Reader comments
Adoption 'finder' proclaims her innocence

Way to go, Jill! Fight it! I know you are innocent!

The State of Utah has stolen the birthright of thousands of its adoptive citizens through sealing their birth records. I have no idea if Ms Ekstrom is guilty as charged, but I don't know any adopted person who wouldn't grab those secret dossiers the state has collected on them if given the opportunity. If Utah treated adopted folks the same as the not-adopted this kind of allegation would never happen And while we're at it, if these records are so "sensitive" why were they sitting around n plain sight?

Start treating adoptees the same as the non-adopted, and allow them access to their birth certificates. Then your courts would be better served than this witch hunt against a woman who reunites families.

Give me a break. Not all of us WANT to be reunited. Not all birth parents WANT it either. I've met my birth mom - when I was in my 30's because she wanted it and I felt bad for her. But it's been an uncomfortable situation for me. She's a good person, and I'm glad she knows I turned out ok. But if I could turn back time and not have her find me? In a heartbeat. My "real" family is the one that raised me from birth.

These records rightfully belong to the people whose births they record.
If adopted people weren't denied this civil and human right, situations like this wouldn't arise.

A person's right to their OBC has nothing to do with reunion.

That's your personal choice and you have every right to it. However the fact remains that a market was created by people who wanted their records. If adoptees were treated the same as nonadoptees, NONE of this would have happened. No matter what your feelings on who your real family are, it should bother every adoptee that the state they live in treats them as dangerous second class citizens not to be trusted with their own identity.

It's about time someone pointed out that "reunions" aren't what they're cracked up to be. I know of many people who were forced into reunions that they never wanted and that only led to heartache and pain. Women should have the right to place a child for adoption anonymously, without fear of being contacted out of the blue, years later, by anyone! These untrained, unregulated "finders" are only out to make a quick buck by meddling in people's business and violating their privacy rights. They care nothing about the lives they ruin in the process. They do not respect the privacy of the people they are hunting down because they are paid for results. Many women would rather get an abortion than risk having their lives torn apart decades later by unwanted contact from adoptees or their "finders." Is that really what you want?

You really think that a birth certificate is the same as a "birthright"? You obviously know nothing about adoption. When one is adopted they become legally entitled to all the rights and privileges of a biological child, vis a vis their adoptive parents. An adoptee's true birthright comes from their adoptive parents--it is the product of a lifetime of loving, caring and sacrifice. A birth certificate is nothing but a piece of paper!

"Women should have the right to place a child for adoption anonymously, without fear of being contacted out of the blue, years later, by anyone."

Sure.
Why shouldn't women be able to just dump their kids if those kids happen to be inconvenient? It's only depriving them of their pre-birth history.
After all, it's none of their business where they came from, right?

WRONG!
Very, very wrong.

To "confused marley greiner"

Birthright and Adoption don't go hand in hand. children aren't BORN from their adoptive parents. You couldn't be more confused yourself. Marley is the PRESIDENT of Bastard Nation the nations LARGEST adoptee rights organization in the COUNTRY.

She knows PLENTY about adoptee rights. Its YOU who needs a clue.

Women DON'T have the right to place a child anonymously in ANY state. The birth certificate does NOT seal when a child is places for adoption. An adoption must be finalized by the court, which usually takes at least 6 months, in order for the record to seal. If the adoption never finalizes, or fails, the record REOPENS. There is no anonymity.

Adopted citizens are the only citizens in 44 states who cannot gain unfettered access to their OWN birth certificates. Even people given up for adoption, but don't happen to be adopted, have this right. But, adopted citizens do not. This is discrimination. Whether you thinks it's just a piece of paper or not doesn't matter. It doesn't stop it from being discrimination.

This isn't about birth certificates. A birth certificate is a legal record identifying one's legal parents. It entitles one to all the rights and privileges afforded under law vis-a-vis their legal parents. Adoptees receive the very same birth certificate that everone else receives.

What you're really after is a copy of a legally- worthless, sealed, government record identifying your birth parents (also known as an "original birth certificate"). Obtaining that document will not provide you with any rights under law, nor are you denied any legal rights without it. There is no civil right to know the identity of your biological parents. There is, however, a constitutional right to privacy which ought to protect a woman's ability to place a child for adoption anonymously.

Women already have a right to anonymously drop a newborn off in a safe-place for any reason whatsover. Not just because the child is inconvenient, but becuase the woman is unable to properly care for them. They're called safe-haven laws, and they exist in nearly every state in the union, INCLUDING UTAH.

Believe me, there are a lot worse things than being deprived of ones "pre-birth history." Like for instance being aborted, left to die in a trash can, or flushed down the toilet. Safe-haven laws are not wrong, they are an absolute necessity and have saved many lives!

Let's be honest here, really.

It IS about birth records. I, along with almost every adoptee rights advocate I know, already knows his/her birth parents. The inability to receive one's OWN factual record of birth simply because one is adopted is discrimination. I am denied THAT right.

The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom from government intrusion in personal matters. Therefore, adoptees in sealed records states are the ones having their 14th amendment rights trampled. The state of California is holding my actual record of the events of MY BIRTH from ME.

Women DON'T have the right to place a child anonymously in ANY state. The birth certificate does NOT seal when a child is places for adoption. An adoption must be finalized by the court, which usually takes at least 6 months, in order for the record to seal. If the adoption never finalizes, or fails, the record REOPENS. There is no anonymity.

Two Supreme Courts, Oregon (Doe v Oregon Decision et. al.) and Tennessee (Doe v Sundquist,) have upheld that there is no Constitutional right to anonymity for parents who relinquish for adoption.

"Women already have a right to anonymously drop a newborn off in a safe-place for any reason whatsover. Not just because the child is inconvenient, but becuase the woman is unable to properly care for them."

If a woman can't take care of her child she should be encouraged to surrender through conventional means.

There is no way of quantifying the effectiveness of safe-haven laws in saving lives. Unsafe abandonment continues in states where safe-haven laws have been enacted.

Safe-haven laws encourage the anonymous abandonment of children who might otherwise have been kept or who would have been relinquished through legitimate (ethical) channels.

Little My

Being "president" of a group called "Bastard Nation" is hardly an impressive credential. As president, the first thing Marley ought to do is change her group's name to something that shows dignity and respect for adoptees. Only ignorant people still use the term "bastard."

The term "Bastard" is still a legal term in many states. I'm sorry you consider it undignified and ignorant.

"to recieve one's OWN factual record of birth" Whatever that is. Good luck finding that one in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else. Would that be an emanation from a penumbra? Scalia would have a field day with that.

You can tweak the definition any way you want, the bottom line is that adoptees are not being denied any legal right. And if we are going to recognize such ephemeral "rights" then we ought to first recognize the right of a woman to place a child for adoption anonymously.

Its too bad that the courts are going after this woman instead of the many unethical adoption agencies.