tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post1063238784524635714..comments2024-03-27T20:48:39.389-04:00Comments on [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: More on New Jersey Adoption Reform billLorraine Duskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-16681998556375117662010-03-29T23:37:06.871-04:002010-03-29T23:37:06.871-04:00kitta here:
"we can not go back in time. Wha...kitta here:<br /><br />"we can not go back in time. Whatever was done or should have been done is water under the bridge"<br /><br />Well...sort of...our legal system is based on precedent, so we have to be looking back, all of the time.<br /><br />Cully, you are correct in noting that the bill has written in a couple of disclaimers of liability for the state as well as for the adoption facilitators. This is so they will not be sued over the information that is released or because of the "results."<br /><br />but, there are no immunities for the mothers whose bodies are scrutinized which has been a concern for some of us.<br /><br />The additional non-id medical history in secion 5a and 10a need additional consents for release and disclaimers.<br /><br />I wish that bills for OBC would not include these medical provisions.<br /><br />I am a mother whose father is an attorney whose opinion it is that we are indeed, facing legal liability when our medical histories are required.<br /><br />How liable we are depends on the law and how we answer the medical questions.<br /><br />My father read the bill being considered in NY right now, S5269, and his opinion was that the language stating that adopted people had a 'civil right to a complete and accurate medical history' implied that mothers had a legal obligation to supply a complete family medical history. he told me that we could be held criminally negligent if our children became ill due to our inability to supply same.<br /><br />He told me that any law like that should place limits on our liability, such as written statements that say 'there may be a history of mental illness" or " a possibility of genetic transmission of breast cancer might exist in the mother's family." No names should be used, or specific relatives should be named.<br /><br />The mother would sign this, saying that she knows that this may be incomplete and possibly not accurate. Then the adoptive parents would also sign it and acknowedge it, as well...knowing it might be inaccurate and incomplete.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-23697492047836656142010-03-29T12:56:12.178-04:002010-03-29T12:56:12.178-04:00Here is the link: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bi...Here is the link: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp <br />If you go to: Introduced - 12 pages PDF Format HTML Format <br />You will see on page 4, Sec 2 thru page 9, Sec. 10 are all the new for this year additions that have to do with access. <br />Sec. 2: starting at line 14 thru 20...<br />"a birth parent of a person adopted prior to the date of enactment of this act may submit to the State Registrar a written, notarized request for nondisclosure or may make such a request to the State Registrar in person. The request for nondisclosure shall prohibit the State Registrar from providing the birth parent's name and home address, as recorded on the adopted person's birth certificate, " <br />Please note the word "request"<br /><br />Sec. 2: start at line 33 thru 36 deals with the family history form requesting medical, cultural and social history regarding the birth parent...<br />"Failure of a birth parent to complete the form and return it within 60 days, upon requesting nondisclosure, shall nullify the birth parent's request for nondisclosure."<br />My opinion? Very good.<br /><br />Sec. 3: <br />26 c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill).<br />27 b. If the birth parent of the adopted person has submitted a<br />28 request for nondisclosure pursuant to section 2 of P.L. ,<br />29 c. (C. )(pending before the Legislature as this bill), the State<br />30 Registrar shall delete the name and home address of the birth parent<br />31 from the uncertified, long form copy of the original certificate of<br />32 birth, and provide a copy of the family history form submitted by<br />33 the birth parent with the certificate of birth.<br /><br /><br />Sec. 7: <br />45 b. An employee, agent or officer of the Department of Health<br />46 and Senior Services who is authorized by the Commissioner of<br />47 Health and Senior Services to disclose information relating to the<br />48 certification of birth pursuant to this act, shall not be liable for:<br />(1) disclosing information based on 1 a written, notarized request<br />2 submitted in accordance with this act; and<br />3 (2) any error or inaccuracy in the information that is disclosed<br />4 after receipt of a written, notarized request submitted in accordance with this act, and any consequence of that error or inaccuracy. <br /><br />Okay... this let's the state off the hook for any BS the social workers or "others" may have felt was their right to say... <br />Sec. 8 requires the state to document the "number of uncertified, long-form copies of original birth certificates that were provided to adopted persons, the direct descendants of deceased adopted persons, and the adoptive parents or guardians of minor adopted persons; b. the number of requests for nondisclosure submitted by birth parents; c. the number of requests submitted by birth parents, through <br />the document of contact preference, for direct contact, contact by an intermediary, and no contact, respectively; and d. the number of family history forms submitted by birth parents." <br /> <br /><br />"This act shall take effect immediately, except that sections 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall take effect one year after the date of enactment"... so one year after this bill is passed NJ adoptees will be able to get their OBCs (if BPs have not filed the non-disclosure request or have not filed their family medical info form). <br /><br /><br />Whatever else that may be distasteful in this bill was done/included before now - we can not go back in time. Whatever was done or should have been done is water under the bridge. We (ALL) need to learn from what has worked and not worked - looking backwards is a history lesson that, if we don't learn from it we will be doomed to repeat.<br />CullyCullynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-38921836047496565842010-03-28T11:44:29.086-04:002010-03-28T11:44:29.086-04:00Anonimation says,
