Why the Adoption Establishment Annoys the Heck Out of Us - continued

Gee, I go away for a day and find adoption annoyances multiplying like bunnies.

I'd originality planned to write a little analysis about each post, but at the rate it's going, if I do that I won't have time to write my own annoyances.  So, instead Ill just put down links with a brief quote from each.

Trace DeMeyer has issued a second annoyance with some excerpts from Katheryn Joyce's "Shotgun Adoption," which appeared in the September 4, 2009 issue ofThe Nation.

QUOTE: CPCs (Crisis Pregnancy Centers) might persuade reluctant women by casting adoption as redemption for unwed mothers' "past failures" and a triumph over "selfishness, an 'evil' within themselves.

Barbara McArtney  guesting on  Reformtalk writes about the corruption of international adoption.

QUOTE:  Every country the Industry enters has been dirtied and only created problems and anger in its wake. If this is such wonderful, helpful work, where’s the accolades from countries, HR groups and ANYONE outside the industry? It faces nothing but criticism from all but its insiders. There has been a lack of any meaningful enforcement or improvement. Just the same rush to country to make as much money as possible before it closes due to their own illegal actions. There is no preservation of identity or family relationships. The closed model of adoption is the norm and has been proven by research to be bad for children yet it continues

Margie Perschied, adoptive Third Mom blogger is annoyed (as are we all) about the organizational  silence and  footsie played by professional organizations and their friends while corruption and bad practice continues to go unchecked.
QUOTE:  There is, in my opinion, absolutely no excuse for organizational or individual silence within the established adoption community on issues like for-profit adoption agencies, abusive surrender tactics, denial of original birth certificate access to adoptees, denial of citizenship to intercountry adoptees, or adoptee deportation.  There is simply no excuse.

Reformatina at Reformtalk takes to task the reform community for i's lack of cohesion and compassion for other members and groups. 

QUOTE:  It occurred to me that very few people try to do this. Instead, they jump to preconceived judgments about others when coming into an effort to reform something. They marginalize. I have watched the reform movement discard or push out some genuinely good and thoughtful people over the years due to its own biases and sometimes downright meanness.

There's plenty to think about and more to come.


Annoyance, thy name is adoption.

Why the Adoption Establishment Annoys Me: Joy Lieberthal (aka Song Eun Hee): The adoptee as adoption professional

The second entry in Why the Adoption Establishment Annoys the Heck Out Me blog week is Adoption Echos blogger  Joy  Lieberthal  (Song Eun Hee).  Joy is a Korean adoptee and clinical social worker specializing in issues of adoption. Her primary work is with children and young adults helping them to understand how adoption fits into their identity. She also works with adoptive parents.

In her entry Joy's discusses  the over arching  validity of pap and adoptive parent desire and privilege over the devalued and suspect adoptee experience and voice.

QUOTE:  Sitting in my seat though, spending hours and hours with adopted people opposite me, I keep getting dumbstruck by how little our experience is viewed with the same amount of merit, outrage and pursuits for change.  For those of us who continue to dare to change the system, it seems our reputation as someone with an axe to grind precedes us.

Why the Adoption Establishment Annoys the Heck Out of Us: Trace DeMeyer - Top 5 Reasons

Welcome to the unofficial "Why the Adoption Establishment Annoys  the Heck out of Us" blog week.  Organized by Kevin Ost-Vollmers and Shelise Gieseke from Land of a Gazillion Adoptess, adoptabloggers will sketch out their own annoyances regarding that most sacred of cows.  I don't know who all is posting and when they will post, but whenever one arrives I'll be sending out a link  here. My own won't be up until the end of the week.

Today  we kick off  the fun with  Native American journalist and memoirist Trace DeMeyer keeper of American Indian Adoptees: Lost Children, Lost Ones, Lost Birds.  Trace writes up the Top 5 Reasons the Adoption Establishment Bugs the Heck Out of  Me. Starting with (Lack of ) Disclosure and ending with Gratitude, Trace covers the gamut of adoption paternalism and interference that should be read out loud to every legislator in the remaining 43 closed states.

QUOTE:  I can hear the lobbyist pounding on their tables, “adoptees should be grateful they were adopted.” The adoption industry is a billion dollar business and they don’t want to lose a single dollar in profits. It’s about money. Even now, the adoption industry does not appreciate adoptees or ask how we feel or acknowledge what we endured. We are not invited to sit at their table or join in discussions. That really bugs me!

Arizona: Don't put her up for adoption...give her to us!

On February  8 a newborn was discovered in the front yard of a home on Kathleen Street in Phoenix.  Baby Kathleen (yes they named her that!) was transported to the hospital and seems to be all right. Neighbors reported seeing a young pregnant woman in the area shortly before the discovery:

Witnesses from the area told detectives they saw a young woman walking around the neighborhood and at a nearby elementary school. She was described as "very pregnant" and appeared to be in "distress."

She is described as: Hispanic female, 17 to 24 years old, 5'3", slender, dark hair in a ponytail, white spaghetti strap shirt, blue or gray pants, with a noticeable tattoo on her right bicep area that could possibly be a red floral design.

