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. •

HOUSE BILL 259 AN ACT requiring the supreme court to adopt rules of evidence for the judicial branch family division.

BillText

NH General Court Bill Status Search Roll Call Votes Statutes Contact Us




HB 259 – AS INTRODUCED

2011 SESSION

11-0894

09/05

HOUSE BILL 259

AN ACT requiring the supreme court to adopt rules of evidence for the judicial branch family division.

SPONSORS: Rep. Sheffert, Rock 15

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

ANALYSIS

This bill requires the supreme court to adopt rules of evidence for the judicial branch family division.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

11-0894

09/05

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT requiring the supreme court to adopt rules of evidence for the judicial branch family division.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Judicial Branch Family Division; Rules of Evidence. Amend RSA 490-D by inserting after section 15 the following new section:

490-D:16 Rules of Evidence. The supreme court shall adopt rules of evidence to be followed uniformly by the judicial branch family division. To the extent practicable, the judicial branch family division rules of evidence shall be based on the New Hampshire rules of evidence for other courts in the state.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.

N.H. House Bill 591AN ACT relative to the determination of parental rights based on the best interest of the child; relative to grounds for modificati

HB 591 – AS INTRODUCED

2011 SESSION

11-0724

05/04

HOUSE BILL 591

AN ACT relative to the determination of parental rights based on the best interest of the child; relative to grounds for modification of an order regarding parental rights and responsibilities, and relative to grandparent and stepparent visitation rights.

SPONSORS: Rep. Oligny, Rock 8; Rep. Sapareto, Rock 5; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3; Rep. Ulery, Hills 27

COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law

ANALYSIS

This bill revises the standard for determining parental rights and responsibilities based on the best interest of the child.

The bill also repeals the court’s authority to award visitation to a stepparent or grandparent in a proceeding to determine parental rights and responsibilities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

11-0724

05/04

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to the determination of parental rights based on the best interest of the child; relative to grounds for modification of an order regarding parental rights and responsibilities, and relative to grandparent and stepparent visitation rights.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Determination of Parental Rights and Responsibilities; Best Interest. RSA 461-A:6, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I.(a) The court shall make a determination as to the parental rights and responsibilities for each child. In determining parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall be guided by the best interests of the child, and shall consider the following factors:

(1) Any arrangement agreed to by the parties.

(2) A court finding by clear and convincing evidence of:

(A) Abuse, as defined in RSA 173-B:1, I or RSA 169-C:3, II, and the impact of the abuse on the child and on the relationship between the child and the abusing parent.

(B) Neglect, as defined in RSA 169-C:3, XIX.

(C) Parental kidnapping or interference with custody or visitation.

(D) If a parent is incarcerated, the reason for and the length of the incarceration, and any unique issues that arise as a result of incarceration.

(b) The court shall issue an order that provides for frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor child or children and for the sharing of responsibilities of child-rearing and encouraging the love, affection, and contact between the minor child or children and the parents regardless of marital status, unless the court makes an explicit finding that such contact is not in the best interest of the child. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint parental rights and responsibilities, as close to 50 percent parenting time for each parent as is possible given the parties availability and logistics, is in the best interest of the child or children.

(c) An objection by one parent to a proposed parenting arrangement shall not be the sole basis for refusing the entry of an order that the court determines is in the best interest of the minor child. The court shall place in the record the specific factors and findings which justify any parenting arrangement not agreed to by both parents, unless otherwise requested by one of the parties.

2 Modification of Parental Rights and Responsibilities. Amend RSA 461-A:11 by inserting after paragraph I the following new paragraph:

I-a. The court may issue an order modifying an order concerning parental rights and responsibilities if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that modification of the order is in the best interests of the child. Modification of a parenting order under this paragraph may be requested by either party not more than once every 3 years.

3 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 461-A:6, I and RSA 461-A:13, relative to grandparent and stepparent visitation rights.

II. RSA 461-A:6, VII, relative to an explanation of court decisions.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

Forum to focus on grandparents

Forum to focus on grandparents

Supporters of grandparents' rights Bill 22 are holding a dinner and information forum on Family Day for grandparents missing their grandchildren.

The event will include speakers about proposed legislation that makes contact with grandparents a factor a family court judge must consider in child custody cases. "We're putting it on for grandparents as an information forum," said organizer Darlene Hachey .

Speakers will include Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor who introduced Bill 22, a representative from seniors group CARP and Dr. Robert Drake, who will speak about the health effects of being a "blocked grandparent."

