Open Records Practice vs Theory
Open Records Practice vs Theory In her introduction of the topic,
Janice Goldwater, a social worker and founder of the adoption agency
Adoptions Together, spoke from the practice perspective. She traced the history of sealed records, and changes in social mores and enlightened attitudes about adoption, noting that the law is not keeping up with practice which now openly addresses psychological and spiritual issues of birth family connections. Ms. Goldwater also noted the striking under-usage of state-run
passive registries and their remarkably low (10%) match rates, in contrast to
active registries which have a reported match rate ranging from 50-90%.
Panel facilitator
Judge Irene Toledo, who has a permanent appointment to the Navajo Nation Council as a Trial Judge, told us that information about heritage is considered a fundamental right of all Navajo persons. In answer to a question about who came up with the system of issuing new birth certificates rather than adoption certificates with name changes, Mr. Hunsaker commented that "society has said" that children need birth certificates for school, to join ball teams, and in other areas. Judge Toledo said that adoptions
do not result in the issuance of amended birth certificates for children of Navajo heritage; adoption certificates are issued and Navajo adoptees seem to manage quite well.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee...In a later presentation,
Jane Chittick, Director of Adoption Services, Tennessee Department of Children's Services, spoke about implementation of the complex new Tennessee statutes that allow access to adoption records subject to an automatic contact veto provision. Under the terms of the statute, a birthmother, and all manner of other relatives and/or their legal representatives can impose contact vetoes (and as referenced by Law Prof. Joan Hollinger, a contact veto is a restraining order without the same due process accorded all other adult persons). It should be noted that violation of the contact veto, even inadvertently, is a Class A or Class B misdemeanor carrying possible punitive and compensatory damages.
Unlike Oregon, Tennessee's statute allows records access and veto powers to several parties, including parents, step-parents, siblings, grandparents, descendents, legal representatives of any/all of those and, if I heard Ms. Chittick correctly, first-degree cousins. I presume the press is not included in the list, and I certainly don't envy Ms. Chittick and her staff their jobs.
Next page >
Post-Adoption Contact > Page
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12
Home
Add Your Comments!
We want to know what you think. Your comments are important to us and the other readers. You are what makes this site special.