Deseret News | 'Finder' is accused of stealing adoption records

Reader comments
'Finder' is accused of stealing adoption records

Page:
1
2
Next >

Bob G | 5:27 a.m. March 12, 2008

Sealing adoption records for a hundred years doesn't make any sense at all. These are archaic laws written in archaic times and serve no purpose now than to protect adoption agency's from wrong doing. Every adopted child has the right to seek their paternal parents whenever they choose to find them. And it should only require the desire of the adopted child to do a search. It is illogical that it require both parties when neither party knows who or where the other is. It is a costly law to enforce and very costly for a person to do a search, even without the assistance of a search specialist. It would be beneficial to their mental state and medical history as well as their ancestrial background. With archaic laws about adoption it would better serve the people if they changed the laws than prosecute a person serving to find lost family. Before the prosecutor starts making a big deal about fees perhaps he should investigate the absolute fraud in hospitals, $50 for an aspirin? As for the records, what has been altered in the files? A witch hunt in progress to save face.

Anonymous | 7:18 a.m. March 12, 2008

Court records are public for those who have been arrested, which I find alot more damaging to a family than an adoptee who finds their biological parents. Why are the adoption records sealed, what is it protecting?

re:Bob G | 8:52 a.m. March 12, 2008

I have the answer to your investigation on the 50 dollar aspirin. The problem is double-headed. As a paramedic and the son of an ER physician, I've had some exposure to both. For example when I go on an ambulance call, protocol almost always dictates the administration of oxygen, via non-rebreather mask which has a cost to the provider of about 7 dollars. The ambulance service charges the patient 28 dollars for the mask, which is a one-time use disposable mask. The reason for this is that on average, 1 in 4 people end up actually paying. The same goes for hospitals. Giving everyone health insurance is not necessarily the answer when insurance companies are no longer a pool for people to pay when someone needs it, but are merely for-profit businesses with a bottom line. Also, blame the rise in litigation for undesirable outcomes (not mistakes) made by greedy trial lawyers. Even if the defendant wins the case, HIS insurance company still has to pay legal defenses. Average cost of malpractice insurance: $130,000 per year per provider, passed on to the consumer.

Comments continue below

Terri | 9:01 a.m. March 12, 2008

As a woman who gave a child up for adoption 22 years ago, I can tell you who could be damaged, ME! I have the right to keep that part of my past in my past and not have it change my life as it is now. I chose to carry him to full term rather than aborting him. I chose to give him up for adoption to fulfil someone elses dream of a family. It is my right to choose to release my information to allow him to find me and not someone elses. I don't feel that anyone has the right to "out" me for something I did 22 years ago that wasn't against the law, didn't harm anyone, and had a positive effect on someone else's life.

Who's being protected? | 8:56 a.m. March 12, 2008

How about your little Mormon neighbor, who got pregnant and didn't want anyone to know? She gave the baby away, and the records are sealed. She went on to raise a family, after she married.

I know a family who was shocked to find out that their mother had given birth "out of wedlock", and it was quite a scandal. And...the child who found her mother? Like most other adopted children, she always dreamed that she'd find a rich family at the other end...or a happier one. She didn't. She nearly broke up her birth mother's family, and after a few meetings with her mother, decided she wasn't interested in pursuing a relationship. How painful is that - to be abandoned by the very child you felt guilty for "abandoning" but couldn't talk to anyone about?

Does your "right to privacy" not mean anything to you?

Re: Terri | 9:16 a.m. March 12, 2008

Well said! That is the exact reason this law is in place. I have not given up a child, but I have been adopted. Of course I have had the "what if" thoughts, but I belong to a wonderful loving family, and can only hope that my birth parents have the same.

WOW!!! How totally sellfish! | 9:48 a.m. March 12, 2008

A woman gives up a baby for adoption, then never has ANY obligation to that child ever, ever again, because it might possibly interfere with her "now perfect" life?

Our son is adopted, and he has diabetes. We nearly lost him on the day we discovered this. We could have been alerted and more aware of what to do, if only we had been given THOROUGH medical information.

I'm so sorry if this inconveniences his birth mother.

What's more important? | 10:11 a.m. March 12, 2008

"How do I put a value on somebody's privacy?" deputy Davis County attorney Rick Westmoreland said Tuesday. "There's a reason those records are sealed."

How do you put a value of somebody's life? Isn't knowing your accurate medical history, who you come from, and what your roots are just as important as some girl's "right to privacy."