Actually yard babies are fairly common, though they tend to be found in backyards.  I"ll leave the logistics of this pop and drop to the authorities.

Comments on the story are typical, ranging from complaints about anchor babies (how abandoning an anchor baby helps a parent isn't addressed) to "at least shed didn't throw it in a dumpster" appear at the bottom of the story.

And then there's this, the most blatant pitch for a baybee I've seen in my 12 years of covering discarded infants.  It's not uncommon to find such sentiments. But "Peter" takes it to a new level of entitlement--especially for supposedly educated "respectable" people. who should know that no one, no matter how "respectable"  and doctorly just can't pick up a baby for Valentine's Day.

Peter 2 weeks ago

My wife and I have been trying to have a child for more than 5 years. We would love to give that child a home. My wife is a respectable physician and I am a nursing student. It would be the best Valentines gift for my wife.  Don't put her up for adoption think of us first.

We want a baby and we want it now.

South Carolina: An OBC to get a driver's license?

I want to preface this blog by saying that I am no expert on the South Carolina situation.  I am pretty sure, though, that I have interpreted the law correctly.

I'm posting this entry as a smaller part of the big picture of sealed adoption records in the age of the national security state. While our battle  is always about equal treatment under law and due process, in the restoration of our right to our original birth certificates,  there are serous practical and political consequences that grow out of our lack of access.

Last night, Anne Piper Boyd, one of Bastard Nation's Facebook friends posted a section from the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles homepage regarding application identification requirements to obtain a driver's license in the state.  It seems if you are adopted, the BMV--at least in theory-- demands proof! 

The following  is an identification requirement  posted on  the BMV website  for  residents (native-born and new)  to obtain a South Carolina driver's license (my emphasis)

If your name has changed since birth, you must provide all legal documents (adoption records, marriage certificate, certificate of naturalization, court ordered name change) supporting all name changes from birth to present. For more information about documents you will need to get a S.C. license, see Accepted Forms of Identification.

This got me curious about South Carolina's OBC access law.  Well, surprise!  There is pretty much NO ACCESS.  South Carolina in fact, makes Missouri look like Oregon.

The activist group down there, South Carolina Adoptee Rights (SCAR--how appropriate!) tells us:

Adoption Records have been closed since 1963 in South Carolina.

 

The state only has records of adoptions that went thru the Department of Social Services.

What does this mean to adoptees?  How does an adoptee get their current medical information? What if the adoption was not done by DSS. 

Department of Social Services of S C will only reunite the adoptee and birth parent are registered with the state.  Other Agencies  have their own registries and both parties have to register an affidavit of consent at the discretion of the chief executive officer of the agency.  What if the other party is deceased?   How do we get current medical?

When an agency or attorney closes their business, there is not a statute that the files be retained or turned over to the state or how long the file has to be kept by the attorney or agency as the state only keeps records for the adoptions they handle. 

It is unclear if SCAR is including OBC release in its description, so I went a little farther:  to the HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway since it has a portal for OBC and identity access laws that is quicker than slogging through the state code. I found this for South Carolina.

Access to Nonidentifying Information
Citation: Ann. Code § 63-9-780

The adoption agency may furnish nonidentifying information to adoptive parents, birth parents, or adoptees when, in the sole discretion of the chief executive officer of the agency, the information would serve the best interests of the persons concerned. Nonidentifying information includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• The health and medical histories of the birth parents
• The health and medical history of the adoptee
• The adoptee's general family background without name references or geographical designations
• The length of time the adoptee has been in the care and custody of the adoptive parent

Mutual Access to Identifying Information

Citation: Ann. Code § 63-9-780

The public adoption agency responsible for the placement shall furnish to an adoptee the identity of the adoptee's birth parents and siblings and to the birth parents and siblings the identity of the adoptee under the following conditions:

• The adoptee is age 21 or older, and the applicants apply in writing to the adoption agency for the information.
• The agency has a current file containing affidavits from the adoptee and the birth parents and siblings that they are willing to have their identities revealed to each other.
• The agency has established and maintained a confidential register that contains the names and addresses of the adoptee and birth parents and siblings who have filed affidavits.
• The adoptee and his or her birth parents and siblings have undergone counseling by the adoption agency concerning the effects of the disclosure. The adoption agency may charge a fee for the services, but services must not be denied because of inability to pay.

No disclosure may be made within 30 days after compliance with these conditions. The director of the adoption agency may waive the 30-day period in extreme circumstances. The agency may delay disclosure for 20 days from the expiration of the 30-day period to allow time to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin the disclosure for good cause shown. 

 Access to Original Birth Certificate

Citation: Ann. Code § 44-63-140

The original birth certificate is placed in a special sealed file by the State Registrar. The statute does not specify a procedure for access to the original certificate.

No procedure?

 I then went to the  SC Vital Stats webpage.  There is NOTHING about adoption. Presumably that Registrar's sealed file--that is, South Carolina's entire adopted population-- is so secret its existence can't even be acknowledged on the Registrar's own public information site.  SC's Vital Statistics  gives Class Bastard a whole new meaning.

