No contact doesn't work. Oprah's mother said no contact her adopted child went to family members till she got what she wanted.
This woman was raped had the child before abortion was legal. The daughter involved in the adoption reform movement didn't take no for an answer.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/adoptee-search-birth-mother-ends-rejection-article-1.1284242
Birth parents can't speak out without giving up their identity.
Shouldn't be taking choices away from woman who are willing to give a child a chance at life. We should be making it easier for her to choose life.
Shame on Catholic Charities and Right to Life.

No contact doesn't work. Oprah's mother said no contact her adopted child went to family members till she got what she wanted.
This woman was raped had the child before abortion was legal. The daughter involved in the adoption reform movement didn't take no for an answer.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/adoptee-search-birth-mother-ends-rejection-article-1.1284242
Birth parents can't speak out without giving up their identity.
Shouldn't be taking choices away from woman who are willing to give a child a chance at life. We should be making it easier for her to choose life.
Shame on Catholic Charities and Right to Life.

Christie Fan, access to one's birth certificate is not about search, reunion, and contact. It's about the right to the own public record of one's birth. Why should a biological parent have a special privilege that no other adult in the united states has: to bar the release of the birth certificate to the person to whom it pertains?

I think open records is a very good idea and I support the efforts of Betsie Norris and all the others who are working to make this happen. I am grateful that Catholic Charities and Ohio Right to Life have accepted the truth that openness in adoption does not have a connection to abortion rates - it never has. There are ways for birth parents to indicate their preference for contact or not. And every person, adopted or not has the right to know the truth about themselves and their origins - happy or not. Healing the grief, loss and pain of adoption and the often difficult circumstances surrounding it are a lifelong process but that process has to built on truth and accepting the reality of what happened or else people can not move forward with their lives in a healthy way.

I was born and adopted in Cleveland, have reunited with both of my birth parents, and I wholeheartedly support this effort to allow adult adoptees access to their own birth records. Every other person in the state is able to obtain his/her real birth certificate. Why should adult adoptees not have this same right? Many people do not realize that when a child is adopted, her birth certificate is altered to list the adoptive parents as having given birth to the child. Imagine how you would feel if your birth certificate was a lie. This alteration is completely unnecessary, as the adoption decree grants legal parenthood to the adoptive parents. Even though I know my birth parents now, my original birth certificate is still important to me. It is the legal proof of which biological family I come from, a document I will pass down to my children, and they to their children. The status of my relationship with my birth parents--whether we choose to be a part of each other's lives or not--has nothing to do with my right to a copy of my factual birth record.

Christie Fan, access to one's own birth certificate has nothing to do with the circumstances behind one's conception or birth. Access to one's own, factual birth certificate is a matter of equal rights under law for adopted persons. Non-adopted persons, regardless of the circumstances behind their conception and birth, can access their unaltered, factual birth certificate--even if they were conceived from rape. Adults who were adopted as children are the only class of people who are routinely denied access to their factual birth certificate simply because they were adopted as children. And the *legal* right under law for entire class of people (all adopted adults) to access their own birth certificates should not be considered subservient or less important to the *personal* wishes of some (the few birth parents who do not wish to have contact with their own sons or daughters). Again, this issue has nothing to do with the adoptee's conception, search or reunion. It is about adult adoptees being treated equal under law to non-adopted adults. Period.

Those who are concerned about birth parent privacy should wholeheartedly support this bill.

Amending and sealing of birth records changes the identity of the of the adoptee so that they cannot be found by their biological family. This process was not designed with the intention of providing birth parents with anonymity. Adoptees find their biological families each and every day in this country through public records. Unfortunately, they have no way of knowing their birth parent's preferences and boundaries unless they make contact.

With this legislation, not only will adult adoptees be treated the same way as everyone else under the law, but they will have an understanding of their birth parents' boundaries. In the rare instances that unwanted contact is made (research indicates fewer than 1% of birth parents do not want to hear from their surrendered sons/daughters), this legislation will actually *reduce* the chance of it happening.

