Professor Leighton,
Let me first start off by saying how glad I am that I could address this blog entry to you. I am glad that the show that I am about to reference had an adult adoptee there to speak, even if I didn't agree with what you had to say, because the public should be asking us about these issues. I am also glad that I am able to see adoptees doing so well; you are a testimony to that. So many people have a skewed view of adoptees (I guess the fears about adoptees "disrupting" people's lives if records are opened is evidence of that), having smart, insightful, knowledgeable adoptees in the public eye is an important thing. After reading another blogger talk about your recent NPR interview with Diane Rehm, I went to Ms. Rehm's website and viewed the transcript of the show. That is why I am writing you this letter today because you talk about ethics and I care about ethics, and because we're both adopted. As a student, I look at professors whom I consider my role models each and ever single day; I tend to think of all professors as having something to teach me. If any one of my professors had the same viewpoints and said the same things you said in the interview, the following letter is exactly what I would say to them (my readers interested in the NPR discussion can join it here).
It is important, foremost, to start a discussion with an understanding of why and how records are sealed. Records were sealed in the United States on the foundation of hiding illegal adoption. Georiga Tann pioneered this effort and all of her 5,000 adoptions were illegal. She was the first adoption worker to convince the vital statistics office of her state (TN) to seal the birth certificates of the adoptees of her adoptions. Alabama was the first state to legalize this (and they've since become 100% open treating adoptees equally). This movement to seal original birth certificates spread throughout the country based on two main things (1) hiding the illegitimate birth of the adopted person by sealing the record and issuing a new one making it appear they had been born to married parents and (2) changing the identity of the adoptee so that the original family, who was stereotyped as neurotic and deviant, could not find and interfere with the new family. Sealed records were not always kept from adopted persons; that was a second movement across the United States heralded by adoptive parents who wanted to control what their sons and daughters could or could not know about themselves.
Because non-traditional family forms, such as adoptive families, were not as widely accepted "back in the day" as they are now, this amending and sealing allowed adoptive families to hide the adoption from the prying eyes of the public. It also allowed the adoptive family to hide their infertility which is culturally more important than people may realize. In some families and cultures, women are permitted no other identity than "mother" and women who do not reproduce are considered not to have "done their job." Some of the original arguments surrounding records access were not about "birth mothers," believe it or not. In fact, people were quite preoccupied about the psychological harm it would cause adoptive mothers should they ever have to "deal with" the event of their adult sons and daughters finding out information about their original families.
I honestly couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. As the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction, isn't it? No truer is that than the tale of American adoption history.
Ethical issues with amending and sealing I've discussed so far:
- hiding illegal adoptions by changing an adoptee's identity.
- bastard-shaming.
- infertility-shaming.
- sexism and paternalism.
- perpetuation of the biological nuclear family as the superior family form by hiding "deviant" origins and creating fictitious "amended" documents to promote this notion.
- lying.
- classism (illegal and unethical adoptions typically target impoverished mothers and fathers).
What happens is, a child is surrendered but the information is not sealed yet. It's not sealed until the adoption is finalized which could be months or years after the surrender takes place. When the adoption takes place, an adoptee's name is typically changed, their original identity is sealed, and they take on a new name and identity within a new family (and if the adoption is dissolved and the adoptee "re-homed" their information becomes unsealed). This is the important point here: the adoptee's identity is changed and sealed. People make the mistake of believing that the change and sealing of the adoptee's identity was to provide "promises" of "confidentiality" to surrendering parents. It wasn't. It doesn't serve that purpose. It was never intended to serve that purpose. If it was, wouldn't they change and seal the identity of the original family? My name was not changed so that I couldn't find her. It was changed so that she could not find me.
What is confidentiality on a small planet filled with human beings who move about it far and wide? Can you really promise one person they'll never encounter another? To do so, what honestly would that entail?
- It's a small world. Many adoptees grow up near their original relatives. They go to the same schools, vacation at the same spots, get stationed at the same military bases, and even work together as co-workers. How can we truly provide confidentiality to original families in such a small world? Is there an ankle bracelet an adoptee could wear that would sound when an original family member was within 100 feet so they could know they aren't to go near? Should they get clearance before they go somewhere to make sure an original family member wouldn't be there? Perhaps adoptees should be confined at home so we don't take those chances at all? If you think all of that sounds ridiculous, I feel the same way about the idea of treating adoption like a witness protection program to begin with.