The event will be held Feb. 21 at the Windsor Sportsmen's Club at 2401 Dougall Ave. from 2 to 5 p.m. There will be door prizes, and dinner will include chicken, pasta, salad, coffee, tea and cake. Tickets are $10 and must be purchased in advance by calling 519-969-5848 or 519727-0335. The cost of the event is being subsidized by CAW locals 444, 1498 and 200 and the Windsor Construction Association.



Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/health/Forum+focus+grandparents/4223209/story.html#ixzz1CzfZsmJo

Second Video Shows Planned Parenthood-Sex Trafficking Coverup | LifeNews.com

Second Video Shows Planned Parenthood-Sex Trafficking Coverup | LifeNews.com

A second videotape has been released showing a Planned Parenthood abortion business covering up an alleged sex trafficking ring. The first tape showed staffers in New Jersey engaged in the coverup and this one features a clinic in Virginia.

The undercover investigation sponsored by the pro-life group Live Action features the same setup in this second video: a sex ring operator and one of his prostitutes visit the Richmond Planned Parenthood abortion center looking for information about how to obtain abortions for the minor girls they allegedly illegally brought to the United State.

The new Richmond video presents a similar scenario as the New Jersey video. A man posing as a pimp and accompanied by his “bottom girl” seek assistance for getting abortions, STD testing and birth control for girls they “manage” as sex workers, who are from out of the country and as young as 14 to 15 years old.

One again, the sting operation has Planned Parenthood officials willing to bend over backwards to get abortions for the victimized girls and, in this case, bragging about how they can undermine the judicial bypass provision in the Virginia parental notification law to get a judge to approve the secret abortions on the sex slaves.

“But there are also ways, like judicial bypass, that we can get around that if you guys ever need it,” she says of how to get abortions for the 14 and 15-year-old girls they say are here illegally. “There’s a way to avoid that.”

The staffer, Kimberly, tells the undercover investigators: “If someone’s a minor and they don’t want their parents to know – parent’s insurance – so an abortion would show up. You fill out paperwork and we kinda help you set it up and we have a confidential hotline that will call you at whatever number you give us and handle the whole thing. So, for someone who’s a minor, that’s a really good thing. We do ‘em like once or twice a month here. We’re pretty good at handling if someone doesn’t want someone else to know.”

“We’ve kinda got it all,” she brags in the January 12 footage, about what Planned Parenthood can do to help the sex traffickers. The staffer also advises the sex traffickers that they can get abortions later in pregnancy in Maryland and DC if they want the girls they manage to get them.

When the Planned Parenthood staffer is told that the couple manage girls who are sex workers and that, “we gotta keep them safe, ” the staffer appears unconcerned, responding, “Yeah, yeah, of course” and “we see people from every walk of life.”

“For awhile we were treating all the girls at Paper Moon,” a local strip club. “No judgment, no sharing of information, like, uh, nothing here.”

The staffer says the girls, when informed they are not here legally, are welcome to get information and STD testing at Planned Parenthood. She ends the meeting by giving the sex traffickers her card and not appearing to show any concern about their law-breaking activity or that she will report them to law enforcement authorities following their meeting.



Federal law makes it so sexual trafficking of minors is a crime punishable by a 10 year to life prison term. And anyone who aids or abets the crime can be punishable as if they had committed the crime themselves.

Live Action president Lila Rose commented on the new video vootage and the problems at Planned Parenthood abortion centers.

“Planned Parenthood’s problems go far beyond New Jersey. Our new video shows their Richmond clinic willing to aid and abet the sexual exploitation of minors and coaching a pimp about how girls as young as 14 – 15 could circumvent parental consent laws for secret abortions,” she told LifeNews.com. “Watch the video – the clinic worker admits they do this ‘once or twice a month.’ Our investigations of 12 clinics in the past four years show a pattern of Planned Parenthood’s willingness to cover-up the sexual abuse of minors and young women.”

“We are sharing the full Richmond footage and transcripts with Virginia law enforcement officials and we are formally asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to conduct a statewide investigation of these heinous practices, just as the New Jersey Attorney General is opening her own investigation into Planned Parenthood’s compliance with the law in her state. Planned Parenthood needs to be held accountable,” Rose continued.

She said the investigation continues to unearth alarming evidence that Planned Parenthood, which receives more than $350 million from the American taxpayer every year, is willing to facilitate the sexual exploitation of minors and young women.

