Should adoptees be able to acquire their original birth certificates so they can search for their birth families

[JohnDB]

What if they reform and have a decent life when I find them. Judgmental people like always have something to hide

Now THATS a storybook fantasy tale right there. 90% of drug addicts die from complications due to their chemical dependency.

And people with bipolar disorder.(largest demographic with chemical dependency) have a 90% failure rate at stopping narcotic abuse of those that try to quit.....just those that try. Few ever even try.

 

[Hafar1014]

Now THATS a storybook fantasy tale right there. 90% of drug addicts die from complications due to their chemical dependency.

And people with bipolar disorder.(largest demographic with chemical dependency) have a 90% failure rate at stopping narcotic abuse of those that try to quit.....just those that try. Few ever even try.

No I know of many cases that did reform successfully. I work on an individual basis.

 

[JohnDB]

There is no right of privacy in adoption. Most reunions have positive outcomes. Birthmothers want to be found and reunions are healing experiences.

You are focused on the wackiest things. Of course there is no privacy in adoption....whether the courts rule it or not.

It's your definition of "positive outcome " that is deeply troubling.
Anything other than physical harm perpetrated is considered "positive "?

 

[Hafar1014]

You are focused on the wackiest things. Of course there is no privacy in adoption....whether the courts rule it or not.

It's your definition of "positive outcome " that is deeply troubling.
Anything other than physical harm perpetrated is considered "positive "?

How many reunions have you experienced? What facts do you actually know about

 

[JohnDB]

How many reunions have you experienced? What facts do you actually know about

I dont live in an isolated bubble. I have friends and family who have adopted or been adopted. EX-wife was a social worker. Unfortunately I know way too much about the whole disgusting system and the details.

We all want and hope for the best but its soooooo rare. And the few rare situations of success you seem intent upon destroying by a goal of reunification. Nobody is helped by reunifying with a crackwhore.

 

[Hafar1014]

I dont live in an isolated bubble. I have friends and family who have adopted or been adopted. EX-wife was a social worker. Unfortunately I know way too much about the whole disgusting system and the details.

We all want and hope for the best but its soooooo rare. And the few rare situations of success you seem intent upon destroying by a goal of reunification. Nobody is helped by reunifying with a crackwhore.

I dont need friends to create anecdotal false information. I mediated many reunions and treated over 800 adopted families and adoptees. You dont know what youre talking about. You do live in an isolated bubble

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Most birth mothers want to be found. I have mediated many reunions and helped with many searches. The outcomes are very positive and healing allowing old wounds to heal and closure.

Then they should allow the records to be unsealed in their case, not all. What brain damage did you suffer which prevents you from seeing the birth mothers have a right to secrecy if they want it? What you want is called throwing the baby out with the bath water! That's why you are getting so much backlash! Why can't you see that for yourself?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I dont need friends to create anecdotal false information. I mediated many reunions and treated over 800 adopted families and adoptees. You dont know what youre talking about. You do live in an isolated bubble

Is the apostrophe key not working?

So, you know better than all of us? BS! Apparently, your reasoning skills took a vacation with that apostrophe key!

If a parent wants to be found, let them do the work and release the information. Blanket statements like yours are almost always wrong.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You cant imagine I dont have to because I work in the field of adoption
Thats an outlier and we dont know what the facts were. almost all reunions go well. You have no right to privacy in adoption. The Oregon Supreme County Ruled on that and th SC upheld that ruling.
I have mediated many reunions successfully, contacted many birth mothers myself and they are all overwhelmingly accepting. Only once has a woman rejected contact but other family members did want contact.

Registries dont work. Every person has a right to find their family of origin in fact thats international law signed on to by America. Notice the clause re identity and name

• Rights Protected:
  The Convention covers a wide range of rights, including:
  • Life and Development: The right to life, survival, and development.
    
    
  • Protection: Protection from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect, and discrimination.
    
    
  • Identity: The right to a name and nationality.
    
    
  • Health: Access to healthcare services.
    
    
  • Education: The right to education that helps children fulfill their potential.
    
    
  • Family Life: The right to be raised by their parents or to have a relationship with them.
    
    
  • Freedom: Freedom of expression and the right to be heard.
    
    
  • Standard of Living: The right to an adequate standard of living for physical, mental, and social development.

Once again, that ruling only applies in Oregon. Have a nice day!

 

[Hafar1014]

Then they should allow the records to be unsealed in their case, not all. What brain damage did you suffer which prevents you from seeing the birth mothers have a right to secrecy if they want it? What you want is called throwing the baby out with the bath water! That's why you are getting so much backlash! Why can't you see that for yourself?