Especially in today's society, where giving up a child is no longer seen as a scandal. I'd cast my vote for the child's right to know over the mother's right to privacy.

And why does it have to be either/or? If adoption agencies would work with both clients, as a part of their contractual obligation, re-uniting or asking questions COULD be done very privately, without requiring the adopted person to search everywhere and ask multiple people for information that the agencies already have.

It's about time we step into the 21st century and CHANGE A FEW LAWS!!!

Christine Probst | 10:19 a.m. March 12, 2008

If only adoption agencies were more open and willing to work with adoptive families, many of these hassles could be totally avoided.

Because of the urgency of our son's personal situation we begged the agency to help us locate his birth mother, but they were bound by their rigid rules.

Jill helped us find his mother, who was actually happy and anxious to be found. Without Jill's help we would have had to make many, many more phone calls, and stir the pot a whole lot more, in order to locate her.

If legitimate agencies would be more helpful, perhaps Jill's services would be less necessary.

anonymous | 10:50 a.m. March 12, 2008

What if the conception of the child results from an assault, but is carried full-term due to a belief in right to life? Must the mother be reminded of that dark period to satisfy the childs curiosity?
Change the adoption forms to full disclosure of medical information. Don't force an unwanted association that can be mentally and emotionally harmful to anyone.

Right to know | 10:47 a.m. March 12, 2008

I found my 3 children - I had been coerced into giving them up for adoption. One I do have her email and address. We keep in touch via email and have since she was 17 years old. We were reunited in 2004 and I met my grandson. I found her twin and my youngest child without the oldest daughters help
Closed adoptions are in place to protect the adopters not the natural parent. I too am an adoptee and it stinks.

the LDS church as a tendency of forcing young single mothers into giving their children up for adoption using the excuse - "You truly aren't repentant of the sin unless you give the child up." This is so not true. If you have learned from your actions and cease to continue commiting fornication then you have walked away from the sin. Keep your child - no one else has the right to raise it as their own. Adoption is a permanent fix to a temporary problem. Yes there are men out there who have no problem with marrying a single never married mother. I was an unmarried mom once and did marry someone who loved my son.

Mirah Riben | 10:52 a.m. March 12, 2008

I agree with the majority of comments. So called "sealed records" are obselete.

They were never sealed to protect mothers who lost their children to adoption. They were - and remain - sealed to protect those who are the paying customer in adoption - the adopters. Those who want to pretend the child is theirs and only theirs.... a possession they paid for and own - free and clear with no interference from anyone else.

The most interesting thing in this article is the fact that altering a public record is a crime!

Well, every state is guilty of altering every birth certificate of every adopted person! The states commit FRAUD in falsifying these certificates sand FORCE people to become criminals ad t use criminals to help them find out what is their God-given right to know!

RE: Wow and More Important | 11:11 a.m. March 12, 2008

Speaking as an adoptee and a health care provider, I think you are overreacting. True some many conditions would be more easy to diagnose with a family health history, and a few are emergent. However with proper ongoing health care/screening problems can be found and treated in a proper timeframe.

I have primary hypertension (high blood pressure caused genetically) for which I am being treated and followed. My life is as anyone just a few years back with familial predispositions were not as well understood.

Yes it is a "hassle" to not have additional information, I would contend, however, that a hassle is what you accept as an adoptive family. Parenting is not easy for natral born children or adoptees.

I have not had the desire to break up my family by looking for my birth parents, nor have I been contacted. My Brother (who is also adopted) was contacted by a company such as this, they were very agressive when he stated he was not interested.

I do not think there is justification for procuring records by illegal means to make money, whatever the other intensions are. The right to privacy is foe me as well as "some Girl".

RE: Mirah | 11:18 a.m. March 12, 2008

What part of the sealed records is "God-given"? What makes it our tight to know?

Bubba | 11:43 a.m. March 12, 2008

Who has the right ot privacy, the child, the adoptee parents, or the biological parents? Couldit be that all three deserve the same protection of privacy. The records are sealed to protect all from those who don't need to know unless there is consent.

