A few days ago, there was a hearing in California for AB 372, which is a bill that would essentially allow an adult adoptee to get his or her original birth certificate with a little less hassle than currently required by law.
Today, there was a post on Stroller Derby arguing that all adoptees should have access to their original birth certificates. The writer noted that a “fake birth certificate” is created when a child is adopted. She writes that having her name and her partner’s name on said birth certificate is “a lie”.
There are really two issues here: access to birth certificates and the birth certificates themselves.
It always seemed like a no-brainer to me that anyone should be able to obtain a copy of his or her birth certificate. A birth certificate belongs to the person who was born. Some people argue that the right of the birth family’s privacy ranks above the right of the adopted person. I disagree. Maybe this is one of those issues with nuances I just don’t understand, but if you give birth, the person to whom you gave birth has the right to know that you did so. So, I say unseal all records. If anyone has more familiarity with this topic and would care to discuss it, that would be great.
As for the birth certificates themselves, I’m going to start with mine. I was born “Robin” with an “i”. In the fifth grade, I decided I wanted to be “Robyn” with a “y”. So I started spelling my name that way. My senior year of high school, I was informed by the yearbook teacher that my name in said yearbook and on my diploma would be my legal name. So my mom spent $19 to change the one letter. My original birth certificate still reads “Robin”, and there’s a second page with the amendment, “Robyn”.
My birth certificate has a spot for “Mother of Child” and one for “Father of Child”. In the “Attendant’s Certification” area, the person who attended the birth must sign off on “I hereby certify that I attended this birth and that the child was born alive at the hour, date and place stated above”. Note that it doesn’t mention that the child was born to the parents listed above.
I don’t think that listing adoptive parents on a birth certificate is a lie. I am my child’s mother. My husband is my child’s father. Iowa, which recently legalized same-sex marriage, is considering doing away with the terms “mother” and “father” on birth certificates. In cases in which donor sperm is used in a pregnancy, is the sperm donor’s name listed as “Father of Child”? What if donor eggs are used? Does the child have two mothers and a father listed? And in the case of donated embryos, who do we list there?
My point is, the birth certificate was created for a time when one man and one woman had a child (or 12) and that was that. We live in far more complicated times.
Some people say that the original birth certificate should not be changed, and that the adoption decree should be acceptable as a form of identification. Our adoption decree is 4 pages long, and looks nothing like a birth certificate. It would probably be fairly easy to “fake” one.
Some people say the original birth certificate should be amended, and I tend to agree. As long as the adoptive parents appear as “Mother of Child” and “Father of Child” (or Parent and Parent, to be gender neutral) I’m a happy camper.
When I was thinking about this earlier, it seems like we need a birth certificate to document who we were when we were born, and a life certificate to document who we are now.
Photo Credit: Robyn C.
Thank you for your article. I just wanted to take a moment to address some issues with AB 372.
AB 372 as it is currently written wouldn’t take much hassle out of an adoptee trying to obtain an original birth certificate (OBC.) The link listed here goes to the bill as introduced. That bill would have possibly reduced hassle. The bill was amended 3/21 to a bill that was quite similar to the law in Oregon, Alabama, Kansas, Alaska, New Hampshire and Maine. That version would have been quite hassle-free. The version of the bill that passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, however, is far from hassle free, and still doesn’t guarantee access to an OBC would for a California adoptee. It contains a disclosure veto and very vague language regarding a requirement for the state to send a return receipt requested letter to the biological parent(s) listed on the OBC in an attempt to obtain permission from them before the OBC can be released. If the bio parent(s) listed on the OBC cannot be located, then the OBC remains sealed. Considering moves, deaths, name changes and the like, there’s not much guarantee of a listed parent receiving the letter. If the return receipt isn’t sent back, then it is assumed they could not be located. In that case, the OBC remains sealed.
AB 372 is NOT an adoptee rights bill. California’s adoptees deserve the same right to their own birth records as all other residents of California. Having been adopted should not take away that right.
The version of AB 372 that passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee on 4/27 (as amended on 4/21) can be viewed here:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
or here
http://calopen.org/ab372amend20090421v97.pdf
Thank you for the clarification. I knew that there were several versions of the bill, but couldn’t really determine what was what. I agree that adoptees should have the same access to their birth certificates that non-adopted people do.
[...] adoptees, and some people who aren’t adoptees, call the amended birth certificate a lie. I wrote about it at AdoptionBlogs.com, just over two years ago. I vehemently [...]
hague apostille,hague convention apostille,apostille service,apostille certification,apostille documents,hague apostille convention,apostille birth certificate,apostille seal,apostille definition,apostille services,apostille hague…
[...]Birth Certificates — U.S. Infant Adoption[...]…