Today’s Guest Blogger is Maria Albares

In the general population there seems to be little knowledge about the history of adoption and, more specifically, the history of adoption records and the debate surrounding them. As adoptees’ arguments become more prevalent in the media, it is imperative that people have a better understanding of the history the adoptees are often arguing against. In “At A Glance: Adoptees’ Right to Know—The Decades-Long Battle for Unsealing Adoption Records,” Peretz (2013) presented a brief history of adoption (began in 1851 in Massachusetts) and the process of sealing adoption records (initiated in Minnesota in 1917), as well as the arguments for and against sealed records put forth by adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents. Peretz described the change in societal norms that spurred the States to seal adoption records—mainly stigma against illegitimate children—followed by the changes that spurred the “right to know” movement to unseal the records—mainly the revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s. The “right to know” movement gained momentum in the 1970s and resulted in two class action lawsuits being brought arguing the unconstitutionality of sealing adoption records. The Model State Adoption Act passed in the 1980s and granted adoptees the right to their adoption records. These rights were soon lost under President Reagan and have yet to be fully returned.

Peretz (2013) referenced the constitutional arguments made by both adoptees and birth parents and deconstructs the decisions made by the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of statues that sealed adoption records. Both sides tend to reference the same amendments in their arguments, which is understandable since both sides are arguing for the right to their individual privacy. Peretz took the discussion further by including the arguments made by adoptive parents, namely fear of losing their adopted child should the adoption records be unsealed versus their encouraging their adopted child’s identity formation (which inherently requires them to know where they came from). It is up to each individual state to decide how much information to release to adoptees. In Minnesota, statute allows for “Confidential Intermediary Services,” which allows adoptees to use an intermediary to find birth parents and ascertain if they are willing to have their identity shared with the adoptee. Minnesota is clearly trying to strike a compromise by allowing adoptees to seek for birth parents while at the same time allowing birth parents to deny the request for information.

One of the main strengths of this article is that Peretz showed how adoptees and adoptive parents tend to reference the same parts of the constitution to argue opposite sides. By demonstrating that point, Peretz created a certain amount of sympathy for the Supreme Court, and dispels the common myth that it is “obvious” that adoption records should be sealed or unsealed. A weakness of the article is that it did not go into any depth about the seven states that have unsealed adoption records. It would have been nice to know how their courts decided the constitutionality of (un)sealed adoption records.

 

Work Cited:  Peretz, Rotem, “At A Glance: Adoptees’ Right to Know – The Decades-Long Battle for Unsealing Adoption Records” (2013). Law School Student Scholarship. Paper 284.