- The name of my original family is written in every molecule of my body. To say I cannot ever discover my relatives or ancestors is to rob me of important choice and autonomy over my own body. Shall adoptees be barred from genetic testing of any kind to avoid that they might discover their own families of origin? Are the chromosomes that make up my body the legal property of someone else? Is my body the property of someone else?
- We all have basic freedoms. To say that an original family can be truly promised confidentiality is to say that adoptees cannot enjoy basic freedoms. Can I no longer ask a neighbor for a cup of sugar in case she's related to me? Should the phone company skip my house during their anual delivery of phone books? Should we automatically put priori restraining orders on all adoptees (Tennessee basically already does this) so that who they can talk to is restricted for no other crime than being adopted? What rights of mine do I have to give up to make sure that "confidentiality" is always a sure thing for someone else? What again am I being punished for?
- Institutionalized discrimination. Discrimination against adopted people who want to access the same document about themselves that all others receive, without question, regardless of family drama. It is our decree of adoption that seals our records; not our family circumstances.
- The subsequent discrimination. Discrimination against adopted people where many do not have equal access to driver's licenses, security clearances for employment, passports, and as it stands with some pending bills and movements in this country, they could lose the right to vote as well as run for public office, all because they do not have equal or easy access to their own identifying documents that others receive.
- Enabling of lying. Amending and sealing has allowed many adoptees to be lied to about their origins.
- Robbing of autonomy and self-ownership. Secrecy in adoption means an adoptee cannot so much as politely ask for medical information from family members. This means they may be receiving unnecessary testing or procedures as the doctor does not have the applicable information to go on.
- Where is the personhood? If we cannot own our own DNA and if we cannot know of our own identities and origins, all to allegedly kowtow to another person, how does that speak for the personhood of the adopted person?
- Adultism. Why is it the child, who will grow to be an adult, who has to be the one who has to (allegedly) kowtow to others in the triad in order for the adults involved to (allegedly) be happy? Is it really ethical to consider the (alleged) wants of the adults involved over the voiceless child?
- Perpetual adultism. Why is it the adult adoptee, who had "promises" (allegedly) made on their behalf as a voiceless child, who had no say in the matter of what would happen to their own identity, the one who has to continue under the (alleged) "agreement" made by those adults?
- Adoptism. What is it about adoption that causes an adoptee to be so fundamentally flawed that we need to be fearful of an adoptee knowing their own original identity?
- Sexism/Paternalism. What is it about being an original parent that is so inherently shameful that we need laws specifically designed for adoption to hide who they are in relation to the adoptee?
- Racism. Adoptees all over the globe are stripped of their cultural ties and identities. Many adoptees of color have paperwork claiming they are the race of their adoptive parents (usually White) or that they were born to White parents. Many adoptees cannot even tell you what race they are. They will be expected to fill out their race or ethnicity on forms throughout their lives and may even be subjected to racism for the color of their skin but cannot themselves know their culture or race of origin.
- Denial of the limitations of confidentiality. All helping professionals know that there are limits to confidentiality. Confidentiality is a fundamental value in my profession; I know all about it. I've taken so many classes on HIPAA, for instance, I could probably teach them myself. However, confidentiality has limits and all helping professionals are required to disclose this. For example, if a client is going to harm someone, the professional has a legal obligation to report it and warn the person who is going to be harmed. If someone is going to do something dangerous, the professional must report it. Duty to Warm, Duty to Report, Duty to Protect--the list goes on and on. There are limitations to confidentiality and these limitations are seen as necessary, good and moral. Why can't this issue be seen acknowledged as what it is: another limitation to confidentiality? Why can't we say "taking away the identity of a voiceless child is wrong, sorry, we can't do it?" Where is the Duty to Protect the best interests of a voiceless child?
- Anti-feminism. Remember, many adoptees are women too. Placing one woman and her (alleged) desires as being more important than the rights and autonomy of the adopted woman is just as sexist and paternalistic as placing a woman's needs as inferior to a man's. Feminism does not place women on a heirarchy and create special rights for one at the expense of the equality of another. Women "owning" other women, or their children, is not a feminist value. Some people believe we "expand" the rights of women with unplanned pregnancies by (allegedly) making adoption more attractive by (allegedly) offering the option of "confidentiality." Is it really fair to "expand" the options for adoption while restricting the rights of the woman who is going to be adopted?