Finally I checked the South Carolina Code just to verify that these summaries and comments are correct.  Unfortunately, they are. There is also a  $500 fine and/or imprisonment for up to six months for anyone in an official capacity who "disseminates"  information to the undocumented pariah.

So this takes us back to the BMV's requirement.

How is the adoptee supposed to comply with South Carolina BMV regulations if she (1) has no idea what her original name is; (2) has no access to that information and required documents; or (3) doesn't know she's adopted?

In fact, if the amended birth certificate is the forever birth certificate for the forever Baby Bumble, is the pre-adoption information necessary?  As adopta tradition goes: You didn't exist before you were adopted.

I don't know what a SC birth certificate looks like, but I'm guessing, due to the rabid secrecy surrounding adoption and adoptees in the state, an amended bc might not be detectable to the untrained eye. But it also seems, if you read the BMV's description of its  extraordinary technological  snooping  identity verification process, adoptees won't come out suspicion free.

What is really astounding, even to to me who should know better, is that the adoption system in SC is so closed and controlled  that the directors of DSS and private adoption agencies  have the "discretion" to release non-identifying information based on what they perceive as the "best interests" of the adult adoptee and adult first family.  What are these "best interests" and why should these busybody social drones have the authority to define and decide our business--especially since other states such as Ohio, simply release it upon request, and have done so for years?

Identifying information?  Privately run registries?  Counseling? (Maybe BMV gets a cut!) We can smell the cash manure here in Ohio.    If the agency is defunct, tough.  Your records are dumpsterized. There isn't even a recourse in current state law.

The entire SC "system" is arcane and corrupt.  In effect, the state has no mechanism to release OBCs, and any other way of getting personal information is through an adoption industry gatekeeper who may have a lot to hide. Or a new carpet to pay for. And to top it off, it forces search and reunion when only information may be desired.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, a South Carolina adoptee can be stopped from getting a driver's license because some adoption industry bigwig doesn't think it's somebody's  "best interest" to drive a car in South Carolina.

And that is just about as absurd as we can get.

Washington SUB 2211: Still dead. What happens next year?

It's official. As we reported Saturday Washington SUB HB 2211 is dead for this session. Although  it's still in the hopper, perennial bill killer, and bastard baiter Sen. Jim Hargrove, told 2211's sponsor Rep. Tina Orwall that he has no plan to bring  it forward this year. Naturally, Hargrove is not available for comment, a convenience that enables him to sidestep the question even the most incurious reporter must wonder: what's your problem with bastards?

But never fear! Tina Ovrwall intends to bring the bill back next year. Don't get too excited, though. According to the Tacoma News Tribune, her comrade in compromise, birthmother Rep  Ann Rivers, who is currently under the impression (we hope she wakes up) that she speaks for voiceless cowering first mothers:

I  think it will give us the direction that Sen. Hargrove might have perceived was lacking,” Rivers said. “We’ll make sure all the bases are covered, and we’ll proceed.

And just what might that direction be?

Hargrove supported the 1993 law that opened OBCs for October 1, 1993 adoptions and beyond  unless a disclosure veto has been filed. According to Wa-Care no vetoes have been filed; Laurie Lippold from the Washington Children's Home Society claim one. How do they know?.

HB 2211 expanded that veto--making it time-limited for 5 years (Oct 1 1993 forward) and 10 years (pre-October 1,1993)  and renewable to cover all adoptions.  Just what more does Hargrove want?  We'd conjecture out loud , but we don't want to give him any ideas.

Wouldn't it just be easier for Wa-Car, Rep. Overwall and Rivers to demand across the board access with no exceptions and Hargrove to jump  his sinking ship? Until that happens, their all in that same rickety boat.

Gladney Back in Honduras

This is from the US Department of State.  No explanation of Gladney's recent boot from Honduras, but they're back now. The only possible explanation I've heard, and my source didn't have any documentation,   is that the problem may have been administrative.

Messages for U.S. Citizens in 2012

February 17, 2012

Reinstatement of U.S. Adoption Agency by IHNFA (Instituto Hondureño de la Niñez y la Familia)

The U.S. Embassy in Honduras informs citizens that the Instituto Hondureño de la Niñez y la Familia (IHNFA ) recently reinstated U.S. adoption agency Gladney Center for Adoption, per IHNFA’s resolution SG-009-2012.   This message updates the prior Message for U.S. citizens published on January 30, 2012.  Gladney Center for Adoption is now accredited by IHNFA and is approved to process adoptions for families in Honduras.  

The Embassy continues to monitor the adoption situation in Honduras and will update U.S. citizens accordingly.  Meanwhile, we recommended that families who have not finalized adoptions contact IHNFA directly at at 011-504-2235-3565 to be sure their applications are handled by an accredited adoption agency.  

Washington SUB HB 2211: The testimony Bastard Nation would have submitted

TESTIMONY

SUB HB 2211:

Adoptee access to their own original birth certificates

Washington Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee

xxxx, 2012

OPPOSE

Privilege is the opposite of rights

Our Washington representative may not be able the attend the hearing so we are submitting this testimony/letter via email.