SS | 11:53 a.m. March 12, 2008

Having adopted 4 children at various stages in life, there are a lot of reasons to have closed adoptions. First, you can get medical info from parents before adoption, so that is not a reason to have an open adoption. Second, a lot kids are from foster homes where parents have given them up, or had them taken away because of a long history of violence, drugs, abuse, etc. Closed adoptions protect the children more than anything. And families who adopt kids out of those situations don't want angry remorseful drugged up and possibly violent natural parents showing up at their door. When a child is an adult, if its their choice to track down a natural parent, don't have a problem with that. But before that, it is too much of a psychological difficulty for most kids to try to put together 2 families. They have a hard enough time as it is without dealing with that burden--speaking from lots of personal experience. And in a normal situation, how would a 5 or 8 or 12 year old deal with "natural mommy" and "adopted mommy."

Been on two sides of the issue | 1:58 p.m. March 12, 2008

My wife and I have adopted two of our five children. I myself was adopted as a baby. I get so very tired of others, most never adopted, complaining that the laws are to tight. I have no desire to find the woman who gave me up, and I hope the birth mothers of my two children feel the same way. My privacy is worth something to me. I would say, unless you are adopted, have adopted or given a child up for adoption, this is not your fight. Let us who have, work it out our way.

Time for the Truth | 2:06 p.m. March 12, 2008

The truth is an adopted child HAS two mothers. Why can't we deal with the truth?

To Time for truth | 2:45 p.m. March 12, 2008

You are mixing the term mother with birth parent. The mother is the person there waiting up when you get home from that special date. THe mother is the person who go to bat for you when trouble arises. The mother is the person you cry on when the phone does not ring and your waiting for him to call. The mother is the one that cries at your wedding. The mother is the one that is there along with the your husband as you give birth. The title of Mother is earned over time. The other woman is a birth parent.
To time of truth - bet you are not adoptived, for those of us that are, have come to peace with it.

Re: Right to know | 3:17 p.m. March 12, 2008

"the LDS church as a tendency of forcing young single mothers into giving their children up for adoption using the excuse - "You truly aren't repentant of the sin unless you give the child up.""

This couldn't be more false. I became pregnant when I wasn't married. When I first spoke with my bishop and told him I wanted to keep the baby, the subject of adoption was never brought up. I had full support from all my church leaders, ward members, and family. I am still a single mother and have since gone through the temple. The church does not try to coerce young women into giving up their baby, the Church provides an option for adoption if the young woman chooses to, and the church does not do so by threatening repentence either. If a woman decides to give her child up for adoption, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!

Adoptee | 3:38 p.m. March 12, 2008

At 3, I was informed by my 3-yr-old cousin that I was not a part of my family because I was adopted. I carried that with me for many years. At 18, I was hateful and mean and wanted to find my "real" family. Thank goodness I woke up. At 42, I have not yet begun the search to find my birth family, and do not plan to for a while. The Lord has put the tools in my path - my bishop is the only court appointed investigator/communicator between adoptees and their birth families in the state.

The laws are in place to protect all concerned. As a teenager, I would have devastated my family out of spite had it been easy to open the records. I may have devastated at least one other family, the doctor that placed me in my mother's arms told her that my father was a university professor and my mother his student. Did his family know about the affair? Doubtful. As an adult, and a mother, I have much more compassion than I once did, and know that the time will come that I will know all my family - biological and adopted.

It IS Time for Truth | 3:56 p.m. March 12, 2008

I don't think I'm mixing the term "mother" with "birth parent." I'm simply acknowledging the existence of both, something some others seem unwilling to do.

Actually, I am an adoptive parent. Finally meeting my son's birth mother has made me much more aware of her many, many contributions to my son's makeup. It's much easier now to understand both his strengths and his weaknesses.

And it truly saddens me that so many people are intent on hiding the truth. The TRUTH is that my son has two mothers--and we've BOTH left an undeniable imprint on his life.

I'm grateful that in our case, my son was able to know his "other mother" as well. And I'll always be grateful to Jill for making this possible. (So will his birth mother.)

No names please... | 5:48 p.m. March 12, 2008

Wow, this woman is really a busy body and putting her nose where she shouldn't. We are certainly happy that she was caught! my child is adopted and says she would NEVER want to meet her birth mother or father, which is also her own choice. She says what was done 20 years ago is forever, and that we are her only parents that she cares to know. We abide by her wishes because we love her. Why would anyone want to dig up old woans?

Friend adopted | 7:35 p.m. March 12, 2008

I worked with a woman who adopted two biological sisters on the states fos-adopt program. The biolo. mother was spending a long stretch in Prison. Why in the world would we want the adoption information public record, so when this woman is let out as an ex con and goes seeking her children? This is trouble just looking to happen. Just because a woman gave birth does not make her automactically a good mom. The state had to step in for the childrens sake. Who would step in for the adoptive mom safty if the infomation was public.