- Disablism. The idea that all adoptees want their records because they are mentally unstable and are searching for another person to "fix" themselves and can automatically be assumed to do so in a manner that is harmful and inappropriate, is disablism. It's unfair to individuals with disabilities to use mental illness as an insult in that way. It's unfair to treat adoptees who first and foremost want equality as though the restoration of the Civil Right of equal rights and protection under the law makes them "maladjusted." Back to adoptism, what is it about being adopted that makes someone think I can't be responsible and behave myself like any other person?
- Stereotyping. Why is it always "the adoptee wants their birth certificate so that they can 'bang down' their mother's door?" Why can it never be "the adoptee wants their birth certificate because they want it. Perhaps they may also discreetly and politely call their mother to say hello one day, IF they can even use the OBC to find her to begin with"? It is all in the words one chooses and the way they decide to portray adoptees. When we get right down to it, it is nearly impossible and uncommon for someone to say why adoptees should not have access to birth certificates without using a stereotype.
In summary, we have a variety of ethical issues that amending and sealing presents such as: taking the basic freedoms of citizenship away from adoptees, adoptees unable to obtain every day documents and information that allow them to move about the country and the world, inequality, institutional discrimination, adultism, perpetual voicelessness and childhood, unrealistic and inappropriate disclosure of confidentiality, history of illegal adoption, paternalism, sexism, bastard-shaming, infertility-shaming, non-traditional family-shaming, denial of full personhood, racism, denial of autonomy, denial of self-ownership, original family-shaming, lysing, and, probably most importantly, never allowing an adoptee to become an influential and respected member of the "triad," to name just a few. When we weigh all of these things, plus the fact that amending and sealing was not designed or intended to promise original families "confidentiality," why does the scale always tip in "favor" of providing "confidentiality" to original families and rarely (except in 8 states) tip in favor of justice and equality for adoptees? Why?
I keep thinking about what ethical code there could be that would cause anyone, or us as a society to say "to promise away the identity of an voiceless child and hold that child to an (alleged) agreement made on their behalf for their entire life, even into adulthood, without their consent for the (alleged) sake of adults involved" is ethical, is moral, or is the superior option. I can't think of one. Most religions would say truth is a primary justice. If we view it as a secondary justice, is there not one thing on the list in the paragraph above to take it's place as primary to urge the opening of records as ethical and moral just the same?
Granted, I am not as educated as you are and my Philosophy class (Bioethics to be exact) was years ago. But I brainstormed the moral codes I've kept in my back pocket all these years any way. Surely with less than two percent of mothers having any preference for any sort of "anonymity" in regards to birth records this issue does not fall under the "most amount of good for greatest amount of people." If anything it's "the most amount of good for the least amount of people at the expense of the largest amount of people." Perhaps it falls under Consequentialism, because so many adoptees do so well we can say "oh, it's not that bad, they turned out OK." But Consequentialism isn't ethical; Consequentialism simply writes off unethical things because someone managed to turn out OK despite the challenges, lack of privileges, inequality, and hardships in their lives. Consequentialism turns resiliency, which is a near inexplicable phenomena of human ability, into a bad, condemning factor. And granted, Resiliency Theory speaks to this phenomena of the ability of human beings, and the human brain, to "bounce back" from all manner of adversity. What resiliency theory does not suggest, however, is that it is OK to persist in allowing people to experience unfairness and inequality because they have a good chance, considering all of their strengths, to "get over it." "Getting over" something that doesn't "seem so bad" does not make whatever it is ethical.
We cannot say that negotiating the identity, right, and autonomy of a child who has no voice, for the rest of their lives, is the moral and right thing to do. Because it simply isn't.
(Adding this paragraph 01/30/2012 after reading the transcript again). Professor Leighton, you and I are adoptees of privilege. Not only because of the color of our skin and because we have had the opportunity to obtain education and advancement in life, but because we searched and were able to find. We are self-actualized people who have all of the clues to connect the dots to identity that the non-adopted (typically) have. It is our responsibility never to look down on another adoptee who is still looking for clues and piecing together what is "identity." We cannot stereotype them as searching for something "more" or a "story" or assume they will open a "Pandora's box." We cannot judge them for doing exactly as you and I have and for wanting what you and I want. You and I have to acknowledge for other adoptees what we have found helpful for ourselves. We cannot get lost in our privileges and leave our brothers and sisters behind.