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization is the largest adoptee civil rights organization in the United States. We support full, unrestricted access for all adopted persons, to their original birth certificates. (OBC).

Bastard Nation's roots are in Washington State, and we would like nothing more than to support SUB HB 2211. Unfortunately we cannot.

The sticking point is SUB HB 2211's “affidavit of non-disclosure,” otherwise known as a Disclosure Veto. This veto creates a special third party privilege for birth parents that no one, parent or otherwise, possesses:  to bypass state law and to personally bar the state from releasing another person's birth certificate to the person to whom it pertains.

This onerous and discriminatory veto privilege, already in place for Washington adoptions finalized on and after October 1 1993, is extended in SUB HB 2211 to cover adoptions finalized before October 1, 1993;. The bill expands the pool of adoptees unable to access their OBCs; ,thus legally segregating a larger number of adoptees from those who can access them.

SUB HB 2211 not only expands the DV system, but creates a highly bureaucratic tiered system, which no other states has, that requires one set of birth parents (October 1, 1993) to renew their vetoes every 5 years, while the other set (pre- October 1, 1993) are required to renew every 10 years In effect, SUB HB 2211 not only segregates Washington's adopted citizens from the not-adopted, but segregates adoptees from those who can and cannot receive their OBC, and then divides the vetoed into separate legal classes. This bureaucratic parsing is insulting, demeaning, and unacceptable. It is anti-adoptee and anti-adoption sending the message that adoption is shameful and adoptees are dangerous.

To add to the insult, Washington media is falsely comparing SUB HB 2211 to Oregon's historic Ballot Measure 58 which in 1999 unsealed the OBCs of all Oregon-born adoptees without condition or restriction.  HB 2211 is the antithesis of M58. The ballot language reads:

Upon receipt of a written application to the state registrar, any adopted person 21 years of age and older born in the state of Oregon shall be issued a certified copy of his/her unaltered, original and unamended certificate of birth in the custody of the state registrar, with procedures, filing fees, and waiting periods identical to those imposed upon non-adopted citizens of the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 432.120 and 432.146

Sponsors and supporters claim of SUB HB 2211 claim it restores the civil right of Washington adoptees to the OBCs. Contrary to that claim, the bill, with its individual parental opt-out, continues to abrogate that right by continuing to let the legislature control our birth records and who gets what, instead of treating all adoptees in a uniform manner under law. This attitude might be politically expedient and justify past bad legislation. It does not, however, justify the continued denial of the right all Washington's adoptees once enjoyed, A right exists or it doesn't. A right is not contingent on third party approval.

Sooner or later Washington and every other state that has not opened OBCs unconditionally to adoptees are going to be forced to. The issue isn't going away. This is not a matter of if, but when.

Adopted adults, especially since 9/11, are increasingly denied passports, drivers licenses, pensions, Social Security benefits, professional certifications, and security clearances due to discrepancies on their amended birth certificates, and their inability to produce an original birth certificate to answer the problems. Proposed changes in passport application regulations will make it literally impossible for some adoptees to ever receive a passport without an accessible paper trial to the OBC.

Adoptees without a genuine original birth record could soon be barred from running for public office.‭ ‬Last year, at least‭ ‬10‭ ‬states, introduced legislation requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to present their original birth certificates to appropriate authorities to prove citizenship eligibility for office.‭ ‬Some of these bills go farther,‭ ‬mandating anyone running for office to prove citizenship through an original birth certificate.‭ ‬It is no stretch to think that someday soon adoptees could be barred from voting due to lack of‭ “‬legal.‭”birth certificates.

Should these rights and entitlements be nullified for adoptees because OBC access might make some people “uncomfortable?”

SUB HB 2211 at this point is not redeemable. It needs to die right now in the Human Services and Corrections Committee.

The only recourse to death by committee could occur if this committee agrees that all Washington adoptees should receive the same treatment under law,. In that case, we recommend the the bill be amended and returned to the House:

1. remove the expansion of the disclosure veto
2. vacate all disclosure veto language from the current law
3. unilaterally expire all vetoes currently on file on the effective date HB 2211.

For lawmakers concerned about “birth parent privacy,” a contact preference form, included in this bill is an easy, ethical solution, passed in other states, that allows birth parents to voluntarily voice their preference for contact with the adoptee, without the legal ramifications of the DV for OBC access. That is, no matter what  birth parents prefer the OBC is still released.

Since 1999 only 85 “no contact preferences” have been filed in Oregon, most of them filed the year the measure went into went into effect. In New Hampshire, as of December 31, 2021only 12 “no contact preferences” have been filed; 11 in 2005 and 1 in 2006. These numbers indicate that OBC access is not an issue for birth parents and that the only objection to full access lays in legislatures where adoption is only discussed, not lived.

The adoptee advocacy organization Wa-Care says on its webpage that since passage of the 1993 disclosure veto, none have been submitted. Laurie Lippold, of the Washington Children s Home Society testified that one was on file. Laws should not be passed due to speculative actions or to serve one person. The1993 DV is clearly not need or wanted.

