what that lady went thru. She may have not told anyone of the rape or adopton The adoptee could have brought back all the trauma of the attack she suffered many years ago. And she did choose to give birth rather than abort. I do believe the adoptee has a right to know OF their parents. However, it takes 2 people to be in a RELATIONSHIP in order for it to be healthy for both. Now the adoptee is suffering from "new" wounds. JMO.

    Answer by doodlebopfan at 9:56 AM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • She should have responded to the letter, explained the situation, and told them in no uncertain terms that she did not want any contact with the child. Unfortunately, her lack of response seems to have caused this. If she had done that and they had still sent the child to her, then she would be in the right on this issue.

    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? 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. The article 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.  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

  • What saddens me the most about this article is how the poor 30 year old adoptee who has to deal with being rejected by her birth mother for the second time in her life, especially in such a cruel way. A good personal friend of mine is a birth mom who was raped. She has a great reunion with her daughter whom she relinquished. The daughter is a beautiful, fabulous woman.

    Answer by onethentwins at 8:50 PM on Jun. 24, 2009

  • That was a sad story for everyone. In most cases I am all for open records, but I can see where she may not have wanted to be located. I agree that she should have responded and made that clear. Showing up at her door probably wasn't the best way to handle it, though.

    I also have a good friend who placed a son for adoption after being raped, and she is very happy to be in reunion with him. In cases like this it would be good if there were some way to let the right people know that it was an unusual situation.

    Answer by Iamgr8teful at 9:31 PM on Jun. 24, 2009

  • The story is heartbreaking and I would never want to take away from someone who has gone through such tragedy.

    But, I believe the adoptee needs to come first and there is never an excuse to deny any one person's rights for the benefit of another.

    And in a side note - this article is popping up in many different areas because it is actually a case that is in the New Jersey courts, not Pennsylvania and the NCFA has their hand in this with a release just a month before the adoptee rights demonstrations in Pennsylvania.

    I never would have known anything about this article if I had not followed the links of adoptees who have caught on to it just a month before they plan to demonstrate in mass for their rights. There are sketchy areas of this story - check out the attorney on rip off report and see what you get.

    I will not doubt the women's story but I will wonder where the NCFA is gaining from this release.

    Answer by bellacocco at 12:10 AM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • quote bellacocco - "I will not doubt the women's story but I will wonder where the NCFA is gaining from this release." - Those people are assholes and Adoptee haters. I wouldn't be surprized if they put her up to it. Bastard Nation, the #1 Adoptee Rights Organisation say they are enemy #1.

    Answer by onethentwins at 12:16 AM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • Honestly, I do doubt this story! I sometimes wonder if the NCFA doesn't make these kinds of stories up. How would we ever know if they were doing so? The NCFA is firmly AGAINST open records and they benefit from stories like this. They want records to remain closed and constantly say that "birthmothers need their privacy." I don't know birthmothers who want to remain hidden from their children even those who were raped. Plus, I don't know adoptees who would hound their birth families if they did not want contact. Maybe there are a few adoptees who would and a few birth parents who do not want contact, but they are rare.

    The real truth is that the NCFA wants records to remain sealed because they do NOT want reunions. I honestly cannot believe that they really acknowledge why they are soooo against access to adoption records.....but, I know it isn't because they care that much about birth parents.

    Answer by Southernroots at 12:57 AM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • And yes, reunions will continue to happen whether records are easily accessed or not. But, it is blatantly unfair and unjust that adopted adults have to jump through so many hoops, pay so much money and go to such great effort just to be able to access information about their heritage.

    I hate stories like this one because I know that the NCFA promotes the idea that birthmothers need/want their privacy. It simply is untrue. WE can speak for ourselves and most birth mothers DO NOT want to remain hidden from their children. Why would open adoptions be the norm now if most birth mothers wanted to remain hidden from their children?


    Answer by Southernroots at 1:02 AM on Jun. 25, 2009

  • I am for open a point. I disagree (respectfully) that the rights of the adoptee supercede the rights of the birthmother in this situation. It is terrible for the adoptee to have that pain continue. But I believe that all people have the right to privacy should they choose it and that no one person's right trumps another. Perhaps one way for a r esolution is that at the time of birth the birthmother can say yes it is or no it isn't for the records to be open. Then it would be up to the birthmother later to open those records. For most women I am sure they would want those records to be available but I can certainly understand why others would not. There is no win/win answer or perfect solution. Win/win would be creating a community that assists women and children, keeps famiies together when possible, and resources available to those in need or in crisis. Instead we live in a community that judges women.

    Answer by frogdawg at 7:02 AM on Jun. 25, 2009