Adoptive Man | 7:44 p.m. March 12, 2008

I was adopted over 50 years ago. My parents were always very truthful with me about it. I was told the condtitions of my conception and birth. I can not think of how much harm I would cause by trying to look up the couple who got into trouble. How many old wounds I would open up should I every contact them. What happened unplaned over 50 years ago should stay in their past. My life has been good thanks to real (read adoptive) parents that raised me. No- the LDS church had nothing to do with it, and it was several states away from Utah.

Anonymous | 8:02 p.m. March 12, 2008

The busy bodies are the journalists that write the stories to begin with, then the gossip starts to roll. I believe this lady was not doing the criminal deed because she is a busy body, but instead was helping people with simply a name. The adopted child should be able to do the contacting if they feel the need and when they are adults. In cases of parents that have criminal records or are addicts they wouldn't have access to any children, if the law stated adoptees had to be adults to obtain the information.

Truthfully Speaking | 10:47 p.m. March 12, 2008

Unless you have been adopted you have no way of knowing how hard it is to not have any access to the information Health, Mental and Medical that non adoptees,take for Granite... Give me a break to all of those people including the Birth Mother who wants to keep her past in her past a secret, it is 2008 and the Truth will set you free..
I had to find my Birth Mother for MY daugters sake for a health issue,She was very upset I found her,and didnt want to tell anyone about "The sin and mistake" She had given up..
How about abstinance instead of making a child pay for their entire life for the choices you made...
Everyone deserves to know the truth no matter how painful it is!!!!

To TERRY | 10:57 p.m. March 12, 2008

Wow your comments completely offended me,
How nice of you to give your own flesh and blood who is half of you by the way, to complete high paying strangers to fulfill their fantasy of playing house, you say you didnt hurt anyone, but you have no idea how emotionally damaging it is to be adopted, to know that you were not wanted, and were discarded as such an inconvience, people like you should be steralized then nobody would have to worry about adoption....Who says that?????????????????

What we need is a CI program | 11:33 p.m. March 12, 2008

I agree with all the people who have said that records should not be opened. HOWEVER, that does not mean that no route to reunion should exist! Utah needs a confidential intermediary program, where a trained intermediary acts as a third party to locate a birthparent and ask them if they would like a reunion. If they say no, the intermediary walks away and the adoptee is given no information as per their birthmother's wishes. But if the birthmother says yes, then both parties are in agreement and there is absolutely no reason they should be kept apart.

(I know, I know-- someone out there is going to say "but that's what the mutual consent registry is for!" Let me tell you-- the registry is a joke. It doesn't work. It only has something like a 6% success rate!)

The real crime here is that House Bill 289 was defeated! Do your homework people-- CI programs WORK, and we need one in Utah.

What a laugh! | 11:44 p.m. March 12, 2008

This is a joke! Why is no one suing DAVIS COUNTY for keeping their adoption records in a place anyone could get into them? Those records should have been under LOCK AND KEY! So much for SEALED records.

Re: To Time For Truth | 9:58 a.m. March 13, 2008

I think you are mistaken. I am, as you have put it a "birth parent". You say the term mother is earned over time. I disagree. I believe that a mother is a woman who gives birth. A MOM however is there for you as you grow. Any female who has hit puberty can be a mother...it takes a special woman to be a MOM. I will always be my children's Mother, the women who have raised them are their MOMS.

I believe that the children who were placed for adoption deserve to know who their birth parents are. I also believe that birth mother's have the right to decide if they want contact. There are so many registries on the Net for both paying huge amounts of money seems ridiculous to me. I have my information on the registry if the children I have given birth to wish to find me. Will that cause problems? Probably since the 4 younger children i have do not know yet. But I will deal with that if/when it comes. Adoptive parents should be secure enough in their relationship to know that they are the truly important people in the "child's" life. IMHO

john | 1:37 p.m. March 19, 2008

I"D LIKE to here From the adoptee's that just want to write or talk to there birth mom's and fathers
not to have all the Adoptive,s decide
there many reasons a child was adopted but most just want the truth to see or meet a birth mom is
that so hard...
It is if their adoptive's fill there head with a lot of stories that would only hurt them more...
what about a grand father that never met his grand child.
when a adopted child is of age he/she should be
able to make there own choices and not have
to live thinking that what ever reason they learned as to why they were adopted stop there search
to know the Truth
i have helped many find there bio familys the joy
of there reunion over came any other reason
nurture vs nature.this is brain washing
God knows best a child will love her birth mother
if given the chance to talk
and understand all the reasons why
most birth mother's did what was best for there child.dont forget the Fathers had NO rights either

An Adoptee's View | 2:16 p.m. March 19, 2008

Yesterday I found out I am Swedish!