Kansas and Alaska have never sealed original birth certificates. Since 1999 six states have restored to adoptees the unrestricted right to records and identity access: Oregon through ballot initiative, and Alabama, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island through legislation. No statistics are available for Kansas and Alaska, and Rhode Island's records won't be opened until July 1, 2012, but approximately 16,000 OBCs in the latter five states have been released with no reported ill consequences.

Rights are for all citizens, not favors doled out to some. Washington does not segregate rights by religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. It should not segregate rights by birth, adoptive status, or third party preference.

Unless SUB 2211 is amended to a clean bill that recognizes the right of all of the state's adopted people to their own OBC without restriction, then vote DO NOT PASS and keep this bad bill from a floor vote. Washington adoptees must enjoy equal protection, due process, and dignity, not favors.

Submitted by Marley Greiner
Executive Chair
Bastard Nation: the adoptee rights organization
xxx 2012

Washington SUB HB 2211: Dead according to sponsor and Wa-Care

Washington SUB HB 2211 is reportedly dead.  Last night, Wa-Care, promoters of the bill, announced on Facebook and in a post on its mail list that Rep.Tina Orwall, sponsor of the bill, had informed them that it had died in the Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee. Not surprisingly, uber powerful Sen.  Jim Hargrove wielded the coup de grace. I'm  a little unclear what exactly happened since there was no hearing and the Washington Leg page doesn't indicate, but it looks like he decided to refuse the bill a hearing. Normally I would wait for an official announcement, but since the bill's sponsor has sent out the word, I'm passing it along.

We are not sorry that SUB HB 2211 is dead.  The bill was restrictive,  maintaining and expanding the current disclosure veto system. But we also knew from the beginning that as long as Sen. Hargrove was calling the shots that nothing would happen.  Hargrove, in the Washington legislature for 28 years, has consistently and malignantly opposed all attempts, restrictive and non-restrictive, to free the state's adoptees from their chattel status. We did not expect a sudden change of heart.

We do not know what Hargrove's problem is, but as long as he is permitted to continue to reign in the Senate (formerly he was in the House), nothing will happen. Hargrove and the demise of this flawed bill  should be an object lesson:  no matter how far  OBC advocates twist their bills and their integrity to please the opposition, the opposition will continue to ignore if not hate them.. You don't  lose anything by pushing for full, unrestricted access. You, in fact, will gain respect. There is no shame in walking away when the bill turns rotten. Just don't contaminate the bill yourself.

Certainly Sen .Hargrove has enemies beyond adoptees and their families who would like to unseat him. While adoptees and their families in Washington are not politically powerful enough to do it, it's time to start talking to other people. And, of course, to push for the removal of the 1993 veto and full OBC access for all. .New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode island have all come back after the defeat of flawed, restrictive bills and won clean bills. Dont leave anyone behind.

Here is the funerary post on SUB HB 2211 distributed by Wa-Care.

Sen Hargrove

From: "Penni"
Date: February 17, 2012 8:32:58 PM PST
To: nwasr@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nwasr] HB 2211 is dead - thanks once again to Sen Jim Hargrove of Hoquium/Port Angeles
Reply-To: nwasr@yahoogroups.com

(be sure to 'like' wa-care facebook page to get all updates)

HB 2211 has died.

We can thank Senator Jim Hargrove from Hoquium/Port Angeles for killing our bill once again. This bill passed the House UNANIMOUSLY yet when it goes to the Senate, it gets routed right back to where similar bills have been routed time and again. You'd think because of the UNANIMOUS support in the House, this guy would at least be required to hold a hearing but nope, not the case.

FYI for voters in Hargrove's district: He's up for re-election this year. Ya'll need to find someone to run against him for once because I do believe 28 years is enough for this s.o.b.

Many of our legislators are holding town hall meetings this weekend. Some are doing call-in type meetings, even this evening. Could only find this short list of some Democrats meetings: http://senatedemocrats.wa.gov/townhall.html Check your local papers for when and where your legislators might be holding meetings.

PLEASE GO TO YOUR TOWN MEETING AND ASK HOW ONE PERSON CAN DERAIL LEGISLATION JUST BECAUSE HE HAS SOME PERSONAL BIAS AGAINST THE ISSUE!

Thanks for your support once again. We will be back again next year.

-Wa-Care

In a few minutes I'll post the testimony that Bastard Nation intended to submit to the Human Services and Corrections Committee this weekend.

SB: 713: Missouri Thy Name is Misery

Last year the Missouri legislature passed a really bad law, (SB 351)  that permits a handful of adoptees to get their identifying information from the state if their  birthpparents give their consent or there is evidence that the birthparents are deceased.  Note that the OBC is not released; only identifying information vetted by a low-salaried apparatchiki.  This year SB 1137,  has been introduced, which contains the same rules only the OBC would be released upon proof of birthparental consent or death.  This is what passes for progress in the Show Me State, which takes its motto way too seriously..

