Most often, the information in your file concerning your birth father was supplied to the
agency by your birth mother. The information is frequently skimpy and sometimes faulty.
Most adoptees find that it is easier to search for their birth mother first. After reuniting with
her you can ask her questions about your birth father in order to search for him.

     Don't be surprised if she doesn't remember lots about him. Even birth mothers who
     were in long time relationships with the father of their child forget many things about
     him. Time of course plays a role. So often, the birth mother tries to block it all out. This
     goes back to a very traumatic time in her life. It is part of human nature to try to protect
     ourselves by forgetting traumatic events. She may in time remember more but don't
     count on it.

One more thing to remember is that your birth mother carried you for nine months, went
through labor and delivery and so does have a bond with you. While some birth fathers were
involved during the pregnancy, most were not. There is a greater chance for rejection with
your birth father than with your birth mother. You may find that your birth father does not
know of your existence.
 
 

                                READ FOR UNDERSTANDING

It is often difficult to put ourselves in someone else's position, especially when we are
emotionally involved in a situation. It really is critical that adoptees do everything they can
to understand how birth mothers feel about their decision to relinquish their children for
adoption. It is important to know what the world was like twenty years and more ago. It is
equally as important for birth mothers to try to understand the feelings that adoptees have
about being put up for adoption. Please don't forget to take into consideration the feelings
of the adoptive family.

Reading books on the subject will help you now as you are searching and very definitely will
help at reunion time. In the Triad Reading List There are excellent books recommended for
better understanding among all members of the Triad.

A Brief History of ADOPTION:

For centuries, in Europe and North America, "adoption" was established and
intended to protect property rights.   If a couple (or individual) did not
want their property to revert to the state on their death/s, an heir was
necessary.   Consequently, "adoption" most often took place with ADULTS,
not children, to circumvent the property laws.   This was of particular
import to male land owners since their wives almost always outlived them,
and a woman could not be a land owner.  "Adoption" protected her
financially by extracting a promise from the person adopted to provide for
the widow.

When, in the 1920's, mothers whose children had been placed on Orphan
Trains discovered too late that the promise of contact and/or return of
their children was a lie, adoption (altho in existance for children by
then, of course) took on a different timbre.   The government had lied,
breached a verbal agreement and, so, had to look at covering their
backsides.   The government then began establishing "policies", not laws.
(Among them was the dictum to never tell the child s/he was adopted.)

Circa 1930, both NY and CA passed the "Nosey Neighbor Law".   (Not
so-called in CA, but the principles were the same.)   The NNL's intent was
clear:  To shield the details of an adoption from the public.   The NNL
did NOT seal the records from any of the parties concerned - birth and
adoptive parents OR the adoptee.   All parties had access.

Part 2 -

In the early 1930's Edna Gladney, exceptionally proficient in PR and
organization, wanted to expand EGH and build up her baby business.   Edna
has visions of becoming the largest baby broker in the country.   To do
so, she had to concoct a foundation that would be solid enough to 'hold'
her empire.   Edna was very political, very social to that end.

In 1935, Edna and the few APs she recruited went to the Texas legislature
and convinced them that in order to *encourage* adoption, the records
should be sealed "to protect the child from the stigma of illegitimacy".
Her presentation and argument was sufficent to BS the legislators (her
"ties" were all in place), and the TX legislature gave her what she
wanted.   It was a law Edna touted all over the country and, as a result,
the NNL was replaced by TX "model act" in other states.

What is most interesting here is that in *truth*, Edna was having a
problem getting couples TO adopt.   In that era, society looked at
infertility as being "less-than", so to adopt was to admit infertility.
It can not be over-emphasized here how pervasive it was in society that a
"man" be a total "man" . . . He was not only the provider financially, but
to fit the societal image, he must also be verile.  In short, Edna
hook-winked the legislature by using the *child* when, in fact, she was
protecting the future of her empire and *that* depended on persuading
couples to adopt.

Note:  Following passage of that law, Gladney began opening maternity
homes (and co-operative housing for pregnant women) across the country.
In the late 1940's she was nailed and her wide-spread promotion (based on
revenue) was severely curtailed.  Altho she fought it in court, Gladney
was finally threatened with potentially being forbidden to operate in many
states.

Part 3 -

*   The instrument of relinquishment typically states a mother is giving
up her parental rights "of the MINOR child".   It, then, begs the
question, what happens when the child is no longer a minor?

It is NOT the relinquishment that provides "confidentiality", but the
adoption law itself.   Our laws are proscriptive in nature (meaning the
law says what we can NOT have, be or do).  Thus, we often see an adoption
law state  that adoption records, once sealed, shall not be made available
"to any person without a court order" and often adding "for just cause".
(Records are only sealed *after* the adoption is finalized, and that
includes the facilitator and court records; it *sometimes* includes the
hospital records, and does prohibit anyone from providing information
other than a licensed adoption agency, the state, and/or the court.)

The definition for "just cause" will not be found in the law itself, but
it can be found in the records during the time the bill was being
discussed prior to its passing into law.  (That is referred to as
"legislative intent", and can be requested of any state legislature.)
Most judges are unaware of what the intent might have been and, so, take
it upon themselves to determine what "just cause" means.

*  In a few states (often the midwest), we have seen in the instrument of
relinquishment the following phrase:  "I promise not to search . . . and
understand the penalty may be jail".   This has discouraged *many* older
birth mothers from searching.   It overwhelmed them with guilt, for it
said to them that by giving up their parental rights (whether out of
wedlock or not), they were nothing more than common lowlife criminals in
the performance of parental relinquishment.   Since the law does not make
searching a crime, the question arises:  Was the relinquishment ever valid
to begin with?

*  Obtaining documents under the Privacy Act.   It should be noted that
acquisition of such documents includes a "condition": the documents must
be held by an agency that is funded in the majority by federal revenues.
It would not include a copy of the relinquishment by a birth mother, but
*may* include foster care records by an adult adoptee; however, many
states destroy the foster care records after 15 years.   Moreover, if the
foster care records become a part of an adoption file, the sealed record
law of adoption will include them.

          Note:
Although most state adoption laws do not address confidentiality *as
such*, and/or spell out in plain English any such *guarantee*, the
sealing of records itself IMPLIES confidentiality for everyone unless as
exempted (i.e., adoptive parents of a minor, adoptee at majority, et al)
and within the frame-work of the "exceptions" when such exist (i.e.,
state reunion registry, CI system, et al).
        Still, there is no *guarantee* implied, mandated or otherwise
insured.  Nowhere is this *lack* of guarantee more obvious than in the
fact many Adoption Decrees include the birth mother's surname; the APs
may have been given the birth mother's name; a more than fair-share of
APs were given a copy of the relinquishment . . .   The fact the birth
mother's identity can and has been revealed more often than not means
such revelation was in the 'shadows' of sealed records' laws, i.e. the
identification was most often made known *before* the adoption was
finalized - but not always.

Lynn-Claire
http://www.findme-registry.com/catalog.htm