Swedish? I have lived the last 43 years believing I was English, Irish and Filipino. It's like that American Express commercial:"Two tickets to Stockholm, please."

My parents are wonderful, and I was fortunate to have a pretty idyllic childhood knowing I was adopted AND knowing I was (and am) very loved.

Yet, part of me still wonders: Who do I look like? Who do I take after? What skills and talents did I inherit?

Which is why I finally requested non-ID info (all you can get from a sealed record state--I was adopted in Washington in 1963).

Today, I know that my birth parents first names were Patricia and Jose and that both were shorter than me. I know Patricia wanted to be a writer or go into advertising (my career), and Jose was a good dancer (one of my skills).

But I don't know who I look like or whether or not they have developed any health issues I should be aware of.

People who know their birth parents don't have these and the many small questions someone who is adopted has.

We just want to know the same things you do.

Elise | 3:00 p.m. March 19, 2008

As a 16-year old in 1973, I was coerced into giving up my son. While I know it was the best thing for him and the worst thing for me, I never understood why my mere existence had to be obliterated in order for him and his adoptive family to have a happy life. I conceived my son out of love (albeit misguided), he grew inside of me for 9 months; no one will ever convince me that I am NOT a MOTHER, though I never had the pain or pleasure of parenting (EVER). Why is it wrong for me to have the peace of mind that my son, now 34, is alive and well - or not. I need the truth...I can handle the truth...and he is not a child any longer so I would expect him and his adoptive family to be able to handle it.

Jen | 3:38 p.m. March 19, 2008

As the birthMOTHER of a son adopted through open adoption, and the wife of an adoptee adopted through closed adoption, I have a view from both sides of the fence. I can say this...I can't tell you how many times my husband has said he wishes his adoption could have been open. My 6 year old son, knows me and my other children as his brother and sister, and he will introduce me with pride, to anyone, as his birthmother. So I am a mother to three children. Now my husband knows he didn't hatch from an egg 3 weeks after he was born, and if the laws were better here in Texas, he would be able to find out info that he has a GOD GIVEN RIGHT to know. If you bring a child into this world you are at that point obligated in some way to that kid. To think that you can give a child up and that is the end of your part...is absurd. Other Bm's out there need to wake up, it isn't your childs fault that he exists. But you are obligated to help that child in any way that you can.

joan | 3:50 p.m. March 19, 2008

Utah's State Run Reunion Registry
Bureau of Vital Statistics
Voluntary Adoption Registry
150 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84103

For registry information, contact:
Adoption Reunion Registry, Department of Health Vital Statistics
288 N. 1460 W.
Salt Lake City, Utah
Telephone: (801) 538-3916
Utah Code Ann. 78-30-15; 78-30-18.

Barbara | 4:55 p.m. March 19, 2008

This woman did not have the right to steal microfilm! She may have done good work but she is still a criminal and deserves punishment.
I am an adoptee in the the process of searching for my birth parents so don't say I don't know what I am talking about.
I understand that some birth parents do not wish to be found but unfortunately that is the only way that many adoptees can obtain medical history information.
Those of us born in the 1950s as a rule do not have anything by way of accurate medical history. Genetic secrets kill!! This is the compelling reason for many wanting open adoption records laws. Even the most callous of birth parents can understand needing to know of cancer, heart trouble, diabetes, and other health issues that crop up later in life.
It is people like this woman in the article who ruin things for the rest of us.

Marcella LeDoux | 5:46 p.m. March 19, 2008

In my opinion, we (adoptees) DO have the right to know our medical histories. But opening the records does NOT guarantee obtaining that information- what about the birthparent(s) who did not supply what we are looking for? Or the birthparents whose medical problem didn't show up until years after adoption? As for reunion, some states allow all the adoptee and birthparents to place a letter in the file that give permission to release information to the other party if it should ever be requested. This is a way of protecting all involved, yet supposedly allowing a way for the birthparent/adoptee to be reunited if the desire is mutual. But how does this work if the file is sealed? In my opinion, adoptees and birth parents all have equal right to privacy IF it is desired. They also have the right to reunion IF the desire is mutual. Likewise, other birth relatives also have the right to reunion IF mutually desired by them and the adoptee. But medical information, that is our RIGHT and it's not only morally wrong but it's also dangerous to ours and our children's health for that information to be witheld.

