Should mothers who give their children up for adoption be allowed to keep their identity secret?

Show all answers

Post your answer

Tiff W	yes, these parents could have chosen to have an abortion but didn't. They gave the child up for adoption and may not have wanted to be contacted. If their privacy was to be violated or if they knew that the adoption process may still render them responsible as parents, more people may choose abortion over adoption. I hope that is not the case though. There are sites out there where people who gave their children up for adoption can register to try and reunite with their children. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Alex O	yes Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

msbrowneyesxoxo	i think that if they wish to do so, then they should be allowed to do so Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Jessica McMahon	well if i put up a kid for adoption and thought it in the best interest of me and the child that it never knew who i was and couldn't find me then yeah it's a good idea. i'm not sure adoption is something i would do to a child though i mean more for my sake than its. i mean i would hate both to not be a part of the its life and being a part of its life but not being the one raising it. but if i were to put a kid up for adoption then remaining a secret could be a good thing. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Lewys	if they want to yes. there are many reason that they give these wonderful little angels up and I believe they are very wonderful people for doing this. if you are looking for you mother I'm so sorry but just know she loved you so much and did not give you up just because it was easier she gave you up because she loved you more than anything and wanted the best for you she chose to give you life and give you a family. if you are considering giving you child up I just want to say how wonderful and strong you are. I adopted a baby boy and I will forever be so grateful to the mother for the blessing he is to me. She will never know how perfect she has made my life. she decided to keep the files closed. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Carnie C	if they wish to remain anonymous, then yes. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Kelle	Yes. Whatever the contract they signed when the adoption agreement was made, should be honored and not changed by law. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Randy B	If they choose to, I feel they should be able to. But at the same time there needs to be a requirement for them to provide certain personal information that would not identify them, if they wish, but would provide necessary medical info and other info to those placed for adoption. That info may be needed later on. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Serenity71	We all have right to privacy. What if it will destroy her family if someone just turns up on her doorstep? (It has to be handled the right way, especially in some cases.) Over time a child should learn about their background etc. But if a birth mother fore whatever reason doesn't wish contact than that should be respected. The same for an adoptee. (There is a third party register so if they wish to make contact they indicate and then details passed on... Sorry I'm not used to totally closed adoptions.) I never had access to my child's original birth certificate, (Privacy laws...she can apply for it at 18yrs.) and don't I want too. (Since thats her information not mine, and it will probably be given over time to her anyway.))I have no idea what her birth parents surnames are or private details. If they chose to share that information that's up to them. P,S since we have contact it will be easy, all she will have to do is ask them! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

IceBreaker27	Absolutely, yes. Generally, courts will not interfere with a private contractual matter unless it presents serious public policy concerns. Therefore, it usually becomes a balancing test between the birth mother's right to privacy and the child's right to know the identity of the birth mother. Personally, the right to privacy plus the contract gives you the better answer: birth mothers should be allowed to keep their identity private. Contrary to Lifetime television, I assume that many birth mothers have no desire to be "found" twenty years after what was probably an incredibly difficult decision. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Dorian	Yes, rules like this are usually made for a 'worse case scenario' example and then applied across the board. If a woman was raped or gave birth due to molest/incest being confronted by the child years later could undo whatever healing she has accomplished. Also, many women give children up for adoption and then move on with their lives and do not want contact with the children. We don't get to decide that their opinions in this matter are wrong. However, I feel they should be required to fill out a detailed medical history so the child has this information. EDIT - Wow, to the guy who described himself as an adoption survivor and suggested everyone who doesn't agree with him should experience discrimination - grow up. You were adopted. Talk to an African American who lived during the civil rights movement, a Jew who experienced the Holocaust or even a gay person hiding who they are to serve in the military and then you'll know something about discrimination. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Nathan	I don't think that it would be fair for mothers to be allowed to keep their identities secret, but I do not object to allowing it. We shouldn't think of allowing secret identities of mothers as a favor to the mothers. Instead, it should be a tolerated injustice that we would be willing to allow for the safety of children. I think that protecting children from more dangerous relinquishments is more important than guaranteeing heritage information. The former is a practical objective while the latter is a personal preference. The exception is medical history, which I think should always be available but without names if the parents wanted to remain anonymous. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