Nicole said "perhaps it...Anonimation says,<br /><br />Nicole said "perhaps it's simply that access to original birth records will disrupt the $5 billion American for-profit adoption industry. "<br /><br />ITA that's a huge part of it, with the fervent support of the right wing of the Christian Evangelical Church which is heavily invested in the business of salvation and rebirth via adoption. Osolomama has a good post about this: "Rescued from Buddhism: A brief history of the Christian adoption movement".<br /><br />My son got his OBC in the UK in 1985, ten years after records were opened. We got back in touch after 38 years, and the sky did not fall for me or his father. In fact quite the opposite. The sun shone more brightly and clouds parted.<br />The sky doesn't appear to have fallen for found mothers in the UK either. <br /><br />In the UK the OBC contains:<br /> * the original name of the adopted person<br /> * the name of the birth mother and sometimes the birth father if he was either married to the birth mother at the time of birth or accompanied the birth mother when the child’s birth was registered<br /> * the address of the birth parent(s)<br /> * the place and address of the child’s birth<br /> * in Scotland, the birth certificate also shows the time of birth.<br /><br />EVERYBODY in the UK gets theirs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-89095188929714124952010-03-28T00:43:37.513-04:002010-03-28T00:43:37.513-04:00As a British adopted person who received her origi...As a British adopted person who received her original birth certificate in 1978, I shake my head at the bizarre fears of American lawmakers. Perhaps it's not that their fears are bizarre; perhaps it's simply that access to original birth records will disrupt the $5 billion American for-profit adoption industry. <br /><br />Whatever the reason -- irrational fears, outdated bias, misguided concern, or old-fashioned greed -- I view the denial of original birth records to adopted adults as a fundamental human rights violation and an example of how far behind the rest of the industrial world America lags. The way we treat adopted people is a national disgrace.<br />(Nicole Burton, author, Swimming Up the Sun: A Memoir of Adoption)Nicole J. Burtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786045899760343450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-1799445421368355002010-03-27T17:15:29.647-04:002010-03-27T17:15:29.647-04:00But where does that leave the 1% (or whatever % it...But where does that leave the 1% (or whatever % it is), which includes victims of state-facilitated anonymous abandonment? They are now a stigmatized class forever. Now that border babies = safe haven = new sealed records you'll see many more "legal abandonments" from perfectly identifiable parents. <br /><br />Would you say that only women who have the permission of their husbands can vote and who cares about the few whose husband won't let them? <br /><br />I understand that Gov. Christie says he'll veto the bill if it passes.Marley Greinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15184124024369071862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-76232060483062849902010-03-27T14:37:32.043-04:002010-03-27T14:37:32.043-04:00kitta here:
to Kasey. I have been following the p...kitta here:<br /><br />to Kasey. I have been following the progress of the NJ legislation since the 1990s.<br /><br />One of the bill-writers told me several years ago that it was a legislator who placed the medical history requirements in the bill. I believe the lawamker was probably representing either the adoption agencies or adoption attorneys.<br /><br />I did not think that the medical history issues belonged in that bill.<br /><br />The NJ Catholic Conference also came out with a statement against access to OBCs several years ago, but stated that "adopted people have a right to complete family medical history."<br /><br />The conflicts within and between those two positions have been debated here and elsewhere. I support the right to OBC, but 'family medical history" is a vague term that does not exist as a 'right' anywhere in law. Nor is it possible to ever acquire a 'complete family medical history." <br /><br />It is also a violation of HIPAA laws to require medical information from relatives and to release it without their consent. This is especially true when the "medical information" was not submitted by the individual mother in the first place and is most likely erroneous.<br /><br />However, it is possible to write laws that can legally develop a practice of gathering medical information, with informed consent from the mother, and with limits on liability for all parties should a medical problem arise later on.<br /><br />This is significant, due to the numbers of 'wrongful adoption lawsuits" that have been filed against adoption agencies by adoptive parents who have claimed they were 'denied' medical information in the natural family's past history. S799 has an immunity to lawsuits clause in it, which absolves agencies/attorneys/ and other adoption facilitators who do adoption placements from liability for the results of any information released.<br /><br /><br />And, yes, I would vote for health care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-6292885407230209802010-03-27T11:11:30.954-04:002010-03-27T11:11:30.954-04:00Does anybody hear know what happened in Oregon?