I was conceived from rape and am in reunion with my mother. I think people should stop telling our stories and our mother's stories on our behalf. I am no less human than anyone else born in the U.S. I am entitled to the same access to my birth record that everyone else enjoys.

In States that allow access, their abortion rates went down after the enactment of the legislation. These States also have some of the highest adoption rates in the U.S. There's no logical reason for anyone to oppose legislation like this.

Give adopted people access to their records. This should not even be an issue. I commend Adoption Network Cleveland, Ohio Birthparent Group and all of their members who have worked for this.
-- Kate Oatis, birth/first mother to Caroline, who was born in 1980

Access to the facts about one's birth is a basic civil right. A civil right that is currently denied to many Ohio adoptees, based solely on the date of their adoption. Access to records is not about search. Adoptees can and do successfully search without their birth certificates. I am an Ohio adoptee. My adoption was finalized in December, 1963. Had my adoption been finalized 3 weeks later, the only circumstance that woud have changed is that my records would have been sealed. This is an inequity that needs to be changed. I applaud Betsie Norris and others who have worked so hard to get HB 61 before Ohio legislators.

I am an adoptee who chose to search. HB 61 included a contact preference system. This system was not in place for me; I would have welcomed this knowledge. In my case, she is not comfortable with a lot of contact with me. For 30 years I have respected her wishes regarding contact. Contact preference does work. There is an abundance of research to support the effectiveness of a contact preference system and many, including birthmothers, support HB 61.

Knowledge of one's origins and relationships are not the same thing. As I mentioned, I have respected my birthmother's wishes about contact. The fact that I have access to my original birth certificate is, in reality, a separate issue. I have a right to the document that is a piece of my identity as an adopted adult. Relationships are a two-way street, to be decided upon between two people.

Marley,
Saying it is not about search and reunion and contact is a way to get a bill passed. Granted not every adopted person is interested in getting a birth certificate, not every adopted person is interested in search and reunion. But once a birth certificate is opened and names are released search and reunion becomes possible.

"

Why should a biological parent have a special privilege that no other adult in the united states has: to bar the release of the birth certificate to the person to whom it pertains?"

The answer is simple..... because this is about adoption. Adopted person gets the birth certificate of a person adopted. Opening birth certificates does not give a certified copy of original birth certificate... it's about getting a name. It isn't about a biological parent who takes her child home. It's about adoption and that birth certificates would remain sealed once adopted. Many birth certificates are different, my niece has a birth certificate without her father's name her mother refused to give information, a child born to sperm donor and egg donors don't get a birth certificate with their real biological parent;s names, there are birth certificates without the right names of fathers on it.
I understand you are for unconditional opening of birth certificates. I'm for considering adoption as a whole. It starts with a birthparent , the more choices a woman has the better in my opinion when found in an unplanned pregnancy, from help to keep the child, to abortion to as many choices as possible in adoption. For me if a woman wants privacy and she will choose adoption I see life without a birth certificate far better than no life at all. Let people choose. Once the adopted person becomes an adult mutual consent.

Ok I guess a call went out there was someone here who supports privacy in adoption. The group of those in the adoption reform movement will now pounce No thank you.
I support choice. No one size fits all

I am an adoptee, in reunion with my mother, brother and sister. My conception was a result of rape. I am pro-life and I am very grateful to Ohio Right to Life for doing the right thing and supporting adoptee rights!

Birthmothers WERE NOT promised confidentiality!

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/images/Birthmother%20Handout.pdf

Adoptees should have the same rights that everyone else has, which includes the right to the original birth certificate.

The altering and sealing of adoptee's original birth certificates has nothing to do with the birth parents. If it did, then birth certificates would be altered and sealed once a birth parent's rights were terminated. Children in foster care who have not been adopted but whose parents have had their rights terminated utilize their accurate birth certificate. So clearly, it is not about birth parent privacy. Birth certificates are only altered and sealed upon finalization of an adoption. So the 10-year-old who is adopted out of foster care and who has been using his or her birth name and who is most likely well-aware of his or her birth parents' names will end up with a falsified birth certificate at the time the adoption is finalized. So again, the practice of altering an adoptee's birth certificate is clearly NOT about birth parent privacy.