Reunited Adoptee | 5:54 p.m. March 19, 2008

I just found my birthgrandmother, my birthmom was killed in a car accident just 2 years after my birth. My birthfamily has been waiting for me to find them for 24 years!
Registries are great but there are so many of them and both of you need to register on the same one! I was born in CA and adopted in Utah my birthfamily had no idea to look for me in Utah. This is why the mutual consent registry has such a low success rate.
Adoptees have the right to their genetic and medical information just as any other person does. As soon as we become adults we should receive our records. Open records does not increase abortion or decrease adoption those are just lies people use to keep records sealed.

reunite | 7:44 p.m. March 19, 2008

Hi, its not for these others to decide for adults what is right for them. Who tells you who to associate with??? How would you like to loose all your info, and be told to start over. You can't use your name, or know who your mother was, or father, or grandparents.
If people are in jail, or prison, that is a very small percentile of the people who find their parents were in jail.
That doesn't mean a person doesn't have the right to know. Why is it an adoptee never reaches the age of majority, except in certain states.
Some states never closed records. And have done just fine.
YOUR insurance is higher because some adoptees need more medical care than others.??? why you ask,
because some doctors run more tests on adoptees because they have no medical. They are afraid of missing something. So just think this woman would have no reason to steal, if records were open.!!!
She couldn't have made a living off of adoptees and birthparents again. Everyone makes money off of adoption. The Federal Gov't sends money to encourage courts to perform adoptions. "see part 2"

DGD | 8:04 p.m. March 19, 2008

I was adopted in 1941. In 1979 I found my birth family. The truth of an adoptee's origin, no matter how bad is easier to deal with than the unknown. I'm the product of both my genetics and my environment. I love both my mothers. Neither one is more important than the other. If reuniting an adult adoptee with a birth mother, causes damage to that family, I submit that it is a family looking for an excuse to be split. The adoptee is the only one in the contract who did not have a say at the time of the adoption. His/Her desires should prevail over the adoptive parents or the birth parents. The agencies are a money making industry. Sealed records only protect them. They can tell the birth parents and the adoptive parents any story that fit their needs and they do.

gritsgirl | 8:41 p.m. March 19, 2008

Too bad this was done in an illegal fashion and puts another bad slant on adoptees searching. I am an adoptee who has been searching for years only to meet with brick walls time and again, believe me if I could find someone to get into the records of courthouse where my records are sealed, I'd take a second job to pay for it!! I am 47 yrs old and as each year passes the need to know my roots increases, with each health condition that shows up in my children and now grandchildren, the questions from doctors about family history go half unanswered, my children and I don't know what we should be watching for. The medical info is one thing, but the deep need to know of our origins is another. I always think about the saying those who do not understand from where they came, can not know where they are going. Adoptees are denied the right that many take for granted, the right to know where you came from and how you came to be in this life.

Joan part 2 | 8:51 p.m. March 19, 2008

Then when we want to know our own info, they want to charge us again. they charge our parents to do a search. They charge us to do a search. If they gave us the names, we could find them. We don't need to have these people play detective, when they dont even know how.
they don't have experience that the adoption sites have to help people. We help them search and give support. The ci's don't. the Pi's dont'.
thanks,
Joan of nyadoptees

Searching doesn't break up famil | 8:58 p.m. March 19, 2008

Hi, searching if done right , doesn't break up a family. Many times, it brings people together. And families are very happy to find their lost family member.
Not everyone wants to search. Thats fine, no one is forcing anyone to search if they don't want to.

Joan

Natalie Ann '58 | 9:02 p.m. March 19, 2008

Jill Ekstrom did NOTHING wrong.(However I feel she should have given away the information for FREE) But Rick Westmoreland IS wrong. There is no good reason for those records to be sealed! Birth mothers did not sign any legal papers to privacy. They only signed away their parental rights. They are not entitled to any more privacy than any other citizen of this country. If two ADULTS want to make contact with each other, it is their business only. If an adopted adult or birthparent makes contact with the other party, the other party, whether adoptee or birth parent, has the right to say yes or no and the other party will respect that decision. THey are ADULTS, remember! This law makes it seem that adult adoptees are raving mad stalkers. And In reality most birth mothers WANT contact with the child they gave birth to. States where these archaic laws have been changed and adult adoptees have access to their original birth certificates prove this point.