littleJaina	Yes! I don't think they SHOULD keep their identity secret, but I absolutely am for legally allowing them to do so. This is because I do not agree with abortion and do not want girls who have unwanted babies and want to avoid shame to think that they ONLY option is to kill the baby. I know that baby moses laws have not prevented VERY many infant deaths, but they have prevented a few. I think even a few is enough to keep them active. (Baby Moses laws vary from state to state. They basically say that an infant younger that <whatever age the state chooses> can be taken to <designated places, usually hospitals, police stations, or fire houses> and left there, no questions asked.) Even if these laws only save the lives of one or two children a year, I think they're worth having. However, I don't believe that adoptions/abandonments under the Baby Moses laws are good. For one thing, a medical history is not required then. I know that Texas now requires a medical history for normal parental rights terminations. Also, if you do baby moses adoptions, there is NO paper trail for anyone to follow EVER, no matter what. To me, that's not good. Even if the mother thinks she wants to remain anonymous now, she may change her mind later. What if there is some horrible disease the baby gets and they need to look for bone marrow donors. If there is a paper trail, there are at least options to petition the court in case of an emergency. If there is a paper trail, there is something to follow if either party really needs to in the future. Therefor, allowing women the option of remaining "hidden" but leaving a paper trail is, to me, important. If you revoke the right for biological parents to be secret in normal adoptions, many of them will opt for baby moses adoptions instead - creating an absence of paper work. If you deny both types of anonymity in adoption, you will have more infant deaths - which I think ought to be avoided at all costs. Now, I am not saying that I think women should choose to be anonymous. I really think that open adoption is the "way to go" in most cases - at least in cases where abuse or neglect was not the issue behind the parental rights termination. However, I think that we have to have an option where a woman does not have to worry about her placement comming up on any public records searches in order to prevent a small number of women from taking desperate actions. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Jenny	No,for many reasons self explanatory. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Romany	Records are not sealed upon relinquishment - mothers who "give up their children" have no say in whether their identities are kept secret. The records are sealed upon adoption and only then. Records are not sealed upon request of the first parents, they are sealed by the state. In a few states, the adoptive parents can decide whether a new birth certificate will be issued and the original sealed. The first parents have no say in what happens to the child after relinquishment - they have given up ALL rights. Also - did you know that records are sealed even in stepparent adoptions? What big secret is being kept in those instances? There is a big difference between denying records access to the general public and denying records access to those who are the subject of those records. If records are sealed to "protect" the first parents - then why can't those parents ask for the records to be unsealed? Why can't they get information on their child's new identity? If the now-adult child walks into Vital Records with both first parents and both adoptive parents, all of whom want the adoptee to have his/her original birth certificate - why can't they get it? If most mothers want to keep their identity secret from their own children - why do 90-95% of relinquishing mothers fill out forms [at the time of relinquishment] to provide identifying information to their children when the child comes of age? When Oregon allowed adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates - why did only a tiny minority of first parents request "no contact"? Could it be that most mothers who relinquished WANT contact and do NOT want secrecy? So who has the most to lose if adoptees and first parents reunite? I would say the adoption agencies. Too many lies were told, both to the first parents and to the adoptive parents. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

snowwillow20	In reunion since 2001. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

friends R gifts we give ourself	no because the child deserves 2 know why. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Morgan	It's much easier nowadays since you can (not the best word, but) abandon your child at a hospital or police station without someone trying to find you. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Not Adopted	No Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Heather B	No. The only provision to keep someone's identity a secret is the Witness Protection Program. I see some very anti-adoptee answers to this question. How sad that adoptees are treated with such suspicion, as though we're stalkers or something. Sad sad sad. Every human deserves to know who gave birth to them and the truth of their origins. Oh silly me, adoption isn't really about the adoptee is it ETA: I'd love to see one of these 'contracts' of guaranteed secrecy. Nobody seems to be able to find one though, strange that . . . Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

lobbelou	Absolutely not. I was adopted straight from the hospital and it took me until I was 30 years old to track down either my birthmother or birthfather. I never did learn any information from her because by the time i found her she was literally in the emergency room, incubated, due to advancement of lung cancer. I do not know anything about my medical history at all. I have 1 child of my own and one on the way. It would be nice to know if there are any genetic diseases that I have but I don't have that right. I think it is ridiculous that adopted kids don't have access to this info and don't have the right to call the person up and ask them why they chose to do what they did. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Deep	no they should have to tell their names and heath records Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Lori A	ABSOLUTELY NOT If you want to conceal who you are having relations with instead of broadcasting it that's one thing. When a child comes out of that situation you should no longer have the right to conceal yourself. It is your responsibility to make sure that child is PROPERLY cared for. That means birth information, medical history, ancestry, who and where they came from and OTHER OFFSPRING. I honestly think that they should be made to face their children one day and give them the details of their beginnings. Tell them why they ended up adopted, and whether or not they were ever wanted. Sounds harsh I know but it's no worse than what goes through their minds already, at least it would be finalization for the adoptee. Which who this is about. ICEBREAKER: Your assumption is wrong and there is proof to dispute it. Most First Mothers do want to be reunited and there is no law that states we have a right to privacy. DORIAN: Sealed birth records IS a form of discrimination. (The adoptee you refer to in your comment "GROW UP" )They ARE adults and unlike other non adopted adults have no right to freedom of association. He is still being treated like a child where non adopted people are allowed to grow up and have their birth certificates and their freedom of association. Although clearly not a big enough deal in your opinion, it is still discrimination. Women do not move on from giving birth. As far as undoing any healing, sorry no healing either until there is closure. Closure would be reunion or knowing that your child passed away. That's closure. Unless a mother knows who has her child and knows how they are being raised (which would mean contact) that mother knows no closure or healing. All she has done is learned to cope with her decision or stuffed it so far down that she appears to be healed. I've been in reunion for 9 years and am still not completely healed, I probably never will be, but I am much better off now that I have my daughter back in my life. That's healing. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