There is not one phrase, statement, or sentence in any legal document involved in adoption that guarantees a birth parent total anonymity from their own son or daughter. And in every state, the adoptee's original birth certificate can be accessed by a judge. So there is truly no legal expectation of privacy. Adult birth parents are perfectly within their right to refuse a relationship, meeting or conversation with their adult son or daughter. But their *personal* feelings about the human they created should not supercede the right of *all* adopted adults to receive equal treatment under law.

After reading the story of Kathleen Foley I can understand why people don't want these records public. A closed adoption is just that. Closed. And, Ms. Foley did not want to be contacted but was. Does anyone really believe that if these records are made public adoptees are not going to go searching out their biological parents?
I see both sides but if they don't want to seek out the real parents why is the birth record so important?

Human beings have a right to the knowledge of who our birth mother and father are, regardless of whether there is any contact or not.

Ms. Foley is an individual. An entire class of adult citizens (those were were adopted as children) should not be treated differently *under law* because of Ms. Foley's *personal* feelings as an individual toward the human being she created.

Ms. Foley has exercised her right to not speak or meet with her daughter. Seeing as Ms. Foley has never met with or spoken with her daughter, I'd say that her personal feelings are being respected. It has already been referenced here that no birth parent has ever been legally guaranteed a legal right to total anonymity from his or her own offspring. So no birth parent can have such an expectation.

Adult adoptees are individual adult citizens, just like their birth parents. What an adult adoptee chooses to do, or not do, with the information contained on their own birth certificates is certainly not the business of the adoption industry or state governments. Non-adopted adult individual citizens do not have to justify why they wish to view the accurate record of their births. As such, adult adoptees should not have to do so either.

Once again, the *personal* feelings of an individual should not override the *legal rights* of the entire class of adult adoptees to be treated equally to non-adopted adults. I find it interesting that some people feel that the entire population should legally bend to their personal beliefs.

I urge anyone who wants an understanding of why adoptee birth certificates were sealed and what was or wasn't legally promised to birthmothers to read the testimony of Elizabeth J. Samuels, Professor of Law, which can be found on Adoption Network Cleveland's website under News and Events --> ROAR 2013 --> Hearing 2, March 6, 2013. There you will also find other testimony in support of Ohio HB 61 by numerous adoption professionals.

Although Ms. Foley has garnered quite a bit of publicity for her views over the past few weeks in an attempt to promote her books, a majority of knowledgeable professionals as well as birthparents and adoptees do not agree with her assertions.

Julie S. - her rights were not respected. The daughter contacted the women's son-in-law and told him. Ms. Foley hadn't told her family about being raped and ending up pregnant as a teen. The daughter basically stalked Ms. Foley to try and meet with her even after being told no.

Adult adoptee citizens are not contractually or legally obligated to keep secrets that other adult citizens have decided to keep. And there is no need for state governments to be involved in the personal lives of adult citizens. Restoring original birth certificate access to adult adoptees is a matter of equal rights under law. Anything that transpires after an adult adoptee receives his or her own birth certificate as a matter of legal right is a personal and private matter that does not need to involve the general public or state governments.

Again, if an individual *chooses* to make their personal, private business available to the general public, that is their own personal decision and should not have any bearing on legal matters. If an individual *chooses* to keep secrets and withhold information from his or her own family, that is their own person decision and should not have any bearing on legal matters.

It seems that Ms. Foley is upset that her personally-held secret was revealed to her own family members. As AJW pointed out above, the current legislation being heard in Ohio would help to avoid such situations by providing the birth parent with the ability to make their contact preference known while also restoring equal right under law to adult adoptees.

Yet again we see the view that adoptees should be grateful they weren't aborted! Particularly if they were the product of rape. We also are told we need to be grateful that our mothers made responsible choices. Anyone who has written two books about their experience can't expect to be taken seriously in wanting anonymity and in wanting to keep secrets.