Now, we have Senator John Lamping (R-Dist 24),  stirring this stink pot with.SB 713, designed to further ridiculiousize  the absurd legal condition of Missouri's adopted class.  In the words of the Senate SB 713 Summary:

This act modifies the provision in current law allowing for identifying information to be be obtained from a biological parent who is deceased by also allowing such information to be released  if  the biological parent is proven to be 100 years of age or older at the time of request.

In other words, if you're an old bastard with a walker and bedpan, Sen.Lamping considers you mature and safe enough for a birth certificate.  Polite words fail.

But it gets better! Doesn't it always? 

Missouri puts the loco in in loco parentis.

It seems that under SB 351  bio siblings of their own volition had the opportunity to identify,  meet up, and... GASP!... trade their parents names -without parental consent and government supervision.  Well, no more if Sen. Lamping has his way!


The SB 713  Summary continues:


This act provides that identifying information regarding biological siblings may be released to the adopted adult if the identifying information regrading the biological parents is released in accordance with the procedures for requesting and obtaining such information. 

Or as an aide to Sen. Lampring  emailed to Missouri activist Carla McBrine who reposted on Bastard Nation's Facebook page

... SB 713 addresses a loophole created by last year's SB 351. SB 351 allowed for the release of a biological sibling's information upon that&sibling's consent. It was brought to our attention that, in practice,  adoptees could use this provision to seek out identifying information on  their biological parents, through the sibling, without the parent's consent.  SB 713 would still allow for the release of a sibling's information after the aadoptee has obtained his or her biological parent's < identifying information. 

So now not only are adult adoptees perpetually infantilized in Missouri, but if Sen. Lamping has his way, their adult siblings  will be subject to relational micromanagement by the state, too, God forbid that Lorraine and Mike Lego chat it up with their long lost brother Jack Bastardo without their mutual parent(s) sitting in on it, metaphorically or otherwise.

I'm surprised Sen. Lamping hasn't gone father and taken a page from the Dakotas.  In the late 1990s, a bill was floated in one of those states (I just can't remember which one) to open OBCs However, one provision forbade a birthparent from giving out the name of the other birthparent to the adoptee without the other birthparent's express consent. . Forbade it to the tune a $100,000 fine! Enforcement of that law would have been interesting.

HB 713 sounds like a holdover from the old Uniform Adoption Act of 1994 which would have, among other things, sealed OBCs for 99 years and criminalized searching, The proposal was opposed by everyone from Bastard Nation to JCICS and died a quiet death from attrition and ridicule, though some parts of it were adopted in a few states..  Even it's chief author, Joan Hollinger, repudiated  the proposal.. 

Don't Missouri politicians have something better to do than seal birth certificates and  micromanage adoptees and their families?.  Like shutting down meth labs?

The State of Missouri seems immune from  the slings and arrows of derision, embarrassment, and contempt.  I hate to go hyperbolic here, but in what sane world are families not allowed to know each other's names?

In his legislative bio  Sen. Lamping says he wants to improve Missouri's adoption process. Are SB 713, SB 351, and SB 1153 an improvements?

Sen Lamping can be contacted at 573-751-2514.  He can be emailed by using this form: and scrolling down to his name.

Washington State Sub HB 2211: Are adoptees a runny infection?

Get this straight. Washington HB 2211/Sub HB 2211 is not an adoptee rights bill.  It does not restore the right of Washington State's Class Bastard to their original birth certificates.


HB 2211/Sub HB 2211 expands the already-in-place October 1, 1993 disclosure veto backward to include all adoptions.


HB 2211/Sub HB 2211 creates a new and unique tiered DV system that not only retains the current segregation of the adopted from the non-adopted, but creates two tiers of black-holed adoptees segregated from the non-vetoed adopted and from each other.


This miscreation of the bureaucratic mind  is supported by naive deformers who believe that something is better than nothing, even as they claim to abhor the something.

Tina Orwall

THE STORY
Earlier this session WA-Care  (and on Facebook) the latest iteration  Washington's Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight, got  a bill,  HB 2211 introduced, that would  open  the original birth certificates of the state's adoptees, except when it didn't.  Promoted as an "adoptee rights bill" the proposal, sponsored by adoptee Rep. Tina Orwall, (D-DesMoines) would not only keep the current October 1, 1993 disclosure veto in place, but extend it backwards to blackhole  those adopted anytime in the past; thus, expanding the pool of those whose right to their OBC could be denied by third parties.  The "good"  news  was that current vetoes on file would be expired by the state on July 1, 2014--but could be re-filed along with new vetoes from the now included older class.Vetoes would need to be re-filed every two years. But here's where it gets dodgy. According to WA-Care's own webpage:


It's important to note that in the 17+ years since this law went into effect, not one single birth parent has filed an affidavit of non-disclosure.


WTF?????


If this is true,  then Orwall and WA-Care are defending and promoting a law that nobody literally  wants or uses.   Why not just propose to repeal the 1993 veto and open OBSs for everybody else?  While it's still a hard sell to open records retroactively, it's  easier to do  if no DV statute mucks up the argument. Unless, that is, you''re more interested in personal reunion narratives than ethical reform and rights restoration.