O...Does anybody hear know what happened in Oregon?<br /><br />Or is that too much to ask?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-30299093299819712132010-03-27T10:30:17.511-04:002010-03-27T10:30:17.511-04:00Anonski says,
" but since it's going to ...Anonski says,<br /><br />" but since it's going to give 99 percent of the adopted people who ask for them their birth certificates."<br />Oh yeah? <br />Like I said before, it didn't work out that way in Ontario:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_to_Adoption<br />_Records_Act <br /><br />Another thing. Once the mother's name is removed from a birth certificate, it is no longer a birth certificate. <br />No-one should have to accept a travesty in place of the Real Thing.<br />It is evidence of how vetoes can set up a chain of systemic distortion<br /><br />"but this should not be tied to OBC access or to any disclosure veto stipulation. They are separate issues:"<br />ITA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-51630642335139915042010-03-27T10:04:12.489-04:002010-03-27T10:04:12.489-04:00Kitta wrote:Adoption bills are full of everything ...Kitta wrote:Adoption bills are full of everything that someone wants to get passed. So people make deals. Before long it is a patchwork of unrelated ideas,many of them unruly and unwanted, and they still don't pass,since more isnt better,"<br /><br />Very well put Kitta and I agree.An ugly, misshapen patchwork indeed! I agree with Mandy on this too. Opposing this bill has made some strange bedfellows, but there are so many reasons to oppose it that is not surprising:-)<br /><br />Kasey, stop confusing issues. No, I would not have voted against better health care in any form, because too many people like one of my sons cannot afford any health insurance as it now stands.The two issues are not comparable. <br /><br />Where did you get "99% would get their birth certificates"? It is not a good idea to throw around spurious statistics unless you can back them up. <br /><br />Mirah, good work for standing up to three hours of snake oil sales!maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-27941575789973351972010-03-27T09:24:51.401-04:002010-03-27T09:24:51.401-04:00Right, it is a patchwork bill, but since it's ...Right, it is a patchwork bill, but since it's going to give 99 percent of the adopted people who ask for them their birth certificates--geeze I can not understand all this carping about this and that to please the ninnies in the legislature who don't want to vote for any kind of bill that hurts a few adoptive parents--and that's what this is about. Lawyers are really trying to protect the sanctity of the adoptive family and screw the kids because we're all so happy, right? I don't live in NJ but if I did I'd be working to get this damn bill passed and I think those of you against this all ought to really consider what you are doing. I suppose most of you would have voted against health care--any kind of health care bill--because it did not have the public option? If this bill can get passed, I'm all for it. <br />--adopted in FloridaKaseynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-19092662071054282772010-03-27T02:48:08.492-04:002010-03-27T02:48:08.492-04:00""The point about incest and long form b...""The point about incest and long form birth certificates listing numbers of live births is useless for the majority of adoptees, as most were firstborn, and the adoptee's OBC tells nothing about subsequent children born to their mother.""<br /><br />Good point! How will a redacted mother's name on the OBC benefit the adoptee and where the adoptee is the firstborn to the mother? I guess the major benefit then would be in the passport category? Since I have read that some adoptees have had problems in this area with their ABC. Though this is not the case for every adoptee. I am reunited and my daughter has used her ABC for everything and she travels out of the country quite often and has never had a problem getting her original passport nor renewing it and has had her driver's license since the age of 16, again garnered with her ABC.<br /><br />I fully support OBC Access for all adoptees, just like non-adopted people have the right to... without all the mumbo-jumbo attached.Mandy Lifeboatsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-81683507560880841212010-03-27T02:48:08.493-04:002010-03-27T02:48:08.493-04:00kitta here:
"but this should not be tied to ...kitta here:<br /><br />"but this should not be tied to OBC access or to any disclosure veto stipulation. They are separate issues:<br /><br />I agree with this. Adoption bills are full of everything that someone wants to get passed. So people make deals. Before long it is a patchwork of unrelated ideas,many of them unruly and unwanted, and they still don't pass,since more isnt better,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-67884779696038857942010-03-26T23:47:44.294-04:002010-03-26T23:47:44.294-04:00Mirah, was anything said about eh border babies NJ...Mirah, was anything said about eh border babies NJCare has thrown under the bus?Marley Greinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15184124024369071862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-4523551273459976422010-03-26T22:26:37.398-04:002010-03-26T22:26:37.398-04:00I had a three hour meeting tody with Larry Newman ...I had a three hour meeting tody with Larry Newman of NJCare about this bill.