Julie S
""This legislation clearly allows for birth parents to make their *personal contact preferences* known before any secrets are revealed."
The only problem with that is you get people like Elaine who don't listen to no contact. Your saying that Elaine would have followed the no contact preference I say BS. Why would she One no contact didn't work when Ms Foley told her no contact. Is there a consequence in the bill that would have kept Elaine from contacting? No. Elane was told no contact she didn't stop. Elaine not only went on to contact family members which she has said herself. Elaine herself has said on more than one forum and her blog that she sent 2 letters and a Christmas Card.

The problem with no contact preference is it gives the illusion that it will protect the privacy of the woman, the illusion that nothing will change for those woman that they can keep their "secret" if they choose . With that illusion of birthparent protection the bill gets passed. The reality is it is up to the adoptee to decide how far she will go. One letter or ten, one visit or two will she respect the no contact or does it take 10 tries. Will she not contact family members which is what birthparents who sign a no contact are expecting and what the bill insinuates. We know Elaine contacted the lawyer of the birth parent to get him to persuade the birthparent, . We see the answer in Ms Foley and she seems like a very nice woman. One no wasn't enough . What happens when it isn't a nice person who is angry he is adopted.
If the no contact is only meant that the adoptee won't contact the birthparent and it isn't extended to family members, friends it has little value to the birthparent. It's an illusion to get the bill pass. If adoption wasn't meant to protect the privacy of birthparents from their child but to protect the privacy of birthparents from society as told by those in the adoption reform movement. Then opening birth certificates and having an adopted person going out in society to family and friends is not protecting the privacy of the birthparent.

"Elaine herself has said on more than one forum and her blog that she sent 2 letters and a Christmas Card."

Wow. Sounds lethal. Two letters and a Christmas card.
Give me a break!

I have since read with interest about this case and just shake my head that any woman, raped or not, would feel threatened by two letters and a Christmas card from someone who is not only not intending to harm them at all, but is simply reaching out to make contact, with the person who birthed her.

Ms. Foley clearly has major unresolved mental issues if she is melting down over two letters and a Christmas card sent in a spirit of love and care from the child she gave birth to.

As for being a "Woman in Hiding" this is so interesting to me since she seems to put herself out there in books, press releases and many more places that I'm finding as I Google. This is the strangest case of "hiding" that I've ever seen.

There are legal mechanisms already in place for anyone who wants to prevent unwanted contact from another person--for example, restraining orders.

Let's remember that there are more than 6 million adopted adults in the U.S. who cannot currently obtain their original birth certificates. The opinion of one person whose legal rights have, in fact, NOT been violated, should not dictate the violation of a civil right for over 6 million people.

One of the things I have found so interesting about the adoptee rights debates is the incorrect assumption that birth mothers were promised lifetime secrecy. The evidence presented in hearings for adoptee rights bills show just the opposite -- not one surrender document presented addresses the issue of privacy for the birth mother. I recently viewed a surrender document from Illinois in 1964 -- not one single word could be construed to mean that the birth mother was promised privacy. The evidence also shows the vast majority of birth parents do not want privacy.

The bottom line for me is that is doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to base an argument for infringing upon the civil rights of all adoptees on one single situation such as the woman discussed in these comments. As Karen Pickell states, there are legal means to deal with unwanted contact from another individual -- including family members.

Most mothers of that era who were forced to relinquish their babies were promised their sons & daughters WOULD be able to contact them once they were adults. There was no "open" or "closed" adoption. There was only adoption, and nobody has ever had the legal authority to promise anyone that a 3rd party will do or not do something forever. Even if it is a mother's (or father's) preference to not have a relationship with their son or daughter, that is only for themselves. They may not make that call for the entire family. It is up to each individual adult if they wish to have a relationship with any other adult. Even if they do not, although the overwhelming majority do, that does not negate the adoptee's right to knowledge of their own family. There simply is no right to create a child & then forever deny them the right to know who they are & where they came from.

Adult adoptees are only demanding the restoration of the right to what every other adult already has - a truthful record of their own birth. That is what will make them equal to every one else again. Adoptees are under no obligation to keep secrets & lies for other people. Secrets and lies are not healthy for any family.