Connecticut Law Tribune: Should Adoption Records Remain Secret?

Connecticut Law Tribune: Should Adoption Records Remain Secret?

Advocates push bill to grant access to birth certificates

In coming months, the legislative Judiciary Committee will consider opening up adoption records, a step that would allow children put up for adoption to find their birth parents.

As it stands, in Connecticut a child is permitted to see only a second birth certificate that lists the adoptive parents. In 2006, the legislature approved a measure to allowed adoptees to see their original birth certificate, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

The issue has been revived in the current session of the legislature. A primary supporter is the Connecticut Association of Foster and Adoptive Parents, or CAFAP, whose outreach social worker and legislative liaison is Carolyn Goodridge. She is also president of the Connecticut Council on Adoption.

Goodridge began her career as a social worker for the agency that is now Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families. She worked with children in foster care and followed up with children in adoptive homes. After she married and moved to Maine, she worked for a non-profit agency placing older foster children in adoptive homes.

This legislative session, CAFAP is also backing a “bill of rights” for foster parents. But its main agenda item is opening up birth records to adoptees. Over the years, there have been two sources of opposition: The state Office of Vital Records has expressed concern that the measure could strain its staff, though Goodridge says officials seem amenable to forging a compromise. And the Catholic Church has opposed disclosing the identity of birth parents, on the grounds that they may have been promised perpetual anonymity. Goodridge told Senior Writer Thomas Scheffey that, except for the period between 1974 and 1983, no such anonymity could legally be promised, and the policy for those interim nine years is simply unknown.

LAW TRIBUNE: Is it true Connecticut is the only state where a person can’t see their original birth certificate?

CAROLYN GOODRIDGE: Oh no. There are only about eight or nine states that are open, where [a person who was adopted] can get the records. In some states, it’s only the birth certificate [that’s available]. That’s all our bill is asking -- to open the birth certificate and have a medical form that could be sent to the birth parents. In some states, they open the whole file, which is a whole different thing, because the file has court studies and more information in it.

LAW TRIBUNE: How did it become the policy that the birth certificate is sealed in Connecticut?

GOODRIDGE: Connecticut had open access until late 1974. At the end of the legislative session, someone posted an amendment on another bill, and the amendment closed the records. So there was no public hearing, no notice to anyone. From then on, it was closed. Along with the Connecticut Council on Adoption…we’ve been trying to work at reopening that since 1974. It’s been a long, long struggle.

LAW TRIBUNE: I know that when the issues of adoption come up in the legislative Judiciary Committee, there’s often riveting testimony.

GOODRIDGE: There’s a lot of strong feeling. It’s understandable. It seems like those who are against [open records] know of one situation that went badly, and that sticks in their mind forever. There are times where things don’t work out so well. But the majority of the situations do. That’s what we’re trying to get through.

LAW TRIBUNE: What do the scholars in social sciences say about this?

GOODRIDGE: I think society in general has moved in that direction [of openness], but there’s still a lot of secrecy surrounding adoption issues. In agencies’ practices today, there’s much more openness – there are open adoption agreements; there are identified adoptions where the birth parents are involved in the selection of the family. In most situations, they’re advising families to tell the child they’re adopted, and to tell them as much as they know about the [original] family.

LAW TRIBUNE: Is there a specific age that’s thought to be the most appropriate time?

GOODRIDGE: I think what’s normally recommended is to bring up the word [adoption] even when the child’s an infant, so they get to hear the word. And then at some time they ask, “What’s that mean?” And you can introduce the story. It’s always trying to make it a positive thing. This is where secrecy gives the message that there’s something to hide. And that’s not always a good thing. It’s rarely a good thing.

LAW TRIBUNE: And what’s been the objection of the Catholic Church?

GOODRIDGE: In the past, some representatives felt birth mothers were promised anonymity, and it would be unfortunate for them if some adult adoptees were searching for them. We’ve tried to respond to that. Technically, if the records were open prior to 1974, no one should have been promising anonymity, because it would be against the law. After 1974, most agencies were starting to work with parents around the idea of putting pictures in the file, if their child ever came back, thinking more toward openness.

We traced the probate court [adoption surrender] forms back to 1983. The court didn’t have forms earlier than that. But from 1983 on, the forms have had a statement right above the parents’ signature which says, “I understand that when my child turns 18, he can have access to information about me or my blood relatives.” So there certainly wasn’t any anonymity there. So it’s just that period between 1974 and 1983 that we can’t actually say there was any promise made or not made. That argument [that most parents who gave up children for adoption expected secrecy] doesn’t really hold up.

LAW TRIBUNE: So if there were, for the most part, no laws mandating secrecy in adoption, why is there a feeling that secrecy is the norm?

GOODRIDGE: [If you were one] of the other mothers who gave up children in prior years, in the late ‘40s , ‘50s and ‘60s, you were considered to be a sinful person. The [birth mothers] didn’t dare say anything to anyone, and it was kept a secret mainly because of the shame involved. So they didn’t feel they had any right or ability to ever seek their child anyway. It wasn’t that they were promised anonymity; it was that they didn’t dare say anything. But as things got freer, when women were more accepted and able to keep a child if they had a child out of wedlock, the whole attitude of society changed. •