So, my question is, if the child wants to know who his mother was... say out of interest in whether he has inheritable diseases... is there just going to be no record kept? That strikes me as more than mildly insane.
As I understand it, it was possible for years to have a "birth" certificate issued when couples (male/female couples) adopted a child. The birth mother (and father, BTW) did not appear on the new certificate. There may or may not have been records kept of the birth parents (more likely mother than father who may never have been revealed) but those records were often sealed and inaccessible.
And, of course, you've always had and still have (with the safe haven acts) the problem of children abandoned on doorsteps (traditionally churches, now apparently fire houses). Those children do not know who their biological parents are and there is little or no hope of them finding out.
Beyond that, there is the issue of women who become pregnant, decide to give the child up for adoption, and don't want to ever be found by the child. The decision to violate those women's privacy in order to satisfy their biological children was a terrible one, in my opinion.
So a child who cannot find out who his or her biological mother (or father, BTW) was is nothing new in concept; it's just now coming up in a different fashion with same-sex couples.
The decision to violate those women's privacy in order to satisfy their biological children was a terrible one
I don't see a good answer here. The child needs to know his biological history--Angelina Jolie and her breast cancer gene come to mind--and that information can be provided (assuming the records exist at all) without penetrating the parents' privacies. The problem that muddies this clarity is that nor courts nor government agencies can be trusted to protect that veil of privacy.
I can't agree that the privacy concern ought to be the ruling one. One sacrifices a great deal of privacy, from one's children, when one becomes a parent.
3 comments:
As I understand it, it was possible for years to have a "birth" certificate issued when couples (male/female couples) adopted a child. The birth mother (and father, BTW) did not appear on the new certificate. There may or may not have been records kept of the birth parents (more likely mother than father who may never have been revealed) but those records were often sealed and inaccessible.
And, of course, you've always had and still have (with the safe haven acts) the problem of children abandoned on doorsteps (traditionally churches, now apparently fire houses). Those children do not know who their biological parents are and there is little or no hope of them finding out.
Beyond that, there is the issue of women who become pregnant, decide to give the child up for adoption, and don't want to ever be found by the child. The decision to violate those women's privacy in order to satisfy their biological children was a terrible one, in my opinion.
So a child who cannot find out who his or her biological mother (or father, BTW) was is nothing new in concept; it's just now coming up in a different fashion with same-sex couples.
The decision to violate those women's privacy in order to satisfy their biological children was a terrible one
I don't see a good answer here. The child needs to know his biological history--Angelina Jolie and her breast cancer gene come to mind--and that information can be provided (assuming the records exist at all) without penetrating the parents' privacies. The problem that muddies this clarity is that nor courts nor government agencies can be trusted to protect that veil of privacy.
Eric Hines
I can't agree that the privacy concern ought to be the ruling one. One sacrifices a great deal of privacy, from one's children, when one becomes a parent.
Post a Comment