There is no right to secrecy or privacy in adoption
Oregon Supreme Court upheld by the Supreme Court

Neither a birth nor an adoption may be carried out in the absolute cloak of secrecy that may surround a contraception or the early termination of a pregnancy. A birth is an event that requires the generation of an accurate vital record that preserves certain data, including the name of the birth mother. That the state has a legitimate interest in preserving such data is not disputed here. We recognize that a birth mother may well have a legitimate interest in keeping secret the circumstances of a birth that is followed by an adoption and also that an adoptee may have a legitimate interest in discovering the identity of his or her birth mother. Legitimate interests, however, do not necessarily equate with fundamental rights. The state may make policy choices to accommodate such competing interests, just as the state has done with the passage of Measure 58. We conclude that the state legitimately may choose to disseminate such data to the child whose birth is recorded on such a birth certificate without infringing on any fundamental right to privacy of the birth mother who does not desire contact with the child.

International Law the UN Treaty of the child protects the child's right to identity, name, ethnic history
he UNCRC comprises 54 articles that address various aspects of a child's life, including their right to:

• Health and well-being: Access to healthcare, clean water, adequate food, and a safe environment.
• Education: Free primary education, accessible secondary and higher education, and discipline that respects children's dignity.
• Protection: Safeguards against violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation, child labor, and involvement in armed conflict.
• Family life: The right to know and be cared for by parents, maintaining contact with both parents, and family reunification where appropriate.
• Identity and participation: The right to a name and nationality, freedom of expression and thought, and participation in cultural and artistic life.

So legally and morally you font have leg to stand on

 

[Hafar1014]

Once again, that ruling only applies in Oregon. Have a nice day!

False the SC affirmed the ruling and refused to hear an appeal making it US law.

 

[JohnDB]

Is the apostrophe key not working?

So, you know better than all of us? BS! Apparently, your reasoning skills took a vacation with that apostrophe key!

If a parent wants to be found, let them do the work and release the information. Blanket statements like yours are almost always wrong.

With DNA testing....no such thing as a secret adoption. Besides, most are older child adoptions anyway.

Where the real problem is that this guy brings a birth mother (AKA crackwhore) back into the young person's life after they have had to undergo extensive treatment so they stop acting psychotic and animalistic just so the birth mother/child abuser can feel good but it usually destroys the young person's identity.....undoing all those years of treatment and breaking everyone's heart except for the child abuser.

 

[Hafar1014]

Is the apostrophe key not working?

So, you know better than all of us? BS! Apparently, your reasoning skills took a vacation with that apostrophe key!

If a parent wants to be found, let them do the work and release the information. Blanket statements like yours are almost always wrong.

I do know better since I mediated many reunions and worked with over 800 adoptive families and adoptees. How many reunions have you mediated? How many searches have you performed. Less then 1/4 of one % of birth mother refuse contact. Thats a fact jack.

 

[JohnDB]

Personally, I think we should make woodchippers great again.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is no right to secrecy or privacy in adoption
Oregon Supreme Court upheld by the Supreme Court

Neither a birth nor an adoption may be carried out in the absolute cloak of secrecy that may surround a contraception or the early termination of a pregnancy. A birth is an event that requires the generation of an accurate vital record that preserves certain data, including the name of the birth mother. That the state has a legitimate interest in preserving such data is not disputed here. We recognize that a birth mother may well have a legitimate interest in keeping secret the circumstances of a birth that is followed by an adoption and also that an adoptee may have a legitimate interest in discovering the identity of his or her birth mother. Legitimate interests, however, do not necessarily equate with fundamental rights. The state may make policy choices to accommodate such competing interests, just as the state has done with the passage of Measure 58. We conclude that the state legitimately may choose to disseminate such data to the child whose birth is recorded on such a birth certificate without infringing on any fundamental right to privacy of the birth mother who does not desire contact with the child.

International Law the UN Treaty of the child protects the child's right to identity, name, ethnic history
he UNCRC comprises 54 articles that address various aspects of a child's life, including their right to:

• Health and well-being: Access to healthcare, clean water, adequate food, and a safe environment.
• Education: Free primary education, accessible secondary and higher education, and discipline that respects children's dignity.
• Protection: Safeguards against violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation, child labor, and involvement in armed conflict.
• Family life: The right to know and be cared for by parents, maintaining contact with both parents, and family reunification where appropriate.
• Identity and participation: The right to a name and nationality, freedom of expression and thought, and participation in cultural and artistic life.

So legally and morally you font have leg to stand on

No, I don't have a font to stand on, and your knowledge of law is exceedingly poor. I choose my font at the top of the page!

