tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post4089914342126339261..comments2024-03-27T20:48:39.389-04:00Comments on [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Summing up 2015 in adoptionLorraine Duskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-35842439821698189362016-02-24T19:59:51.291-05:002016-02-24T19:59:51.291-05:00Cheryl, go to the FMF Resources page, link on lowe...Cheryl, go to the FMF Resources page, link on lower right. The page gives you a link to state laws. The Resources page also has a link to a site where you may be able to find a free or low cost attorney to help you.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-75432174981204709042016-02-24T19:33:32.250-05:002016-02-24T19:33:32.250-05:00How do I get information on Florida laws concernin...How do I get information on Florida laws concerning birth mother rights.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02672256298803135903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-61001034247010921322016-01-04T09:39:41.451-05:002016-01-04T09:39:41.451-05:00...Bill Pierce, founder of the National Council fo......Bill Pierce, founder of the National Council for Adoption, once told Florence that on day the records would be open. This is despite all the doomsday garbage he spoke to the media. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-49372969813975240512016-01-04T09:37:50.973-05:002016-01-04T09:37:50.973-05:00Ohio has a very small window of people who are sti...Ohio has a very small window of people who are still denied, as does Illinois, which I do not count as an "access" state because a birth parent may file a veto as long as the she or he is alive: A birth parent of an adoptee born after 1945 may file a form to veto disclosure of the birth parent's identity for as long as the birth parent is alive. <br /><br />In fact, it is a more restrictive provision than what passed in NJ: The birth parent who relinquished a child for adoption BEFORE August 1, 2015 may submit a request for redaction of their name and other identifying information of the birth parent to the office of the Registrar <b>before December 31, 2016.</b> After that, it is too late. <br /><br />In my mind, any restrictions prevent a state from being fully free for adoptees, and still gives the state control of the identity of a certain class of people. Ohio restrictive window is very small. God willing, someone will see the absurdity of their restriction and move into to get rid of that absurdity. As I ws looking over these laws, all I could think of was: What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive....and deception is what changed/amended birth certificates do. They are legal documents that perpetuate a lie. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-54090942095914843442016-01-04T07:28:01.685-05:002016-01-04T07:28:01.685-05:00I agree, Jane. sealed records are as antique and s...I agree, Jane. sealed records are as antique and stupid a law as prohibition, and it is time they ended. Time is on our side on this one, nothing bad happens in states where records are open, and people are beginning to see that.maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-44263189569842103772016-01-04T07:25:47.206-05:002016-01-04T07:25:47.206-05:00Thanks ladies, I appreciate your good wishes. I co...Thanks ladies, I appreciate your good wishes. I could not have imagined this in the many years of no response. Things have gotten even better on this super grandparents weekend; my youngest son called from CA with the news that his wife gave birth to their baby boy yesterday afternoon, third grandchild and first biological grandchild for us! Mom and baby are well and healthy, no complications. He is extra cute judging from pics and video, but then I am prejudiced:-)maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-3790707962308228502016-01-03T21:25:08.251-05:002016-01-03T21:25:08.251-05:00One thing is clear to me -- the scales have tipped...One thing is clear to me -- the scales have tipped to allowing access. About a third of the states allow most adoptees to access their OBCs and states are beginning to allow natural parents access to adoption records. Access states include a couple of big ones --Illinois and Ohio. <br /><br />My New Year's prediction is that within three years the majority of states will open records. With the prevalence of open adoptions and internet-facilitated reunions and the demise of opponents, people will soon ask what all the fuss was about.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-17116131605897137372016-01-03T14:37:20.059-05:002016-01-03T14:37:20.059-05:00How will the office of vital stats know a birth pa...How will the office of vital stats know a birth parent is deceased, especially if they have moved out of state or did not die in CO? Death certificates I believe are filed in the state and county where the death occurred.maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-5628077567126562042016-01-03T14:30:38.379-05:002016-01-03T14:30:38.379-05:00That's wonderful, Maryanne.That's wonderful, Maryanne.