Responding to the video later on Thursday, the national Planned Parenthood abortion business defended the staffer in the footage:

In a recent round of secret videotaping in January 2011, at least four health centers in Virginia received visits in a short period of time from persons claiming to be involved in the sex trade, involving vulnerable minors. Local authorities, as well as federal authorities, were alerted to these visits. In this morning’s publicized tape, the Planned Parenthood staff member reacted professionally to a highly unusual person posing as a patient. After the encounter, the staff member immediately notified her supervisor, who subsequently notified members of Planned Parenthood’s national security team, who are working with the FBI, which is investigating these visits.

The statement also called Rose a a self-described “extremist” but Elisabeth Meinecke of Town Hall notes that quote is taken out of context.

In the New Jersey case, Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey released a statement saying the staff person, Perth Amboy center clinic manager Amy Woodruff, would be let go after the videotape showed her covering up a case of sex trafficking.

“We were profoundly shocked when we viewed the videotape released this morning, which depicted an employee of one of our health centers behaving in a repugnant manner that is inconsistent with our standards of care and is completely unacceptable,” Phyllis Kinsler, executive director of the local affiliate, said a statement.

“We have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of behavior, and the employee in the video was immediately suspended from her duties this morning and was terminated this evening,” Kinsler said. “We are fully committed to delivering high-quality reproductive health care to the women of our communities, complying with all laws, and upholding the highest ethical standards.”

Planned Parenthood officials were reportedly unaware of what Woodruff told the couple involved in the undercover investigation.

The national Planned Parenthood organization had also originally suggested that the undercover video was a “hoax” and an “edited tape” before firing Woodruff. Lila Rose of Live Action responded to that and the firing.

“It appears that Planned Parenthood decided to fire Ms. Woodruff over a ‘hoax.’ Or, maybe they are coming to the realization that they have a serious problem brewing,” Rose stated.

“Soon, we will be releasing more evidence to law enforcement officials and the public showing that Planned Parenthood is willing to aid and abet sexual exploitation of minors and young women. As our research and evidence will show, this is not only a problem for one clinic in New Jersey — it is much broader and more endemic,” Rose said.

“These practices are putting minors and young women in harm’s way — all paid for by the American taxpayer,” Rose concluded.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Paula Dow has asked the Division of Criminal Justice to investigate whether the former Planned Parenthood employee broke any laws in assisting the acting couple with securing abortions for the sex trafficking victims they said they managed.

“At first glance, I find these allegations to be very disturbing,” Dow said in a statement.

SECOND Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp's Underage Sex Ring

SSRN-Stories Told and Untold: Confidentiality Laws and the Master Narrative of Child Welfare by Matthew Fraidin

SSRN-Stories Told and Untold: Confidentiality Laws and the Master Narrative of Child Welfare by Matthew Fraidin

Download the PDF
Matthew I. Fraidin
Georgetown University Law Center, mif4@law.georgetown.edu
Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 11-17
This paper can be downloaded free of charge from:
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/570
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1747803
This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author.
63 Me. L. Rev. 1-60 (2010)
STORIES TOLD AND UNTOLD: CONFIDENTIALITY
LAWS AND THE MASTER NARRATIVE OF CHILD
WELFARE
Matthew I. Fraidin
I. INTRODUCTION
II. STORIES OF CHILD WELFARE
A. The Master Narrative, Stories, and Agenda-Setting
B. The Master Narrative of Child Welfare: Deviance, Monsters, and
Abuse
1. History and Research
2. Framing and the Master Narrative of Child Welfare: An
Example
C. Another Story of Child Welfare
1. Foster Care is Populated by Children from Low-Income
Families Who Experience Neglect, Not Abuse
2. Many Children Suffer Greater Harm in Foster Care Than at
Home
III. CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS
A. The Law
B. The Law-in-Action: Silencing Youth and Suppressing Stories
1. Shawntaye Debrew: The Court Clamps Down
2. “Paul Getty”: “He Doesn’t Want to Talk to You”
IV. THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS
A. Many Children are Placed in Foster Care Unnecessarily
B. Placements with Relatives are Discouraged
C. Lawyers, Social Workers, and Judges Ignore, Reject, and Silence
Parents
D. Black Children are Over-Represented in Foster Care and Receive
Worse Treatment in Foster Care than White Children
E. Throwaway People
1. Throwaway Agencies
2. Throwaway Children
V. CONCLUSION
A. Reframing the Debate
B. Untold Stories