To make matters more absurd, the HB 2211 also contains (and does in its amended version)   a "contact preference form.   There's a good chance the DV could be jettisoned with a little finessing.  It happened in Oregon after M58 passed and also in Alabama when politicians threatened to interfere a clean laws. Unfortunately, by refusing to rock the boat,  Rep Orwall and Wa-Care endangers the right of all Washington adoptees--present,  past, and future--to obtain their OBCs, be treated equal to the not-adopted, and get justice.

One would think that this statistic would be the keystone of  any records access argument in Washington.  Incredibly, I've  not seen it mentioned anywhere outside of  Wa-Care's obscure webpage.  Apparently Orwall,  either hasn't been informed of this statistic (which I doubt), or suffers from Stockholm Syndrome and has no grasp of  adoptee civil rights or the politics of adoption.  Paraphrasing Orwall, Alexis Krell  writing in the Seattle Times says that that the representative sought  the veto compromise  as a "balance between preserving privacy and allowing adoptees to gain important records and medical information."

Rep. Ann Rivers,(R-LaCenter) a member of the House Judiciary Committee, outed herself as a teenage birthmother during last month's HB 2011 hearing. Tearfully making herself a spokesperson for women she doesn't know but she imagines cower in secret closets throughout the state, Rivers demanded more protection for them and their "privacy."  Alluding to the 2-year veto renewal,  she couldn't "imagine ripping the wound open every two years," as if adoptees are an unpleasant runny infection that needs covered up by an ugly scab in the Washington Revised Code.

Rivers and Orwall amending

Orwall  (who by this time was reportedly also crying, ) and Rivers put their heads together and came up with two amendments that created a two-tiered veto system binding adoptees (depending on their date of adoption) to 5 and 10 year vetoes.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/02/10/v-printerfriendly/2021242/2-lawmakers-push-to-ease-adopted.html#storylink=cpy

Last Saturday (!) HB 2211--now officially known as Sub HB 2211-- passed the House  unanimously and was handed over  to the Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee. (I'm rather fond of the adoptee as prisoner metaphor!)

Normally, I'd just link to Sub HB 2211 and let you  read it yourself, but you really need to see the final rendering of your rights by Washington politicians. Here are the important parts:


(4) (a) Regardless of when the adoption was finalized, a birth parent may file with the department of health an affidavit of nondisclosure pursuant to this section.


(b)  An affidavit of nondisclosure filed by a birth parents for an adoption finalized prior to October 1, 1993, is valid for ten years from the date the affidavit is filed.


(c) An affidavit of nondisclosure filed by a birth parents for an adoption finalized on or after October 1, 1993 is valid for five years from the date the affidavit is filed, unless the affidavit was filed before the effective date of this section.  An affidavit of disclosure, filed before the effective date of this section for an adoption finalized on or after October 1, 1993 is valid until July 1, 2017.


(5)(a) A birth parent may renew his or her affidavit of nondisclosure by filing a new affidavit with the department of health before the expiration of the previously filed affidavit.  A birth parent may continue to renew his or her affidavit of nondisclosure or file a new affidavit of nondisclosure if a previously filed affidavit has expired.


NOTE:  what happens if one parent submits a veto, but the other parent wants the record released?.  Details! Details!

 (8) (b) If the department of health does not provide an adoptee with a noncertified copy of the adoptee's original birth certificate because a valid affidavit of nondisclosure has been filed, the adoptee may request, no more than once a year, that the department of health attempt to determine if the birth parent is deceased.  Upon request of the adopee, the department of health must make a reasonable effort to search public records that are accessible and already available to the department of health to determine if the birth parent is deceased.  The department of health may charge the adoptee a reasonable fee to cover the cost of conducting a search.


If one takes this last part to its reasonable conclusion, then vetoed adoptees could begin to  harbor bloody fantasies of dead  birthparents whom they,  previous to Sub HB 2211, had hoped to meet alive. Keep your axes locked upl You never know what one of those crazies will do to get their OBC.


We also wonder just what records the state busybody will employ to determine if the requested parent is dead or alive, and how the state can determine if the dead person is the correct person and not an identity thief. How many Mary Smiths is the State of Washington willing to investigate? Here in Ohio a few years ago a young man  registered with the state-run Ohio Adoption Reunion Registry, was told that a search through "death records" indicated his birthmother was still alive  She wasn't.  She'd never changed her name and died in Ohio;  ie, she was in the Ohio Death Index and had been for years.

Yes, Alice, this is a very deep black rabbit hole Washington Class Bastard has been shoved in to.


And, what does Wa-Care have to say about all this?  Again, "in their own words" is much more satisfying than paraphrasing.  What follows is the group's latest posting  (February 14) on Facebook:

Hello- HB 2211 has now been moved to the Senate to begin the rounds there. The first stop is the Senate Human Services & Corrections committee. If they do decide to allow a hearing, it will most likely be scheduled for either this week or next week. 


Now is a good time to contact the members of the Senate Human Services & Corrections committee (and your own state senator to ask them to vote YES on HB 2211. This is a good opportunity to ask for any amendments (ie, ‘contact preference form’ that’s been so successful in Oregon, Alabama, Maine, and New Hampshire or at least to decrease the length of the 10 yr veto.)


