How come natural mothers can't get a Original birth certificate once an adoption is finalized?

I think since it is a legal document pertaining to your medical history because they always ask how many births you had when you deliver that you would be entitled to have it even if the adoption is final.



And should the adoptee have the same rights to know his or her medical history.



What are the reasons that Natural Mothers can't get a Copy of the Original Birth Certificate?How come natural mothers can't get a Original birth certificate once an adoption is finalized?
Because something went horribly wrong a long time ago when they originally sealed the records 'from the public eye' for reasons of shame and stigma of unwed motherhood and illegitimacy.



The records were never supposed to be sealed from those named on them; only from prying eyes of the public who in the olden days would blackmail people usinig the shame and stigma as ammunition.



What's happened in the USA is a mess. And now those original laws are being misenterpreted.



ETA: Randy fyi kitta is referring to CA law (with regard to adoptive parents sealing the records). The world does not revolve around your personal situation dontcha know.



As for medical history, the US Surgeon General seems to feel it's important for all citizens
First of all, the original birth certificate belongs to the individual, not his/her parents, regardless of whether adoption is in the equation.



When an individual is underage, the legal parents can get a copy of the birth certificate on behalf of their minor child.



After an adoption is finalized, the natural mother is no longer the legal parent of the individual. Since the document belongs to the child and the natural mother is not the legal parent, she cannot request a copy of it.
When an adoption is finalized the birth mother has no more legal right to the child. To obtain the child’s original birth certificate you must be their legal parent or guardian. Once the adoptive parents have finalized the adoption and become the child’s legal parents they are the only ones allowed to obtain such documents as the original birth certificate.



There are ways to let the adopted child to obtain their biological parents medical history but it must be done through the courts if the adoption was closed.
Because after the adoption is finalized, the birth mother as no more legal rights over information about that child than I do. On the other hand, the truly medical records kept by the doctors and hospital pertaining to the pregnancy and birth are available to the birth mother. It is like the baby no longer exists after the adoption is finalized... at least from the birth mother's legal perspective. Besides, there is no information on the OBC that the birth mother would need.



As for the adoptee, he/she need to have access to their medical history for the future. Adiotees do have access to their own medical records although the name of their parents is removed.
Personally I believe it is completely wrong that mothers who surrendered in the USA can't get the OBC after the adoption has been finalized. Just because they aren't legally mothers doesn't stop them from being mothers.



Fortunately we don't have this problem in the UK, I was able to order my son's OBC after reunion - the original was lost or stolen. I made a copy for myself which looks as good as the original and sent him the original.
In a state where birth records are closed nobody can get an OBC after an adoption has taken place. My daiughter's natural mother got the OBC before the adoption was finalized.



But to answer your question, I agree. It's not right and it's not fair, especially to an adoptee to not be able to get their OBC.
Most mothers were not allowed to get a copy BEFORE the adoptions were completed. During the BSE/EMS mothers left the hospitals with not a single piece of paper to document their experience. That, I believe, contributes to the feeling of surrealism surrounding our experience.
The arguments that natural parents would use these birth certificates for fraud are bogus in themselves.



General birth certificate laws, in the USA, allow many people to get copies of birth certificates. I can get my husband's birth certificate. I can get my brother's and sister's birth certificates.



Surrendering a child does NOT seal the birth certificate. If the child is never adopted, the birth certificate is not sealed, and the natural parents can continue to get the birth certificate.



The birth certificate is sealed only by the act of adoption, by the adoptive parents. This is for their convenience.



The laws were passed so the adoptive parents could withhold the truth from the children they adopted.



See the book"Growing in the Dark" by Janine Baer, and adopted person who wrote the history of sealed records in CA.



ETA: there is only a little bit of "medical history" on a birth certificate, and the long form amended birth certificate usually contains the same information. Medical history is considered private information belonging to an individual.Surrendering mothers usually provide their own medical history at the time of surrender. Like most people, they did not and do not have access to anyone else's medical records and could not provide what they didn't have.