<br /><br />You can read ll about it at:<br /><br />http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/2010/03/nj-legislation-may-have-wide-spread.htmlMirah Ribennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-77606536553173420332010-03-26T19:33:46.685-04:002010-03-26T19:33:46.685-04:00A bad bill is a bad bill. That it is not as bad as...A bad bill is a bad bill. That it is not as bad as some like Delaware does not make it good or acceptable, and who we love or do not has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />I am not one of the mothers that objects to adoptees being able to obtain medical or other information from their agency, as they have been doing all along, but this should not be tied to OBC access or to any disclosure veto stipulation. They are separate issues.<br /><br />The point about incest and long form birth certificates listing numbers of live births is useless for the majority of adoptees, as most were firstborn, and the adoptee's OBC tells nothing about subsequent children born to their mother.<br /><br />Adoptees should be able to get their own OBC on request like the rest of us. Period, no exceptions, no other records, no vetoes or special conditions. Anything other than that should not be called adoptee rights legislation. <br /><br />None of the concessions made in NJ have appeased or mollified our usual opponents one bit. They are fighting this bill just as strongly as they would fight a clean bill.<br /><br />The way to fix this bill is to start over with a bill that is clean and simple, but I do not think that those supporting it want to hear that. Any other "fixes" would just be more "lipstick on a pig."maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-29970899472927370952010-03-26T19:32:35.808-04:002010-03-26T19:32:35.808-04:00Karen K's comment below makes perfect sense. ...Karen K's comment below makes perfect sense. One would think this would just be a given but if it needs to be spelled out, why not? Sounds like a pretty simple solution to me.<br /><br /><br />"disclaimer and limit on liability, saying something like" There may be a history of heart disease, with unknown causes at the time this information was gathered." or, "mother has reported possible mental illness in a relative with no additional information."Carolchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12983135296851385826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-4436333787862142982010-03-26T18:06:39.252-04:002010-03-26T18:06:39.252-04:00kitta here:
The assumption is that any medical co...kitta here:<br /><br />The assumption is that any medical condition in a family member must be genetic...and so therefore, it must be disclosed.<br /><br />but, this is erroneous thinking. Medical conditions can have many causes....for example, I had an uncle with a heart condition and I found out decades later that he had had rheumatic fever as a child, which is an infection. He actually had a very strong heart, but for many years our family thought he had a genetically weak heart.<br /><br /> And mothers who are speaking with social workers about their family histories are not necessarily aware of the actual causes or details of the conditions in their relatives.<br /><br />Some agencies ask mothers about their own histories and a form is filled out with consent. This is fine, and should be released to the adoptive parents and the adopted person.<br /><br />But, trying to "guess" at what conditions might exist in a family based on conversations between a mother and a social worker is just about useless. Neither the mother nor the social worker are in the position to diagnose, third-hand. It is nothing but hear-say.<br /><br />If information must be released the only way to do it is with a heavy disclaimer and limit on liability, saying something like" There may be a history of heart disease, with unknown causes at the time this information was gathered." or, "mother has reported possible mental illness in a relative with no additional information."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-18380710751854109502010-03-26T17:33:50.233-04:002010-03-26T17:33:50.233-04:00My understanding of the NJ bill is that the medica...My understanding of the NJ bill is that the medical history will be an extensive check-off sheet. My problem with it is the coercion and blackmail exerted against women (mostly) to get it. Even if a parent wants to express yes-I-want-contact in writing, they are forced to submit the medical form with it. There's something really wrong--even for those who want to file a veto. <br /><br />And for pete's sake, call the 'contact veto" what it really is: a disclosure veto.Marley Greinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15184124024369071862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-27705828644731972692010-03-26T12:10:24.067-04:002010-03-26T12:10:24.067-04:00I don't know how Pam does it... I love her :)...I don't know how Pam does it... I love her :)ElainePhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00081341759492161794noreply@blogger.com