For those that have commented previously that are against this legislation, please know that you have been heard. Wa-Care doesn’t have the power to stop this bill so if you have issues with this bill, your best bet is to contact your legislators and let them know your concerns.


Thanks!
Wa-Care

We understand that control of a bill is not always possible, but why is Wa-Care, which seems to be full of nice, sincere people,  supporting a bad bill they don't want and has the opposite affect of their intention?  Some people take the axiom that politics is the art of compromise a bit too far. There is no shame in walking away. 

THE PRESS
The incurious Washington media, mainly through the AP wire,  has begun to compare  Sub HB 2211 with Oregon's historic Ballot Measure 58  which opened the OBCs of all  adoptees born in the state, without restriction or  condition--   the antithesis of the Washington bill,   It has also failed to mention that for the last 17 years no DV has been submitted by parents who are well-aware that they could file one. Reading the news is like reading a Tina Orwall press release.


The Bellhingham Herald,  King5.com and others
The bill would place Washington among a handful of states, including Oregon, that allow adult adoptees to access their birth certificates.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/02/11/2390012/wa-house-adoptees-should-have.html#storylink=cpy

The Seattle Times  and others don't  explain the difference between a DV and a cpf:
Some people would prefer a completely open system such as in Oregon, where adoptees can obtain their original birth documents. Birthparents are allowed to attach a form stating whether they wish to be contacted.


Bonus points for incorrectly describing current Washington law.  Extra bonus points for  referring to adopted adults as "children" three times and "adopted youths" once. 

ACT
It's unclear if Sub HB 2211 will receive a hearing in the Senate.  James Hargrove, head of the Senate Human Services and Corrections Committee is a long-time opponent of OBC access. The original HB 2211 companion bill, SB 6233 did not receive a committee hearing and is dead.


In the meantime, Bastard Nation has drafted testimony to submit to Hargrove's committee.  We probably won't post it until the bill receives a hearing or dies without one. You can read our similar testimony for  the original HB 2211 here and here. We ourselves were guilty of failing to bring up the 0 number of 1993 vetoes (mea culpa!) but will include this information in new testimony. We'll add here that the first batch of 1993 adoptees has begun to receive their OBCs.  In December 2011, the Tacoma News-Tribune reported that nine had applied. 


Please join us in opposing Sub HB 2211.  I spoke to Josh Platis, an aide in the committee office. He told me the best thing to do is to write a letter/testimony and send it to each member of the committee and also to him at josh.platis@leg.wa,gov  He will make sure members receive a copy in the Sub HB 2211 packet.  Below is a contact list. Even a 2-3 sentence email is good.  


Human Service and Corrections Committee Members

Senator	Room	Phone
Hargrove, James (D) Chair	LEG 411	(360) 786-7646
Regala, Debbie (D) Vice Chair	JAC 233	(360) 786-7652
Stevens, Val (R) *	INB 105	(360) 786-7676
Carrell, Mike (R)	INB 102	(360) 786-7654
Harper, Nick (D)	JAC 226	(360) 786-7674
McAuliffe, Rosemary (D)	LEG 403	(360) 786-7600
Padden, Mike (R)	LEG 417	(360) 786-7606

Read First Mother Birth Mother blogger Jane Edwards' thoughts on Sub HB 2211, Washington representatives sell adoptees and birthmothers short.









. 

Fox News Fears Class Bastard

Are any of us surprised that Fox News hates fears bastards?

I'll post more formal comments and deconstruction later, but in the meantime, take a gander at what Fox News 's house "psychiatrist" Dr. Keith Ablow has to say about Media Matter's David Brock.  He's a dangerous "adopted boy."

(Sorry for bad format . I'l try to fix it later.)

Fox News ‘Expert’ Keith Ablow: Media Matters Founder Is ‘Dangerous’ Because He Was Adopted

By Zack Ford on Feb 15, 2012 at 11:51 am

Fox News’ infamous psychiatrist Keith Ablow has today joined the network’s personal attacks on Media Matters’ David Brock, suggesting Brock is “dangerous” because he “is an adopted boy”:

ABLOW: He’s a dangerous man, because having followers and waging war… this isn’t accidental language. It’s about violence, destruction, and he feels destroyed in himself. [...] This is an adopted boy who needs to plumb the depths of his psyche. He was adopted. Many adopted children are tremendously well-adjusted, but for some reason, this man feels he’s unloved and unloveable, shunted to the side, and that’s the antidote he feels: unlimited power. Guess what? It never ever works.

Watch it:

This is not the first time Ablow has attacked Brock for being adopted. He made similar claims last summer, suggesting Brock is “looking for any way he can get narcissistic reinforcement to tell him he’s a decent person.”

Ablow notes that he has never actually evaluated Brock, but his generalizations and extrapolation about adoption are likely offensive to anyone who was adopted, and suggest how low Fox is willing to stoop in attacking enemies. Of course, Ablow has a long history portrayingnon-heterosexual people and others as crazy while apologizing for the misdeeds of ideological allies, like Newt Gingrich.

Tags:

• Fox News