I'm going to give you an official invitation to the Adoptee Rights Demonstration. I hope to see you there.
Warm Regards,
The Declassified Adoptee
PS.
Other resources you may be interested in:
I keep thinking about what ethical code there could be that would cause anyone, or us as a society to say "to promise away the identity of an voiceless child and hold that child to an (alleged) agreement made on their behalf for their entire life, even into adulthood, without their consent for the (alleged) sake of adults involved" is ethical, is moral, or is the superior option. I can't think of one. Most religions would say truth is a primary justice. If we view it as a secondary justice, is there not one thing on the list in the paragraph above to take it's place as primary to urge the opening of records as ethical and moral just the same?
Granted, I am not as educated as you are and my Philosophy class (Bioethics to be exact) was years ago. But I brainstormed the moral codes I've kept in my back pocket all these years any way. Surely with less than two percent of mothers having any preference for any sort of "anonymity" in regards to birth records this issue does not fall under the "most amount of good for greatest amount of people." If anything it's "the most amount of good for the least amount of people at the expense of the largest amount of people." Perhaps it falls under Consequentialism, because so many adoptees do so well we can say "oh, it's not that bad, they turned out OK." But Consequentialism isn't ethical; Consequentialism simply writes off unethical things because someone managed to turn out OK despite the challenges, lack of privileges, inequality, and hardships in their lives. Consequentialism turns resiliency, which is a near inexplicable phenomena of human ability, into a bad, condemning factor. And granted, Resiliency Theory speaks to this phenomena of the ability of human beings, and the human brain, to "bounce back" from all manner of adversity. What resiliency theory does not suggest, however, is that it is OK to persist in allowing people to experience unfairness and inequality because they have a good chance, considering all of their strengths, to "get over it." "Getting over" something that doesn't "seem so bad" does not make whatever it is ethical.
We cannot say that negotiating the identity, right, and autonomy of a child who has no voice, for the rest of their lives, is the moral and right thing to do. Because it simply isn't.
(Adding this paragraph 01/30/2012 after reading the transcript again). Professor Leighton, you and I are adoptees of privilege. Not only because of the color of our skin and because we have had the opportunity to obtain education and advancement in life, but because we searched and were able to find. We are self-actualized people who have all of the clues to connect the dots to identity that the non-adopted (typically) have. It is our responsibility never to look down on another adoptee who is still looking for clues and piecing together what is "identity." We cannot stereotype them as searching for something "more" or a "story" or assume they will open a "Pandora's box." We cannot judge them for doing exactly as you and I have and for wanting what you and I want. You and I have to acknowledge for other adoptees what we have found helpful for ourselves. We cannot get lost in our privileges and leave our brothers and sisters behind.
I'm going to give you an official invitation to the Adoptee Rights Demonstration. I hope to see you there.
Warm Regards,
The Declassified Adoptee
PS.
Other resources you may be interested in:
- (Declassified Adoptee) Are Adoption and Surrogacy Feminist?
- (Declassified Adoptee) Feministe asks Some Questions on Adoption and Feminism
- (Declassified Adoptee) Why my [Amended] Birth Certificate is a Lie
- (Declassified Adoptee) The Disablist Nature of Anti-Rights, Anti-Narrative Arguments
- Carp, E. (2007). Does Opening Adoption Records Have an Adverse Social Impact? Some Lessons from the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia, 1953-2007. Adoption Quarterly, 10(3/4), 29-52.
- Carp, E. (2001). Sealed Adoption Records in Historical Perspective. Adoption Quarterly, 5(2), 59-62
- Samuels, Elizabeth J., How Adoption in America Grew Secret; Birth Records Weren't Closed for the Reasons You Might Think (October 21, 2001). Washington Post, p. B.05, Sunday, October 21, 2001. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=1282262
- Samuels, Elizabeth J., The Idea of Adoption: An Inquiry into the History of Adult Adoptee Access to Birth Records (2001). Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 367, 2001. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=275730