LilMtnCbn
04-23-2004, 05:52 AM
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=36513
Another View, Con:
Let parents be anonymous
By THOMAS ATWOOD
Guest Commentary
THE MANDATORY-openness bill now before the Legislature, SB 335, would harm
adoption and unjustly and unnecessarily disrupt the lives of many innocent
people.
Adoption is a highly successful social institution that has served needy
children and birth parents who are unable or unready to parent. It makes no
sense to undermine this pro-child institution by imposing a policy of mandatory
“open records” that eliminates even the option of confidentiality.
Many adopted persons are curious about their birth parents. But despite the
prevalence of reunion stories in the media, the majority of them do not search.
Most adopted persons know who their “real” parents are: the ones who raised
them. Whatever their level of interest in knowing birth parent identities or
having contact, most do not experience it as a need. Only a small, vocal
minority demand the absolute right to identifying information and personal
contact.
An opposing view:
Treat adoptees as adults
When legislators hear both sides of the story they rarely enact the coercive
openness policy. In the last two years, at least 10 states have considered this
radical proposal. Not one has adopted it. Forty-four of the 50 states require
that the opening of records and direct contact be based on mutual consent.
That’s because these legislatures recognize that the right to maintain or
waive one’s privacy in adoption is essential to the human rights and personal
dignity of adopted persons, birth parents and adoptive parents.
The mandatory openness policy also would discourage adoption. One can look at
Great Britain, which eliminated confidentiality decades ago. Infant adoption is
virtually nonexistent there today. Some birth parents simply will not choose
adoption if they cannot do so with confidentiality.
Search and reunion advocacy is commonplace in the media, but the range of views
among birth parents, adopted persons and adoptive parents regarding
confidentiality and openness in adoption are actually as diverse and personal
as they can be. By empowering one side to force themselves on the other, the
state would no longer be neutral on the issue of reunions.
The only just way to reconcile the varying views on adoption openness and
privacy is through mutual consent. SB 335 would impose a one-size-fits-all,
mandatory openness policy on all adoptions, past, present, and future.
It is not surprising that the loudest voices on this issue tend to be the small
minority who demands the right for adopted persons to identify and contact
their birth parents, with or without their consent. The many who prefer privacy
cannot discuss their views publicly without sacrificing the very privacy they
desire to protect.
New Hampshire already follows the right principle in dealing with the
adoption-records issue — mutual consent. It also already provides for adopted
persons to obtain medical information without exposing birth parent identity.
There is no reason to veer from the humane principle of mutual consent, and
every reason to stick with it to preserve and promote the wonderful institution
of adoption in the best interests of children.
Thomas Atwood is president and CEO of National Council For Adoption.
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
Another View, Con:
Let parents be anonymous
By THOMAS ATWOOD
Guest Commentary
THE MANDATORY-openness bill now before the Legislature, SB 335, would harm
adoption and unjustly and unnecessarily disrupt the lives of many innocent
people.
Adoption is a highly successful social institution that has served needy
children and birth parents who are unable or unready to parent. It makes no
sense to undermine this pro-child institution by imposing a policy of mandatory
“open records” that eliminates even the option of confidentiality.
Many adopted persons are curious about their birth parents. But despite the
prevalence of reunion stories in the media, the majority of them do not search.
Most adopted persons know who their “real” parents are: the ones who raised
them. Whatever their level of interest in knowing birth parent identities or
having contact, most do not experience it as a need. Only a small, vocal
minority demand the absolute right to identifying information and personal
contact.
An opposing view:
Treat adoptees as adults
When legislators hear both sides of the story they rarely enact the coercive
openness policy. In the last two years, at least 10 states have considered this
radical proposal. Not one has adopted it. Forty-four of the 50 states require
that the opening of records and direct contact be based on mutual consent.
That’s because these legislatures recognize that the right to maintain or
waive one’s privacy in adoption is essential to the human rights and personal
dignity of adopted persons, birth parents and adoptive parents.
The mandatory openness policy also would discourage adoption. One can look at
Great Britain, which eliminated confidentiality decades ago. Infant adoption is
virtually nonexistent there today. Some birth parents simply will not choose
adoption if they cannot do so with confidentiality.
Search and reunion advocacy is commonplace in the media, but the range of views
among birth parents, adopted persons and adoptive parents regarding
confidentiality and openness in adoption are actually as diverse and personal
as they can be. By empowering one side to force themselves on the other, the
state would no longer be neutral on the issue of reunions.
The only just way to reconcile the varying views on adoption openness and
privacy is through mutual consent. SB 335 would impose a one-size-fits-all,
mandatory openness policy on all adoptions, past, present, and future.
It is not surprising that the loudest voices on this issue tend to be the small
minority who demands the right for adopted persons to identify and contact
their birth parents, with or without their consent. The many who prefer privacy
cannot discuss their views publicly without sacrificing the very privacy they
desire to protect.
New Hampshire already follows the right principle in dealing with the
adoption-records issue — mutual consent. It also already provides for adopted
persons to obtain medical information without exposing birth parent identity.
There is no reason to veer from the humane principle of mutual consent, and
every reason to stick with it to preserve and promote the wonderful institution
of adoption in the best interests of children.
Thomas Atwood is president and CEO of National Council For Adoption.
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
