Conditional Washington Open Records Bill UPDATED
We are for unrestricted, unconditional access to birth certificates and medical information for all adoptees from the day the adoptee is legal adult.
“In the House, a bill passed unanimously to allow adult adoptees access to their birth certificates unless a biological parent has filed an affidavit to the contrary. The bill would place Washington among a handful of states, including Oregon and Illinois, that such access.
State lawmakers act on range of measures
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer 2/11/12 by Jonathan Kaminsky, Associated Press]
“HB 2211 received unanimous votes in two House committees and may get a vote of the full House next week. It faces an uncertain future in the Senate.”
“Washington adoptees currently receive amended birth certificates with the names of their adoptive parents, not their birth parents. Adult adoptees can request the original birth certificate with the names of their biological parents, but those parents may file to keep the records sealed indefinitely.
Birth certificates of children [they are adults!] adopted prior to October 1993 are automatically closed.
Orwall’s proposal would allow all adoptees to request their birth certificates and would limit the length of time birth parents can keep the records sealed without having to refile.
Part of the compromise Orwall and Rivers came to was a 10-year limit for pre-1993 adoptions and five years for more recent ones. Orwall initially proposed a two-year period, which concerned Rivers, who in her testimony said she couldn’t “imagine ripping the wound open every two years” as a birth mom.
Rivers [a birthparent who favors blocking the original birth certificate] and Orwall both feel strongly about requiring birth parents to file a medical history form if they seek to keep records sealed. That means adopted children [they are now adults!] could get health information even if they can’t see the full birth certificate.
“Leaving without your child, that’s a hard thing,” Rivers said. “And making your decision because you want the very best for them – a health history? That’s nothing.”
The proposal would also allow adoptees to ask the state Department of Health to periodically search whether birth parents are deceased. If they are, the birth certificate would be unsealed. [restriction until death.]
Sherrie Wilson of Olympia, who reunited with the son she gave up for adoption after he searched for her, testified in favor of the bill. She said that even with her consent, her now 42-year-old son couldn’t get his birth certificate. Because his adoption was before 1993, she had to request it and then give him a copy.
“It really has been such a blessing for me to know him,” Wilson said in a phone interview after putting her 2-year-old grandson – the child of that 42-year-old son – down for a nap.
Some stakeholders would prefer a completely open system such as in Oregon, where adoptees can obtain their original birth documents. Birth parents are allowed to attach a form stating whether they wish to be contacted.
Orwall’s proposal would allow birth parents in Washington to file similar forms.
Critics of Orwall’s proposal argue birth parents should not have to revisit a decision to have records sealed. They’re also concerned it would be challenging to inform birth parents about a change in the law.
“We’re always looking at balancing the interests of all these various parties,” said Laurie Lippold, public policy director for the Children’s Home Society of Washington, a nonprofit organization that provides services for adoptive families. She testified in favor of the bill.” [Of course the adoption industry wants restrictions! There is no interest to “balance”. This is about the right of the adoptee to access their histories. ]
“A companion bill in the Senate never got a hearing and died in committee before a key deadline.
Orwall said she’s having an “ongoing conversation” with Sen. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, who chairs the Senate Human Services and Corrections committee. (Hargrove declined comment for this story because the bill has not reached his side of the Legislature.)”
Two state lawmakers push to give adopted youths easier access to birth records
[The Olympian 2/10/12 by Alexis Krell]
REFORM Puzzle Piece
Unrestricted access for the adoptee is the needed change!
Update: An in-depth look at the errors in this bill can be found at this commentary at Bastardette http://bastardette.blogspot.com/2012/02/washington-state-sub-hb-2211-are.html
This is a civil right. There is no "some" when it comes to basic rights. What is WA thinking?
I support the legislation – does it go far enough – no. But it is a start. To get a clean no restriction bill passed won't happen for years, if ever. To get something passed provides the foot in the door to prove the concerns were unwarranted. I think of those adoptees who die each year who will never get the chance to know who they were born to be while people hold out for the perfect bill. Don't they count? How many more will go to their graves this year? Next year? The year after?
the adopted ones, I agree that many will get their information if this passes. That is a good thing. I really wouldn't know how to speculate on how many will be denied permanently because a birthmother blocks it. Are there stats on that for states where restrictive bills have been passed-IL, NJ?
I disagree that once something like this is passed, that it will be up for tweaking. It sounds like there is an opportunity to tweak this in the Senate *prior* to passing-do you support an effort in that way? How did Oregon get it to work?
Of course I would support tweaking it in the Senate but the Senate members are the ones who may push back against even this bill. I think the saving grace of the compromise is that the veto can expire – the time frame from originally 2 years to 10 years is too long but at least it can expire. I think any veto's most likely will be allowed to expire because time to get past the OMG I never expected this will happen naturally and the I want to meet my child will happen.
Oregon had a contact preference form so not a veto – after a total of 10 years – there were 85 No contact preference forms submitted. Many Yes and Yes through intermediary contact preference forms were submitted to where the 85 no's came to somewhere in the less than 1% can provide actuals if you want. Over 10,000 OBC's have been provided in Oregon.
As far as Illinois there have been something like 500 veto's but there are also 250,000 adoptees for that time period so the % is small and realistically not all quarter of a million adoptees will request them / some have died so how many requesting OBC's will be denied is unknown.
I did the math on the expected revenue / cost in the Washington bill and based on the $20 charge for the OBC they are expecting somewhere in the neighborhood of 9,000 OBC's within the first 3 years.
I wanted to add that the bill also gives the adoptee who has a veto applied has the right to ask the state to do a death record search once a year, and if the person who submitted the veto has passed away, the veto is lifted and the adoptee gets their OBC.