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-53364582427076693162016-01-03T10:37:01.553-05:002016-01-03T10:37:01.553-05:00The old CPF, created as a result of a hijacked bil...The old CPF, created as a result of a hijacked bill we ran in 2005, had boxes to check saying whether the bp "authorized" or did not authorize release of the OBC. If no CPF is on file, the adoptee gets the unredacted OBC. If both parents filed a CPF authorizing release,same situation. But if one authorized and the other didn't, then the OBC is released with only the consenting bp's name. So, out of an estimated 70,000 OBCs on file, at most a couple hundred CPFs have been filed. Of those, any pertaining to adoption finalized between 1951 and 1967 were negated by a Court of Appeals ruling. Of the remaining records, the adoptee or descendant gets the unredacted OBC if/once the birth parent is deceased. A certain percentage of adoptees won't request their OBC for any number of reasons. So in our view, the chances of all these factors aligning to produce an OBC with one name redacted seem virtually nil, though still possible. Thanks backatcha for a good conversation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059868677901460619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-25064660981728914832016-01-03T08:52:49.728-05:002016-01-03T08:52:49.728-05:00I am truly happy for you. Oddly enough, I love gla...I am truly happy for you. Oddly enough, I love glass and crystal myself. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-59863337475863705672016-01-03T06:32:31.885-05:002016-01-03T06:32:31.885-05:00It all went great! We has a lot of fun at the muse...It all went great! We has a lot of fun at the museum which is very kid friendly and had lots of hands-on activities. The kids were all over the place, they had little supervision in foster care, but my son and wife are very good with them, firm but patient. We went out in the field to try out the light-up football I gave my grandson who loves football, and my granddaughter is a little sweetie who wanted to hold grandma's hand:-) The brothers got along fine. My son liked some of my old artwork around the house, and they gave me beautiful glass creatures, a pelican, a pumpkin, and a lovely Swarovski crystal ornament.We all love glass, they have a bunch in their home too. It was a perfect day, all both really special and blessedly normal.maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-47549094915246041982016-01-02T20:17:37.646-05:002016-01-02T20:17:37.646-05:00You use the word "consented." I am takin...You use the word "consented." I am taking that to mean a passive consent by not having had filed a veto in the past? Fixing a terrible law of social engineering is taking a lot of time--with complications galore. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-6975240491130173142016-01-02T20:13:48.236-05:002016-01-02T20:13:48.236-05:00Rich--It's been interesting having this conver...Rich--It's been interesting having this conversation! Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-40058166629153404022016-01-02T20:13:19.933-05:002016-01-02T20:13:19.933-05:00Aha! It is hard to say that this is not "full...Aha! It is hard to say that this is not "full access." If you get one name...and it is almost always going to be the mother--you have as much information as most people who get one with something like "unknown" where "father" should be. Once again, I will note this above in the post itself since not everyone will be following all the comments. Weird little gap in the law. <br />Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-76919122658312189042016-01-02T19:56:12.850-05:002016-01-02T19:56:12.850-05:00The one "hole" left over from the old la...The one "hole" left over from the old law is in the (imo very rare or nonexistent) case in which both birthparents are named on the obc, and only one of the two has consented to the release of the OBC, the name of the nonconsenting parent would be redacted. The adoptee still gets the OBC, but with only one name. Given that only about 25% of all CO OBCs include both names, and there is no way to know how many of those have a "yes" CPF filed, all I can say is that it is possible that a very small number of people could fall into this quirky category. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059868677901460619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-15993668790183329172016-01-02T16:42:35.270-05:002016-01-02T16:42:35.270-05:00To be clear--Richard, every adoptee over 18 with a...To be clear--Richard, every adoptee over 18 with a Colorado birth certificate can now get a copy of it? And for good measure so can the adoptive parents of minors, and a sibling, full or half...? And there are no exceptions, as in the case of OH, which still has a little hole in the inclusiveness. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-52975211977852956432016-01-02T16:39:22.071-05:002016-01-02T16:39:22.071-05:00Congratulations are in order! I hope you have a wo...Congratulations are in order! I hope you have a wonderful time. So much good has happened for you in the last couple of years, after so long a wait. Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-15933655286905241092016-01-02T12:51:26.311-05:002016-01-02T12:51:26.311-05:00Thanks Lorraine. Yes, as of yesterday, or in reali...Thanks Lorraine. Yes, as of yesterday, or in reality Monday January 4, the following parties have direct access to the OBC and certain adoption records (including the Final Order of Relinquishment): the adult adoptee (18+); a birth/first parent named on the obc; the adoptive parents or custodial grandparents of a minor adoptee; a sibling who shares at least one commom birth/first parent with the adoptee; and with the adoptee's written consent, an adult descendant, spouse or adoptive sibling of the adoptee, or the above parties if the adoptee is deceased; or the legal representative of any such person. This is true, regardless of any preference stated on a CPF filed prior to 1/1/16 (this is why there was a wait period from 7/1/16 to now). A significant percentage (we don't know how many) of any non-disclosure preferences filed were already negated by the 2009 Court of Appeals ruling that granted access to records for adoptions finalized between 1951 and 1967. The new law makes the other time periods consistent with the court ruling, since similarly situated people were being treated differently under the law. Happy 2016, CO adoptees! The new form should up on the CDPHE Vital Records site Monday. Also, don't forget that birth/first parents can now get copies of records they signed during the relinquishment process as well. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059868677901460619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-62198951011861732272016-01-02T12:19:16.709-05:002016-01-02T12:19:16.709-05:00Happy New Year to all here. Mine is especially hap...Happy New Year to all here. Mine is especially happy, as my son and wife and adopted grandkids are coming here to visit for the first time ever, and will also be meeting my son Dan who lives with us. I am a nervous wreck but also totally delighted that my son is finally coming home! We have been to their place but this time they wanted to come here. We hope to take the kids to a little local museum, and I am so excited to get to use our grandparent's membership:-)maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-27415961234172841742016-01-02T11:29:49.363-05:002016-01-02T11:29:49.363-05:00If that is not the case, can you state without jus...If that is not the case, can you state without just posting the legalese, who will be able to get their OBCs from now on. <br />Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-87026646948928616622016-01-02T11:27:52.055-05:002016-01-02T11:27:52.055-05:00Rich-Well, then, does that mean as of yesterday, o...Rich-Well, then, does that mean as of yesterday, or realistically the first day the state offices are open, ANYONE can get their ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE? No matter if their birth mother filed a veto. It sounds like you are saying that. If so, then today Colorado is a full access state.Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-48839453909530175612016-01-02T10:09:51.393-05:002016-01-02T10:09:51.393-05:00Over 2000 OBC requests have already been processed...Over 2000 OBC requests have already been processed since a 2009 Court of Appeals ruling that granted access to records for those whose adoptions were finalized between 7/1/51 and 1/1/67.Rich Uhrlaubhttp://www.aisctc.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-71091077548550443192016-01-02T09:56:25.890-05:002016-01-02T09:56:25.890-05:00Lorraine, thanks for posting the language. There ...Lorraine, thanks for posting the language. There have been about 125 CPFs filed since 2005, with just 9 filed since 7/1/14. We don't know what preferences have been stated on them. If you read the posted language carefully, it says that any CPF stating a preference for non-disclosure may not be released before 1/1/16-- not that the "veto" remains in effect after 1/1/16. This has been confirmed by the attorney from Legislative Legal Services who drafted the bill, the assistant AG who advises Vital Records, and our attorney who helped draft the language. Please correct your post. Thanks.Rich Uhrlaubhttp://www.aisctc.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-7492858436465741652016-01-02T08:28:18.574-05:002016-01-02T08:28:18.574-05:00More discussion over exactly what the law in Color...More discussion over exactly what the law in Colorado is today. I had asked for information from states with action in the last year but go no response from CO until the blog was posted. And I relied on the AAC site. I will try to find out from the state how many vetos or negative contact preferences are on file. <br /> <br />No one on a birth certificate can file a veto as of today (in effect Jan. 1. 2016). However, if a veto or contact preference form had been filed (allowed under a previous law), it stays in effect unless retracted; or there is mutual consent of the reunited parties (meaning the birth parent and child have already reunited; or the birth parent is deceased, or the adoptee obtains a court order. In effect, this law will be similar to the NJ law as after a certain date no one will be able to file a disclosure veto. Yes, it continues to be unfair, but after the state passes a law allowing a veto, it then seems "unfair" to then declare those vetoes are invalid. The state thus creates a legal dilemma for itself. <br /><br /><br />The important relevant language found in Section 19-5-305(1.5)(d)(III) states: IF THERE IS NO CONTACT PREFERENCE FORM ON FILE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,<br />2016, FROM A BIRTH PARENT NAMED ON THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE,<br />OR IF A CONTACT PREFERENCE FORM EXECUTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,2016,<br />PAGE 3-SENATE BILL 14-051<br />IS ON FILE THAT STATES A PREFERENCE THAT THE ORIGINAL BIRTH<br />CERTIFICATE NOT BE RELEASED, THEN THE STATE REGISTRAR MAY NOT<br />RELEASE THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO THE ELIGIBLE PARTY PRIOR<br />TO JANUARY 1, 2016, UNLESS THE BIRTH PARENT RESCINDS THE CONTACT<br />PREFERENCE FORM, UPON MUTUAL CONSENT OF TWO OR MORE REUNITED<br />PARTIES, THE BIRTH PARENT IS DECEASED, OR THE ELIGIBLE PARTY OBTAINS<br />A COURT ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 19-1-309.<br />Lorraine Duskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.com