ETA2: I have read the history of sealed birth certificates, in the USA. I have worked in records legislation for 15 years.In addition, I have signed my son's birth certificate, and so it is my signature that is on that legal, Vital Record. It is part of our history. It shall always be so.Like a marriage license, or divorce decree, a person should always have the right to access Vital Records that are part of their own legal and Vital history, where they have a tangible and direct connection to that relationship.

Adoptive parents are getting copies of OBCs in some states, but the natural mothers cannot get either the OBC nor the amended BC. This is grossly unfair and a 14th Amendment violation.
A woman doesn't need a birth certificate to "prove" that she had a child. Nor is she asked for proof. Why would there be a medical need to have a copy of the birth certificate?



Regarding the fact that there is nothing "in the US Bill of Rights ... that provides for the right in a legal context"; perhaps this is so because our founding fathers saw no need to include such a provision. After all, there were no sealed records in adoption when the US Bill of Rights was written.



For the most part, adoption records began to be sealed to cover the social stigma of illegitimacy. That was the mind set at one time in our culture.



"During the 1930’s. 40’s, and 50’s, social workers began sealing birth and adoption records. The rationale for the change in practice was guided by the attitudes, mores, and myths of the time. Secrecy surrounding adoptions was believed to protect the triad (adoptee, birthfamily, and adoptive family) members.The birth parents were protected from the stigma of pregnancy without the benefit of marriage. The adoptee was protected from the stigma of illegitimacy. The adoptive parents, often an infertile couple, were protected from the stigma of raising an “illegitimate” child. They were protected from dealing with their infertility and from facing the differences between being a parent through adoption vs. being a parent by birth. Closed records also precluded the possibility of birth relatives seeking out the child."

http://www.researchetcinc.com/historyofa…



Asking another about their family medical history is a little bit different than having access to their medical records. And HIPPA Laws didn't come into play until 1996. I'm not sure why people throw that into the argument. As if HIPPA cancels out an adoptee's need to know their own family medical history. Much of which happens AFTER mom relinquished (at 18 or 23 or ?), by the way. Do these same people feel that they're violating HIPPA regulations when they talk to their parents about grandma's diabetes, grandpa's heart condition or an uncle's epilepsy?



ETA: Sly-Nothing I wrote suggested that you or anyone be "mandated to fill in a questionnaire that is submitted to the government!" In fact, filling out a form at the time of surrender excludes everything that happens AFTER that, as I said.



Much of my wife's relevant family "medical history" occurred after her adoption. What was relevant when her children were growing up occurred before %26amp; after. She had a serious medical condition before she found her 1st mom %26amp; a medical history would have been useful. Not details, just general information. Fortunately, both parents were happy to share their info.
The reasons that they can't get the original birth certificate is because the current laws in most areas of the US and Canada order those records sealed once an adoption takes place. That means they are sealed and closed off for all, in all circumstances. Of course, if they were available to the bio moms then that would be in violation of the current laws. I'm not saying all would use them...but the very real possibility exists that these documents could be used to commit fraud with bio moms (and dads) using them to claim benefits or get passports or insurance for children they no longer have custody of. Lets face it, the birth certificate has gotten to be much more then just a record of birth. It is also our root document for proving ID and the root document for many/most others. The lack of a birth certificate is one of the ways that law enforcement and the courts use when investigating and prosecuting cases of ID theft and fraud. People will scower cemeteries looking for tomb stones with info they can use to build their back story and in many cases they can get the info they need to commit their crimes with the exception of birth certificates.



Are those laws fair or right? Well that's been a subject for debate and discussion around here for some time and most will agree that they don't make sense and others would quote the reasons noted above as examples why these documents are legal in nature and no to be considered souvenirs of the birth of a child lost to adoption.



As far as people having the "right" to medical history, unfortunately I can't find anything worded in the US Bill of Rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provide for that right in a legal context but there certainly is a moral right for that info. Can someone be compelled to provide it though if they don't want to provide it voluntarily? I don't think so but I wish there was a way around it.