The ruling only applies to state law in Oregon. Do you have a link to that law and court ruling? I am betting you have never actually read it because you don't seem to know that it does not apply nationwide. Perhaps you should look outside your own little world.

UN Treaties are not enforceable. Any dumbass should know our Constitution and laws are supreme to any international laws. If you believe the UN laws are, you must be a closeted liberal.

Your entire post is incorrect.

 

[Hafar1014]

No, I don't have a font to stand on, and your knowledge of law is exceedingly poor. I choose my font at the top of the page!

The ruling only applies to state law in Oregon. Do you have a link to that law and court ruling? I am betting you have never actually read it because you don't seem to know that it does not apply nationwide. Perhaps you should look outside your own little world.

UN Treaties are not enforceable. Any dumbass should know our Constitution and laws are supreme to any international laws. If you believe the UN laws are, you must be a closeted liberal.

Your entire post is incorrect.

The SC of the US affirmed the ruling the US signed the treaty making it law. More and more states have opened records. Adoptees are finding their families every day and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it since its really none of your business

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I do know better since I mediated many reunions and worked with over 800 adoptive families and adoptees. How many reunions have you mediated? How many searches have you performed. Less then 1/4 of one % of birth mother refuse contact. Thats a fact jack.

Wow! That is a classic example of a "holier than thou" attitude. Are you a Mashmont-style of Catholic?

I was a teacher and apparently know more about the law and specifically Supreme Court rulings than you.

I am still waiting on that link to that ruling you are citing.

 

[JohnDB]

No, I don't have a font to stand on, and your knowledge of law is exceedingly poor. I choose my font at the top of the page!

The ruling only applies to state law in Oregon. Do you have a link to that law and court ruling? I am betting you have never actually read it because you don't seem to know that it does not apply nationwide. Perhaps you should look outside your own little world.

UN Treaties are not enforceable. Any dumbass should know our Constitution and laws are supreme to any international laws. If you believe the UN laws are, you must be a closeted liberal.

Your entire post is incorrect.

There's a laundry list of reasons why 2/3 of Oregon wants to seceed from Oregon and join Idaho.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The SC of the US affirmed the ruling the US signed the treaty making it law. More and more states have opened records. Adoptees are finding their families every day and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it since its really none of your business

So, you are saying that all states with abortion records seal are violating a SC ruling? You are so full of shit! The SC cannot uphold a law passed by the UN. Where is the link to the ruling?

 

[Hafar1014]

Wow! That is a classic example of a "holier than thou" attitude. Are you a Mashmont-style of Catholic?

I was a teacher and apparently know more about the law and specifically Supreme Court rulings than you.

I am still waiting on that link to that ruling you are citing.

Neither a birth nor an adoption may be carried out in the absolute cloak of secrecy that may surround a contraception or the early termination of a pregnancy. A birth is an event that requires the generation of an accurate vital record that preserves certain data, including the name of the birth mother. That the state has a legitimate interest in preserving such data is not disputed here. We recognize that a birth mother may well have a legitimate interest in keeping secret the circumstances of a birth that is followed by an adoption and also that an adoptee may have a legitimate interest in discovering the identity of his or her birth mother. Legitimate interests, however, do not necessarily equate with fundamental rights. The state may make policy choices to accommodate such competing interests, just as the state has done with the passage of Measure 58. We conclude that the state legitimately may choose to disseminate such data to the child whose birth is recorded on such a birth certificate without infringing on any fundamental right to privacy of the birth mother who does not desire contact with the child.
FILED: December 29, 1999
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
JANE DOES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7,
Appellants,
v.
THE STATE OF OREGON; JOHN A.

KITZHABER, Governor of Oregon;

and EDWARD JOHNSON, State

Registrar of the Center for Health

Statistics in Oregon,
Respondents,
and
HELEN HILL, CURTIS ENDICOTT,

SUSAN UPDYKE; and THE OREGON

ADOPTIVE RIGHTS ASSOCIATION,
Intervenors-Respondents.
(98C-20424; CA A107235)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.
Paul J. Lipscomb, Judge.
Argued and submitted November 22, 1999.

SALEM, Ore. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rejected Tuesday an emergency request to delay an adoption records law from going into effect, allowing adoptees 21 and older access to their birth certificate.

More than 2,200 adoptees already have paid $15 and filed applications with the state Health Division to get their original birth certificate. Most are eager to know their parents’ identities, and many want to know more about their medical histories.

The Health Division has said it will begin mailing birth documents as soon as today.

“I have a wonderful family, but there’s still that piece that’s missing,” said adoptee Geena Stonum, 41, of Portland. “When you see people who maybe look like you, you wonder if they’re maybe related to you.” She’s been searching for her birth parents on and off for 20 years.