Everyone tries to make money off | 9:11 p.m. March 19, 2008

She couldn't have made a living off of adoptees and birthparents again. Everyone makes money off of adoption. The Federal Gov't sends money to encourage courts to perform adoptions. Yes, that is why they like adoption. Then agencys get bonus money for doing more adoptions this year than last year. Yes, your tax dollars at work again. Then they give those that adopt tax breaks.
I think its 10K.
Well that is more tax dollars that don't go to the govt and come out of your pocket.

Hi from an adoptee | 9:18 p.m. March 19, 2008

Hi, we need to hear from adoptees and parents who are searching, and want to search. NO one is forcing anyone who doesn't want to search to search.
What part of that doesn't these people understand. Most adoptees don't want to be where they are not wanted. So if they search, it usually for medical. Some have had drs ask them to find medical background. Ny and az let parents update medical. So if any of you are from ny please inquire about that. there are groups to help. its really sad they won't allow urls in the posts.
What are they afraid of.???
Joan

Linda Burns | 10:40 p.m. March 19, 2008

State mandated genetic secrecy is killing adoptees. Every adult has the right to know updated genetic history. As a young unwed mother, I was forced to surrender my daughter. We have now been reunited twenty-five years. I am so thankful for her parents. They did all I wanted to do, but was not allowed to do. All the years my daughter and I were apart, I prayed for her family. I wanted them all to be blessed! We are all friends now. When there is love, there is no need for privacy. There is no shame in adoption. There is shame in lies and sealed records. Now, I am wondering if states are going to go after Search Angels next? Then, they will probably arrest adoptees and birth families who search. I guess my daughter and I may be sharing a cell with some of you! After all, we found each other!
Linda

LOOKING IN FL 2/13/1976 | 10:57 p.m. March 19, 2008

AS A BIRTH MOTHER I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MY DAUGHTER IS OKAY AND GIVE HER THE MEDICAL INFORMATION THAT SHE WILL NEED FOR HERSELF AND CHILDREN. I ALSO DO NOT FEEL THAT ALL ADOPTIVE PARENTS ARE GIVEN THE CORRECT & TRUTHFUL INFORMATION BEHIND THE ADOPTION. THE ARE MORE STORIES TO BE TOLD THAN THE ORIGINAL ONE TOLD AT ADOPTION. PLEASE RESISTER W/ UTAH ADOPTION REGISTRY, 150 W. N. TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 ALSO ADOPTION RECORDS VITAL STATISTICS, 288 N. 1460 W. SALT LAKE CITY, UT. 801-538-3916. NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE AWAY THE PARENTS THAT RAISED THE CHILD BUT WHEN THEY REACH THE AGE OF 18 THEY SHOULD HAVE THE INFORMATION AND DECIDE BY LETTERS, EMAILS OF MEETING WHAT THE FLIP SIDE OF THE STORY REALLY IS. IT ALSO GIVES THE BIRTH MOTHER THE CHANCE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR LOVING THIS CHILD. MOST BIRTH MOMS JUST WANT TO ADD TO THE LOVE THE FAMILY HAS GIVEN. I GREW UP TO BE A SOCIAL WORKER AND HAVE 2 SONS THAT MISS HER DAILY WE NEVER WANT TO TAKE HER LOVE AWAY FROM THE ADOPTIVE FAMILY BUT ADD TO THAT LOVE WHEN SHE IS READY. BIRTH MOMS ARE FOREVER.

Lori Kerns | 7:45 a.m. March 20, 2008

Unless you are an adoptee yourself you will never know how we feel about not knowing who we are and where we come from. I have 3 children of my own and when I take them to the doctor it really bothers me when they ask, "any family history of....."? and I have to say, "I don't know, I'm adopted". These laws need to be changed IMMEDIATELY! Putting me up for adoption was not a crime and should not warrant privacy. What is a crime is that I'm going to be 42 yrs old and have no clue who I am. NEW YORK MAKE OPEN ADOPTION RECORDS A REALITY FOR ADOPTEE'S!!!!!
Lori L. Kerns/Ledwith
Baby Girl Freihart
07/31/1966
Allentown, PA
Finalixed in Nassau County, NY
Lori_766@yahoo.com

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.