The bio mother of our little one has informed us that she had an STD during the pregnancy and at the time of delivery but she didn't tell us that until the baby was 10 months old and even to this day she refuses to disclose what she had. Thankfully we have been able to eliminate anything serious (HIV/AIDS and syphilus) while anything else would have shown itself by now should the baby have had it but it sure caused plenty of anguish and testing for the baby that could have otherwise been avoided if she had disclosed the info (and all the rest) that my daughter is entitled to.



Kitta: I am big enough to admit that I didn't think of the issue in the way you did and in many respects you are correct. Not all respects mind you. In most of the circumstances you mention either the person involved (who's birth certificate it is) or their family would be able to dispute any fraud. In cases of adoption the original identity ceases to exist, legally speaking. That means that there would be nobody available to dispute anything. My ex-sister in law moved out on my brother when her children were quite young and she left the children with my brother to raise. He's done quite well with them and life is good but at one time he did go to apply for some benifit that he was entitled to claim under the Canadian system (our baby bonus actually) and at that time he learned that his ex-wife, who had no custody or contact with the children, had been claiming it for a couple of years even though she was not entitled to claim it. He fought and got what he was entitled to for the children and the Govt sued her to get the benefits back but if the children had been adopted and she, as the bio mother, had access to their birth certificates and made the claims for benefits, it would have gone on for years, if not forever because nobody would have been able to dispute it or detect it. At least if you apply for and get a copy of your husband, Joe Bloggins, birth certificate then he, Joe Bloggins can know if something funny was going on but if he was born as Jamie Johnson and you were doing something illegal....who would know? Those birth certificates are still root documents and subject to fraudulent abuse and need to be controlled.



At the same time you are also wrong in your assertion that the birth records are sealed by the adoptive parents for their convenience. While our first adoption was from overseas so the sealing of records was not a factor, simply because in India their system is very different, our second adoption was through domestic foster care and at no time were we ever required to request that birth records be sealed and in fact, when we asked for copies of these records we were informed that they were sealed by the courts [due to our current laws]. Those who assert that it is the adoptive parents who seal the records or who forced them to be sealed have never read the history of the subject. Not the history according to YA or other internet sites but what has been written by researchers and legal scholars who have delved into the issue.
""Once the adoptive parents have finalized the adoption and become the child’s legal parents they are the only ones allowed to obtain such documents as the original birth certificate.""



BS...Raven.. Are you able to just walk down to your Vital Records office and get a copy of your adopted or surrendered child's OBC? Very few aparents can get their hands on the SEALED OBC in a CLOSED adoption. Open Adoption is a little different in that some natural mothers do have copies of their child's OBC and some aparents will have it as well..Open Adoption. But even in Open Adoptions all adoption records are sealed..which to me is totally ludicrous since ya'll know each other anyway!



And FYI! I may have surrendered my *parental rights*, but no where on my surrender doc does it state that I surrendered the right to have and hold in my possession any legal document that was created before the surrender and/or before the adoption finalization, where MY very own name occurs and yes... the legal documentation of a legal medical event that occurred in MY life and the life of the child (my child) I gave birth to.....the OBC. Just because I surrendered my baby for adoption, does not mean I am no longer her mother..I surrendered my 'parental rights', not the plain and simple truth that my child came from me. No piece of paper (surrender doc, adoption paper or amended BC) erases that true documented medical, scientific fact as appears on the OBC.



What never ceases to amaze me...is how 'other' people will tell us burfmuggles and the adoptees...that the want to have in our possession a copy of the OBC..is no biggie..and too many of us make a big deal out of it. YEAH? Well I sincerely doubt that many an aparent would seriously consider their Adoption Papers and/or the ABC as no biggie and of no consequence to them as adoptive parents.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...yes/no?
Well because you are no longer the parent to that child. You gave up all rights. They will not allow you to have it because some people may try to use the birth certificate for reasons that shouldent be used.

Tyffannie