LITTLE PETS	No, I think that all adoptees have the right to know everything about themselves. If you are not adopted do you think your mom should keep her identity a secret to you?? Of course not. I have no right to anything as an adoptee. Which I do not think is right at all. I am an adult and I should have the right to my medical & family history. Sadly I have no rights at all. Jennifer Given up for adoption 35 years ago. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Gaia Raain	Absolutely not. Every human being has a right to know who they are, who created them, their medical history, THEIR family. Just because an adoption happens does not remove the genetic link, the need for medical information, or the need for a sense of self. Non-adopted people may take these things for granted and say yes people should be able to keep their identity secret. But we take it for granted that we can just make a phone call or stop by the records office and get our information - in some cases, life-saving information. And IMO, the sense of self that comes from knowing your roots is even more important. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

k4yjo	How much detail can you find out from an identity? a name? age? What i needed to know about my birth Mother i could never find out from her identity alone, i had to make contact, and to do that i had to go through the correct channels and she had to want contact too or it would never have happened. What im trying to say is why keep something a secret that doesn't need to be? theres ways of finding out anyones name but it doesn't tell you what kind of person they are or anything else. So to answer your question, in my opinion adoption records should be confidential except to those specifically involved. But every persons identity whether they have given children up for adoption or not should be left up to them. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Phoenix	No. My bio mom gave birth to me. She CHOSE to have sex, she CHOSE to abandon me, I CHOOSE to find out who she is and where I come from. I believe that it is everyone's right to know where they come from, who their bio parents are. I see it as a human right. Concealing someone's identity from them should be illegal. And I've never yet seen or heard of any solid proof that bio parents have a legal right to privacy. If they don't want to know their children, they should have thought of that before having sex. And don't tell me "people make mistakes, etc". I KNOW they do. I AM the mistake. Try living with that on a daily basis and then being told that you have no right to your own identity. **** THAT! Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

celtic.piskie	Once again, it's all about the mother. What happened happened. It shouldn't be legal to erase that. If effect, that's what adoption does. Erases you. Completely. Whoever gave birth to me, she did. I see no reason to keep that secret. If people do not want contact later on, that is another matter entirely. However, secrecy is not good for the adoptees, in any way. You cannot erase the past, so wy do people try so hard with us? Someone gave birth to me. Someone took care of me for the first year of my life... Someone did that. Is it so wrong to find that out? Why are we the only ones not allowed to know? Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

magic pointe shoes	Here's the thing. There is no secrecy when relinquishing parental rights. The original birth certificate is still open for anyone to read until the child is adopted and only then is that original birth certificate sealed. And we aren't talking days after relinquishment either, but months. The only secrecy given to mothers who relinquish their children are those who baby dump their children via safe haven laws where no data is collected. Anyone stating that mothers who relinquish in the past were promised secrecy was told a flat out legal lie. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

Problem Child	My opinion as an adoptee is no. When you bring a child into this world, whether you choose to keep that child or not...you still owe that child, at the very least, for them to know who you are. EVERY person has the right to know who their parents are...the adoptee is not at fault for not being wanted...why are we adoptees the ones whose rights are NEVER thought about. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No

PhilM	Every "yes" answer is just one more piece of evidence that adoption is NOT about the child. Stripping a child of his or her identity, and then denying them their heritage... Wow, the lack of compassion from people on this board is startling. I hope each and every one of you experiences discrimination in your lifetime. Then you might know what you are voting "yes" for. ETA: Despite one poster's "intuition" on the matter, surveys have shown that over 90% of first mothers want contact. (To be clear, though, this information isn't about contact or reunion. It's simply about information that the child has a basic human right to.) Further, there is no "contract" preserving anonymity. Not one person has ever produced any legal document whatsoever proving a legal promise of anonymity. This is one more piece of misinformation people have about adoption. And to the poster that thinks discrimination is okay as long as it's just a little bit of discrimination, you are, indeed, part of the problem. Was this answer helpful to you? Yes / No