They are now calling open records - as opposed to mutual consent registries - "mandatory" openness!
man⋅da⋅to⋅ry
[man-duh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee]
dəˌtɔr
adjective, noun, plural -ries. –adjective
| 1. | authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory: It is mandatory that all students take two years of math. |
| 2. | pertaining to, of the nature of, or containing a command. |
| 3. | Law. permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified: a mandatory clause. |
| 4. | having received a mandate, as a nation. |
So... equal access to one's birth certificate, would MANDATE or FORCE people to know one's name or to meet them? Adoptees would be ORDERD to have their mothers over for Thanksgiving dinner and mother who lots children to adoption would be "permitted no option" but to visit their child every Christmas and ground hog's day?? No choices!?? (Wondrr what the epenalty is for NOT looking at your mother's name - since it's "mandao=ry" if the records are opened!).
Gee...and I thought it would just make the equal to non-adopted persons! But I guess it makes us all obligated and mandated to have contact with one another....whether we ant to or not!
What clever HYPE! What a crock!
Here's one of my favorites arguments the NCFA puts forth against the Donaldson Institute's report on open records:
"Because there is no fundamental right to know the identities of others, birthparents or otherwise, adopted persons are not being unlawfully discriminated against if they are denied access to their birthparents’ identities."Hey, NCFA-holes:
1) there also is no law prohibiting knowing any stranger!
2) it IS discrimination when anyone else CAN know their birthparent's identity EXCEPT those who are adopted, and
3) ever hard of BIRTH creating an "intimate relationship" - the courts have!
“The statutory text of FCA 812 plainly states without qualification that members of the same family include those persons related by consanguinity. While respondent may cease being legally recognized as L.'s parent, she remains L.'s birth mother and the two are related by consanguinity.... A person can have but two biological parents. There is potentially significant emotional and psychological impact upon a child from a biological parent who seeks to continue a relationship with the child after the child has been adopted into another family. In recognition that a biological relationship may have a special significance which can be beneficial or harmful to an adopted child depending upon the circumstances, legislation has been enacted ranging from permitting some form of contact between the biological parent and child to continue post adoption to altogether terminating the biological parent's right to have contact with the child to prevent unwanted intrusion by the child's former biological relatives to promote the stability of the newly adoptive family (see, Matter of Jacob, 86 NY2d 651, 663 - 666)." From K.J. v. K.K.
5 comments:
Interesting that there was no mention of "skyrocketing abortion rates" in this latest piece.
My favorite NCFA-ism is how first parents desiring privacy "may not be aware" of new laws unsealing records >>> but are universally aware that mutual consent registries exist.
Tom Atwood still can't get around the fact that dead people don't register.
Yes, that's true in New York, too: dead people can't register. In 1982, when the New York State Reunion Registry was only a Bill, I raised objection to it for that very reason. My natural mother died before my first birthday, I knew I'd never get anything from this Mutual Consent Registry. Registry's are for making contact, not for getting one's birth certificate. Two very different goals.
The NCFA continually ignores one's basic right to documented proof of one's birth. MANDATORY recording of births became law around 1900. Documented records of fake births became socially accepted to cover up shame. Those days are long gone.
Just look at the thousands of unmarried parents grabbing up those unknown sperm donors who get-off scott-free. Those dads aren't legally or financially held accountable for their actions, but adoptees are to be held accountable, and held prisoner, of antiquated social attitudes.
What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive...I'm not recalling the saying correctly, sorry. Natural parents and their adopted-out offspring are not enemies. But this recent statement from the NCFA fuels the fire for feuds between adoptive parents, their adoptees, and puts adoptees in the middle.
As the nuns in grade school said, “Look ashamed!” I'll never look in the mirror again, for what I see there must never, ever, be known.
Disgraceful, Tom Atwood.
But seriously folks...they DO pay buckoo bucks to PR folk to come up with language which will make the public confused and irate!
And thus "WE" need to work equally hard to counter this BULL COCKEY!!
The language specifically ignores dead people not registering because it intentionally ignores that this is about ACCESS to BIRTH CERTIFICATES. His clever use of the word "mandatory" is all about instill FEAR in closeted parents (read men/politicians) to oppose open record laws because it will "OUT" them...and to alarm the public that open records "violates" "alleged" promises of confidentiality!
We must keep the focus on EQUAL ACCESS. It's about EQUALITY and its about access to birth certificates...the SAME access anyone else has!
Of course NCFA doesn't want adoptees to have equal access to our birth certificates! That would be too easy for us and bad business for them!
The more I read this new piece of work from NCFA, the more I see. Adoptees are still children: "Opposition to mandatory openness is merely opposition to the idea that openness should be forced on those birthparents, adoptive parents, or adopted children who do not want it." Children don't search, and they don't ask for an official copy of their birth certificates!
Auughh! We've got soo--oo much work to do to unravel this damage!
It's about our real birth certificates, not contact!
Post a Comment